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".
In fact, on the cusp of a new season, why don't you tell me what there is to be optimistic about?
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.
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.
I don't think that at all. It means the club can be more competitive on wages.
Of course. No signing on fees or agency fees either.
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.
You miserable git, honestly we are starting the season on 0 points this season, now that's something to feel optimistic about
Freebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.
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...
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.
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?
Freebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.
WhooshFreebies still have agents who still have to be paid as well as the players wages. Loans also have wages.
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.
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.
Strange as the loss estimated by OSB is a fraction of the losses incurred every season at the Ricoh.
Can you show your working please?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.
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.
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?
Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?
Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?
Who knew a year ago that Wilson would be worth three million?
Can you show your working please?
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.
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?
Can you show your working please?
Strange as the loss estimated by OSB is a fraction of the losses incurred every season at the Ricoh.
Also have you worked out the amount of turnover required to generate this 1.8 million ?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?