That's probably fair @Steve_Peart but equally it is unlikely that they are saying we cant stay in the FL under this structure but that's only because we are pretty shit. I think we can conclude that if they believe the Trust Board are effectively saying we cannot remain fan owned and stay in the EFL "under their management"., they also believe that_ we cannot remain fan owned and stay in the EFL under any realistic management_. They may of course be wrong.
Look at the Trust and Club boards, and with the sporting and business acumen of Andrew Howard, coupled with the football experience of Ivor Beeks plus a trust board who almost universally have reasonably impressive c.v.s plus what appears to be a high quality football manager advising them on onfield matters and that feels like a pretty strong board, especially for a lower league football club. (It undoubtedly will be weaker with Howard gone and Beeks steadily ageing but their assessment on league sustainability is presumably based on performance with howard on board).
Now of course no group of human beings is perfect and none does not mistakes. But the question I asked @wandering_jock remains. What reason do you have to believe that a different management team could either substantially increase revenue and/or substantially reduce costs, while maintaining onfield performance. Could you explain which and why you believe that.
Social media definition of troll - someone who doesn't toe the party social media line?
No doubt there are many reasons - I believe 70 of the 72 FL clubs have private owners - most putting money in. Some of those are bad owners (what would you say 5?), the rest perfectly decent. Its a perfectly valid question to ask the preferred bidder though (as is an assessment of what assets there are to seek to strip which are a little hard to identify).
then I would suggest you compare the ownership risk by voting to accept with the future risks (that it appears the trust board see as loss of FL status) of voting to reject.
In the meantime I suggest we need to work out whether we believe we can survive in the FL under fan ownership (I would suggest if the answer to that is yes, we would reject almost any outsider) and if the answer to that question is no, are we prepared to accept conference south football as the price of the principle of fan ownership (conference national football finances are even more barking than FL).
@eric_plant, it was Mark Burrell who started off this Conference South thing when, at last year's Trust AGM, he suggested that some on the Gasroom would be happy playing in the National South.
@DevC, we have recently discussed on here the fact that nobody at the club seems to be 100% focused on "selling". That, I suggest, is an important factor in our current inability to make ends meet.
In the meantime I suggest we need to work out whether we believe we can survive in the FL under fan ownership (I would suggest if the answer to that is yes, we would reject almost any outsider) and if the answer to that question is no, are we prepared to accept conference south football as the price of the principle of fan ownership (conference national football finances are even more barking than FL).
We don't need to do anything in the meantime unless you want to fill your day on here. Crack on if so.
@DevC said:
Social media definition of troll - someone who doesn't toe the party social media line?
If you can't be bothered to look up the definition and lack the self reflection required to understand why you're so often called one, then yeah, you just go with that mate.
@DevC 'Look at the Trust and Club boards, and with the sporting and business acumen of Andrew Howard, coupled with the football experience of Ivor Beeks plus a trust board who almost universally have reasonably impressive c.v.s '
(Attention troll feeding below:)
But the (admittedly sometimes hysterical) thrust of @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots seems to be that, footballing concerns aside, the above benevolent business behemoths have actually failed in many crucial areas of general management, such as, for example, hospitality and sponsorship thus costing us revenue. Now, if their arguments are sound surely even you would accept that there might be concerns about their choice of bidders.
(As far as I know I am not being racist...)
Trolling has many forms. Purposely diverting every thread down unrelated cul de sacs, and consistently taking the "other" view to seemingly everyone else, are definite forms.
What is strange, is the site owner calling someone a troll, yet continually letting them do it.
@drcongo simple delete a lot would say. No other forum would let some random guy with seemingly no link to the club and area continually proclaim to be the font of all knowledge on all aspects of it.
I did suggest he's limited to a single thread early season - that'd be less draconian, and would let those who enjoy his postings appreciate it there, while not disrupting the rest of the site.
Oh dear. After a brief sensible discussion broke out , we are back to personal abuse.
Ignoring the abuse and just looking at substantive points.
@Steve_Peart , I am afraid I don't share your faith in better marketing as the solution to all ills. Heard that one far too many times before. With respect I wonder if you have formed your conclusion and then seek facts to support it rather than the alternative. Obviously a judgement that better marketing will make us sustainable at FL level is a matter of each persons opinion though. Personally I wouldn't bet the future of the club on it.
@Steve_Peart, I believe it was you who queried the conference South reference. If we were unable to sustain league football with the current model, what level do you believe we could stabilise at. conference national finances are generally regarded as more challenging to break even in that lg2. I don't quite understand your point.
@Wendoverman , Nicecarrots and Marlow have made all sort of accusations in what seems to be a sustained campaign to avenge a personal grudge. I cant remember seeing any evidence provided that hospitality and sponsorship was costing us significant sums of money that correction of would make us sustainable or indeed any suggestion of how. Is there any evidence of this?
@DevC, all I know for sure is that, for this club to have any chance of keeping afloat financially at our current level, our selling and marketing activities have to be maximised. Even then it might not be enough. The point raised by @A_Worboys about the Rochdale game not being promoted as well as it might be, shows that those activities are not maximised, small point though it might be.
As for National South, there was discussion on here about that after the last Trust AGM. Would I be happier sinking to Tier 6 because that's all we could budget for, and maximising sales was not enough, then probably yes if the alternative was the great leap in handing over control to an American hedge fund or a Saudi company. Its not just the next owners I am worried about, its the owners ten, twenty, fifty years hence. Once we hand over control, we are unlikely get it back when things blow up, like we did after Hayes.
There is a third party interested, no longer in the background, so let's see what they all have to offer, and no shortlisting just one by the Board please.
@Steve_Peart
Sadly my judgement would be that there is sufficient additional revenue to be gained to justify the cost of additional marketing.
I have no complaint whatsoever with someone whose view is that retaining fan ownership is worth a slide down the leagues. I wouldn't agree but fully understand that others may form that conclusion.
so just to be clear @DevC and obviously with none of us having evidence at hand you would be happy with handing control to an American hedge fund or a Saudi company or another Hayes? Also do you actually have a vote?
@ Dev C and @wandering_jock The major issue is how can the Trust keep the Club in the EFL when it is not making a profit. It appears that despite receiving funds via the Sale of Jordan Ibe the Trust did not use the extra funds to reduce other Creditors but to invest in Players/additional costs connected with the Stadium. This decision was not directly conveyed to the members, the 2017 comments by Mark Burrell although correct were certainly misleading if the intention was to overspend and to consider transferring control to a third party. Whilst most younger supporters would probably like to remain in the EFL, it is, and will be the older and longer supporters/members who have and will continue to support the club with funds and will remain supporters in what ever league they will play in next year and for many many years after that. The Frank Adams Legacy is the Stadium, running up debts which puts the Stadium at risk should not be on the agenda of the Supporters Trust board of Directors. The real question appears to be, "Are The Trust Board controlling the operation of the Club" They state that they do not run the Club, but they must control it,especially since they have allowed the Trust Chairman to become the Chairman of the Club. I believe that appointment was confirmed by the Trust Board after the announcement had been made by the Club, which seemed at the time not to be in accordance with the Trust Rules. 4 new Board members seems the way forward.
At present I think we have a squad and Manager which can keep us in League 1 but with the crazy financial set up in the current League structure, we along with far too many other clubs will no doubt have to bit the bullet and adjust to playing within the limits of our funding. Here today, and gone tomorrow, financial backers is not the best way forward.
We began our EFL playing as a members Club and hopefully if we leave the EFL we shall still be a Members Club.
Comments
That's probably fair @Steve_Peart but equally it is unlikely that they are saying we cant stay in the FL under this structure but that's only because we are pretty shit. I think we can conclude that if they believe the Trust Board are effectively saying we cannot remain fan owned and stay in the EFL "under their management"., they also believe that_ we cannot remain fan owned and stay in the EFL under any realistic management_. They may of course be wrong.
Look at the Trust and Club boards, and with the sporting and business acumen of Andrew Howard, coupled with the football experience of Ivor Beeks plus a trust board who almost universally have reasonably impressive c.v.s plus what appears to be a high quality football manager advising them on onfield matters and that feels like a pretty strong board, especially for a lower league football club. (It undoubtedly will be weaker with Howard gone and Beeks steadily ageing but their assessment on league sustainability is presumably based on performance with howard on board).
Now of course no group of human beings is perfect and none does not mistakes. But the question I asked @wandering_jock remains. What reason do you have to believe that a different management team could either substantially increase revenue and/or substantially reduce costs, while maintaining onfield performance. Could you explain which and why you believe that.
Why would anyone put money into a league 1 football club without any hope of getting it back outside of asset stripping?
Oh god, I'm feeding the troll aren't I
Social media definition of troll - someone who doesn't toe the party social media line?
No doubt there are many reasons - I believe 70 of the 72 FL clubs have private owners - most putting money in. Some of those are bad owners (what would you say 5?), the rest perfectly decent. Its a perfectly valid question to ask the preferred bidder though (as is an assessment of what assets there are to seek to strip which are a little hard to identify).
then I would suggest you compare the ownership risk by voting to accept with the future risks (that it appears the trust board see as loss of FL status) of voting to reject.
@DevC we need the details of the people who want to invest in the club and hear directly from them why they want to do it.
Until then there's little more to add.
The only real asset we have/had has been stripped by Beeks the Builder.
I agree @peterparrotface . We do need that.
In the meantime I suggest we need to work out whether we believe we can survive in the FL under fan ownership (I would suggest if the answer to that is yes, we would reject almost any outsider) and if the answer to that question is no, are we prepared to accept conference south football as the price of the principle of fan ownership (conference national football finances are even more barking than FL).
You're obsessed with the conference south
@eric_plant, it was Mark Burrell who started off this Conference South thing when, at last year's Trust AGM, he suggested that some on the Gasroom would be happy playing in the National South.
@DevC, we have recently discussed on here the fact that nobody at the club seems to be 100% focused on "selling". That, I suggest, is an important factor in our current inability to make ends meet.
We don't need to do anything in the meantime unless you want to fill your day on here. Crack on if so.
If we don't sell out do we go straight to Conference South then?
If you can't be bothered to look up the definition and lack the self reflection required to understand why you're so often called one, then yeah, you just go with that mate.
Can someone please answer my question is there still an open air swimming pool on the Rye?
@DevC 'Look at the Trust and Club boards, and with the sporting and business acumen of Andrew Howard, coupled with the football experience of Ivor Beeks plus a trust board who almost universally have reasonably impressive c.v.s '
(Attention troll feeding below:)
But the (admittedly sometimes hysterical) thrust of @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots seems to be that, footballing concerns aside, the above benevolent business behemoths have actually failed in many crucial areas of general management, such as, for example, hospitality and sponsorship thus costing us revenue. Now, if their arguments are sound surely even you would accept that there might be concerns about their choice of bidders.
(As far as I know I am not being racist...)
Trolling has many forms. Purposely diverting every thread down unrelated cul de sacs, and consistently taking the "other" view to seemingly everyone else, are definite forms.
What is strange, is the site owner calling someone a troll, yet continually letting them do it.
@braywanderer , yes
@Malone What would you suggest I do? If he ever turns up at a Wycombe match we could put him in the stocks and throw lukewarm pies at him?
@Malone that applies to most of the Gasroom...I understand the site owner has to give us two weeks to shift our caravans.
@drcongo simple delete a lot would say. No other forum would let some random guy with seemingly no link to the club and area continually proclaim to be the font of all knowledge on all aspects of it.
I did suggest he's limited to a single thread early season - that'd be less draconian, and would let those who enjoy his postings appreciate it there, while not disrupting the rest of the site.
Oh dear. After a brief sensible discussion broke out , we are back to personal abuse.
Ignoring the abuse and just looking at substantive points.
@Steve_Peart , I am afraid I don't share your faith in better marketing as the solution to all ills. Heard that one far too many times before. With respect I wonder if you have formed your conclusion and then seek facts to support it rather than the alternative. Obviously a judgement that better marketing will make us sustainable at FL level is a matter of each persons opinion though. Personally I wouldn't bet the future of the club on it.
@Steve_Peart, I believe it was you who queried the conference South reference. If we were unable to sustain league football with the current model, what level do you believe we could stabilise at. conference national finances are generally regarded as more challenging to break even in that lg2. I don't quite understand your point.
@Wendoverman , Nicecarrots and Marlow have made all sort of accusations in what seems to be a sustained campaign to avenge a personal grudge. I cant remember seeing any evidence provided that hospitality and sponsorship was costing us significant sums of money that correction of would make us sustainable or indeed any suggestion of how. Is there any evidence of this?
Without incontrovertable evidence to the contrary only one person on this thread can possibly be right.
We must have a get out of gaol card surely!
Just hit the ignore button son, its the perfect cathartic solution to rid yourself of the public transport lecher/troll/oddball
@DevC, all I know for sure is that, for this club to have any chance of keeping afloat financially at our current level, our selling and marketing activities have to be maximised. Even then it might not be enough. The point raised by @A_Worboys about the Rochdale game not being promoted as well as it might be, shows that those activities are not maximised, small point though it might be.
As for National South, there was discussion on here about that after the last Trust AGM. Would I be happier sinking to Tier 6 because that's all we could budget for, and maximising sales was not enough, then probably yes if the alternative was the great leap in handing over control to an American hedge fund or a Saudi company. Its not just the next owners I am worried about, its the owners ten, twenty, fifty years hence. Once we hand over control, we are unlikely get it back when things blow up, like we did after Hayes.
There is a third party interested, no longer in the background, so let's see what they all have to offer, and no shortlisting just one by the Board please.
@RogertheBandito but would that not constitute witless abuse and/or racism?
@Steve_Peart
Sadly my judgement would be that there is sufficient additional revenue to be gained to justify the cost of additional marketing.
I have no complaint whatsoever with someone whose view is that retaining fan ownership is worth a slide down the leagues. I wouldn't agree but fully understand that others may form that conclusion.
There's that straw man again @DevC.
D- must try harder
so just to be clear @DevC and obviously with none of us having evidence at hand you would be happy with handing control to an American hedge fund or a Saudi company or another Hayes? Also do you actually have a vote?
@ Dev C and @wandering_jock The major issue is how can the Trust keep the Club in the EFL when it is not making a profit. It appears that despite receiving funds via the Sale of Jordan Ibe the Trust did not use the extra funds to reduce other Creditors but to invest in Players/additional costs connected with the Stadium. This decision was not directly conveyed to the members, the 2017 comments by Mark Burrell although correct were certainly misleading if the intention was to overspend and to consider transferring control to a third party. Whilst most younger supporters would probably like to remain in the EFL, it is, and will be the older and longer supporters/members who have and will continue to support the club with funds and will remain supporters in what ever league they will play in next year and for many many years after that. The Frank Adams Legacy is the Stadium, running up debts which puts the Stadium at risk should not be on the agenda of the Supporters Trust board of Directors. The real question appears to be, "Are The Trust Board controlling the operation of the Club" They state that they do not run the Club, but they must control it,especially since they have allowed the Trust Chairman to become the Chairman of the Club. I believe that appointment was confirmed by the Trust Board after the announcement had been made by the Club, which seemed at the time not to be in accordance with the Trust Rules. 4 new Board members seems the way forward.
At present I think we have a squad and Manager which can keep us in League 1 but with the crazy financial set up in the current League structure, we along with far too many other clubs will no doubt have to bit the bullet and adjust to playing within the limits of our funding. Here today, and gone tomorrow, financial backers is not the best way forward.
We began our EFL playing as a members Club and hopefully if we leave the EFL we shall still be a Members Club.
@wformation I hope you can provide evidence.