| At the end of the day 21:45 - Mar 8 with 6571 views | swan65split |
When it's all said and done,...............a little bit of investment,..............then again we have a hedge fund. |  | | |  |
| At the end of the day on 13:05 - Mar 9 with 784 views | magicdaps10 |
| At the end of the day on 09:46 - Mar 9 by The_E20 |
You want me to show you a link to the undisputable fact that we spent more this season than any other Championship season... or you won’t believe it?
That shows the depth of your Swansea City knowledge then doesn’t it. I won’t be providing you any links, it is something as a fan, you should know. |
I want to be proven with fact that there has been investment from the Americans, nothing else, just your opening claim that I first responded too.
I am not having a go or a sly knock, I want to see proof of your claim.
There is no obvious indication as a fan that there has been. |  |
| |
| At the end of the day on 13:06 - Mar 9 with 777 views | The_E20 |
| At the end of the day on 12:34 - Mar 9 by jack247 |
The squad value reduced because we were relegated. The players we signed over the last couple of seasons were, in the main, the reason we got relegated.
We spent the Sigurdsson money on Mesa and Clucas. Replaced Llorente with Bony and Abraham. Then we ended up not playing Mesa, Clucas had maybe 3 good games for us, Bony never played and we ended up playing a poacher who wasn’t physical enough to hold up defenders up front on his own, until we dropped him for a utility winger/striker/attacking midfielder. That relegated us.
The original point, which I’m sticking to, is if you sell £40m of players to put towards debts and running costs, then buy £5m of players, you haven’t invested £5m, you’ve raised £35m by selling assets. |
No they weren’t the reason at all.
The players we lost is the reason we got relegated, we were unable to restore what we lost (most notibly the collective of Williams, Allen, Rangel, Britton and Dyer who either left or age got them). That’s why clubs get relegated after a while, it’s normal. If we had the ability to improve on what we lost each time then we would eventually be the best club on the planet, needless to say it’s extremely unrealistic and circumstances dictate that with each player that leaves, each year that passes - it becomes harder to do.
I can’t understand your last point in the slightest. I am unable to see what your £35m has to do with anything. If all you have is £40m and have to pay £35m to service a debt... then you can invest £5m in the playing squad. So on top of necessarily selling PL costing players to service that debt and had to go regardless - you have invested £5m in the team.
By your reckoning, we have never invested in the squad then. Since we got to the PL, our transfers in and out have cancelled each other out. In fact we received slightly more than what we spent
It’s not up for debate. It’s just people not wanting to face the facts we are spending what we can, because they have to find something to moan about. [Post edited 9 Mar 2019 13:53]
|  | | |
| At the end of the day on 13:09 - Mar 9 with 770 views | The_E20 |
| At the end of the day on 13:05 - Mar 9 by magicdaps10 |
I want to be proven with fact that there has been investment from the Americans, nothing else, just your opening claim that I first responded too.
I am not having a go or a sly knock, I want to see proof of your claim.
There is no obvious indication as a fan that there has been. |
Who has control over the clubs money?
How much was spent on incoming transfers this season? | | | |
| At the end of the day on 16:51 - Mar 9 with 708 views | scruffyjack |
| At the end of the day on 13:06 - Mar 9 by The_E20 |
No they weren’t the reason at all.
The players we lost is the reason we got relegated, we were unable to restore what we lost (most notibly the collective of Williams, Allen, Rangel, Britton and Dyer who either left or age got them). That’s why clubs get relegated after a while, it’s normal. If we had the ability to improve on what we lost each time then we would eventually be the best club on the planet, needless to say it’s extremely unrealistic and circumstances dictate that with each player that leaves, each year that passes - it becomes harder to do.
I can’t understand your last point in the slightest. I am unable to see what your £35m has to do with anything. If all you have is £40m and have to pay £35m to service a debt... then you can invest £5m in the playing squad. So on top of necessarily selling PL costing players to service that debt and had to go regardless - you have invested £5m in the team.
By your reckoning, we have never invested in the squad then. Since we got to the PL, our transfers in and out have cancelled each other out. In fact we received slightly more than what we spent
It’s not up for debate. It’s just people not wanting to face the facts we are spending what we can, because they have to find something to moan about. [Post edited 9 Mar 2019 13:53]
|
What effect do you think the impending legal action will have on the club, current owners & former owners? |  | | |
| At the end of the day on 17:00 - Mar 9 with 705 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 13:06 - Mar 9 by The_E20 |
No they weren’t the reason at all.
The players we lost is the reason we got relegated, we were unable to restore what we lost (most notibly the collective of Williams, Allen, Rangel, Britton and Dyer who either left or age got them). That’s why clubs get relegated after a while, it’s normal. If we had the ability to improve on what we lost each time then we would eventually be the best club on the planet, needless to say it’s extremely unrealistic and circumstances dictate that with each player that leaves, each year that passes - it becomes harder to do.
I can’t understand your last point in the slightest. I am unable to see what your £35m has to do with anything. If all you have is £40m and have to pay £35m to service a debt... then you can invest £5m in the playing squad. So on top of necessarily selling PL costing players to service that debt and had to go regardless - you have invested £5m in the team.
By your reckoning, we have never invested in the squad then. Since we got to the PL, our transfers in and out have cancelled each other out. In fact we received slightly more than what we spent
It’s not up for debate. It’s just people not wanting to face the facts we are spending what we can, because they have to find something to moan about. [Post edited 9 Mar 2019 13:53]
|
More accurately, it was the inability to replace them. One or two flops per season you can probably absorb. If you sell the source of most of your goals and replace with 5 players who all misfire, you’re going to be in trouble. If you’re not prepared to admit Bony, Clucas, Mesa, Borja, Abraham and Sanches were to a greater or lesser extent failures, then that’s probably the end of the sensible discussion.
We didn’t have to be as good as that Championship winning team anyway, we had to be better than Huddersfield or Southampton.
Selling players and spending most of that money on other players isn’t investing in the squad, just like if I sell my house and buy a slightly cheaper one I’m not investing in property. Spending what we make selling big players and a little bit of the TV revenue to improve the squad in general is. By your definition, if we sold every first team player and replaced them with lower league journeymen, we’d be investing in players. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 17:08 - Mar 9 with 696 views | magicdaps10 |
| At the end of the day on 17:00 - Mar 9 by jack247 |
More accurately, it was the inability to replace them. One or two flops per season you can probably absorb. If you sell the source of most of your goals and replace with 5 players who all misfire, you’re going to be in trouble. If you’re not prepared to admit Bony, Clucas, Mesa, Borja, Abraham and Sanches were to a greater or lesser extent failures, then that’s probably the end of the sensible discussion.
We didn’t have to be as good as that Championship winning team anyway, we had to be better than Huddersfield or Southampton.
Selling players and spending most of that money on other players isn’t investing in the squad, just like if I sell my house and buy a slightly cheaper one I’m not investing in property. Spending what we make selling big players and a little bit of the TV revenue to improve the squad in general is. By your definition, if we sold every first team player and replaced them with lower league journeymen, we’d be investing in players. |
Think there is a misunderstanding of people's views on the yanks investing.
E20 obviously is stating the yanks have invested, invested money they have received in money from sales.
Some are asking if the yanks have invested any money of their own, not money taken by sales etc.
I think a broaden of the horizon can help to see the others stance/view on the situation. Either way, both approaches have been to the detriment of enhancing Swansea City FC. [Post edited 9 Mar 2019 17:09]
| |
| |
| At the end of the day on 17:36 - Mar 9 with 673 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 17:08 - Mar 9 by magicdaps10 |
Think there is a misunderstanding of people's views on the yanks investing.
E20 obviously is stating the yanks have invested, invested money they have received in money from sales.
Some are asking if the yanks have invested any money of their own, not money taken by sales etc.
I think a broaden of the horizon can help to see the others stance/view on the situation. Either way, both approaches have been to the detriment of enhancing Swansea City FC. [Post edited 9 Mar 2019 17:09]
|
The point is, you aren’t investing in players if you’re bringing a lot more in from player sales than you’re spending on other players (last summer). Investing in the squad (pre-relegation) wouldn’t necessarily come from the Americans hedge fund, it could cone from the additional revenue the PL brings. The problem with that is our wages took up a huge proportion of our turnover, so investment wasn’t really viable (inherited problem for the Americans I know).
The fact that that £35m transfer surplus and resulting reduced wage bill was desperately needed isn’t up for dispute.
His reason why we got into that financial mess (not improving on ageing players) and mine (the failure of the players we brought in) are broadly the same. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 18:51 - Mar 9 with 644 views | magicdaps10 |
| At the end of the day on 17:36 - Mar 9 by jack247 |
The point is, you aren’t investing in players if you’re bringing a lot more in from player sales than you’re spending on other players (last summer). Investing in the squad (pre-relegation) wouldn’t necessarily come from the Americans hedge fund, it could cone from the additional revenue the PL brings. The problem with that is our wages took up a huge proportion of our turnover, so investment wasn’t really viable (inherited problem for the Americans I know).
The fact that that £35m transfer surplus and resulting reduced wage bill was desperately needed isn’t up for dispute.
His reason why we got into that financial mess (not improving on ageing players) and mine (the failure of the players we brought in) are broadly the same. |
I totally agree. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| At the end of the day on 19:07 - Mar 9 with 634 views | Garyjack |
| At the end of the day on 11:06 - Mar 9 by The_E20 |
Of course I’m going to say it isn’t evidence, because it isn’t. What you are describing is what is called collusive tendering and is absolutely illegal so I would be sure if I were you that you are happy to back that claim if they see this. |
What you are not addressing in your reply to sg1912 is the term 'sub contractor'. Why do you think Martin Morgan's JaxxBay Ltd, who have absolutely no experience in the building trade, had never undertaken any project before or since, get awarded a £7.4m contract then sub contract the work out to other companies, when the club could quite easily awarded them the contracts direct? It's because they wanted a piece of the pie, a further slice of SCFC money directly into their pockets. |  | | |
| At the end of the day on 21:10 - Mar 9 with 589 views | clloy2 |
| At the end of the day on 19:07 - Mar 9 by Garyjack |
What you are not addressing in your reply to sg1912 is the term 'sub contractor'. Why do you think Martin Morgan's JaxxBay Ltd, who have absolutely no experience in the building trade, had never undertaken any project before or since, get awarded a £7.4m contract then sub contract the work out to other companies, when the club could quite easily awarded them the contracts direct? It's because they wanted a piece of the pie, a further slice of SCFC money directly into their pockets. |
E20 this is my last post:-
you are either one of the sellouts/related to a sell out /or on the pay roll of the yanks.
The club has been shafted end off.
At some point in the future, everything will come out in the wash.
Has it not dawed on you that your postings are very much in the minority | | | |
| At the end of the day on 22:55 - Mar 9 with 540 views | longlostjack |
| At the end of the day on 19:07 - Mar 9 by Garyjack |
What you are not addressing in your reply to sg1912 is the term 'sub contractor'. Why do you think Martin Morgan's JaxxBay Ltd, who have absolutely no experience in the building trade, had never undertaken any project before or since, get awarded a £7.4m contract then sub contract the work out to other companies, when the club could quite easily awarded them the contracts direct? It's because they wanted a piece of the pie, a further slice of SCFC money directly into their pockets. |
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever as to whether they benefited from contracts with the club. However it’s clear that it could be misconstrued as corruption. In the same way as printing contracts. A legacy of when we were desperate for cash I suppose. Should have been sorted. |  |
| |
| At the end of the day on 00:06 - Mar 10 with 523 views | The_E20 |
| At the end of the day on 16:51 - Mar 9 by scruffyjack |
What effect do you think the impending legal action will have on the club, current owners & former owners? |
No idea. It would depend what the remedy would be.
It should certainly go ahead however. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 00:11 - Mar 10 with 518 views | The_E20 |
| At the end of the day on 17:36 - Mar 9 by jack247 |
The point is, you aren’t investing in players if you’re bringing a lot more in from player sales than you’re spending on other players (last summer). Investing in the squad (pre-relegation) wouldn’t necessarily come from the Americans hedge fund, it could cone from the additional revenue the PL brings. The problem with that is our wages took up a huge proportion of our turnover, so investment wasn’t really viable (inherited problem for the Americans I know).
The fact that that £35m transfer surplus and resulting reduced wage bill was desperately needed isn’t up for dispute.
His reason why we got into that financial mess (not improving on ageing players) and mine (the failure of the players we brought in) are broadly the same. |
Of course you are. Again, we made a slight transfer profit over the majority of our stay in the Prem, but it would be ridiculous to suggest we didn’t invest in the squad. I can’t even slightly understand your point of view here.
So back to this thread. We have already invested in the squad at record levels in relation to this division. The fact we had to sell some to service immediate debt is utterly irrelevant. What you are complaining about implies a choice, there was no choice.
Unless you were wanting them to make the club insolvent to invest even more. Is that what you wanted? | | | |
| At the end of the day on 03:50 - Mar 10 with 479 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 00:11 - Mar 10 by The_E20 |
Of course you are. Again, we made a slight transfer profit over the majority of our stay in the Prem, but it would be ridiculous to suggest we didn’t invest in the squad. I can’t even slightly understand your point of view here.
So back to this thread. We have already invested in the squad at record levels in relation to this division. The fact we had to sell some to service immediate debt is utterly irrelevant. What you are complaining about implies a choice, there was no choice.
Unless you were wanting them to make the club insolvent to invest even more. Is that what you wanted? |
I haven’t said or implied that I wanted them to invest more to make the club insolvent. You keep suggesting I have, I’m not sure why.
And of course you can understand my point of view. Running any business within its own means is to be applauded but it’s not investing in the business. Most clubs run some kind of net transfer deficit, sometimes financed by tv deals and other PL income, sometimes financed by debt.
If you’re spending more on transfers than you’re bringing in, you’re investing some of that tv money. If you’re spending less on transfers than you’re bringing in, you’re not.
Without the £40m sales, or even half of it, we wouldn’t have spent the £5m. If we’d sold our players for £60m, we’d have probably spent more, so of course it’s relevant. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 04:09 - Mar 10 with 472 views | The_E20 |
| At the end of the day on 03:50 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
I haven’t said or implied that I wanted them to invest more to make the club insolvent. You keep suggesting I have, I’m not sure why.
And of course you can understand my point of view. Running any business within its own means is to be applauded but it’s not investing in the business. Most clubs run some kind of net transfer deficit, sometimes financed by tv deals and other PL income, sometimes financed by debt.
If you’re spending more on transfers than you’re bringing in, you’re investing some of that tv money. If you’re spending less on transfers than you’re bringing in, you’re not.
Without the £40m sales, or even half of it, we wouldn’t have spent the £5m. If we’d sold our players for £60m, we’d have probably spent more, so of course it’s relevant. |
So you, like me, are fully satisfied with the level of transfer spend in this situation. This thread is about people clearly not - hence my stance.
If I could see your point I would say so, I genuinely can’t even begin to here. Businesses invest in themselves all the time by redirecting revenue, in fact it will be the overwhelming majority of cases. I’m not talking about TV money, I’m talking about actual values of transfers in and out - over the last 8 years we have ran at a profit, so by your thinking we have never invested in that side despite spending €250m in that time. Makes literally no sense.
I have no idea what your last paragraph means. If Google didn’t have the revenue it did, it wouldn’t have invested ‘x’ amount either, but they do and they did. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 4:21]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 04:47 - Mar 10 with 464 views | jack247 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 04:09 - Mar 10 by The_E20 |
So you, like me, are fully satisfied with the level of transfer spend in this situation. This thread is about people clearly not - hence my stance.
If I could see your point I would say so, I genuinely can’t even begin to here. Businesses invest in themselves all the time by redirecting revenue, in fact it will be the overwhelming majority of cases. I’m not talking about TV money, I’m talking about actual values of transfers in and out - over the last 8 years we have ran at a profit, so by your thinking we have never invested in that side despite spending €250m in that time. Makes literally no sense.
I have no idea what your last paragraph means. If Google didn’t have the revenue it did, it wouldn’t have invested ‘x’ amount either, but they do and they did. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 4:21]
|
I’ll simplify my last paragraph for you. You are stating that the £40m we raised is irrelevant in terms of the £5m we spent on transfers, because it was needed to service the black hole relegation created. Had we got £60m for those players, I think Potter would have got a bigger budget.
There’s no point in explaining the middle part again. If we sell McBurnie for £10m in the summer and replace him with a promising youngster from Port Vale, I wouldn’t see that as investing in the squad. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 04:55 - Mar 10 with 457 views | The_E20 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 04:47 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
I’ll simplify my last paragraph for you. You are stating that the £40m we raised is irrelevant in terms of the £5m we spent on transfers, because it was needed to service the black hole relegation created. Had we got £60m for those players, I think Potter would have got a bigger budget.
There’s no point in explaining the middle part again. If we sell McBurnie for £10m in the summer and replace him with a promising youngster from Port Vale, I wouldn’t see that as investing in the squad. |
It is irrelevant in terms of wanting to spend more. Your point was that it’s hard to take that we only spent what we did when we raised so much more. I told you it’s irrelevant we raised so much more, for it would be hard to take then it would imply some kind of choice.
There is no point explaining the middle bit again simply because it is wrong.
It doesn’t matter how you would see it, 247. What about if we sold McBurnie for £10m and signed Wilfried Zaha on a free with affordable wages? Your answer seems dependant on talent rather than expenditure, which is then subjective.
If we had a £10m debt, we sold McBurnie for £15m and used the surplus to invest £5m in a striker. We would have invested £5m. In fact we would have invested everything possible without making the club insolvent, which is to be applauded. And those complaining we haven’t invested in the squad would be wrong as we invested every single surplus penny. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 5:04]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:06 - Mar 10 with 452 views | jack247 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 04:55 - Mar 10 by The_E20 |
It is irrelevant in terms of wanting to spend more. Your point was that it’s hard to take that we only spent what we did when we raised so much more. I told you it’s irrelevant we raised so much more, for it would be hard to take then it would imply some kind of choice.
There is no point explaining the middle bit again simply because it is wrong.
It doesn’t matter how you would see it, 247. What about if we sold McBurnie for £10m and signed Wilfried Zaha on a free with affordable wages? Your answer seems dependant on talent rather than expenditure, which is then subjective.
If we had a £10m debt, we sold McBurnie for £15m and used the surplus to invest £5m in a striker. We would have invested £5m. In fact we would have invested everything possible without making the club insolvent, which is to be applauded. And those complaining we haven’t invested in the squad would be wrong as we invested every single surplus penny. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 5:04]
|
No. My point was it’s facetious to crow about spending the most we ever have in the Championship when we raised probably 10 times what we ever have from player sales at this level.
No, my answer was about expenditure. It was also a much more realistic scenario than your example.
By all means debate my points, but don’t attribute points I haven’t made to me and then argue with them. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:14 - Mar 10 with 443 views | The_E20 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:06 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
No. My point was it’s facetious to crow about spending the most we ever have in the Championship when we raised probably 10 times what we ever have from player sales at this level.
No, my answer was about expenditure. It was also a much more realistic scenario than your example.
By all means debate my points, but don’t attribute points I haven’t made to me and then argue with them. |
And just like that we arrive back st square one.
It is irrelevant we raised 10 times more (we didn’t). We were obligated to raise that amount in order to service a debt, we were not obligated to invest any. But it does very much seem like we invested everything we could, possibly even more than we should. So the fact we had such a financial predicament and still broke our transfer record at this level is neither misleading or facetious, it’s entirely relevant.
It doesn’t matter how realistic the scenario, we are talking about premise. It should be the same regardless of realism of target. If you point was about expenditure then it is also your opinion that we have not invested in the squad in our PL era even though we have invested €250m in it. Needless to say that notion is just simply wrong.
I have debated all your points fully, however when they are shown to be wrong you change them. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:24 - Mar 10 with 442 views | jack247 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:14 - Mar 10 by The_E20 |
And just like that we arrive back st square one.
It is irrelevant we raised 10 times more (we didn’t). We were obligated to raise that amount in order to service a debt, we were not obligated to invest any. But it does very much seem like we invested everything we could, possibly even more than we should. So the fact we had such a financial predicament and still broke our transfer record at this level is neither misleading or facetious, it’s entirely relevant.
It doesn’t matter how realistic the scenario, we are talking about premise. It should be the same regardless of realism of target. If you point was about expenditure then it is also your opinion that we have not invested in the squad in our PL era even though we have invested €250m in it. Needless to say that notion is just simply wrong.
I have debated all your points fully, however when they are shown to be wrong you change them. |
We arrive back at square one because that was my original point and you haven’t answered it. I agreed with you that we had to save the £35m from the outset. I called it disingenuous to crow about breaking our transfer record at this level when we absolutely obliterated our incoming transfer record at this level.
As an aside, if we didn’t raise 10 times as much as we have previously at this level, what was the most we have ever brought in from player sales outside the PL before this season?
If we’re talking about premise, which seems reasonable, let’s take names and pie in the sky ‘Zaha on a free’ examples out of it. If we sell for £10m and buy for £1m, we’ve made £9m. We haven’t invested in the squad. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:35 - Mar 10 with 434 views | The_E20 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:24 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
We arrive back at square one because that was my original point and you haven’t answered it. I agreed with you that we had to save the £35m from the outset. I called it disingenuous to crow about breaking our transfer record at this level when we absolutely obliterated our incoming transfer record at this level.
As an aside, if we didn’t raise 10 times as much as we have previously at this level, what was the most we have ever brought in from player sales outside the PL before this season?
If we’re talking about premise, which seems reasonable, let’s take names and pie in the sky ‘Zaha on a free’ examples out of it. If we sell for £10m and buy for £1m, we’ve made £9m. We haven’t invested in the squad. |
Yes it was your original point that you think it’s relevant that we raised money to pay a debt as to us breaking our transfer record st this level - it isn’t. It wasn’t ours. There is no crowing going on, just a statement of fact.
If we had £40m to spend and we only spent £5m then so would see your point. However if we only have £5m and invest it all - then your point is abject nonsense. It makes no difference what so ever how much more we sold. None what so ever.
Now back to your last point, investment judged on income and expenditure - it is then your opinion that we have not invested in our squad between now and the start of the PL era... even though we have spent €250m on it. It’s nonsense. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 5:43]
| | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:46 - Mar 10 with 430 views | jack247 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:35 - Mar 10 by The_E20 |
Yes it was your original point that you think it’s relevant that we raised money to pay a debt as to us breaking our transfer record st this level - it isn’t. It wasn’t ours. There is no crowing going on, just a statement of fact.
If we had £40m to spend and we only spent £5m then so would see your point. However if we only have £5m and invest it all - then your point is abject nonsense. It makes no difference what so ever how much more we sold. None what so ever.
Now back to your last point, investment judged on income and expenditure - it is then your opinion that we have not invested in our squad between now and the start of the PL era... even though we have spent €250m on it. It’s nonsense. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 5:43]
|
Except it is completely relevant.
If we hadn’t needed a firesale and got a lot more for those players, the budget (I’d like to think) would have been more than £5m. If those players had refused to move and sat out their contracts, there would not have been £5m to spend.
Or would we have had £5m last summer utterly regardless of outgoing transfers? | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:49 - Mar 10 with 425 views | The_E20 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:46 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
Except it is completely relevant.
If we hadn’t needed a firesale and got a lot more for those players, the budget (I’d like to think) would have been more than £5m. If those players had refused to move and sat out their contracts, there would not have been £5m to spend.
Or would we have had £5m last summer utterly regardless of outgoing transfers? |
You are confusing cause for relevance.
The sales were the cause of the spend, yes. But the level of sales is completely irrelevant when attempting to suggest lack of investment. It wasn’t our money.
Can’t be put any clearer. | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:54 - Mar 10 with 424 views | jack247 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:49 - Mar 10 by The_E20 |
You are confusing cause for relevance.
The sales were the cause of the spend, yes. But the level of sales is completely irrelevant when attempting to suggest lack of investment. It wasn’t our money.
Can’t be put any clearer. |
So whether we’d raised £40m in the summer, £80m or £0, we’d have had a £5m budget for playing staff? | | | |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 06:04 - Mar 10 with 419 views | The_E20 |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 05:54 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
So whether we’d raised £40m in the summer, £80m or £0, we’d have had a £5m budget for playing staff? |
Again, It’s totally irrelevant.
The discussion is regarding our £5m spend, where it is being suggested it wasn’t enough. The point is we spent everything we realistically could which culminated in our highest ever spend at this level.
The fact we raised £40m has absolutely no baring on whether that £5m can be considered a fair amount of investment (which you always allude to in these conversations), because the other £35m was earmarked elsewhere.
With this latest appointment in chairman it is pretty safe to say we invested everything we had, which is excellent. We were under no obligation to whatsoever. [Post edited 10 Mar 2019 6:16]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
