However it is a rather unfortunate and critical error when we are needing objectivity, accuracy and attention to detail. We will be asked to rely heavily on the work of our directors and the accuracy and reliability of their research and information tonight and in future when making decisions on the future of our club.
This matter undermines confidence as to the reliability of said information
Most of our Directors have other full time jobs, so are they realistically able to run what is a time consuming and complex operation as a FL2 club in their spare time?
So less than a quarter of League one clubs expected to show a profit before player sales. Are any of those profitable clubs so called ‘ fan owned’ I wonder?
I have enjoyed your input to this threat @marlowchair and unlike a lot on this site you make your point and do not get nasty if someone disagrees. However, I am picking up that your position is the club is sustainable as a FL1 club with a fan owned model but run with a more professional approach, is that right?
If that is not the point being made and we are simply unsustainable then why would we not take the advice of our elected Trust Leaders, should they advise us to move away from the current model?
@glasshalffull said:
Have you considered that the fee paid for McCarthy could have been part or all of the fee received for 09?
I think most will have considered this, but, with reference to the point @Tom has made above, if we are to be told that the club is unsustainable without additional financial input then, when a sum of money became available from the sale of Luke O'Nien, what was the reasoning behind spending that money on player transfer fees and not putting it towards other running costs or repayment of debt in order to make the club more sustainable? It's a genuine question for a shareholder to ask.
If it was a very low upfront fee (with a significant sellon for Barnsley), the board may well have concluded that it represented a good value transaction with high potential for profit down the road. That arrangement may have suited Barnsley also.
Today is likely to represent a crossroads for the club. Those who have a vote should listen carefully to the arguments put to them and consider what alternatives the club really has. There will be the Farage's of the forum throwing all sorts of mud at the Trust board (Che has tried insinuations of corruption, now he is trying insinuations of incompetence) in the hope of undermining confidence in the trust board. That approach should be ignored.
Question all voters should focus on is what do they want for the club and what realistically are the options for the club to get there - listening both to the trust directors and any substantive alternatives that are suggested.
@glasshalffull said:
Have you considered that the fee paid for McCarthy could have been part or all of the fee received for 09?
I think most will have considered this, but, with reference to the point @Tom has made above, if we are to be told that the club is unsustainable without additional financial input then, when a sum of money became available from the sale of Luke O'Nien, what was the reasoning behind spending that money on player transfer fees and not putting it towards other running costs or repayment of debt in order to make the club more sustainable? It's a genuine question for a shareholder to ask.
I think it is generally agreed that with no sugar daddy, a lower league club cannot survive without transfer money from player sales. That sort of income can only be obtained by signing and developing younger players with potential. The likes of Tyson, CMS, Bayo etc will never earn us a transfer fee.
The McCarthy signing was a calculated risk that his value will appreciate over the next couple of years when he will then be sold to a higher club.
@mooneyman Unless you were involved in making the decision on behalf of the Club/Trust, it is your unconfirmed assumption that "The McCarthy signing was a calculated risk that his value will appreciate over the next couple of years when he will then be sold to a higher club." I also assume that this was at least part of the reasoning behind the decision, but have no confirmation that it was.
There could have been several other reasons those who made the decision did so. Maybe they considered that McCarthy's signing would offer an increased chance of not getting relegated and that this was important because either -
a) being in League One will give a better chance of sustainability than being in League Two; or
b) being in League One will give a better chance of potential new owners wanting to go ahead and complete a takeover of the Club than being in League Two,
or both a) and b).
Maybe they think the above two points about sustainability and takeover are inextricably linked (which is what most on this forum seem to be expecting to hear this evening).
Maybe there were a host of other reasons that justified the decision. That does not mean that shareholders should not question why, if the presentations indicate that short to mid-term cashflow is a threat to sustainability of the Club, windfall money was committed to a long-term, speculative investment that is not guaranteed to deliver a return, instead of being used to relieve the more immediate cashflow situation.
Signing a quality young player suggests to me that the club want to some extent to make make sure we stayed up in League One which is a heartening thing. No doubt the Gasroom would have been up in arms had they said we cannot sign anyone because we are skint and we are cutting our cloth accordingly. Football finances ****ed? Not a surprise, but I will be interested to hear what they have to say...although probably tomorrow as I cannot get to the meeting and do not have facebook on my steam driven telling bone. By then I also assume the brains trust on here will have digested, argued and annotated the main points for thickos like me.
Mooneyman is right. We are a football club and if an opportunity comes along to sign a promising young player with potential to make the club a future profit then it would be foolish to ignore that opportunity, especially if the outlay involved was covered by an incoming fee. That is why it is relevant.
However it is a rather unfortunate and critical error when we are needing objectivity, accuracy and attention to detail. We will be asked to rely heavily on the work of our directors and the accuracy and reliability of their research and information tonight and in future when making decisions on the future of our club.
This matter undermines confidence as to the reliability of said information
Most of our Directors have other full time jobs, so are they realistically able to run what is a time consuming and complex operation as a FL2 club in their spare time?
On accepting nomination and directorship they agreed to accept the obligation to do so.
@Wendoverman said:
Signing a quality young player suggests to me that the club want to some extent to make make sure we stayed up in League One which is a heartening thing. No doubt the Gasroom would have been up in arms had they said we cannot sign anyone because we are skint and we are cutting our cloth accordingly. Football finances ****ed? Not a surprise, but I will be interested to hear what they have to say...although probably tomorrow as I cannot get to the meeting and do not have facebook on my steam driven telling bone. By then I also assume the brains trust on here will have digested, argued and annotated the main points for thickos like me.
I know what you're saying but I think there are plenty of gasroom posters who have advocated cutting our cloth accordingly over the years, and most importantly for me, paying our bills, and on time, particularly to small or local companies.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
So less than a quarter of League one clubs expected to show a profit before player sales. Are any of those profitable clubs so called ‘ fan owned’ I wonder?
I have enjoyed your input to this threat @marlowchair and unlike a lot on this site you make your point and do not get nasty if someone disagrees. However, I am picking up that your position is the club is sustainable as a FL1 club with a fan owned model but run with a more professional approach, is that right?
If that is not the point being made and we are simply unsustainable then why would we not take the advice of our elected Trust Leaders, should they advise us to move away from the current model?
Thank you and I appreciate your input too.
My position is that do to good work and discipline from the board and staff generally (not always) over the past 5 years,we have remained sustainable and used player sales and football fortune to reduce substantial legacy debt.
By definition we are therefore closing in on being in our best position in many years by being debt free (free of servicing costs which restrict cashflow). That we have survived and indeed grown as a football club on pitch during this time is a great achievement by all,directors included.
Why we should entertain selling the house now that we’ve paid off the mortgage is something that needs plenty of explaining and justifying by the board tonight in my opinion.
@Blue_since_1990 said:
So less than a quarter of League one clubs expected to show a profit before player sales. Are any of those profitable clubs so called ‘ fan owned’ I wonder?
I have enjoyed your input to this threat @marlowchair and unlike a lot on this site you make your point and do not get nasty if someone disagrees. However, I am picking up that your position is the club is sustainable as a FL1 club with a fan owned model but run with a more professional approach, is that right?
If that is not the point being made and we are simply unsustainable then why would we not take the advice of our elected Trust Leaders, should they advise us to move away from the current model?
afc Wimbledon show very strong accounts and whilst not in profit every year certainly show sustainability.
@LX1 said:
I think comparisons to Farage should be ignored. It is the board advertising figures on the bus and advocating revolution rather than improvement
@marlowchair said:
Good information Tom and very important reading.
It appears the linking of this report to proceedings tomorrow is rather deliberate by our finance director and board and we should not be at all surprised therefore when they recommend us selling up, essentially admitting they have been unable to run the club on a sustainable basis.
Of concern however is the “error” our finance director has made in transcribing a rather critical paragraph . The report does not say....
“No FL1 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future”
As our director wrote on the summary notes on our trust website
It said
“No FL2 responding clubs will be profitable before player trading and less than a third will be profitable after player trading, most likely at the expense of strengthening their squads for the future”
Let us hope our finance reports and representations around these matters are more accurate than this generally, and that this was an innocent error and not a deliberate attempt to portray our future prospects under supporter ownership as less positive as they are .
Thank you @marlowchair for highlighting this apparent discrepancy. Not intentional, i can assure you, but resulting from copying and pasting of the report author's own summary (which I am happy to show you tonight) which differed from page numbered 03 of his content. Trust website will be updated shortly and you can ask further questions tonight.
Key points remain:
Almost two thirds of League 1 clubs said they relied on one principal shareholder to make up any annual income shortfalls or operating losses.
Our financial challenges are shared by our League One peers, with more Clubs reporting that their finances are a “cause for concern” and not self sustaining financially.
69% of FL1 clubs expect to make a make a loss AFTER Player Trading
83% looking for more cash from investors
The majority of EFL clubs including Trust owned have been approached about investment or sales, and many are actively discussing sales to potential investors.
No further debate from us here as we prepare for tonight.
@DevC said:
Rather depends on what the McCarthy deal was.
If it was a very low upfront fee (with a significant sellon for Barnsley), the board may well have concluded that it represented a good value transaction with high potential for profit down the road. That arrangement may have suited Barnsley also.
Today is likely to represent a crossroads for the club. Those who have a vote should listen carefully to the arguments put to them and consider what alternatives the club really has. There will be the Farage's of the forum throwing all sorts of mud at the Trust board (Che has tried insinuations of corruption, now he is trying insinuations of incompetence) in the hope of undermining confidence in the trust board. That approach should be ignored.
Question all voters should focus on is what do they want for the club and what realistically are the options for the club to get there - listening both to the trust directors and any substantive alternatives that are suggested.
Pointing out a blatant error,and even giving the board the benefit of the doubt that it was probably just that , an error rather than deliberate, is not mud slinging Dev. Given the importance of the subject matter and that the FD specifically only chose a select few portions of the BDO report to paraphrase - yet still made a crucial & misleading error in the context of his own communication,your attempt to play the man (me) on this and not the ball (subject matter) is disappointing and misguided.
"Marlow", you are of course entitled to your views and to express them how you wish. You appear to believe that fan ownership is very much in the best interests of the club. Who knows time may prove you right or prove you wrong.
me I am a little less dogmatic. If fan ownership can deliver Lg1 or Lg2 football, I'm cool with it. If not, I see the perils of slipping down into the conference and below as so bad, that other alternatives should be looked into. It will be interesting to hear the views of committed people we have elected, all of whom will have been desperate to make fan ownership work.
I don't in truth like your style of persuading people to your point of view. I use the Farage analogy deliberately not as an insult as your styles are similar. From the time you (re) joined the forum, you have sought to use a minor fact to build trust in the audience and then spun half (at best) truths and distortions to undermine those unable to defend themselves. Your aim is to undermine trust in those people so that their opinions are seen as self-interested or the opinions of incompetents. You would no doubt call it scrutiny. I think it something far more sinister than that. its a well known technique and as I say its exactly the one Farage and co use. Its no surprise that you chose to leap on a minor typo and exploit it in the way you have - all part of the technique.
In truth its a pet hate of mine, which causes probably an excessive reaction from me. You are of course free to use whatever technique to further your argument you wish to and for others to decide whether to take notice of those arguments.
I am sure we would all agree that we all seek to ensure that WWFC is a successful club serving its local community long into the future.
I must admit I did not see @marlowchair as a frog faced buffoon, fag in hand, barking insults and waving his pint pot at foreigners...and I suspect he may know more about business/economics than Beery Nigel.
@Wendoverman said:
I must admit I did not see @marlowchair as a frog faced buffoon, fag in hand, barking insults and waving his pint pot at foreigners...and I suspect he may know more about business/economics than Beery Nigel.
@marlowchair clearly knows more about the ins and outs than anyone else on here.
It's pretty obvious he'd have nothing to gain from revealing who he is!
Strange claim from @dev that this is Che on the piss about. Did he ever have even the remotest inside knowledge over the years?
I have seen significant similarities between Marlow Chair and Che's style since his emergence on the forum. Perhaps I am alone in this though. No idea (nor much interested) whether they are one and the same though (using the name of Che above was a genuine typo/brainfart and tbh something of a surprise when I checked above - just goes to show how easy it is to make a typo just like the one Marlow is so excited about above.)
No idea either whether marlow knows more about business/economics than I do. While I suspect he has more insider knowledge of WWFC than I do (which would not be hard - mine is zero), to be honest I have seen little to no sign of business/economic expertise in his posts - something many may with good reason address to me too. maybe he is chairman of BP - Who knows. Who cares.
Anyone, not too long now before the wait is over and their are facts to consider.
Where are @rmjlondon@trevor and @Peter ? It's their grasp of detail and in-depth analysis we need pre-meeting if any decision is to be reached. (No @Peter I doubt Yves will be chairman however adept at handling debate at a high level...)
Comments
Have you considered that the fee paid for McCarthy could have been part or all of the fee received for 09?
@marlowchair said
Most of our Directors have other full time jobs, so are they realistically able to run what is a time consuming and complex operation as a FL2 club in their spare time?
@EwanHoosaami Yes it was. But if we are about to be told we are unsustainable, why are we paying cash for players
So less than a quarter of League one clubs expected to show a profit before player sales. Are any of those profitable clubs so called ‘ fan owned’ I wonder?
I have enjoyed your input to this threat @marlowchair and unlike a lot on this site you make your point and do not get nasty if someone disagrees. However, I am picking up that your position is the club is sustainable as a FL1 club with a fan owned model but run with a more professional approach, is that right?
If that is not the point being made and we are simply unsustainable then why would we not take the advice of our elected Trust Leaders, should they advise us to move away from the current model?
Why is that relevant?
I think most will have considered this, but, with reference to the point @Tom has made above, if we are to be told that the club is unsustainable without additional financial input then, when a sum of money became available from the sale of Luke O'Nien, what was the reasoning behind spending that money on player transfer fees and not putting it towards other running costs or repayment of debt in order to make the club more sustainable? It's a genuine question for a shareholder to ask.
Rather depends on what the McCarthy deal was.
If it was a very low upfront fee (with a significant sellon for Barnsley), the board may well have concluded that it represented a good value transaction with high potential for profit down the road. That arrangement may have suited Barnsley also.
Today is likely to represent a crossroads for the club. Those who have a vote should listen carefully to the arguments put to them and consider what alternatives the club really has. There will be the Farage's of the forum throwing all sorts of mud at the Trust board (Che has tried insinuations of corruption, now he is trying insinuations of incompetence) in the hope of undermining confidence in the trust board. That approach should be ignored.
Question all voters should focus on is what do they want for the club and what realistically are the options for the club to get there - listening both to the trust directors and any substantive alternatives that are suggested.
@DevC if you are suggesting that @marlowchair is Che I believe you are incorrect.
I think comparisons to Farage should be ignored. It is the board advertising figures on the bus and advocating revolution rather than improvement
@Chris marlowchair doesn't seem to want anyone to know who he is.
I think it is generally agreed that with no sugar daddy, a lower league club cannot survive without transfer money from player sales. That sort of income can only be obtained by signing and developing younger players with potential. The likes of Tyson, CMS, Bayo etc will never earn us a transfer fee.
The McCarthy signing was a calculated risk that his value will appreciate over the next couple of years when he will then be sold to a higher club.
Thanks Dev, I had no idea how to think until you posted that
@mooneyman Unless you were involved in making the decision on behalf of the Club/Trust, it is your unconfirmed assumption that "The McCarthy signing was a calculated risk that his value will appreciate over the next couple of years when he will then be sold to a higher club." I also assume that this was at least part of the reasoning behind the decision, but have no confirmation that it was.
There could have been several other reasons those who made the decision did so. Maybe they considered that McCarthy's signing would offer an increased chance of not getting relegated and that this was important because either -
a) being in League One will give a better chance of sustainability than being in League Two; or
b) being in League One will give a better chance of potential new owners wanting to go ahead and complete a takeover of the Club than being in League Two,
or both a) and b).
Maybe they think the above two points about sustainability and takeover are inextricably linked (which is what most on this forum seem to be expecting to hear this evening).
Maybe there were a host of other reasons that justified the decision. That does not mean that shareholders should not question why, if the presentations indicate that short to mid-term cashflow is a threat to sustainability of the Club, windfall money was committed to a long-term, speculative investment that is not guaranteed to deliver a return, instead of being used to relieve the more immediate cashflow situation.
Signing a quality young player suggests to me that the club want to some extent to make make sure we stayed up in League One which is a heartening thing. No doubt the Gasroom would have been up in arms had they said we cannot sign anyone because we are skint and we are cutting our cloth accordingly. Football finances ****ed? Not a surprise, but I will be interested to hear what they have to say...although probably tomorrow as I cannot get to the meeting and do not have facebook on my steam driven telling bone. By then I also assume the brains trust on here will have digested, argued and annotated the main points for thickos like me.
Mooneyman is right. We are a football club and if an opportunity comes along to sign a promising young player with potential to make the club a future profit then it would be foolish to ignore that opportunity, especially if the outlay involved was covered by an incoming fee. That is why it is relevant.
On accepting nomination and directorship they agreed to accept the obligation to do so.
I know what you're saying but I think there are plenty of gasroom posters who have advocated cutting our cloth accordingly over the years, and most importantly for me, paying our bills, and on time, particularly to small or local companies.
Thank you and I appreciate your input too.
My position is that do to good work and discipline from the board and staff generally (not always) over the past 5 years,we have remained sustainable and used player sales and football fortune to reduce substantial legacy debt.
By definition we are therefore closing in on being in our best position in many years by being debt free (free of servicing costs which restrict cashflow). That we have survived and indeed grown as a football club on pitch during this time is a great achievement by all,directors included.
Why we should entertain selling the house now that we’ve paid off the mortgage is something that needs plenty of explaining and justifying by the board tonight in my opinion.
afc Wimbledon show very strong accounts and whilst not in profit every year certainly show sustainability.
This ☝?
Thank you @marlowchair for highlighting this apparent discrepancy. Not intentional, i can assure you, but resulting from copying and pasting of the report author's own summary (which I am happy to show you tonight) which differed from page numbered 03 of his content. Trust website will be updated shortly and you can ask further questions tonight.
Key points remain:
No further debate from us here as we prepare for tonight.
Pointing out a blatant error,and even giving the board the benefit of the doubt that it was probably just that , an error rather than deliberate, is not mud slinging Dev. Given the importance of the subject matter and that the FD specifically only chose a select few portions of the BDO report to paraphrase - yet still made a crucial & misleading error in the context of his own communication,your attempt to play the man (me) on this and not the ball (subject matter) is disappointing and misguided.
"Marlow", you are of course entitled to your views and to express them how you wish. You appear to believe that fan ownership is very much in the best interests of the club. Who knows time may prove you right or prove you wrong.
me I am a little less dogmatic. If fan ownership can deliver Lg1 or Lg2 football, I'm cool with it. If not, I see the perils of slipping down into the conference and below as so bad, that other alternatives should be looked into. It will be interesting to hear the views of committed people we have elected, all of whom will have been desperate to make fan ownership work.
I don't in truth like your style of persuading people to your point of view. I use the Farage analogy deliberately not as an insult as your styles are similar. From the time you (re) joined the forum, you have sought to use a minor fact to build trust in the audience and then spun half (at best) truths and distortions to undermine those unable to defend themselves. Your aim is to undermine trust in those people so that their opinions are seen as self-interested or the opinions of incompetents. You would no doubt call it scrutiny. I think it something far more sinister than that. its a well known technique and as I say its exactly the one Farage and co use. Its no surprise that you chose to leap on a minor typo and exploit it in the way you have - all part of the technique.
In truth its a pet hate of mine, which causes probably an excessive reaction from me. You are of course free to use whatever technique to further your argument you wish to and for others to decide whether to take notice of those arguments.
I am sure we would all agree that we all seek to ensure that WWFC is a successful club serving its local community long into the future.
I must admit I did not see @marlowchair as a frog faced buffoon, fag in hand, barking insults and waving his pint pot at foreigners...and I suspect he may know more about business/economics than Beery Nigel.
And a bit more than Dev I would suggest!
@marlowchair clearly knows more about the ins and outs than anyone else on here.
It's pretty obvious he'd have nothing to gain from revealing who he is!
Strange claim from @dev that this is Che on the piss about. Did he ever have even the remotest inside knowledge over the years?
Che couldn't disguise his style for one post after the Luton game, there's no way he could keep it up this long. And i mean that as a compliment.
Plus he's more of a Slough Chairboy anyway.
F.AO.Marlow Chair-well done for doing all you have done.Ignore those that are only on here to defend the indefensible.
I have seen significant similarities between Marlow Chair and Che's style since his emergence on the forum. Perhaps I am alone in this though. No idea (nor much interested) whether they are one and the same though (using the name of Che above was a genuine typo/brainfart and tbh something of a surprise when I checked above - just goes to show how easy it is to make a typo just like the one Marlow is so excited about above.)
No idea either whether marlow knows more about business/economics than I do. While I suspect he has more insider knowledge of WWFC than I do (which would not be hard - mine is zero), to be honest I have seen little to no sign of business/economic expertise in his posts - something many may with good reason address to me too. maybe he is chairman of BP - Who knows. Who cares.
Anyone, not too long now before the wait is over and their are facts to consider.
Where are @rmjlondon @trevor and @Peter ? It's their grasp of detail and in-depth analysis we need pre-meeting if any decision is to be reached. (No @Peter I doubt Yves will be chairman however adept at handling debate at a high level...)