Skip to content

Trust Members cash injection

1234568

Comments

  • I like the concept of “challenging” @glasshalffull to smuggle in a pre-determined phrase (or even a single relatively obscure word) but I can’t imagine the circumstances in which any of @eric_plant’s suggestions could reasonably be incorporated. @LX1’s suggestion seems more realistic.

    One for @bluntphil (for whom Eric’s suggestions might be more appropriate) : “Sido Jombati is flexing his right leg repeatedly but he seems to do that quite a lot in most games.”

  • My apologies @mooneyman I thought you were talking about the entire trust period rather than just the last season and a half. This season round 1 exit, last season made it to the third round. fairly average performance I would say.

    If the numbers are right and we will next season face a £500k hole in the finances (excluding transfers and cup money) with no way of funding it, I am afraid your idea of cutting the wage bill by £250k in the hope that over the next four years you will earn an average of £250k from cup and transfers doesn't work.

    you couldn't commit to a higher playing budget in July of year one unless you were certain of being able to pay for it as it falls due. If you got knocked out of the cup in rd1 with no transfer income in the first year, then on your figures you would be bankrupt before the end of the first season. You wouldn't be able to say to the players, or the VAT man, "don't worry we reckon we might earn £500k in transfer fees from someone next year so on average we'll have enough cash.

    For me you would have to assume no transfer fees/cup money, set the budget accordingly and only after you actually got any transfer money could you then up the salary budget and spend it.

    if we accept relegation to the conference is a disaster that must be avoided if at all possible (finances there are even harder), neither fan owned nor privately owned status is without risk but privately owned feels like substantially the lower risk of the two.
    That doesn't at this stage mean Luby over Harman or vice versa.

  • You haven't answered my final question, namely how are the Americans going to bridge the year on year deficit without getting us further in debt?

  • That's a detail we need to see from both bids (assuming there are two) @moneyman.

    As I said elsewhere, while equity is preferred, IMHO there actually isn't in practise a huge amount of difference between owner debt and owner equity. I think that's a bit of a fallacy. I'd be more concerned about non-owner debt, in particular for example what happens to cash currently owed to howard for example.

    what will happen in the future? Well who knows, there's risk whatever we do. For me most likely is that we do sell out to one or other, they continue to lose around £500k for a few years, they get bored, they sell out to another guy who loses about £500k a year for a few years etc etc. Just like the vast majority of Lg1 and Lg2 clubs. Its a bit shit but the way football in this country is structured. If we try to buck the trend, there will be a Salford or a Wrexham or a Fylde very happy to take our league place on that basis.

  • Can I just throw into your current debate about finances the fact that attendances this season so far (with home games against Sunderland, Charlton & Portsmouth still to come) are higher than they were in 17/18 and significantly higher than they were in 16/17.

  • @DevC said:
    My apologies @mooneyman I thought you were talking about the entire trust period rather than just the last season and a half. This season round 1 exit, last season made it to the third round. fairly average performance I would say.

    If the numbers are right and we will next season face a £500k hole in the finances (excluding transfers and cup money) with no way of funding it, I am afraid your idea of cutting the wage bill by £250k in the hope that over the next four years you will earn an average of £250k from cup and transfers doesn't work.

    you couldn't commit to a higher playing budget in July of year one unless you were certain of being able to pay for it as it falls due. If you got knocked out of the cup in rd1 with no transfer income in the first year, then on your figures you would be bankrupt before the end of the first season. You wouldn't be able to say to the players, or the VAT man, "don't worry we reckon we might earn £500k in transfer fees from someone next year so on average we'll have enough cash.

    For me you would have to assume no transfer fees/cup money, set the budget accordingly and only after you actually got any transfer money could you then up the salary budget and spend it.

    if we accept relegation to the conference is a disaster that must be avoided if at all possible (finances there are even harder), neither fan owned nor privately owned status is without risk but privately owned feels like substantially the lower risk of the two.
    That doesn't at this stage mean Luby over Harman or vice versa.

    Not exactly a cliff hanger your conclusion eh

  • For the avoidance of doubt, as posted endlessly elsewhere, rezoning is eminently feasible even with a council that’s not as bent as WDC. cf. Oxford, Darlington et al.

  • Good job that WDC will only be with us for another 14 months then......

    Obviously I am ignorant in these things - willfully ignorant some would say - so could you explain to us the process for getting viable employment land zoned for housing. My employer has some land we would love to get rezoned but none of us can for the life of us think of a way to do it.

  • Build a hotel on it?

  • @DevC said:
    Good job that WDC will only be with us for another 14 months then......

    Obviously I am ignorant in these things - willfully ignorant some would say - so could you explain to us the process for getting viable employment land zoned for housing. My employer has some land we would love to get rezoned but none of us can for the life of us think of a way to do it.

    Already have done in another thread, so that rather proves the “wilfully” part. The other part was already evident.

  • Not much by most accounts, particularly if it has been vacant for any length of time and become a "hazard", many older buildings have fallen victim to arson whilst vacant and being considered for renovation.

    More worrying perhaps, and one of the reasons for the FALL seperation was when in the first post-sharky trust kick off meeting however many years ago they mentioned that they had already knocked back several expressions of interest in the stadium without the club, wether they were Wasps, similar, redevelopment options or "friends" offering sale and leaseback wasn't clear as i remember but plenty of interest in taking Advantage in us being skint.

    Quite why anyone would want to argue against the need for safeguards I'm not sure. Boredom?

  • Broom & Wade, De La Rue (though it will always be Harrison's to me), Ercol's, G-Plan, they would have all been employment land and are now housing. Most of the town center office blocks are now, or are in the process of becoming, flats.

    I'm guessing the bigger the site, the less chance there is of selling it as is. That and it helps the council hit their 'so many homes in so many years' government target so they are bit easier on the planning.

  • @drcongo , I must have missed your post in a "different thread" where you told us how you could readily rezone viable employment land. May I ask you to repost it. I am sure it would be of interest to the wilfully ignorant, ignorant and indeed landowners all over the country.

  • @DevC said:
    @drcongo , I must have missed your post in a "different thread" where you told us how you could readily rezone viable employment land. May I ask you to repost it. I am sure it would be of interest to the wilfully ignorant, ignorant and indeed landowners all over the country.

    Seeing as you're pretending not to remember, it's all over this thread, repeatedly, because you were being wilfully ignorant there too: https://gasroom.org/discussion/comment/92102/#Comment_92102

  • When I first moved to Aylesbury 18 years ago not knowing the area at all, we lived in a house on an estate built right in the centre of town and were told not to eat anything we grew in the soil as there was still oil and chemical contamination from the factory and industrial units that had been there before. In the time we lived there a factory close to the Tesco roundabout on the Tring road was demolished and an estate of houses built, and another lorry depot is about to be turned into luxury flats at the other end of the Tring Road. The hospital site in Wendover (which also had chemical and medical waste issues) which was left derelict by the MOD for a long time has houses all over it. Not seeing the details or being a councillor or property developer, it would suggest to me that with Bucks having an impossible target for new homes it is not impossible to get planning permission on previous industrial sites. I would suggest as @StrongestTeam has...that we would need safeguards about Adams Park in any deal...wherever the money is coming from.

  • I'm amazed that all you dimwits are questioning one of this country's leading planning experts! Adams Park will NEVER be developed for housing.

  • Personally I think this debate has become a little too entrenched (fun as it is to watch). Whilst it is clearly (and demonstrably) possible (not necessarily likely) that Adams Park could be sold at a future date for property development, at the same time it is difficult (not impossible) to see anyone looking at us as a club and thinking; "hmm, there's a real opportunity to get rid of that stupid footballing stuff that costs loads of money and make a mint selling the land for housing." (The training ground on the other hand...)

    Absolutely agree with everyone that we need to build safeguards about the ground in any potential deal but at the same time, at this particular moment, I don't think we should automatically look at every prospective owner as an asset stripper.

  • @drcongo , I am not going to read through a 60 page thread in the vague hope of finding something relevant. If you have something to say, say it. Suffice it to say that planning rules are there for a reason, a large proportion of those who own employment land would love to convert it to housing land but it is extremely difficult to do as town planners need to maintain places for the towns population to work.

    The High Wycombe town plan, the advice for I published above makes it quite clear that they see Sands as being employment land for the foreseeable future (except in the specific case of redundant offices).

    I repeat what I posted a couple of days ago._ As far as I can see, all this reinforces that it would not be possible to develop AP or the car park or the adjacent factories for housing use. Social media being what it is, I suspect many of you will prefer to believe what you want to believe regardless of the evidence. that is your right.

    _

    The last sentence being particularly apposite I suspect.

    Meanwhile as others have said, the intention is that the stadium remains fan owned regardless. I am sure we all hope and most of us expect, that we never get to find out what would happen to AP if it was no longer used as a football stadium, so I suspect all of this has been moot.

  • Extraordinary

  • Amazing.

  • I don't know what's going on Jeff

  • I can't take it anymore. Muting Dev.

  • Belated shout out to @Mooneyman for referencing Mr Micawber. Can we derail this into a Dickens thread? I could get behind that!

  • Being ever so 'umble @Shev me too.

  • @micra said:
    I like the concept of “challenging” @glasshalffull to smuggle in a pre-determined phrase (or even a single relatively obscure word) but I can’t imagine the circumstances in which any of @eric_plant’s suggestions could reasonably be incorporated. @LX1’s suggestion seems more realistic.

    One for @bluntphil (for whom Eric’s suggestions might be more appropriate) : “Sido Jombati is flexing his right leg repeatedly but he seems to do that quite a lot in most games.”

    Not sure how I smuggled that in. All I can claim in mitigation is that I didn’t start it. Our good friend @eric_plant did. Sadly the fun he sought has not materialised.

  • @Wendoverman said:
    Being ever so 'umble @Shev me too.

    Uriah is a classic villain. For some reason I have always loved the chapter where David Copperfield gets drunk for the first time:

    "We went downstairs, one behind another. Near the bottom, somebody fell, and rolled down. Somebody else said it was Copperfield. I was angry at that false report, until, finding myself on my back in the passage, I began to think there might be some foundation for it."

  • "the fun he has sought has not materialised"

    That will be my epitaph

  • If I was Dev’s employer I’d suggest more research into zoning and less time posing incredibly long winded and hypothetical questions on football forums. I assumed he was either retired, self employed or part-time with his 2,000 word a day gasroom habit.

    It’s extraordinary to think that he doesn’t even come to watch the team play.

    A genuine mystery.

  • @arnos_grove - Especially as he seems to enjoy train journeys!

Sign In or Register to comment.