|
|
Post by Gaswood on Jan 18, 2024 23:28:38 GMT
How many have Bristol $hitty sold since Lansdown took over there? All those sales and profits, plus significantly updating their stadium along the way, and finishing regularly mid-table after promising runs near the top. How many years did Posh stay up? On a serious note (although all of that is totally valid) we would be far more comparable with a Rotherham when it clicks. Last year was the first in about ten that they stayed in one division! They spend a lot less than Posh and have more success. My point is that Posh are indeed successful at what they do, but there are risks with heavy spending. We aren’t spending. They are. City are. Both have recently been rumoured to be at big financial risk, and City threatened with possible sanctions, yet are high up on that list. The list is not a great example. Also, you yourself constantly say Brentford are the model to follow, yet your list says their losses on this same scale are a massive £30m… Look at the table again from Matthew Benham's time as owner of Brentford up to the Prem promotion season and you will see they are top of the profit table and by some significant distance. Last season they received an estimated £152.4m in TV revenue alone, allowing the player trading business model to evolve in the Premier League. View AttachmentBut that’s not the table you posted. The table you posted showed a massive loss. I appreciate they are now making money, but switching the chart for each point or argument isn’t really showing anything. I agree Posh get good sell on values, as do City fairly often, but both get it wrong quite often too, and a massive outlay is at risk for this as the expenditure values in your charts clearly show. Exeter and Oxford are ones to look at from your original point as that is low risk. I would not want Rovers spending massive amounts and rolling the dice like City or Posh, both recently having financial issues raised. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,461 
|
Post by pirate on Jan 18, 2024 23:56:36 GMT
Look at the table again from Matthew Benham's time as owner of Brentford up to the Prem promotion season and you will see they are top of the profit table and by some significant distance. Last season they received an estimated £152.4m in TV revenue alone, allowing the player trading business model to evolve in the Premier League. View AttachmentBut that’s not the table you posted. The table you posted showed a massive loss. I appreciate they are now making money, but switching the chart for each point or argument isn’t really showing anything. I agree Posh get good sell on values, as do City fairly often, but both get it wrong quite often too, and a massive outlay is at risk for this as the expenditure values in your charts clearly show. Exeter and Oxford are ones to look at from your original point as that is low risk. I would not want Rovers spending massive amounts and rolling the dice like City or Posh, both recently having financial issues raised. No, sorry you aren't quite getting it. i.e "I appreciate they are now making profit". Brentford were making transfer profits BEFORE, but NOW the overall profits have levelled out (as shown in that original table) because the Brentford business model changed upon entering the Prem with more money needing to be spent on fees and upgrading players, therefore player trading profits aren't going to be like before as you would surely expect and understand. Tbh I thought most football fans were aware of Brentfords huge profits from player sales and journey from League One to the Prem driven by that smart recruitment policy and it didn't need explaining. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 19, 2024 6:39:54 GMT
I wonder if the owners would rather make 6x like us or 3x like Peterborough. Answers on a postcard to: £25m profit. , if you don’t already have a large amount of capital then you make very little. The outlay for a £25m profit isn’t just chump change found lying around! Rich get richer, etc. Ivan Toney and a few others will skew that number but they’ve done well. As have City… who were up for FFP investigation and embargoes… interesting hey?! As regards to your question… I’d imagine the owners want to make the 6x profit, but on a larger scale, as that equals £50m profit Agree to a certain extent, but we are not talking about one player here and one bet. We are talking about a strategy that Peterborough seem to be doing well with. Let's say we spend £500k on young potential players, that might be 20 players. If we had the infrastructure to add value to them then we might be able to (this isnt an overnight project, might be 3 to 5 years to start seeing a return): 1 Bring 30% to 40% into the first team (6 to 8 players) 2 sell 50% of those players (3 to 4) for £1m plus. It's a double whammy, we get to use the players who will perform for us and we get the payback of £3m to £4m. Let's split that, £1.5m towards running costs and £1.5m to invest in more players to go again (maybe moving up another level of the kind of players purchased). Then it starts to compound in the way that we are seeing with Peterborough from a £500k initial outlay. When was the last time we sang "He's one of our own"? |
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Jan 19, 2024 9:10:28 GMT
Bit like backing a horse at 3-1 odds. If you have a sh!tl0ad of cash to bung on it you make triple of a large sum, if you don’t already have a large amount of capital then you make very little. The outlay for a £25m profit isn’t just chump change found lying around! Rich get richer, etc. Ivan Toney and a few others will skew that number but they’ve done well. As have City… who were up for FFP investigation and embargoes… interesting hey?! As regards to your question… I’d imagine the owners want to make the 6x profit, but on a larger scale, as that equals £50m profit Agree to a certain extent, but we are not talking about one player here and one bet. We are talking about a strategy that Peterborough seem to be doing well with. Let's say we spend £500k on young potential players, that might be 20 players. If we had the infrastructure to add value to them then we might be able to (this isnt an overnight project, might be 3 to 5 years to start seeing a return): 1 Bring 30% to 40% into the first team (6 to 8 players) 2 sell 50% of those players (3 to 4) for £1m plus. It's a double whammy, we get to use the players who will perform for us and we get the payback of £3m to £4m. Let's split that, £1.5m towards running costs and £1.5m to invest in more players to go again (maybe moving up another level of the kind of players purchased). Then it starts to compound in the way that we are seeing with Peterborough from a £500k initial outlay. When was the last time we sang "He's one of our own"? Maybe what we really need to do is go after who ever is responsible for Peterboroughs recruitment. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 19, 2024 9:30:27 GMT
Agree to a certain extent, but we are not talking about one player here and one bet. We are talking about a strategy that Peterborough seem to be doing well with. Let's say we spend £500k on young potential players, that might be 20 players. If we had the infrastructure to add value to them then we might be able to (this isnt an overnight project, might be 3 to 5 years to start seeing a return): 1 Bring 30% to 40% into the first team (6 to 8 players) 2 sell 50% of those players (3 to 4) for £1m plus. It's a double whammy, we get to use the players who will perform for us and we get the payback of £3m to £4m. Let's split that, £1.5m towards running costs and £1.5m to invest in more players to go again (maybe moving up another level of the kind of players purchased). Then it starts to compound in the way that we are seeing with Peterborough from a £500k initial outlay. When was the last time we sang "He's one of our own"? Maybe what we really need to do is go after who ever is responsible for Peterboroughs recruitment. Good shout. Maybe we also need to make sure this is part of our strategy and not change it when we change managers. |
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,461
|
Post by pirate on Jan 19, 2024 9:42:36 GMT
Agree to a certain extent, but we are not talking about one player here and one bet. We are talking about a strategy that Peterborough seem to be doing well with. Let's say we spend £500k on young potential players, that might be 20 players. If we had the infrastructure to add value to them then we might be able to (this isnt an overnight project, might be 3 to 5 years to start seeing a return): 1 Bring 30% to 40% into the first team (6 to 8 players) 2 sell 50% of those players (3 to 4) for £1m plus. It's a double whammy, we get to use the players who will perform for us and we get the payback of £3m to £4m. Let's split that, £1.5m towards running costs and £1.5m to invest in more players to go again (maybe moving up another level of the kind of players purchased). Then it starts to compound in the way that we are seeing with Peterborough from a £500k initial outlay. When was the last time we sang "He's one of our own"? Maybe what we really need to do is go after who ever is responsible for Peterboroughs recruitment. Sam Gaughran |
|
|
|
Post by Gaswood on Jan 19, 2024 10:52:47 GMT
Bit like backing a horse at 3-1 odds. If you have a sh!tl0ad of cash to bung on it you make triple of a large sum, if you don’t already have a large amount of capital then you make very little. The outlay for a £25m profit isn’t just chump change found lying around! Rich get richer, etc. Ivan Toney and a few others will skew that number but they’ve done well. As have City… who were up for FFP investigation and embargoes… interesting hey?! As regards to your question… I’d imagine the owners want to make the 6x profit, but on a larger scale, as that equals £50m profit Agree to a certain extent, but we are not talking about one player here and one bet. We are talking about a strategy that Peterborough seem to be doing well with. Let's say we spend £500k on young potential players, that might be 20 players. If we had the infrastructure to add value to them then we might be able to (this isnt an overnight project, might be 3 to 5 years to start seeing a return): 1 Bring 30% to 40% into the first team (6 to 8 players) 2 sell 50% of those players (3 to 4) for £1m plus. It's a double whammy, we get to use the players who will perform for us and we get the payback of £3m to £4m. Let's split that, £1.5m towards running costs and £1.5m to invest in more players to go again (maybe moving up another level of the kind of players purchased). Then it starts to compound in the way that we are seeing with Peterborough from a £500k initial outlay. When was the last time we sang "He's one of our own"? Absolutely agree - spot on. I also think we will see that in some that we’ve brought in anyway, such as Conor Taylor, Anthony Evans, etc. I think we would have had that with Luca Hoole had he been continued to be utilised and progressed in his original role. As shown with the charts used, these things do take time as you said, and the picture changes rapidly, as with Brentford. |
|
|
|
Post by Gaswood on Jan 19, 2024 10:57:30 GMT
But that’s not the table you posted. The table you posted showed a massive loss. I appreciate they are now making money, but switching the chart for each point or argument isn’t really showing anything. I agree Posh get good sell on values, as do City fairly often, but both get it wrong quite often too, and a massive outlay is at risk for this as the expenditure values in your charts clearly show. Exeter and Oxford are ones to look at from your original point as that is low risk. I would not want Rovers spending massive amounts and rolling the dice like City or Posh, both recently having financial issues raised. No, sorry you aren't quite getting it. i.e "I appreciate they are now making profit". Brentford were making transfer profits BEFORE, but NOW the overall profits have levelled out (as shown in that original table) because the Brentford business model changed upon entering the Prem with more money needing to be spent on fees and upgrading players, therefore player trading profits aren't going to be like before as you would surely expect and understand. Tbh I thought most football fans were aware of Brentfords huge profits from player sales and journey from League One to the Prem driven by that smart recruitment policy and it didn't need explaining. I totally get it, and fully understand the lucrative pay out of being in the Prem. I even am agreeing with you. But my point is that you keep changing the dates, metrics, focus of your charts for each point. You are making a valid point, but that doesn’t change the fact that the charts show different things which can be used to make some clubs look good, and some bad, without the full context. Posh have a good system, although they definitely need Toney to get his move to bolster their coffers if reports around finances are to be believed. Also, you aren’t discussing wages, whereby that profit is eroded if they have the likes of JCH on double what we pay, so there’s that added element to club finances which needs to be considered (obviously counterbalanced by the income they generate, also not shown) |
|
|
|
Post by richie on Jan 19, 2024 11:02:29 GMT
its all about risk isnt it?
signing 20 development players - potentially none will develop sufficiently
knock on that the first team isnt supported well enough and additional funds are needed to sign "ready" players
if we invest at the next level to go again, and it doesnt work out then it puts the project back 2 years.
I think we should look at the best youngish players at teams slightly lower than us, get them in and that way they have a better chance to add value in the short term.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 19, 2024 12:48:34 GMT
its all about risk isnt it? signing 20 development players - potentially none will develop sufficiently knock on that the first team isnt supported well enough and additional funds are needed to sign "ready" players if we invest at the next level to go again, and it doesnt work out then it puts the project back 2 years. I think we should look at the best youngish players at teams slightly lower than us, get them in and that way they have a better chance to add value in the short term. Yes, of course. Risk and reward are very closely related. There are many things that the club needs to have in place before starting this strategy: 1) The infrustructure to support players - Training pitches and facilities to train and analyse professionally. Also, I did notice that Rovers were looking for familys to house their 16 to 18 yr old players the other day. 2) The coaches that have the ability bring the players through to the first team or to sell to leagues below. 3) An 'ology'. A way that we do things that is the Bristol Rovers secret sauce. If we have an ology then we can repeat the process time and time again thus reducing the risk. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 19, 2024 12:52:44 GMT
Agree to a certain extent, but we are not talking about one player here and one bet. We are talking about a strategy that Peterborough seem to be doing well with. Let's say we spend £500k on young potential players, that might be 20 players. If we had the infrastructure to add value to them then we might be able to (this isnt an overnight project, might be 3 to 5 years to start seeing a return): 1 Bring 30% to 40% into the first team (6 to 8 players) 2 sell 50% of those players (3 to 4) for £1m plus. It's a double whammy, we get to use the players who will perform for us and we get the payback of £3m to £4m. Let's split that, £1.5m towards running costs and £1.5m to invest in more players to go again (maybe moving up another level of the kind of players purchased). Then it starts to compound in the way that we are seeing with Peterborough from a £500k initial outlay. When was the last time we sang "He's one of our own"? Absolutely agree - spot on. I also think we will see that in some that we’ve brought in anyway, such as Conor Taylor, Anthony Evans, etc. I think we would have had that with Luca Hoole had he been continued to be utilised and progressed in his original role. As shown with the charts used, these things do take time as you said, and the picture changes rapidly, as with Brentford. I rate Hoole (don't understand how we have missed the opportunity to do the icelandic thunder clap while chanting 'Hoole' mind), I think he has suffered confidence over the last year but he is good enough for league one at least and I will be sad to see him leave if that is what happens. Loan to Forrest Green might be good for him and then come back to press for a start next season. At the moment, we are sending our youngsters out to Conference South and below teams. If we can aim to send our youngsters to league 2, that would certainly be a form of progress. It will be great to see how Connolly performs over the rest of the season after having his loan spell in league 2. |
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Jan 19, 2024 13:12:23 GMT
Why don't we be cheeky.
Ask for JCH on loan till the end of the season.
Offer to pay half his wages.....
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 19, 2024 13:16:47 GMT
Why don't we be cheeky. Ask for JCH on loan till the end of the season. Offer to pay half his wages..... It's a good shout. |
|
|
|
Post by returnofthedust on Jan 19, 2024 15:33:39 GMT
Why don't we be cheeky. Ask for JCH on loan till the end of the season. Offer to pay half his wages..... A couple of reasons A) we don’t want him. B) McAnthony will tell us to do one |
|
|
|
Post by TAGas on Jan 19, 2024 15:38:32 GMT
Yep sounds like he's seeing out the reminder of his contract
|
|
|
|
Post by returnofthedust on Jan 19, 2024 15:40:28 GMT
Yep sounds like he's seeing out the reminder of his contract You can’t blame him really. |
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Jan 19, 2024 17:48:16 GMT
Why don't we be cheeky. Ask for JCH on loan till the end of the season. Offer to pay half his wages..... A couple of reasons A) we don’t want him. B) McAnthony will tell us to do one You mean... 1..you dont want him 2...if nobody signs him as a perm deal then thats the best offer he will get to lower his wage bill.He would be a right plank to not accept that over payi g his full wage and him not playing anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by returnofthedust on Jan 19, 2024 17:51:35 GMT
A couple of reasons A) we don’t want him. B) McAnthony will tell us to do one You mean... 1..you dont want him 2...if nobody signs him as a perm deal then thats the best offer he will get to lower his wage bill.He would be a right plank to not accept that over payi g his full wage and him not playing anyway. No , I mean we don’t. Barry Fry confirmed this. D Mac is a plank and would rather pay it than lose face |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 19, 2024 18:42:52 GMT
A couple of reasons A) we don’t want him. B) McAnthony will tell us to do one You mean... 1..you dont want him 2...if nobody signs him as a perm deal then thats the best offer he will get to lower his wage bill.He would be a right plank to not accept that over payi g his full wage and him not playing anyway. Unfortunately there's no signs that MT is interested in signing him, you sense he's going to go for players he feels he can develop and the sell on, than sign players coming to the end of their careers. |
|
|
|
Post by playtowin on Jan 19, 2024 18:56:30 GMT
You mean... 1..you dont want him 2...if nobody signs him as a perm deal then thats the best offer he will get to lower his wage bill.He would be a right plank to not accept that over payi g his full wage and him not playing anyway. Unfortunately there's no signs that MT is interested in signing him, you sense he's going to go for players he feels he can develop and the sell on, than sign players coming to the end of their careers. Then it could be a long road before a promotion comes around. If we are building a side of players we can sell on. 5 years ? |
|
