Wilson Money to be Reinvested (1 Viewer)

[Ian1779]

Rather simplifies it to suit your view doesn't it?

I think there is a vast difference between "we are going to re-invest the Wilson money" and "I will liquidate the club".

Does it? I don't think so.. just emphasises that people will dismiss a statement out of hand with no evidence.. and then take another statement as gospel with equally little evidence. All I'm suggesting is a little consistency.

 

---

[Moff]

In fact, on the cusp of a new season, why don't you tell me what there is to be optimistic about?

You miserable git, honestly we are starting the season on 0 points this season, now that's something to feel optimistic about

 

[spider_ricoh]

And do "freebies and loan signings" play for nothing then?

Sure, but that's not what they are trying to imply by saying "we'll invest the Wilson money back into the club" - read that headline and you automatically think of paying transfer fees for new players. The reality is "the club" could even simply include covering ongoing losses, as well the wages for free transfers. It's not untrue but they are trying to a paint a picture rosier than the reality.

 

[Grendel]

Sure, but that's not what they are trying to imply by saying "we'll invest the Wilson money back into the club" - read that headline and you automatically think of paying transfer fees for new players. The reality is "the club" could even simply include covering ongoing losses, as well the wages for free transfers. It's not untrue but they are trying to a paint a picture rosier than the reality.

I don't think that at all. It means the club can be more competitive on wages.

 

[No future with SISU]

What do you want the club to say? If this is what they are actually going to do then the football side will benefit from the sale of Wilson.

At the end of the season if we score less goals and the defence keeps on leaking goals, the sale will only have been for SISU.

 

[spider_ricoh]

I don't think that at all. It means the club can be more competitive on wages.

Not to you individually, but clearly the intention of the article is to make the average reader think "great, we'll make some transfer fee signings"

 

[No future with SISU]

Of course. No signing on fees or agency fees either.

Freebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.

 

[duffer]

Does it? I don't think so.. just emphasises that people will dismiss a statement out of hand with no evidence.. and then take another statement as gospel with equally little evidence. All I'm suggesting is a little consistency.

Except that with regard to the liquidation threat, it's a matter of record that it was also made in meetings with ACL, AEHC and CCC. If that threat comes from the head of the company in those meetings, and then again later in the press, you'd be a bonehead to disregard it. This especially if the company in point already owes you money running into the hundreds of thousands. Anyway, that's old news.

As far as the tranfer money being reinvested, I think OSB nailed it. Basically some of it will, and some of it will be soaked up into running costs. I could live with that if the running costs weren't being hugely and adversely affected by not being at the Ricoh. I guess that's old news too - but you never know...

 

[No future with SISU]

You miserable git, honestly we are starting the season on 0 points this season, now that's something to feel optimistic about

How many goals did we score last season and how many did we let in. The 3 goal scorers of 50 have gone. The last time we let our 2 top scorers leave in the summer was in the prem and then down we went. The money will not be reinvested in the team as SISU have taken it in the past. It will be frees and loans and the slide down will carry on. Sp will find a good player and SISU will sell.

 

[Hobo]

Freebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.

Trying to pick a fight with Grendel? I know he can be annoying but the comment you refer to, was a sarcastic comment if you follow the thread.

 

[Grendel]

Except that with regard to the liquidation threat, it's a matter of record that it was also made in meetings with ACL, AEHC and CCC. If that threat comes from the head of the company in those meetings, and then again later in the press, you'd be a bonehead to disregard it. This especially if the company in point already owes you money running into the hundreds of thousands. Anyway, that's old news.

As far as the tranfer money being reinvested, I think OSB nailed it. Basically some of it will, and some of it will be soaked up into running costs. I could live with that if the running costs weren't being hugely and adversely affected by not being at the Ricoh. I guess that's old news too - but you never know...

Strange as the loss estimated by OSB is a fraction of the losses incurred every season at the Ricoh.

 

[Moff]

How many goals did we score last season and how many did we let in. The 3 goal scorers of 50 have gone. The last time we let our 2 top scorers leave in the summer was in the prem and then down we went. The money will not be reinvested in the team as SISU have taken it in the past. It will be frees and loans and the slide down will carry on. Sp will find a good player and SISU will sell.

I dont know why you have answered my comment with the above, but what I said to MMM was a joke, as we have banter like it.....just so you understand and dont get all serious on a joke comment again.

 

[Hobo]

Strange as the loss estimated by OSB is a fraction of the losses incurred every season at the Ricoh.

Didn't think you rate OSB's calculations, you were deriding them the other week?

 

[Grendel]

Didn't think you rate OSB's calculations, you were deriding them the other week?

Whichever way you look at it the loss in revenue is startlingly low. Around £2 million. Certainly incentive enough for sisu to play a waiting game for a while longer and proof the "starve them out" brigade are pissing in the wind.

 

[Grendel]

Freebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.

You must be Spion Kops simple twin brother. Staggering.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Freebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.

Whoosh

 

[Hobo]

Whichever way you look at it the loss in revenue is startlingly low. Around £2 million. Certainly incentive enough for sisu to play a waiting game for a while longer and proof the "starve them out" brigade are pissing in the wind.

Wouldn't disagree. Costs have come down they had too. Don't think anyone can guess what SiSUs cut off point is though, money or not. I think most people who choose to stay away do it out of principle. I would also say those who choose to attend do it out of principle. Pointless squabbling over it, I can see it from both sides to be fair.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Unlikely to earn £3m in transfer fees every season though

Whichever way you look at it the loss in revenue is startlingly low. Around £2 million. Certainly incentive enough for sisu to play a waiting game for a while longer and proof the "starve them out" brigade are pissing in the wind.

 

[shmmeee]

Strange as the loss estimated by OSB is a fraction of the losses incurred every season at the Ricoh.

You mean the loss after £3.6m of players with a wage bill of about a quarter of what it was then?

Sounds like a sustainable business model to me.

Now, let's see where the next £3.6m is coming from... Um... Little help?

Oh and to make your comment even start to make sense, let's compare like with like.

At the Ricoh, on crowds of say 8k, we'd be making a small profit of about half a million next season.

And that's with no extra non-ticket revenue.

 

[fernandopartridge]

You mean the loss after £3.6m of players with a wage bill of about a quarter of what it was then?

Sounds like a sustainable business model to me.

Now, let's see where the next £3.6m is coming from... Um... Little help?

Oh and to make your comment even start to make sense, let's compare like with like.

At the Ricoh, on crowds of say 8k, we'd be making a small profit of about half a million next season.

And that's with no extra non-ticket revenue.

Can you show your working please?

 

[Grendel]

You mean the loss after £3.6m of players with a wage bill of about a quarter of what it was then?

Sounds like a sustainable business model to me.

Now, let's see where the next £3.6m is coming from... Um... Little help?

Oh and to make your comment even start to make sense, let's compare like with like.

At the Ricoh, on crowds of say 8k, we'd be making a small profit of about half a million next season.

And that's with no extra non-ticket revenue.

Hold on. We all know the nasty hedge fund would shove that profit in their back pocket and take it to the Cayman Islands. So making profit makes no difference does it?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Actually if you compare like with like then income on the last set of accounts was 8.3m (turnover 6.5m plus player sale proceeds 1.8m) that's an estimated drop of 3.5m

The key point is if we fail to achieve promotion will we have players we can sell for £3m+ ? Most players are on short term contracts or contracts that end 2015 they could simply walk away. So the concern is for the 2015/16 season if we are still at Sixfields.

Turnover without player sales is an estimated £1.2m compared to £6.5m in 2013 that's a big drop

Its ok playing the waiting game but what happens if other events do not sit and wait too?

Total staff costs in 2013 accounts was 6.9m the estimates above are 3.55m that's quite a drop and it may drop lower.

The other thing is the interest...... if that is rolled up into the debt (ie not physically paid) then that only increases the sum upon which interest is paid

 

[torchomatic]

Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?

Actually if you compare like with like then income on the last set of accounts was 8.3m (turnover 6.5m plus player sale proceeds 1.8m) that's an estimated drop of 3.5m

The key point is if we fail to achieve promotion will we have players we can sell for £3m+ ? Most players are on short term contracts or contracts that end 2015 they could simply walk away. So the concern is for the 2015/16 season if we are still at Sixfields.

Its ok playing the waiting game but what happens if other events do not sit and wait too?

 

[Monners]

I think the point is whether season on season it is likely that we can sell players for £3m+, and still have a competitive squad. Sustainable? doubt it.

 

[duffer]

Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?

It's a fair point, but in reality how often does a player like that pop-up out of the academy? If the plan for funding losses is to turn a profit of three million every year on a single player, then I'd say that you're running a very big risk.

 

[Hobo]

Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?

How lucky then?

 

[oldskyblue58]

Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?

True Torch ........ there is talent there of course but it is a small pool. I think the key thing is going to be contract renewals because if a player does well and he is out of contract 2015 then he could as has happened far too often in the past allow his contract to wind down. It is not always successful for the player to do that but it is missed value for the club for certain.

We have 15 senior players as it stands today - two of those are on loan. Fingers crossed at least one player rises to the top in terms of value but it isn't guaranteed.

 

[shmmeee]

Can you show your working please?

£9.50 average ticket cost X 23 games X 8000 = £1,748,000 - £300,000 (ticket revenue from Sixfields) = £1.448m extra ticket revenue.

I forgot the exact figure OSB quoted but was roughly £1m loss + £1.448m extra revenue = profit of £448,000 or "about half a million".

Figures are rough, you could argue on a lower average ticket price, or a higher or lower average gate, or the odd cup game. But on average it seems reasonable to me.

To flesh that out a bit: you'd have to either cut the ticket cost by an average of £3.80 or cut the average gate by 2056 (to less than 6k) before you made a loss (or some variant of both).

One sell out cup game at the Ricoh, would make roughly £300,000. For comparison one sell out game at Sixfields would make about £73k on last seasons capacity (both of those at £9.50 avg price but in all likelihood it'd be higher for that type of game).

Fine if you believe losing millions for the years we're away is worth the risk on getting a better deal/new ground. But be aware that that is what you're saying.

 

[Ian1779]

Except that with regard to the liquidation threat, it's a matter of record that it was also made in meetings with ACL, AEHC and CCC. If that threat comes from the head of the company in those meetings, and then again later in the press, you'd be a bonehead to disregard it. This especially if the company in point already owes you money running into the hundreds of thousands. Anyway, that's old news.

Without going over old news there is a distinct difference between saying that liquidation could be a possibility to saying 'I am going to liquidate the football club' as a direct threat. It's interesting that is a matter of record but the lawful spending of £14m of taxpayers money couldn't even muster up a set of minutes... but I digress.

The point I ultimately was trying to make is that the club are saying the money will go back into the squad.. which I hope it does. If it does not (which will be obvious I believe) then they deserve the vitriol they get.. until then lets see what happens.

 

[spider_ricoh]

Hold on. We all know the nasty hedge fund would shove that profit in their back pocket and take it to the Cayman Islands. So making profit makes no difference does it?

The whole argument of "wthe current deal on offer at the Ricoh is unviable" would be removed if this took place, so it would make a difference in that yeah another figleaf would be removed.

Can you show your working please?

I was just going to ask the same thing!

 

[spider_ricoh]

It might be that "going into the club" just means covering losses without new investment on the playing side. That would conveniently both fit their definition and help the coffers at the same time.

 

[sky blue john]

Strange as the loss estimated by OSB is a fraction of the losses incurred every season at the Ricoh.

Lol !!
So why has the Arvo debt escalated out of control if everthing is rosey at sixfields ???
The wage bill was out of control when were at the ricoh. Paying three managers at one point.
You won't answer this one, but here goes.
How will CCFC pay the Arvo 1.8 million interest each year playing at sixfields ?
Also have you worked out the amount of turnover required to generate this 1.8 million ?

 

[torchomatic]

Is it £1.8M?

Also have you worked out the amount of turnover required to generate this 1.8 million ?

 

[SkyBlue_Bear83]

The question is, will it actually be used to increase the budget or just used to cover the budget instead of what was already in place

 

[shmmeee]

Hold on. We all know the nasty hedge fund would shove that profit in their back pocket and take it to the Cayman Islands. So making profit makes no difference does it?

Show me where I've ever said Sisu take cash out the club?