I read on the bbc website (I think) that the highest outlay Sunderland had made pre-season was £200K (not for LON).
Everything I’ve read on here about Gape is rumour. Whether based on any evidence or not time will probably - but not definitely - tell.
Now we are in a bigger pond it is inevitable that the sharks will be bigger and more interested. Whatever the likes of @trevor & co may think we are a minnow and a good offer for s player with a year left on their contract may mean the difference between 1 loanee or 2 and a new set of bulbs for the floodlights or a cheque to HM tax inspectors.
I’m sure if Gape does get sold we - and GA - will be pissed off, but we are where we are and i’ll wish him well (as long as it’s not Luton or Oxford!). I would be astonished if GA is not part of these discussions however. He has publicly talked about how interested he has had to become in the balance sheets over the past 5 years and I find it incredulous to think he would accept a position where he is not included in the debate of key player sales.
I am however surprised st the number of new players he is looking to bring in. I would have expected a couple, but 4 seems slightly high compared to previous seasons. Unless he is expecting to lose someone (Gape?) and we have long-term injuries (Tyson? Kashket? Charles?).
Quite appropriate to start the season against Blackpool. Yesterday was a nice gentle start to the ride. Hold on to your hats - it’s going to get a lot more scarier and fun soon!
@glasshalffull said:
Vinceny, I was referring to Luke going to Sunderland.
This article is quite interesting and suggests that Sunderland came in quite late in the day. Luton had supppsedly agreed a fee with us before they pounced.
@bigred87 said:
Would we of sold to Luton? I'd like to think we wouldn't
According to Roker Report (who broke the news of the Sunderland move) he was all set to move to Luton so it seems that we would have. But I agree, we shouldn’t be selling to teams like them who are direct rivals, unless of course they offer a ridiculous sum.
@bookertease said:
I read on the bbc website (I think) that the highest outlay Sunderland had made pre-season was £200K (not for LON).
Everything I’ve read on here about Gape is rumour. Whether based on any evidence or not time will probably - but not definitely - tell.
Now we are in a bigger pond it is inevitable that the sharks will be bigger and more interested. Whatever the likes of @trevor & co may think we are a minnow and a good offer for s player with a year left on their contract may mean the difference between 1 loanee or 2 and a new set of bulbs for the floodlights or a cheque to HM tax inspectors.
I’m sure if Gape does get sold we - and GA - will be pissed off, but we are where we are and i’ll wish him well (as long as it’s not Luton or Oxford!). I would be astonished if GA is not part of these discussions however. He has publicly talked about how interested he has had to become in the balance sheets over the past 5 years and I find it incredulous to think he would accept a position where he is not included in the debate of key player sales.
I am however surprised st the number of new players he is looking to bring in. I would have expected a couple, but 4 seems slightly high compared to previous seasons. Unless he is expecting to lose someone (Gape?) and we have long-term injuries (Tyson? Kashket? Charles?).
Quite appropriate to start the season against Blackpool. Yesterday was a nice gentle start to the ride. Hold on to your hats - it’s going to get a lot more scarier and fun soon!
you say we are minnows compared to whom in league one then oviously clubs like sunderland coventry etc yes but clubs like burton fleetwood gillingham where at least on there lvl or do you disagree ?
Is there a stupider expression than "there's no smoke without fire"? Or one that has been used to justify more baseless and, in many cases, downright hurtful speculation?
If you scroll down from this link to the table showing net loss for league 1 clubs (season before last) you will see that all but 5 made losses, some massively.
The challenge for us (and AFC Wimbledon, etc) is that we have no owner with deep pockets to subsidise those losses. Which means to compete on a level playing field we have to restrict those losses by player sales and cup runs.
Relying on those to happen is however unsustainable and we should all be thankful for the miracles GA and co have performed over the past few years to get us where we are.
We could gamble on buying quality players and hoping that this means we will be successful and we have cup runs but we all (over 14 years old) know where that nearly took us.
We either accept this under the current structure (tick from me) or prostitute ourselves to a potential client/pimp who may wish to feel us up round the back of the stand for a few quid, tart us up a bit and hope that we can bring them riches in terms of money or ego (cf Sharkey).
This is the @DevC debate. Basically we don’t have the potential to compete equally under the current structure at this level because we can’t afford the sort of losses other teams can suffer. We are therefore reliant on an over-performing management team and squad to keep us there (and a bit of luck).
And to anyone who read this far, apologies for the analogy (or metaphor - can never remember which), for the length of this and for rehashing this old argument
If you scroll down from this link to the table showing net loss for league 1 clubs (season before last) you will see that all but 5 made losses, some massively.
The challenge for us (and AFC Wimbledon, etc) is that we have no owner with deep pockets to subsidise those losses. Which means to compete on a level playing field we have to restrict those losses by player sales and cup runs.
Relying on those to happen is however unsustainable and we should all be thankful for the miracles GA and co have performed over the past few years to get us where we are.
We could gamble on buying quality players and hoping that this means we will be successful and we have cup runs but we all (over 14 years old) know where that nearly took us.
We either accept this under the current structure (tick from me) or prostitute ourselves to a potential client/pimp who may wish to feel us up round the back of the stand for a few quid, tart us up a bit and hope that we can bring them riches in terms of money or ego (cf Sharkey).
This is the @DevC debate. Basically we don’t have the potential to compete equally under the current structure at this level because we can’t afford the sort of losses other teams can suffer. We are therefore reliant on an over-performing management team and squad to keep us there (and a bit of luck).
And to anyone who read this far, apologies for the analogy (or metaphor - can never remember which), for the length of this and for rehashing this old argument
i see what you are saying but my point is clubs i have mentioned they arent any better of financially than us and have no rich owners so why have they not had to sell players and cut there youth sytems and made big cutbacks etc like we did if they are making big losses then im not sure how they are able to run financialy withojt punishment .
Trevor, you are not correct in assuming that Burton, Gillingham and Fleetwood don’t have wealthy owners because all three clubs do. The only League One club truly comparable to Wycombe in a financial sense is AFC Wimbledon.
@glasshalffull said:
Trevor, you are not correct in assuming that Burton, Gillingham and Fleetwood don’t have wealthy owners because all three clubs do. The only League One club truly comparable to Wycombe in a financial sense is AFC Wimbledon.
so why arent we financial prudent are we lacking sponsors etc
@trevor all three have owners who have ‘invested’ “tens of millions” into their clubs.
This is nothing new. Football clubs have always had owners willing to ‘invest’ in the hope that it brings their club success. We had one ourselves. The key word there is invest. Some owners (and Burton’s seems one) is a true supporter and can afford to take the losses personally as they are rich enough and genuinely want their club to succeed (Jack Walker at Blackburn was a prime example).
In the global game where the premier league is king however and the football money at the top dwarfs what local businessmen/women can bring owners are more likely not to have any roots in their local community, which makes it more likely that they will cut and run when their investment doesn’t bring the rewards they expected/dreamed of.
The question then is what do they take back for all the money they put in?
In our specific case we were relatively lucky (or at least it could of been a lot worse). When Hayes realised his dream was just that and pulled the plug it left OUR club virtually bankrupt and struggling to stay afloat. If he had been a little more ruthless and demanded the return on his investment there and then, you would now be watching North Town Phoenix Wanderers on a field down Wycombe Marshes with 27 other people (mostly from the Gasroom probably)
@bookertease said: @trevor all three have owners who have ‘invested’ “tens of millions” into their clubs.
This is nothing new. Football clubs have always had owners willing to ‘invest’ in the hope that it brings their club success. We had one ourselves. The key word there is invest. Some owners (and Burton’s seems one) is a true supporter and can afford to take the losses personally as they are rich enough and genuinely want their club to succeed (Jack Walker at Blackburn was a prime example).
In the global game where the premier league is king however and the football money at the top dwarfs what local businessmen/women can bring owners are more likely not to have any roots in their local community, which makes it more likely that they will cut and run when their investment doesn’t bring the rewards they expected/dreamed of.
The question then is what do they take back for all the money they put in?
In our specific case we were relatively lucky (or at least it could of been a lot worse). When Hayes realised his dream was just that and pulled the plug it left OUR club virtually bankrupt and struggling to stay afloat. If he had been a little more ruthless and demanded the return on his investment there and then, you would now be watching North Town Phoenix Wanderers on a field down Wycombe Marshes with 27 other people (mostly from the Gasroom probably)
Let’s just be thankful that Trevor isn’t in charge although, to be fair to Trevor, I like to think that there is an outside chance
that he may be (or one day become) sufficiently self-aware to realise that his desperate and unrelenting attempts to fathom the complexities of football club finances are a clear indication that he is not a fit and proper person to be put in charge.
@micra said:
Let’s just be thankful that Trevor isn’t in charge although, to be fair to Trevor, I like to think that there is an outside chance
that he may be (or one day become) sufficiently self-aware to realise that his desperate and unrelenting attempts to fathom the complexities of football club finances are a clear indication that he is not a fit and proper person to be put in charge.
least i wouldnt hide financial matters of the club from the fans
@micra - To be honest, based on previous decisions given by the Football League as to whether a prospective owner is a fit and proper person, Trevor would pass with flying colours.
Comments
I read on the bbc website (I think) that the highest outlay Sunderland had made pre-season was £200K (not for LON).
Everything I’ve read on here about Gape is rumour. Whether based on any evidence or not time will probably - but not definitely - tell.
Now we are in a bigger pond it is inevitable that the sharks will be bigger and more interested. Whatever the likes of @trevor & co may think we are a minnow and a good offer for s player with a year left on their contract may mean the difference between 1 loanee or 2 and a new set of bulbs for the floodlights or a cheque to HM tax inspectors.
I’m sure if Gape does get sold we - and GA - will be pissed off, but we are where we are and i’ll wish him well (as long as it’s not Luton or Oxford!). I would be astonished if GA is not part of these discussions however. He has publicly talked about how interested he has had to become in the balance sheets over the past 5 years and I find it incredulous to think he would accept a position where he is not included in the debate of key player sales.
I am however surprised st the number of new players he is looking to bring in. I would have expected a couple, but 4 seems slightly high compared to previous seasons. Unless he is expecting to lose someone (Gape?) and we have long-term injuries (Tyson? Kashket? Charles?).
Quite appropriate to start the season against Blackpool. Yesterday was a nice gentle start to the ride. Hold on to your hats - it’s going to get a lot more scarier and fun soon!
6 defenders seems one short.
1-2 short in midfield
1 more in attack.
Slightly surprised that neither trial list who played through preseason has signed yet.
Vinceny, I was referring to Luke going to Sunderland.
This article is quite interesting and suggests that Sunderland came in quite late in the day. Luton had supppsedly agreed a fee with us before they pounced.
https://rokerreport.sbnation.com/2018/8/2/17634488/interview-roker-report-meets-ben-herd-best-mate-and-mentor-of-sunderland-newbie-luke-onien
Would we of sold to Luton? I'd like to think we wouldn't
According to Roker Report (who broke the news of the Sunderland move) he was all set to move to Luton so it seems that we would have. But I agree, we shouldn’t be selling to teams like them who are direct rivals, unless of course they offer a ridiculous sum.
Nathan Jones said Luton were not in for Luke when interviewed last week. Although I'd maybe take that with a pinch of salt..
you say we are minnows compared to whom in league one then oviously clubs like sunderland coventry etc yes but clubs like burton fleetwood gillingham where at least on there lvl or do you disagree ?
Is there a stupider expression than "there's no smoke without fire"? Or one that has been used to justify more baseless and, in many cases, downright hurtful speculation?
@trevor I’d agree we are on their sort of level in terms of status as a club but that’s not the same as financial clout.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/rokerreport.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2018/3/28/17171084/league-one-finances-concerning-for-sunderland-rodwell-earns-more-than-some-full-squads-do
If you scroll down from this link to the table showing net loss for league 1 clubs (season before last) you will see that all but 5 made losses, some massively.
The challenge for us (and AFC Wimbledon, etc) is that we have no owner with deep pockets to subsidise those losses. Which means to compete on a level playing field we have to restrict those losses by player sales and cup runs.
Relying on those to happen is however unsustainable and we should all be thankful for the miracles GA and co have performed over the past few years to get us where we are.
We could gamble on buying quality players and hoping that this means we will be successful and we have cup runs but we all (over 14 years old) know where that nearly took us.
We either accept this under the current structure (tick from me) or prostitute ourselves to a potential client/pimp who may wish to feel us up round the back of the stand for a few quid, tart us up a bit and hope that we can bring them riches in terms of money or ego (cf Sharkey).
This is the @DevC debate. Basically we don’t have the potential to compete equally under the current structure at this level because we can’t afford the sort of losses other teams can suffer. We are therefore reliant on an over-performing management team and squad to keep us there (and a bit of luck).
And to anyone who read this far, apologies for the analogy (or metaphor - can never remember which), for the length of this and for rehashing this old argument
Oh just as an aside, there is no mention at all that I could find on the Peterborough forums about Dominic Gape.
(And remember to google his full name)
What happens if you just search for Dominic?
Oh dear, you will now reactivate Dev on his favourite subject of ownership!
I know. Sorry. Was in full rant mode
i see what you are saying but my point is clubs i have mentioned they arent any better of financially than us and have no rich owners so why have they not had to sell players and cut there youth sytems and made big cutbacks etc like we did if they are making big losses then im not sure how they are able to run financialy withojt punishment .
Trevor, you are not correct in assuming that Burton, Gillingham and Fleetwood don’t have wealthy owners because all three clubs do. The only League One club truly comparable to Wycombe in a financial sense is AFC Wimbledon.
so why arent we financial prudent are we lacking sponsors etc
Give me strength! We are financially prudent which is why we don’t spend all the money we haven’t got on all the new players you want us to sign.
@trevor all three have owners who have ‘invested’ “tens of millions” into their clubs.
This is nothing new. Football clubs have always had owners willing to ‘invest’ in the hope that it brings their club success. We had one ourselves. The key word there is invest. Some owners (and Burton’s seems one) is a true supporter and can afford to take the losses personally as they are rich enough and genuinely want their club to succeed (Jack Walker at Blackburn was a prime example).
In the global game where the premier league is king however and the football money at the top dwarfs what local businessmen/women can bring owners are more likely not to have any roots in their local community, which makes it more likely that they will cut and run when their investment doesn’t bring the rewards they expected/dreamed of.
The question then is what do they take back for all the money they put in?
In our specific case we were relatively lucky (or at least it could of been a lot worse). When Hayes realised his dream was just that and pulled the plug it left OUR club virtually bankrupt and struggling to stay afloat. If he had been a little more ruthless and demanded the return on his investment there and then, you would now be watching North Town Phoenix Wanderers on a field down Wycombe Marshes with 27 other people (mostly from the Gasroom probably)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Scally
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pilley
Keep up @trevor. It’s because according to @marlowchair the board is incompetent, arrogant and bent.
well i wouldnt agree with that i dont know the board at all but we dont know whats going on behind the scenes do you?
Bookertease has summed it up perfectly.
hopefully we will find somoene like them two then in thge future not a steve hayes type .
StrongestTeam, I refer you to the earlier post by Bookertease that I believe is an excellent summing up of the situation.
Sorry. That was meant as a joke. I have no idea what goes on. You could ask @marlowchair though. He seems to know all...
Let’s just be thankful that Trevor isn’t in charge although, to be fair to Trevor, I like to think that there is an outside chance
that he may be (or one day become) sufficiently self-aware to realise that his desperate and unrelenting attempts to fathom the complexities of football club finances are a clear indication that he is not a fit and proper person to be put in charge.
least i wouldnt hide financial matters of the club from the fans
Oh, but you must @trevor .
If you were in charge you'd probably find you had to for your own safety Trev.
@micra - To be honest, based on previous decisions given by the Football League as to whether a prospective owner is a fit and proper person, Trevor would pass with flying colours.