| 38m profit 19:07 - Sep 1 with 11613 views | magicdaps10 |
Over 700k a week plus other revenue from this season.
What a bunch of robbing gits, wont be long before it goes national to our greedy barsteward owners and the sell outs.
They will be pushed against the wall in no time, results keep going this way and the eyes will be firmly on them. |  |
| |  |
| 38m profit on 12:55 - Sep 2 with 1016 views | swan65split |
The incompetence was wasting money buying some overrated players! who never proved their worth. |  | | |
| 38m profit on 12:55 - Sep 2 with 1015 views | lidojack |
| 38m profit on 12:46 - Sep 2 by E20Jack |
Other options and stop gaps cost money, money we don’t have to waste on such short term options. |
If we don't get our first choice we need to have second and third choice options that we can approach. Putting all our eggs in the Woods deal has left us short. And now that he's gone to Stoke we are left back at square one.
Also I fail to see how a 6 month loan deal would break the bank. |  | | |
| 38m profit on 12:58 - Sep 2 with 1003 views | _ |
| 38m profit on 12:35 - Sep 2 by MattG |
Who knows - you may be right but my point is how it appears from the outside.
Assuming the press coverage was accurate (and nobody has denied it) then we actually bid £6m. What if Brentford had accepted that rather than asking for another £Â½m when, according to Dineen, we couldn't even afford the initial sum? Would we have backed out or gone through with it and put ourselves in a worse financial position?
As long as it doesn't affect what Potter is trying to do, I have no issue with us not buying Woods or even not bringing in any loans. I'm just saying that, from my perspective and taken as a whole, the transfer window looked rather disjointed. |
And nobody has confirmed it either.
It only appears on the outside like that who want to paint a bad picture just for the sake of it. We've been involved in failed transfers our whole history and it will depend on the mood of the fan at the time how they interpret it. You're still smarting because of your association with the Trust that failed us. |  |
| |
| 38m profit on 12:59 - Sep 2 with 995 views | E20Jack |
| 38m profit on 12:55 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
If we don't get our first choice we need to have second and third choice options that we can approach. Putting all our eggs in the Woods deal has left us short. And now that he's gone to Stoke we are left back at square one.
Also I fail to see how a 6 month loan deal would break the bank. |
6 month loan deal for who? |  |
| |
| 38m profit on 12:59 - Sep 2 with 999 views | _ |
| 38m profit on 12:44 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
If the Woods deal was entirely reliant on funds from out-goings it was at best naive not to have other options lined up.
Even a stop gap until January would have been an improvement. |
But in the time it took to realise Woods wasn't going to happen Potter was working with the whole squad and realising there's some bloody talent already on the books. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:02 - Sep 2 with 991 views | _ |
| 38m profit on 12:55 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
If we don't get our first choice we need to have second and third choice options that we can approach. Putting all our eggs in the Woods deal has left us short. And now that he's gone to Stoke we are left back at square one.
Also I fail to see how a 6 month loan deal would break the bank. |
Short?
We are in the play off positions 3 points from top.
Stoke, who are literally gambling their future lost again yesterday and have had a shocking start. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:09 - Sep 2 with 969 views | Catullus |
Only a fool thinks we didn't need to cut costs. It's not totally about what has happened that's the issue so much but how it happened and the things that were being said during this time.
It will be very interesting to see the end of year accounts and see how much of a loss we make......should we make a profit, the size of it will dictate the reaction. January will be interesting.
Bony is an obvious asset we want to sell, he's on enough money to pay 5/6 other players wages so will be moved on IF we can find a taker.
We can argue these things all season but until the accounts are available none of us know anything for sure. |  |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:14 - Sep 2 with 961 views | jackal |
| 38m profit on 11:40 - Sep 2 by thornabyswan |
That's the profit we made on transfers according to the Sky commentators last night.
What they didn't mention was the 50 million drop in revenue |
Nor the parachute payment which covers the revenue drop. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 38m profit on 13:16 - Sep 2 with 959 views | lidojack |
| 38m profit on 12:59 - Sep 2 by E20Jack |
6 month loan deal for who? |
Chirivella
Harrison Reed
Josh Onomah
Oliver Norwood
Michael Hector
Reece Oxford
These are all players who are still in their club's reserves or have been loaned to clubs you would think are on a similar financial footing to us. They are also young players (fits our motif) that have working experience in the championship and would add a bit of bite to a midfield that, sans Fer, is sorely missing it. | | | |
| 38m profit on 13:19 - Sep 2 with 949 views | E20Jack |
| 38m profit on 13:16 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
Chirivella
Harrison Reed
Josh Onomah
Oliver Norwood
Michael Hector
Reece Oxford
These are all players who are still in their club's reserves or have been loaned to clubs you would think are on a similar financial footing to us. They are also young players (fits our motif) that have working experience in the championship and would add a bit of bite to a midfield that, sans Fer, is sorely missing it. |
Did they want to come here?
Did Potter want them?
How much would they cost? It is dead money bringing in a loan unless it is a view to buy. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:22 - Sep 2 with 947 views | lidojack |
| 38m profit on 13:02 - Sep 2 by _ |
Short?
We are in the play off positions 3 points from top.
Stoke, who are literally gambling their future lost again yesterday and have had a shocking start. |
There are no qualms with what has been a very good start to the season.
But it is just a start. Potter blatantly wanted a midfielder even after analysing the squad, it's why we reportedly went back in for Woods on loan. The difference between a team with Fer and without Fer is night and day, that much was evident against Bristol City.
My point is that if we were so keen on signing a CDM we should have had further options to make sure we didn't miss out. | | | |
| 38m profit on 13:24 - Sep 2 with 940 views | Catullus |
| 38m profit on 13:19 - Sep 2 by E20Jack |
Did they want to come here?
Did Potter want them?
How much would they cost? It is dead money bringing in a loan unless it is a view to buy. |
Dead money? Doesn't that depend on the contribution? If any player contributes nothing it could be called dead money. Bony's wages have been dead money for most of his return. However, borrow a decent midfielder and his contribution helps you avoid relegation, win a trophy or have a promo push, how is it dead? | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:25 - Sep 2 with 934 views | E20Jack |
| 38m profit on 13:22 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
There are no qualms with what has been a very good start to the season.
But it is just a start. Potter blatantly wanted a midfielder even after analysing the squad, it's why we reportedly went back in for Woods on loan. The difference between a team with Fer and without Fer is night and day, that much was evident against Bristol City.
My point is that if we were so keen on signing a CDM we should have had further options to make sure we didn't miss out. |
But we wanted Woods.
It’s like bringing in Tom Butler after missing out on Chadli. We are only going to bring in players we feel can make a positive impact and not going to waste what little we have on second, third or fourth choices. It’s a long term plan, as it should be. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:26 - Sep 2 with 937 views | lidojack |
| 38m profit on 13:19 - Sep 2 by E20Jack |
Did they want to come here?
Did Potter want them?
How much would they cost? It is dead money bringing in a loan unless it is a view to buy. |
Asking unanswerable questions is a quick way to kill a debate.
My point is that we should have had further options available to us so that we didn't completely miss out in a position that we clearly wanted to strengthen. Whether these specific players would have joined is irrelevant. They are merely examples to show that there were other options available and we should have explored those options rather than going all in on a player we weren't certain we could afford. | | | |
| 38m profit on 13:28 - Sep 2 with 928 views | _ |
| 38m profit on 13:14 - Sep 2 by jackal |
Nor the parachute payment which covers the revenue drop. |
You don't get it either do you?
The Trust should have made a sticky on this site to fully explain the true and whole situation. The fact they haven't speaks volumes.
Lisa conveniently ignores all these sorts of threads. It really is cheap. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:30 - Sep 2 with 911 views | _ |
| 38m profit on 13:22 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
There are no qualms with what has been a very good start to the season.
But it is just a start. Potter blatantly wanted a midfielder even after analysing the squad, it's why we reportedly went back in for Woods on loan. The difference between a team with Fer and without Fer is night and day, that much was evident against Bristol City.
My point is that if we were so keen on signing a CDM we should have had further options to make sure we didn't miss out. |
Really because i didn't see us miss him too much yesterday | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:31 - Sep 2 with 905 views | E20Jack |
| 38m profit on 13:26 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
Asking unanswerable questions is a quick way to kill a debate.
My point is that we should have had further options available to us so that we didn't completely miss out in a position that we clearly wanted to strengthen. Whether these specific players would have joined is irrelevant. They are merely examples to show that there were other options available and we should have explored those options rather than going all in on a player we weren't certain we could afford. |
Exactly, we can’t answer because we don’t know.
If we don’t know the situation then we cannot make a conclusion.
It isn’t just about “a position”. It’s about a player we felt could make a difference. We have limited funds, we aren’t going to throw all or some of it away on someone else just because he plays in the same position.
What if another target comes up in Jan and we can’t afford him because we spent it on someone not very good just because they were a DMC? | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:32 - Sep 2 with 898 views | jackal |
| 38m profit on 13:28 - Sep 2 by _ |
You don't get it either do you?
The Trust should have made a sticky on this site to fully explain the true and whole situation. The fact they haven't speaks volumes.
Lisa conveniently ignores all these sorts of threads. It really is cheap. |
If you've got all the answers, then enlighten me.
Where the fvck is the parachute money? [Post edited 2 Sep 2018 13:50]
| | | |
| 38m profit on 13:41 - Sep 2 with 881 views | lidojack |
| 38m profit on 13:31 - Sep 2 by E20Jack |
Exactly, we can’t answer because we don’t know.
If we don’t know the situation then we cannot make a conclusion.
It isn’t just about “a position”. It’s about a player we felt could make a difference. We have limited funds, we aren’t going to throw all or some of it away on someone else just because he plays in the same position.
What if another target comes up in Jan and we can’t afford him because we spent it on someone not very good just because they were a DMC? |
It seems unlikely that after a month or 2 of scouting that Woods was the only player deemed good enough for us to purchase. Again no one can know this but it seems illogical to draw that conclusion.
It appears that the club did everything they could to make the Woods deal happen but came up short and had no options to fall back on. I don't want to criticise the pursuit of Woods because if we don't have the money we shouldn't risk it. But it must have been clear fairly early on that the finances of the deal were going to be touch and go so at that point we should have considered others.
And as far as hypothetical go we could have signed someone on loan for the season and that player could have given us the extra dimension we needed to win the league. At that point the "dead money" would have looked far less deceased. | | | |
| 38m profit on 13:48 - Sep 2 with 869 views | E20Jack |
| 38m profit on 13:41 - Sep 2 by lidojack |
It seems unlikely that after a month or 2 of scouting that Woods was the only player deemed good enough for us to purchase. Again no one can know this but it seems illogical to draw that conclusion.
It appears that the club did everything they could to make the Woods deal happen but came up short and had no options to fall back on. I don't want to criticise the pursuit of Woods because if we don't have the money we shouldn't risk it. But it must have been clear fairly early on that the finances of the deal were going to be touch and go so at that point we should have considered others.
And as far as hypothetical go we could have signed someone on loan for the season and that player could have given us the extra dimension we needed to win the league. At that point the "dead money" would have looked far less deceased. |
It’s not about seeming a player good enough. They would also have to want to come here, they would have to be available, they would have to be on an acceptable wage structure, the manager want him and the club and player prepared to go down to the wire before we sign him.
Doesn’t sound like options would be abundant to me. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:57 - Sep 2 with 849 views | _ |
| 38m profit on 13:32 - Sep 2 by jackal |
If you've got all the answers, then enlighten me.
Where the fvck is the parachute money? [Post edited 2 Sep 2018 13:50]
|
All approx figures...
This season's Income
Parachute money - £50m
Season Tickets/Match day tickets/Commercial etc - approx. £10m
TOTAL - £60m
Last season's income
£110m
So, we had a £50m "black hole" to plug
To do this we've had to sell/loan and release players to make up the HUGE shortfall just to satisfy our commitments ie wages (mainly) but there will be other expenses too.
Without knowing exactly what we owe versus what we are bringing in from transfers etc the basic starting point was to try and keep enough money to meet these commitments, but not just right now in the Summer, this money will be needed to satisfy costs throughout the season.
With our wage bill clearly reduced we are safeguarding our future as a football club and starting again with a wage bill that will not only be sustainable this season, but also for the following season when our income will reduce dramatically again (unless we went back up of course)
We are going about this exercise sensibly and are watching a vibrant brand of football from a mainly young team desperate to either make their way in the game or play their hearts out for our club.
It's all very necessary. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 13:58 - Sep 2 with 843 views | lidojack |
| 38m profit on 13:48 - Sep 2 by E20Jack |
It’s not about seeming a player good enough. They would also have to want to come here, they would have to be available, they would have to be on an acceptable wage structure, the manager want him and the club and player prepared to go down to the wire before we sign him.
Doesn’t sound like options would be abundant to me. |
And I suppose that is the sticking point for us. I believe there would be ample options you do not. Unfortunately it's a question we will not be able to answer without someone spilling the beans.
I'm off out anyway so it seems like a perfect point to conclude. Have a nice day  | | | |
| 38m profit on 13:59 - Sep 2 with 837 views | Jackfath |
| 38m profit on 13:57 - Sep 2 by _ |
All approx figures...
This season's Income
Parachute money - £50m
Season Tickets/Match day tickets/Commercial etc - approx. £10m
TOTAL - £60m
Last season's income
£110m
So, we had a £50m "black hole" to plug
To do this we've had to sell/loan and release players to make up the HUGE shortfall just to satisfy our commitments ie wages (mainly) but there will be other expenses too.
Without knowing exactly what we owe versus what we are bringing in from transfers etc the basic starting point was to try and keep enough money to meet these commitments, but not just right now in the Summer, this money will be needed to satisfy costs throughout the season.
With our wage bill clearly reduced we are safeguarding our future as a football club and starting again with a wage bill that will not only be sustainable this season, but also for the following season when our income will reduce dramatically again (unless we went back up of course)
We are going about this exercise sensibly and are watching a vibrant brand of football from a mainly young team desperate to either make their way in the game or play their hearts out for our club.
It's all very necessary. |
That's a bold statement. |  |
| |
| 38m profit on 14:00 - Sep 2 with 834 views | thornabyswan |
| 38m profit on 13:14 - Sep 2 by jackal |
Nor the parachute payment which covers the revenue drop. |
The parachute payment doesn't cover the revenue drop though.
Still a 50 million quid black hole due to our PL wage bill. | |
| |
| 38m profit on 14:02 - Sep 2 with 828 views | jacktar |
Clearly there are many on here who don't have a clue when it comes to the financial running of a football club.
Sadly there are just as many who think they do, but equally have about as much idea as the
aforementioned.
It's really not a good idea to show ones ignorance in posting some of your replies. Why not just leave it to the few who have a clue?  |  |
| We shouldn't all be tarred with the same brush you know! |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
