@chairboyscentral said:
We are a League One club - potentially a Championship club soon. What's only ever been a dream has a chance of becoming a reality. This is what football is all about. Why are we even talking about the National League? Unless there's something in the deal which would somehow leave us even worse off than we were a few months, why would you vote it down? ?♂️
Your last sentence is precisely the point. We don't know any of the details of the deal, nor do we have any idea how much money the Couhigs have. It seems as though anyone who has the temerity to point this out is labelled as unambitious or worse.
For all we know we could be on the verge of handing the club over to people who don't have a pot to piss in.
@chairboyscentral said:
Where do people suggest we get 2 million quid from should we need it?
Without being too facetious as you seem to be talking down any safeguards or scrutiny I could ask where you suggest we get £5m in 3 years or £12m in 7 years if crowds don't rise or if the master plan falls short for any other reason.
I'd love to see them succeed but also agree a couple of simple rules about maybe relinquishing control easily and cheaply if they don't. It's easy to underestimate how much grief these kind of clauses could have saved the likes of Blackpool or Bury.
It might well be @HCblue , it almost certainly will be.
@chairboyscentral said:
Where do people suggest we get 2 million quid from should we need it?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Trust inherited a larger debt when acquiring the club 7 years ago. That debt was paid off over time. We can only hope that, in the event of a NO vote, the club will be given time to repay debts.
@chairboyscentral said:
Where do people suggest we get 2 million quid from should we need it?
Without being too facetious as you seem to be talking down any safeguards or scrutiny I could ask where you suggest we get £5m in 3 years or £12m in 7 years if crowds don't rise or if the master plan falls short for any other reason.
I'd love to see them succeed but also agree a couple of simple rules about maybe relinquishing control easily and cheaply if they don't. It's easy to underestimate how much grief these kind of clauses could have saved the likes of Blackpool or Bury.
It might well be @HCblue , it almost certainly will be.
Yeah, we could find ourselves in that kind of debt in future - any club could - but we know we owe 2 million at the moment. Shouldn't that be a fairly serious concern?
@LordMandeville , the club did indeed inherit a biggish loan which was largely paid off from the proceeds of Jordan Ibe's sell-on. It is hard to see the next Jordan Ibe.
I suspect you are right that in practice the Couhigs would give the club time to pay off their debt. Frankly they have limited choice.
but I am not sure you are asking the right question. In the event of a "no vote", the club will lose around £400k between Christmas and June. with nobody to borrow more money from, how do you propose to pay the wages for that period?
@chairboyscentral said:
Where do people suggest we get 2 million quid from should we need it?
Without being too facetious as you seem to be talking down any safeguards or scrutiny I could ask where you suggest we get £5m in 3 years or £12m in 7 years if crowds don't rise or if the master plan falls short for any other reason.
I'd love to see them succeed but also agree a couple of simple rules about maybe relinquishing control easily and cheaply if they don't. It's easy to underestimate how much grief these kind of clauses could have saved the likes of Blackpool or Bury.
It might well be @HCblue , it almost certainly will be.
Yeah, we could find ourselves in that kind of debt in future - any club could - but we know we owe 2 million at the moment. Shouldn't that be a fairly serious concern?
Yeah, we could find ourselves in that kind of debt in future - any club could - but we know we owe 2 million at the moment. Shouldn't that be a fairly serious concern?
I'm not sure how 'we know' the figure of £2 million is correct. I've seen a recent quote of 'almost £2 million' in The Times report but given that the accounts for year ending June 2019 have not been made available and the succeeding financial year is over 3 months old I would suggest that we really do not know. Unless you have some inside knowledge?
Is there any reason to doubt though that we have cost commitments for rest of season way in excess of likely revenue and no obvious way of funding the gap?
Yeah, we could find ourselves in that kind of debt in future - any club could - but we know we owe 2 million at the moment. Shouldn't that be a fairly serious concern?
I'm not sure how 'we know' the figure of £2 million is correct. I've seen a recent quote of 'almost £2 million' in The Times report but given that the accounts for year ending June 2019 have not been made available and the succeeding financial year is over 3 months old I would suggest that we really do not know. Unless you have some inside knowledge?
Nope, no inside knowledge. Just going by that Times article.
Apologies if some of the timings and memory is a bit askew, but I am reasonably certain that in the latter years at Loakes Park this debate about investment to progress or sensible spending to maintain the status quo* also played out in the boardroom and led to at least one resignation. (I would welcome reassurance of this from anyone around with better memories than mine).
Not wishing to take sides (as there are clearly pros and cons) but it is entirely possible the past 30 years may have seen us follow the path of a club like Sutton United if the more risk-adverse side of the argument had with through.
*Yes I accept that “maintaining the status quo” in the current environment means plummeting down to whichever league becomes our natural level. (For what it’s worth I think as long as our decline was managed and we avoided the National League North we may suffer a season in the National League South but would stabilise in the mid-lower National League
@chairboyscentral said:
Where do people suggest we get 2 million quid from should we need it?
Why have we increased the budget before the vote, it's essentially put a gun to the voters head. I really really hope that the deal is a good one, or we're in real trouble either way
Why hasn’t anyone answered my question? The moon is made of cheese and is unsustainable under a trust ownership model. There’s no way the moon can survive as it will never get planning permission.
@DevC said:
Is there any reason to doubt though that we have cost commitments for rest of season way in excess of likely revenue and no obvious way of funding the gap?
You have figures for 'cost commitments' and 'likely revenue'? The former is way in excess of the latter? More elaboration, less speculation please.
@drcongo said:
Why hasn’t anyone answered my question? The moon is made of cheese and is unsustainable under a trust ownership model. There’s no way the moon can survive as it will never get planning permission.
The Couhigs have a proven track record of success at developing satellites made from dairy products. Only a myopic fool could fail to vote "Yes" unless they want to see the moon return to the mediocrity of the asteroid belt.
It's quite weird that having the temerity to ask questions like "how much money do the Couhigs have?" and "what is their business model to achieve sustainability?" means that you're suddenly labelled as someone who wants to oppose progress and take the club back to the conference. Why are people so afraid of asking the difficult questions and arming themselves with the full facts? Even if there's no chance of you not voting for the deal...
In the months and months of debate on the subject I haven't seen one single fan say that they'd rather vote no and end up back in non-league. It's a really lazy accusation to level.
You have figures for 'cost commitments' and 'likely revenue'? The former is way in excess of the latter? More elaboration, less speculation please.
Well I suppose we can only go on what we have been told. We have been losing money for years (proven look at the accounts). We lost lots of money last year (hence the emergency loans). We were going to set playing budget at £1.2m to break even. Now we have set playing budget at around £2m. that means a c. £800k loss full year. the biggest item of cost is the playing budget which is now largely fixed in contracts until the summer. Now we could go on a fantastic cup run or someone may come in and offer a £1m transfer fee but isn't it reasonable to conclude that there is a massive unfundable gap between committed cost and likely revenue for the rest of the season if the vote goes "no"?
@DevC said:
God i almost used the moon is made of cheese analogy. Does that mean me and @drcongo are alike. Horrible thought (probably for both of us).
We’re you going to use it to demonstrate how @DevC constantly posits ridiculous statements and then demands that everyone pay attention like a toddler repeatedly shouting “watch this mum, mum, mum watch this” before cartwheeling through a dog turd?
We have been losing money for years (proven look at the accounts).
WWFC made a loss in 2017/18, the last financial year for which we have figures. The previous year (2016/17) the club made a profit of over £1 million. The 2015/16 accounts state that 'an operating loss of £346K was more than offset by surpluses from player disposals'.
Speculate all you wish about anything post June 2018 but please do not misrepresent what has already been established and agreed.
AFC made millions from their cup exploits and from the sale of a striker; they also raised a million in a couple of days from crowd funding but most of it seems to have gone on the new stadium.
At lest we will be able to accommodate everybody in comfort and with a good view of the pitch from virtually any seat or step if we are favoured with football fortune again.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was referring to loss before transfers.
In 2018 we lost £680k
In 2017 we lost £790k excluding transfer revenue of £1.8m (mainly Ibe)
In 2016 we lost £340k before transfer revenue
I can’t find the figures for 2015
In 2014 we lost 880k before transfer revenue
Comments
Your last sentence is precisely the point. We don't know any of the details of the deal, nor do we have any idea how much money the Couhigs have. It seems as though anyone who has the temerity to point this out is labelled as unambitious or worse.
For all we know we could be on the verge of handing the club over to people who don't have a pot to piss in.
Without being too facetious as you seem to be talking down any safeguards or scrutiny I could ask where you suggest we get £5m in 3 years or £12m in 7 years if crowds don't rise or if the master plan falls short for any other reason.
I'd love to see them succeed but also agree a couple of simple rules about maybe relinquishing control easily and cheaply if they don't. It's easy to underestimate how much grief these kind of clauses could have saved the likes of Blackpool or Bury.
It might well be @HCblue , it almost certainly will be.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Trust inherited a larger debt when acquiring the club 7 years ago. That debt was paid off over time. We can only hope that, in the event of a NO vote, the club will be given time to repay debts.
Yeah, we could find ourselves in that kind of debt in future - any club could - but we know we owe 2 million at the moment. Shouldn't that be a fairly serious concern?
@LordMandeville , the club did indeed inherit a biggish loan which was largely paid off from the proceeds of Jordan Ibe's sell-on. It is hard to see the next Jordan Ibe.
I suspect you are right that in practice the Couhigs would give the club time to pay off their debt. Frankly they have limited choice.
but I am not sure you are asking the right question. In the event of a "no vote", the club will lose around £400k between Christmas and June. with nobody to borrow more money from, how do you propose to pay the wages for that period?
Indeed, all the more reason to get it right.
I'm not sure how 'we know' the figure of £2 million is correct. I've seen a recent quote of 'almost £2 million' in The Times report but given that the accounts for year ending June 2019 have not been made available and the succeeding financial year is over 3 months old I would suggest that we really do not know. Unless you have some inside knowledge?
Is there any reason to doubt though that we have cost commitments for rest of season way in excess of likely revenue and no obvious way of funding the gap?
Nope, no inside knowledge. Just going by that Times article.
Apologies if some of the timings and memory is a bit askew, but I am reasonably certain that in the latter years at Loakes Park this debate about investment to progress or sensible spending to maintain the status quo* also played out in the boardroom and led to at least one resignation. (I would welcome reassurance of this from anyone around with better memories than mine).
Not wishing to take sides (as there are clearly pros and cons) but it is entirely possible the past 30 years may have seen us follow the path of a club like Sutton United if the more risk-adverse side of the argument had with through.
*Yes I accept that “maintaining the status quo” in the current environment means plummeting down to whichever league becomes our natural level. (For what it’s worth I think as long as our decline was managed and we avoided the National League North we may suffer a season in the National League South but would stabilise in the mid-lower National League
I’ve never been to the moon, but it is definitely made of cheese. NOW I DEMAND YOU ALL REFUTE MY CLAIM.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim though? I demand it.
Playing the man again. Le chat et sur le table.
I didn’t say the moon was made of cheese. You said that it wasn’t but have provided no evidence for this. I note you haven’t answered my question yet.
Why have we increased the budget before the vote, it's essentially put a gun to the voters head. I really really hope that the deal is a good one, or we're in real trouble either way
Why hasn’t anyone answered my question? The moon is made of cheese and is unsustainable under a trust ownership model. There’s no way the moon can survive as it will never get planning permission.
You have figures for 'cost commitments' and 'likely revenue'? The former is way in excess of the latter? More elaboration, less speculation please.
NASA said we could colonize the moon by 2022!
The Couhigs have a proven track record of success at developing satellites made from dairy products. Only a myopic fool could fail to vote "Yes" unless they want to see the moon return to the mediocrity of the asteroid belt.
So what have we learnt from the last page or 2?
We basically will be playing on the rye in 5 years, as that's all we can naturally sustain.
Unless anyone else can prove diffo.
We’ve also learnt that the moon is made of cheese
... and that the cat is ON the table, when most of us surely believed it was UNDER it.
It's quite weird that having the temerity to ask questions like "how much money do the Couhigs have?" and "what is their business model to achieve sustainability?" means that you're suddenly labelled as someone who wants to oppose progress and take the club back to the conference. Why are people so afraid of asking the difficult questions and arming themselves with the full facts? Even if there's no chance of you not voting for the deal...
In the months and months of debate on the subject I haven't seen one single fan say that they'd rather vote no and end up back in non-league. It's a really lazy accusation to level.
Full disclaimer: I don't have a vote.
God i almost used the moon is made of cheese analogy. Does that mean me and @drcongo are alike. Horrible thought (probably for both of us).
Well I suppose we can only go on what we have been told. We have been losing money for years (proven look at the accounts). We lost lots of money last year (hence the emergency loans). We were going to set playing budget at £1.2m to break even. Now we have set playing budget at around £2m. that means a c. £800k loss full year. the biggest item of cost is the playing budget which is now largely fixed in contracts until the summer. Now we could go on a fantastic cup run or someone may come in and offer a £1m transfer fee but isn't it reasonable to conclude that there is a massive unfundable gap between committed cost and likely revenue for the rest of the season if the vote goes "no"?
We’re you going to use it to demonstrate how @DevC constantly posits ridiculous statements and then demands that everyone pay attention like a toddler repeatedly shouting “watch this mum, mum, mum watch this” before cartwheeling through a dog turd?
Err no strangely enough.
Still if it makes you happy.....
We have been losing money for years (proven look at the accounts).
WWFC made a loss in 2017/18, the last financial year for which we have figures. The previous year (2016/17) the club made a profit of over £1 million. The 2015/16 accounts state that 'an operating loss of £346K was more than offset by surpluses from player disposals'.
Speculate all you wish about anything post June 2018 but please do not misrepresent what has already been established and agreed.
I'm worried Rob may run away with the spoon
AFC made millions from their cup exploits and from the sale of a striker; they also raised a million in a couple of days from crowd funding but most of it seems to have gone on the new stadium.
At lest we will be able to accommodate everybody in comfort and with a good view of the pitch from virtually any seat or step if we are favoured with football fortune again.
Perhaps I should have made it clearer that I was referring to loss before transfers.
In 2018 we lost £680k
In 2017 we lost £790k excluding transfer revenue of £1.8m (mainly Ibe)
In 2016 we lost £340k before transfer revenue
I can’t find the figures for 2015
In 2014 we lost 880k before transfer revenue