oj81
Newbie
Posts: 11
|
Post by oj81 on May 2, 2018 16:48:44 GMT
Think we need a "head of retainment" more than recruitment, wonder how much the guy is getting paid? Maybe one less player we can afford because we have this guy. Looks like it's one of DCs pals though or something. *** Ted Watch Activated *** I'm sorry if you feel lik ea total failure mate, can't satisfy your wife, kids hate you, etc etc but it's not my fault.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on May 2, 2018 17:16:50 GMT
That's quite enough of that.
|
|
|
Post by Okebournegas on May 2, 2018 17:26:41 GMT
*** Ted Watch Activated *** I'm sorry if you feel lik ea total failure mate, can't satisfy your wife, kids hate you, etc etc but it's not my fault. [b What a charming young man
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 2, 2018 17:44:15 GMT
*** Ted Watch Activated *** I'm sorry if you feel lik ea total failure mate, can't satisfy your wife, kids hate you, etc etc but it's not my fault. Thats the sort of sh** that Sh1!heads say to their fellow Sh1!heads
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2018 17:49:16 GMT
Just watched the interview - feeling very positive about this appointment.
|
|
|
Post by BrightonGas on May 2, 2018 19:42:31 GMT
*** Ted Watch Activated *** **Sad little insignificant man who feels he needs to try to make others feel small becuase he is actually a worthless t*ss pot watch activated*** Lee Johnson?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2018 1:40:17 GMT
Good find but no idea who he is?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 3, 2018 7:20:16 GMT
Good find but no idea who he is? Looking at his profile he looks like the guy in charge of social media etc, although god knows why he needs to be based in London rather than the Mem.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on May 3, 2018 7:32:25 GMT
Not many. So does that mean it makes sense to operate a business model that losses money because that's the industry norm? If you believe that then its a great time to move into the retail business. Wael and Co are free to follow that path and I'll support that approach when I see them writing off the losses which hasn't happened yet. If they aren't writing off the losses then I would prefer a model that at least tries to live within it's means. And the evidence is that they aren't writing off the losses and holding security over a valuable piece of real estate in Horfield instead. It doesn't seem to be a case of whether or not it makes sense to do it because it's the industry norm but rather there isn't much of an option at this juncture. Have a league 1 football club which makes million pound losses or don't. To try and paint a football club as a viable candidate for sensible business practices generally is just a ludicrous abstraction from reality. As far as security over a valuable piece of real estate and loans not being written off - why is that something that bothers you to a degree where you'll post about virtually nothing else now? The situation has been the same for the last 22 years. If your gripe is the debt to asset ratio what difference does that make? There's no maximum amount that a creditor must reach before they can liquidate an asset to recover their security - the old board could have done exactly that. Big whoop they'd have left us with 8 mil in the bank - how long would that have lasted? Are you seriously of the opinion that any expenditure on recruitment to improve the playing squad is unnecessary until the books are balanced? If so your criticism appears to be based on fallacious logic. It's yours and everyone else's free choice to care or not care about the finances of the club you support. As you obviously don't care I'd ignore those of us that do. The worst that can happen is the club goes bust with no assets, that's not so bad is it?
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on May 3, 2018 8:56:42 GMT
It doesn't seem to be a case of whether or not it makes sense to do it because it's the industry norm but rather there isn't much of an option at this juncture. Have a league 1 football club which makes million pound losses or don't. To try and paint a football club as a viable candidate for sensible business practices generally is just a ludicrous abstraction from reality. As far as security over a valuable piece of real estate and loans not being written off - why is that something that bothers you to a degree where you'll post about virtually nothing else now? The situation has been the same for the last 22 years. If your gripe is the debt to asset ratio what difference does that make? There's no maximum amount that a creditor must reach before they can liquidate an asset to recover their security - the old board could have done exactly that. Big whoop they'd have left us with 8 mil in the bank - how long would that have lasted? Are you seriously of the opinion that any expenditure on recruitment to improve the playing squad is unnecessary until the books are balanced? If so your criticism appears to be based on fallacious logic. It's yours and everyone else's free choice to care or not care about the finances of the club you support. As you obviously don't care I'd ignore those of us that do. The worst that can happen is the club goes bust with no assets, that's not so bad is it? I glad you said "Care" and not Worry as there is Fcukall we as fans and supporters could do about it
|
|
|
Post by LJG on May 3, 2018 9:34:03 GMT
It doesn't seem to be a case of whether or not it makes sense to do it because it's the industry norm but rather there isn't much of an option at this juncture. Have a league 1 football club which makes million pound losses or don't. To try and paint a football club as a viable candidate for sensible business practices generally is just a ludicrous abstraction from reality. As far as security over a valuable piece of real estate and loans not being written off - why is that something that bothers you to a degree where you'll post about virtually nothing else now? The situation has been the same for the last 22 years. If your gripe is the debt to asset ratio what difference does that make? There's no maximum amount that a creditor must reach before they can liquidate an asset to recover their security - the old board could have done exactly that. Big whoop they'd have left us with 8 mil in the bank - how long would that have lasted? Are you seriously of the opinion that any expenditure on recruitment to improve the playing squad is unnecessary until the books are balanced? If so your criticism appears to be based on fallacious logic. It's yours and everyone else's free choice to care or not care about the finances of the club you support. As you obviously don't care I'd ignore those of us that do. The worst that can happen is the club goes bust with no assets, that's not so bad is it? I don't think I've said or even indicated anywhere that I don't care about the finances of the club. Again - can't you just directly respond to the points I've raised? My point is the club could easily have gone bust under the last regime. The fact that about 75% of the value of the Mem would then have been available following that wouldn't change the circumstances barely at all. It just gives a false sense of security. It wouldn't be enough to rehome us, it wouldn't be enough to keep us in the league for more than a couple of seasons - if that, we would have been completely adrift without the support of a benefactor. Just as we would be now. My question again - Do you believe it's better to have equity in the Mem and be run like Yeovil relying on loan players from prem teams or be a professional footballing unit which a) may see us playing at a higher level and attracting more supporters and b) may allow us to profit from the sale of players?
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 3, 2018 10:38:04 GMT
I feel our saving grace here is that we're owned by a bunch of bankers who you'd hope the last thing any of them will want on their CV's is that they allowed an English club to go into admin by letting the club spend well beyond its means. If we were owned by Indian chicken farmers I'd be a bit more concerned, although as Blackburn fans have found out there's little you can do about it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on May 3, 2018 10:52:01 GMT
I like Indian chicken.
Dhansak normally.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on May 3, 2018 11:36:25 GMT
It's yours and everyone else's free choice to care or not care about the finances of the club you support. As you obviously don't care I'd ignore those of us that do. The worst that can happen is the club goes bust with no assets, that's not so bad is it? I don't think I've said or even indicated anywhere that I don't care about the finances of the club. Again - can't you just directly respond to the points I've raised? My point is the club could easily have gone bust under the last regime. The fact that about 75% of the value of the Mem would then have been available following that wouldn't change the circumstances barely at all. It just gives a false sense of security. It wouldn't be enough to rehome us, it wouldn't be enough to keep us in the league for more than a couple of seasons - if that, we would have been completely adrift without the support of a benefactor. Just as we would be now. My question again - Do you believe it's better to have equity in the Mem and be run like Yeovil relying on loan players from prem teams or be a professional footballing unit which a) may see us playing at a higher level and attracting more supporters and b) may allow us to profit from the sale of players? Sorry if I doubt your financial acumen but in any event it's always better to have access to 75% of your major, and only, asset then 0%, its a fool that thinks otherwise. As to running a football club there is more than one way of skinning a cat. No idea as to the financial stability of Yeovil but there way has delivered Championship football let's see if ours does. This guy may well be an excellent addition but the fact is the accounts show we are losing money hand over fist but the focus seems to be on finding ways of spending more and increasing losses rather than increasing revenues to pay for those increased costs. Hopefully this is being addressed in the background beyond our knowledge or need to know.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on May 3, 2018 12:06:40 GMT
I don't think I've said or even indicated anywhere that I don't care about the finances of the club. Again - can't you just directly respond to the points I've raised? My point is the club could easily have gone bust under the last regime. The fact that about 75% of the value of the Mem would then have been available following that wouldn't change the circumstances barely at all. It just gives a false sense of security. It wouldn't be enough to rehome us, it wouldn't be enough to keep us in the league for more than a couple of seasons - if that, we would have been completely adrift without the support of a benefactor. Just as we would be now. My question again - Do you believe it's better to have equity in the Mem and be run like Yeovil relying on loan players from prem teams or be a professional footballing unit which a) may see us playing at a higher level and attracting more supporters and b) may allow us to profit from the sale of players? Sorry if I doubt your financial acumen but in any event it's always better to have access to 75% of your major, and only, asset then 0%, its a fool that thinks otherwise. As to running a football club there is more than one way of skinning a cat. No idea as to the financial stability of Yeovil but there way has delivered Championship football let's see if ours does. This guy may well be an excellent addition but the fact is the accounts show we are losing money hand over fist but the focus seems to be on finding ways of spending more and increasing losses rather than increasing revenues to pay for those increased costs. Hopefully this is being addressed in the background beyond our knowledge or need to know. In answer to your first point, to what end? Are you suggesting we need equity to sell up, to sell chunks of land to pay off debts or to attract further investment? Yeovil's plan did deliver Championship football but wasn't that a cameo role based on a lot of loans? They have fallen since so I guess we need to learn from them to ensure we maintain success. Lastly, if they are spending money on 'nice to haves' then I would take that they are willing to do so and it points to having a plan. It also concentrates their minds and encourage them to get the infrastructure sorted. It is important to keep an eye on things so we don't overspend but I would take recent events as a good thing and suggest we enjoy the ride while we can.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on May 3, 2018 12:07:26 GMT
I don't think I've said or even indicated anywhere that I don't care about the finances of the club. Again - can't you just directly respond to the points I've raised? My point is the club could easily have gone bust under the last regime. The fact that about 75% of the value of the Mem would then have been available following that wouldn't change the circumstances barely at all. It just gives a false sense of security. It wouldn't be enough to rehome us, it wouldn't be enough to keep us in the league for more than a couple of seasons - if that, we would have been completely adrift without the support of a benefactor. Just as we would be now. My question again - Do you believe it's better to have equity in the Mem and be run like Yeovil relying on loan players from prem teams or be a professional footballing unit which a) may see us playing at a higher level and attracting more supporters and b) may allow us to profit from the sale of players? Sorry if I doubt your financial acumen but in any event it's always better to have access to 75% of your major, and only, asset then 0%, its a fool that thinks otherwise. As to running a football club there is more than one way of skinning a cat. No idea as to the financial stability of Yeovil but there way has delivered Championship football let's see if ours does. This guy may well be an excellent addition but the fact is the accounts show we are losing money hand over fist but the focus seems to be on finding ways of spending more and increasing losses rather than increasing revenues to pay for those increased costs. Hopefully this is being addressed in the background beyond our knowledge or need to know. I haven't said that it is better to have 0% equity as opposed to 75% - I said that the circumstances that would precipitate that 75 or 0% being realised are completely identical and having that 75% would be scant consolation and in reality the ultimate outcome would also be virtually identical. Surely this isn't a case of "what's the best way to run a business"? Since it's not truly a business being run - It's a football club. An analogy would be to try and train a race horse using the same principles you would to run a corner shop. You don't buy a race horse because you think it's going to bring your family a nice steady income with steady running costs. If you're saying there's more than one way to skin a cat - tell us some of yours. As far as Yeovil are concerned - Championship football? For how long? Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on May 3, 2018 12:21:03 GMT
Sorry if I doubt your financial acumen but in any event it's always better to have access to 75% of your major, and only, asset then 0%, its a fool that thinks otherwise. As to running a football club there is more than one way of skinning a cat. No idea as to the financial stability of Yeovil but there way has delivered Championship football let's see if ours does. This guy may well be an excellent addition but the fact is the accounts show we are losing money hand over fist but the focus seems to be on finding ways of spending more and increasing losses rather than increasing revenues to pay for those increased costs. Hopefully this is being addressed in the background beyond our knowledge or need to know. I haven't said that it is better to have 0% equity as opposed to 75% - I said that the circumstances that would precipitate that 75 or 0% being realised are completely identical and having that 75% would be scant consolation and in reality the ultimate outcome would also be virtually identical. Surely this isn't a case of "what's the best way to run a business"? Since it's not truly a business being run - It's a football club. An analogy would be to try and train a race horse using the same principles you would to run a corner shop. You don't buy a race horse because you think it's going to bring your family a nice steady income with steady running costs. If you're saying there's more than one way to skin a cat - tell us some of yours. As far as Yeovil are concerned - Championship football? For how long? Exactly.On that last point assuming (hoping!) DC gets a decent budget this summer and he some how pulls off promotion will we really be in a better position than Yeovil to survive in the Championship, possibly even worse a position as that division seems to have got a lot stronger in recent seasons? I wonder what the ALQ's plan is should we ever get promoted, sell up and hope to make a return on their investment or attempt to fund & build the new stadium we will need to survive long term in the Championship. I hope Shrewsbury go up this season as it will be interesting to see if they can do a "Burton" and survive for more than a season in the Championship.
|
|
|
Post by tylerdunnell03 on May 8, 2018 23:08:28 GMT
Tommy w said he’d be going to playoff games for dc potential targets, to me sounds promising with some good players at good teams in the playoffs!
|
|
|
Post by stigofthegas on May 8, 2018 23:21:49 GMT
It doesn't seem to be a case of whether or not it makes sense to do it because it's the industry norm but rather there isn't much of an option at this juncture. Have a league 1 football club which makes million pound losses or don't. To try and paint a football club as a viable candidate for sensible business practices generally is just a ludicrous abstraction from reality. As far as security over a valuable piece of real estate and loans not being written off - why is that something that bothers you to a degree where you'll post about virtually nothing else now? The situation has been the same for the last 22 years. If your gripe is the debt to asset ratio what difference does that make? There's no maximum amount that a creditor must reach before they can liquidate an asset to recover their security - the old board could have done exactly that. Big whoop they'd have left us with 8 mil in the bank - how long would that have lasted? Are you seriously of the opinion that any expenditure on recruitment to improve the playing squad is unnecessary until the books are balanced? If so your criticism appears to be based on fallacious logic. It's yours and everyone else's free choice to care or not care about the finances of the club you support. As you obviously don't care I'd ignore those of us that do. The worst that can happen is the club goes bust with no assets, that's not so bad is it? This, without doubt, is the worst thing about this forum. Pretending you are the only one that cares as you peddle drama-queen nonsense. It is insulting and pathetic. Please stop it, grow up and learn to debate like an adult. Many of us have concerns. Very few would stoop so low as to post like this.
|
|
nsgas
Reserve Team
Posts: 209
|
Post by nsgas on May 9, 2018 7:15:42 GMT
Walsall have made a profit every year for twelve years (latest financial results announced Oct 2017) on an average attendance of 4,816 and spent eleven of those twelve years in League 1 compared to our five.
|
|