Let us not forget we have already loaned two players sine the window opened! Do we want more now or stability.
It is us fans who hold hope. We are still in this and worrying without knowing the facts is just silly. Respect to those who go along through thick and thin. I'm coming to the last home game of the regular season v Stanley, could be a six pointer eh?
If the club finances are still in such a state that we are struggling as is suggested, what situation would we be in if we didn't get to Wembley last year, we didn't get the 3rd replay vs villa, we didn't sell Matt Ingram? Would we still be going?
Are we really so sure that the club's finances are in "such a state"? My impression, hitherto, has been that there has been, and still is, financial constraint which is gradually being brought under control.
I think with all of the aforementioned moneyspinners (Wembley, FA Cup, Ingram etc.) we shouldn't assume the finances are in a state.
A rational guess is that there's probably a feeling that the players we've currently got have us in play-off contention and we're ahead of this season's target so they're showing constraint in player recruitment and seeing where they take us - with no pressure on Ainsworth to deliver promotion. And the subsequent short-term wage saving of loaning out AAH/Rowe is banking more cash for next season where the target is to definitely reach the play-offs and player recruitment is obviously a must. Just a guess though.
I seem to recall the Chairman suggesting at the AGM that we would be in profit (just) next year. Not sure to what extent that took into account previously unbudgetted income.
One or two on the Fans' Facebook page have suggested that GA needs to get in 3 or 4 loan players! We already have 3 (albeit one hors de combat) so I think we can have 2 more? @NorsQuarters - when you say we have already loaned two players I assumed you were referring to Messrs Rowe and Holloway. (We have loaned them to Barrow and Barnsley respectively, of course.). On reflection, I guess you are in fact referring to inward loans, in which case my point above is relevant. @trevor - are you@DevC in disguise?
@micra said:
I seem to recall the Chairman suggesting at the AGM that we would be in profit (just) next year. Not sure to what extent that took into account previously unbudgetted income.
One or two on the Fans' Facebook page have suggested that GA needs to get in 3 or 4 loan players! We already have 3 (albeit one hors de combat) so I think we can have 2 more?
NorsQuarters - when you say we have already loaned two players I assumed you were referring to Messrs Rowe and Holloway. (We have loaned them to Barrow and Barnsley respectively, of course.). On reflection, I guess you are in fact referring to inward loans, in which case my point above is relevant.
trevor - are you@DevC in disguise?
Just for the record, in case there is any doubt following Micra's post linking me to Trevor's, I have every confidence in Andrew Howards leadership as Chairman. I get the feeling that we are very lucky to have him and GA at the helm of the club. (I certainly don't agree with Trevor's suggestion that the club is being defrauded of cash if I have interpreted his post correctly.)
I would agree with Chris re chances of reaching playoffs. Unless I am missing something, I don't see massive changes to our income base or cost base that would allow a change in our playing budget compared to others. Unless that changes, I don't really see the logic of expecting ever better outcomes. It would be nice of course, but surely more reasonable expectation is at best same again, more likely given that we have overperformed for the last two seasons something of a falling back (reversion to the mean). Could someone explain why this should be different?
So what are we working towards? If the financial windfalls of the last 12 months haven't stopped the poverty the club talks about so freely what is going to change to help us achieve this much fabled 5 year plan?
More TV money coming in to the game will only increase players salaries further up the ladder and some of this will filter down. The changes to the loan rules will mean we have to carry a slightly larger squad and increase costs still further. The current playing style is not bringing extra people through the gate and the short term ambition level is not a major draw either.
What level of additional income needs to happen to cover this and move the club forward?
@DevC said:
Just for the record, in case there is any doubt following Micra's post linking me to Trevor's, I have every confidence in Andrew Howards leadership as Chairman. I get the feeling that we are very lucky to have him and GA at the helm of the club. (I certainly don't agree with Trevor's suggestion that the club is being defrauded of cash if I have interpreted his post correctly.)
I would agree with Chris re chances of reaching playoffs. Unless I am missing something, I don't see massive changes to our income base or cost base that would allow a change in our playing budget compared to others. Unless that changes, I don't really see the logic of expecting ever better outcomes. It would be nice of course, but surely more reasonable expectation is at best same again, more likely given that we have overperformed for the last two seasons something of a falling back (reversion to the mean). Could someone explain why this should be different?
I'm not sure as I don't have any inside information, but I'm also (reasonably) confident that the projections for next season and thenceforth are not just wild stabs in the dark. There must be something backing them up, other than 'after 3 years we might strike it lucky and sneak into 7th place'.
Perhaps money from the share scheme is being taken into account, or new relationships post Kukri which could prove more profitable to the club, or more time under AH to have secured better sponsorship terms/pursued extra marketing opportunities. Perhaps increased chance of getting top youngsters after a couple of years of proving our worth in developing them, or knowledge of some outside investment coming in from somewhere.
The only concern really is why the picture seems to still being painted that we haven't got even a spare penny, even after player sales, Wembley, the FA Cup and having performed ahead of target last year. Is this all just the picture we want to paint and actually we're loaded?
Five year plans are easy to write down on paper, much harder to deliver in paper. In my experience almost invariably performance however that is measured tends to improve markedly in the latter years of a paper plan - its known as hockeystick planning - less often do year 3-5 improvements ever get delivered.
I have every confidence in Howard improving sponsorship income etc but frankly I would expect that to be fairly marginal to the overall picture. Eventually the (very) historic loans get paid off which improves cash further but I believe that is a fair way off yet. In recent years we have had good income from player sales, which unless there is a big add-on due for example from the Ibe deal, may well tail off a little.
Hopes to grow attendances with improved performance on the pitch (I bet that was in the plan) appears not to have been deliverable -so far at least. Next season we even look likely to lose 2 or 3 of the biggest away attendances.
From afar, hard to see why income would rise, and without that hard to see why relative performance should either.
Where is the club going, asks righty. That was intended to be my point above.
It may be that realistic analysis of the current finances suggests the current ownership structure can reasonably be expected to deliver sustainable Lg1 football - in which case I am sure all would support retaining it
It may be that realistic analysis of the current finances suggests the current ownership structure cannot reasonably be expected to deliver sustainable Lg1 football but can realistically be expected to keep the club at or even a little below current levels - in which case I think I would support keeping it
Or It may be that realistic analysis of the current finances suggests the current ownership structure cannot reasonably be expected to even maintain league status for too much longer. If that is the real position, I would advocate looking for alternatives now while we have a little time rather than wait until it is too late.
I don't know where we are. Recent pronouncements re finances have tended to make me fear we are nearer to the third scenario than I had thought (and nearer in truth to where I had expected before we started this experiment). I hope I am wrong.
You do bring up an interesting point however, and that is that, whatever happens, we do appear to have an ace up our sleeves with, at some unknown point in the future, a potentially enormous (in league two standards) sum coming in from Jordan Ibe related dealings. I'm confident that even a 10% sell on coming to us would be enough to hopefully wipe out any and all remaining debt at that point.
"I don't know where we are" (financially) reflects how most of us feel, I think. I agree with DevC's post re hypothetical analyses. What concerns me most as a modest investor in the Share Scheme is the failure to attract to it more than 10% of the fan base. This, more than anything, must be the reason for the continued dampening of expectations. Whether this approach encourages or discourages others to come forward is a moot point but I am pretty sure that plans for this and next season were based on expectations of substantially more than the present 300 or so investors.
My apologies for the quip at @trevor's expense (uncalled for) and thanks to @Chris for reminding me that AAH is at Oldham. I really am an old ham.
I agree @micra - the sharesave numbers are disappointing.
I was hoping that lots of people would go in at a modest amount (as I have) but it's not really happened. I wonder if it is related to early publicity that seemed to have quite high suggested amounts to put in.
It always seemed quite vague what would happen if you committed to a high-ish monthly amount but lost your job etc which is why I kept it on the lower side.
Clearly it'a going to be a struggle if people think £10 a year to the Trust is the extent of fan ownership.
And that's in no way aimed at supporters with very tight budgets. But I know of many comfortably-off supporters who just don't see it as something they need to do, while still extolling the fan owned model.
@trevor you sound like a guy I heard on the bus after the last game
"There must be some money there, we've just had 144k from Villa and sold Ingram"
To which the guy next to him reminded him of that little matter of a 3m debt!
Just a comment about Wembley, and everyone assumes it was a "money spinner". Wasn't the actual case that all the playoff money goes into a pot that's shared by all the clubs, rather than us getting tv and gate money like what would happen for usual big tv games? In that case it wasn't anything like a money spinner.
Would love someone in the know to actually confirm on that.
@Malone said:
trevor you sound like a guy I heard on the bus after the last game
"There must be some money there, we've just had 144k from Villa and sold Ingram"
To which the guy next to him reminded him of that little matter of a 3m debt!
Just a comment about Wembley, and everyone assumes it was a "money spinner". Wasn't the actual case that all the playoff money goes into a pot that's shared by all the clubs, rather than us getting tv and gate money like what would happen for usual big tv games? In that case it wasn't anything like a money spinner.
Would love someone in the know to actually confirm on that.
I don't have time right now to find the link but I THINK the semi final money goes into a pot and is shared, but the final itself is between the clubs involved.
1st call expenses
then 50% of income into pot - presumably shared by all clubs in division
Other 50% of all semi final income shared equally by 4 clubs and 50% of final shared by the two finalists http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/playoffrules.aspx
@micra yes, inward loans of Alsop and PCH. It might be that AH has seen the change in loan structure and budgetted for a larger core squad, thereby increasing the chances of us getting promoted and staying there with the increased wages this entails.
IMHO this is the best stable way to move the club forward, though if a striker in our range becomes available I'm sure GA would go for him big time, although the most stable way would be to remain in league two for another year.
a) pay off some of my high rate credit card debts and put the rest towards the house extension I was planning next year, which doesn't leave me that much left to go down the pub with my mates every Friday
Or
b) pay off a little bit off my debts, postpone the extension, take a well-deserved holiday and treat my long-suffering mates to a few rounds?
Obviously I'd go with b) but I wouldn't let myself near chairing a football club (apart from Oxford)
Comments
Let us not forget we have already loaned two players sine the window opened! Do we want more now or stability.
It is us fans who hold hope. We are still in this and worrying without knowing the facts is just silly. Respect to those who go along through thick and thin. I'm coming to the last home game of the regular season v Stanley, could be a six pointer eh?
How exciting.
Moan on... Barmy Army!
If the club finances are still in such a state that we are struggling as is suggested, what situation would we be in if we didn't get to Wembley last year, we didn't get the 3rd replay vs villa, we didn't sell Matt Ingram? Would we still be going?
Are we really so sure that the club's finances are in "such a state"? My impression, hitherto, has been that there has been, and still is, financial constraint which is gradually being brought under control.
I think with all of the aforementioned moneyspinners (Wembley, FA Cup, Ingram etc.) we shouldn't assume the finances are in a state.
A rational guess is that there's probably a feeling that the players we've currently got have us in play-off contention and we're ahead of this season's target so they're showing constraint in player recruitment and seeing where they take us - with no pressure on Ainsworth to deliver promotion. And the subsequent short-term wage saving of loaning out AAH/Rowe is banking more cash for next season where the target is to definitely reach the play-offs and player recruitment is obviously a must. Just a guess though.
I seem to recall the Chairman suggesting at the AGM that we would be in profit (just) next year. Not sure to what extent that took into account previously unbudgetted income.
One or two on the Fans' Facebook page have suggested that GA needs to get in 3 or 4 loan players! We already have 3 (albeit one hors de combat) so I think we can have 2 more?
@NorsQuarters - when you say we have already loaned two players I assumed you were referring to Messrs Rowe and Holloway. (We have loaned them to Barrow and Barnsley respectively, of course.). On reflection, I guess you are in fact referring to inward loans, in which case my point above is relevant.
@trevor - are you@DevC in disguise?
Is it just me that thinks we have more chance of reaching the playoffs this year than next?
Just for the record, in case there is any doubt following Micra's post linking me to Trevor's, I have every confidence in Andrew Howards leadership as Chairman. I get the feeling that we are very lucky to have him and GA at the helm of the club. (I certainly don't agree with Trevor's suggestion that the club is being defrauded of cash if I have interpreted his post correctly.)
I would agree with Chris re chances of reaching playoffs. Unless I am missing something, I don't see massive changes to our income base or cost base that would allow a change in our playing budget compared to others. Unless that changes, I don't really see the logic of expecting ever better outcomes. It would be nice of course, but surely more reasonable expectation is at best same again, more likely given that we have overperformed for the last two seasons something of a falling back (reversion to the mean). Could someone explain why this should be different?
So what are we working towards? If the financial windfalls of the last 12 months haven't stopped the poverty the club talks about so freely what is going to change to help us achieve this much fabled 5 year plan?
More TV money coming in to the game will only increase players salaries further up the ladder and some of this will filter down. The changes to the loan rules will mean we have to carry a slightly larger squad and increase costs still further. The current playing style is not bringing extra people through the gate and the short term ambition level is not a major draw either.
What level of additional income needs to happen to cover this and move the club forward?
Apart from whatever money we get for Pierre in the summer, I can't see how we will be able to match this years income.
I'm not sure as I don't have any inside information, but I'm also (reasonably) confident that the projections for next season and thenceforth are not just wild stabs in the dark. There must be something backing them up, other than 'after 3 years we might strike it lucky and sneak into 7th place'.
Perhaps money from the share scheme is being taken into account, or new relationships post Kukri which could prove more profitable to the club, or more time under AH to have secured better sponsorship terms/pursued extra marketing opportunities. Perhaps increased chance of getting top youngsters after a couple of years of proving our worth in developing them, or knowledge of some outside investment coming in from somewhere.
The only concern really is why the picture seems to still being painted that we haven't got even a spare penny, even after player sales, Wembley, the FA Cup and having performed ahead of target last year. Is this all just the picture we want to paint and actually we're loaded?
Five year plans are easy to write down on paper, much harder to deliver in paper. In my experience almost invariably performance however that is measured tends to improve markedly in the latter years of a paper plan - its known as hockeystick planning - less often do year 3-5 improvements ever get delivered.
I have every confidence in Howard improving sponsorship income etc but frankly I would expect that to be fairly marginal to the overall picture. Eventually the (very) historic loans get paid off which improves cash further but I believe that is a fair way off yet. In recent years we have had good income from player sales, which unless there is a big add-on due for example from the Ibe deal, may well tail off a little.
Hopes to grow attendances with improved performance on the pitch (I bet that was in the plan) appears not to have been deliverable -so far at least. Next season we even look likely to lose 2 or 3 of the biggest away attendances.
From afar, hard to see why income would rise, and without that hard to see why relative performance should either.
Where is the club going, asks righty. That was intended to be my point above.
It may be that realistic analysis of the current finances suggests the current ownership structure can reasonably be expected to deliver sustainable Lg1 football - in which case I am sure all would support retaining it
It may be that realistic analysis of the current finances suggests the current ownership structure cannot reasonably be expected to deliver sustainable Lg1 football but can realistically be expected to keep the club at or even a little below current levels - in which case I think I would support keeping it
Or It may be that realistic analysis of the current finances suggests the current ownership structure cannot reasonably be expected to even maintain league status for too much longer. If that is the real position, I would advocate looking for alternatives now while we have a little time rather than wait until it is too late.
I don't know where we are. Recent pronouncements re finances have tended to make me fear we are nearer to the third scenario than I had thought (and nearer in truth to where I had expected before we started this experiment). I hope I am wrong.
You do bring up an interesting point however, and that is that, whatever happens, we do appear to have an ace up our sleeves with, at some unknown point in the future, a potentially enormous (in league two standards) sum coming in from Jordan Ibe related dealings. I'm confident that even a 10% sell on coming to us would be enough to hopefully wipe out any and all remaining debt at that point.
(Assuming we've been on track towards paying it off as we are now)
Doesn't Hayes get most of any Ibe add ons (assuming the previous chairman didn't do a Philips type deal)
Only as far as to pay off debt owed to him. If we got 1 mil and he was owed 800k, he wouldn't get 1 mil.
"I don't know where we are" (financially) reflects how most of us feel, I think. I agree with DevC's post re hypothetical analyses. What concerns me most as a modest investor in the Share Scheme is the failure to attract to it more than 10% of the fan base. This, more than anything, must be the reason for the continued dampening of expectations. Whether this approach encourages or discourages others to come forward is a moot point but I am pretty sure that plans for this and next season were based on expectations of substantially more than the present 300 or so investors.
My apologies for the quip at @trevor's expense (uncalled for) and thanks to @Chris for reminding me that AAH is at Oldham. I really am an old ham.
Ha thanks always appreciated but in this case they should be directed towards @AttitudeEra
I agree @micra - the sharesave numbers are disappointing.
I was hoping that lots of people would go in at a modest amount (as I have) but it's not really happened. I wonder if it is related to early publicity that seemed to have quite high suggested amounts to put in.
It always seemed quite vague what would happen if you committed to a high-ish monthly amount but lost your job etc which is why I kept it on the lower side.
Clearly it'a going to be a struggle if people think £10 a year to the Trust is the extent of fan ownership.
And that's in no way aimed at supporters with very tight budgets. But I know of many comfortably-off supporters who just don't see it as something they need to do, while still extolling the fan owned model.
@trevor you sound like a guy I heard on the bus after the last game
"There must be some money there, we've just had 144k from Villa and sold Ingram"
To which the guy next to him reminded him of that little matter of a 3m debt!
Just a comment about Wembley, and everyone assumes it was a "money spinner". Wasn't the actual case that all the playoff money goes into a pot that's shared by all the clubs, rather than us getting tv and gate money like what would happen for usual big tv games? In that case it wasn't anything like a money spinner.
Would love someone in the know to actually confirm on that.
I don't have time right now to find the link but I THINK the semi final money goes into a pot and is shared, but the final itself is between the clubs involved.
1st call expenses
then 50% of income into pot - presumably shared by all clubs in division
Other 50% of all semi final income shared equally by 4 clubs and 50% of final shared by the two finalists
http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/playoffrules.aspx
sounds a lot better than I'd hoped for.
ta
Minus the not insignificant VAT on ticket sales.
@micra yes, inward loans of Alsop and PCH. It might be that AH has seen the change in loan structure and budgetted for a larger core squad, thereby increasing the chances of us getting promoted and staying there with the increased wages this entails.
IMHO this is the best stable way to move the club forward, though if a striker in our range becomes available I'm sure GA would go for him big time, although the most stable way would be to remain in league two for another year.
I've just got a PPI windfall. Do I:
a) pay off some of my high rate credit card debts and put the rest towards the house extension I was planning next year, which doesn't leave me that much left to go down the pub with my mates every Friday
Or
b) pay off a little bit off my debts, postpone the extension, take a well-deserved holiday and treat my long-suffering mates to a few rounds?
Obviously I'd go with b) but I wouldn't let myself near chairing a football club (apart from Oxford)
c) Sign Sam Saunders and a 15 goal a season striker, obviously.