Interesting. A year ago a whip-round with the fans would have generated a significant amount of cash for the club (ala the 500 club etc). Given the owner has more money that all of us (at a guess), it will be interesting to see how he plays it
@Tom said:
Interesting. A year ago a whip-round with the fans would have generated a significant amount of cash for the club (ala the 500 club etc). Given the owner has more money that all of us (at a guess), it will be interesting to see how he plays it
Nah mate, it raised about £50k which wouldn't cover the electric bill. We were at our limits off the pitch owing money all over the place. Couldn't barely get a printer to do posters from what I heard at one point. Did you buy a wall brick? That's probably our only income since early march.
The worrying thing is that other League 1 and 2 clubs who had substantial debt BEFORE lockdown are really going to be in shit street. The likes of Sunderland, Ipswich, Peterborough, Doncaster, Oxford etc can probably comfortably see out the financial crisis, but I'm not sure about the rest of us.
There needs to be some serious Robin hood style system set up! Steal from the rich (premiership) to give to the poor! (Lower division clubs)
Now is the time some serious thought should be put into, not leveling the field so much, but making it sustainable. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting out of control. Hmmmm... Much like society as a whole really!!
@Alexo said:
There needs to be some serious Robin hood style system set up! Steal from the rich (premiership) to give to the poor! (Lower division clubs)
Now is the time some serious thought should be put into, not leveling the field so much, but making it sustainable. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting out of control. Hmmmm... Much like society as a whole really!!
If that happens (unlikely), I hope any money doesn't all just go to the clubs that have spent irresponsibly like Southend and the horse punchers, whereas clubs like us who have spent according to our means get sweet FA.
how the hell? I know they were talking about a new stadium, so perhaps that’s it, but they’ve never struck me as a club that have blown tons of cash on big signings. Anyway, probably going a bit off topic.
Thank heavens we were sensible enough to clear our debts to Hayes when we had the cash to do so.
Firstly: why single out Jason McCarthy? I suppose we were paying a significant proportion of his salary - but what about David Stockdale? Are we getting him subsidised by Birmingham to sit on our bench? Or have we decided that we're signing him next season so can't let him go now? Because if we're continuing to pay him anything like the rumoured £30k a week he was on at Brum - while at the same time telling all our non-playing staff to look for jobs in what will be an extremely depressed market... well, I for one will be less than impressed. And what about Smyth, Ofoborh? Are they totally paid for by their parent clubs or have we taken the decision that it's more important to pay them to provide squad competition than it is to continue to pay our off-field staff the salaries they were previously earning?
Let's say that those off-field staff do all find employment elsewhere - they'll need to with the tapering out of the furlough scheme later in the summer and no salary provided by the club. What happens when the crowds are allowed to return? Our trained staff have scattered to the winds - we now have to recruit from scratch? With no one even left to train them up? That sounds like it may present some logistical issues to me. It could prove to be a somewhat short-sighted strategy.
I was intrigued by the formulation of what looks like a very clear marker to me - we haven't threatened the Trust's enshrined rights yet (I paraphrase, obviously). The implication left unsaid, to my mind anyway, is that that paragraph should end 'but any more cuts and we'll have to'. Given this full statement by Rob Couhig does not come close to addressing how the club will sustain the projected £2.5m losses by the end of the year, I suspect we'll get a part two before too long, 'with heavy heart' etc. Let's see. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally - £1m revenues lost so far. Yes, but also costs cut dramatically. Wages subsidised (I'm pleased to read the club has been topping up the furlough ceiling, even if that stops now); business rates holiday; utility bills and other outgoings pared down. If Rob Couhig wants to take us with him he needs to fill in the full story and be honest about the figures.
@Tom said:
Interesting. A year ago a whip-round with the fans would have generated a significant amount of cash for the club (ala the 500 club etc). Given the owner has more money that all of us (at a guess), it will be interesting to see how he plays it
Nah mate, it raised about £50k which wouldn't cover the electric bill. We were at our limits off the pitch owing money all over the place. Couldn't barely get a printer to do posters from what I heard at one point. Did you buy a wall brick? That's probably our only income since early march.
My point being, he can't go cap in hand to supporters like The Trust could have
@aloysius said:
Let's unpack that statement a little.
Firstly: why single out Jason McCarthy? I suppose we were paying a significant proportion of his salary - but what about David Stockdale? Are we getting him subsidised by Birmingham to sit on our bench? Or have we decided that we're signing him next season so can't let him go now? Because if we're continuing to pay him anything like the rumoured £30k a week he was on at Brum - while at the same time telling all our non-playing staff to look for jobs in what will be an extremely depressed market... well, I for one will be less than impressed. And what about Smyth, Ofoborh? Are they totally paid for by their parent clubs or have we taken the decision that it's more important to pay them to provide squad competition than it is to continue to pay our off-field staff the salaries they were previously earning?
Let's say that those off-field staff do all find employment elsewhere - they'll need to with the tapering out of the furlough scheme later in the summer and no salary provided by the club. What happens when the crowds are allowed to return? Our trained staff have scattered to the winds - we now have to recruit from scratch? With no one even left to train them up? That sounds like it may present some logistical issues to me. It could prove to be a somewhat short-sighted strategy.
I was intrigued by the formulation of what looks like a very clear marker to me - we haven't threatened the Trust's enshrined rights yet (I paraphrase, obviously). The implication left unsaid, to my mind anyway, is that that paragraph should end 'but any more cuts and we'll have to'. Given this full statement by Rob Couhig does not come close to addressing how the club will sustain the projected £2.5m losses by the end of the year, I suspect we'll get a part two before too long, 'with heavy heart' etc. Let's see. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally - £1m revenues lost so far. Yes, but also costs cut dramatically. Wages subsidised (I'm pleased to read the club has been topping up the furlough ceiling, even if that stops now); business rates holiday; utility bills and other outgoings pared down. If Rob Couhig wants to take us with him he needs to fill in the full story and be honest about the figures.
An interesting take on it.... I do wonder how with all the reduced out goings 2.5 million dept can stack up so fast. I don't know the ins and outs of running a football club though.
@aloysius said:
Let's unpack that statement a little.
Firstly: why single out Jason McCarthy? I suppose we were paying a significant proportion of his salary - but what about David Stockdale? Are we getting him subsidised by Birmingham to sit on our bench? Or have we decided that we're signing him next season so can't let him go now? Because if we're continuing to pay him anything like the rumoured £30k a week he was on at Brum - while at the same time telling all our non-playing staff to look for jobs in what will be an extremely depressed market... well, I for one will be less than impressed. And what about Smyth, Ofoborh? Are they totally paid for by their parent clubs or have we taken the decision that it's more important to pay them to provide squad competition than it is to continue to pay our off-field staff the salaries they were previously earning?
Let's say that those off-field staff do all find employment elsewhere - they'll need to with the tapering out of the furlough scheme later in the summer and no salary provided by the club. What happens when the crowds are allowed to return? Our trained staff have scattered to the winds - we now have to recruit from scratch? With no one even left to train them up? That sounds like it may present some logistical issues to me. It could prove to be a somewhat short-sighted strategy.
I was intrigued by the formulation of what looks like a very clear marker to me - we haven't threatened the Trust's enshrined rights yet (I paraphrase, obviously). The implication left unsaid, to my mind anyway, is that that paragraph should end 'but any more cuts and we'll have to'. Given this full statement by Rob Couhig does not come close to addressing how the club will sustain the projected £2.5m losses by the end of the year, I suspect we'll get a part two before too long, 'with heavy heart' etc. Let's see. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally - £1m revenues lost so far. Yes, but also costs cut dramatically. Wages subsidised (I'm pleased to read the club has been topping up the furlough ceiling, even if that stops now); business rates holiday; utility bills and other outgoings pared down. If Rob Couhig wants to take us with him he needs to fill in the full story and be honest about the figures.
An interesting take on it.... I do wonder how with all the reduced out goings 2.5 million dept can stack up so fast. I don't know the ins and outs of running a football club though.
"May exceed £2,500,000" is the key, he's not said we have yet. But with no fans if we played on until December who knows.
It's possible some of this is to head off the likes of Peterborough forcing us to play the full season with no gates and extra costs, many of their fans rather unbelievably can't see how 3 games on Sky are any better for finances than 13 mostly without.
On the question of staffing If we are effectively cutting loyal people's incomes by 20 percent and their futures are in any question long term it's perfectly right to allow them to explore other possibilities and the club will have to re hire where needed later if it comes to that, let's hope the staff can get by. I'd be happy to chip in to a fund.
On the Stockdale question if he's on that much money and due to be released about now anyway there's no way we were paying even 10-15% is there? and Birmingham have nothing to lose by letting him stay with us a few weeks more.
Sounds like the statement is confusing revenue and loss. The mention of the non revenue producing furlough scheme in the same sentence as the million figure suggests that.
Plus I am not sure about the million in revenue for four games as season ticket holders are not repaid and the Oxford games was already a sell out.
All sounds quite depressing but anyone not experiencing concern about your job or your next salary cheque are really lucky. Many millions are and I suppose the football club are no different.
I suppose loads of sports clubs are going through the same process.
Another sad reminder that the scars of the last few weeks will continue for some time to come. We've all just got to stay safe, help others and rebuild once things return nearer normal.
I mentioned this on another thread. In these emergency times when potentially a significant number of lower league clubs could be going out of business, it is obscene that Man Utd may be spending a nine figure sum on one player this summer. Seems to me like the FA should mandate a transfer levy (say 1% £5m-£10m, 3% 10m-25m,5% thereafter). It would increase Sancho's price from £100m to £105m. It woud provide afund of £5m to keep some clubs alive.
@aloysius said:
Let's unpack that statement a little.
Firstly: why single out Jason McCarthy? I suppose we were paying a significant proportion of his salary - but what about David Stockdale? Are we getting him subsidised by Birmingham to sit on our bench? Or have we decided that we're signing him next season so can't let him go now? Because if we're continuing to pay him anything like the rumoured £30k a week he was on at Brum - while at the same time telling all our non-playing staff to look for jobs in what will be an extremely depressed market... well, I for one will be less than impressed. And what about Smyth, Ofoborh? Are they totally paid for by their parent clubs or have we taken the decision that it's more important to pay them to provide squad competition than it is to continue to pay our off-field staff the salaries they were previously earning?
Let's say that those off-field staff do all find employment elsewhere - they'll need to with the tapering out of the furlough scheme later in the summer and no salary provided by the club. What happens when the crowds are allowed to return? Our trained staff have scattered to the winds - we now have to recruit from scratch? With no one even left to train them up? That sounds like it may present some logistical issues to me. It could prove to be a somewhat short-sighted strategy.
I was intrigued by the formulation of what looks like a very clear marker to me - we haven't threatened the Trust's enshrined rights yet (I paraphrase, obviously). The implication left unsaid, to my mind anyway, is that that paragraph should end 'but any more cuts and we'll have to'. Given this full statement by Rob Couhig does not come close to addressing how the club will sustain the projected £2.5m losses by the end of the year, I suspect we'll get a part two before too long, 'with heavy heart' etc. Let's see. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally - £1m revenues lost so far. Yes, but also costs cut dramatically. Wages subsidised (I'm pleased to read the club has been topping up the furlough ceiling, even if that stops now); business rates holiday; utility bills and other outgoings pared down. If Rob Couhig wants to take us with him he needs to fill in the full story and be honest about the figures.
Have you ever considered jumping to a few conclusions?
I read this all as loss of revenues, not losses. We should have minimal expenditure at the moment so I’d hope we aren’t making substantial losses.
Worth bearing in mind that it was pretty good of the club to make up salaries to 100%. Furlough only goes up to a maximum of £2500 a mth (equivalent to £30,000 a year). That means they will be making a fairly substantial contribution each month for staff that are doing no work.
Many businesses have not been so generous and haven’t contributed at all to salaries for furloughed staff.
We’ve also kept some staff employed. Matt has kept the media channels running, for instance, which has been a nice way to keep some connection.
The statement seems reasonable to me and good to have some transparency.
Am I the only one who finds the wording of this statement a little odd, if not almost sinister? :- "I have also informed our manager that the Club will be without the services of Jason McCarthy". I'd always understood that Rob and Gaz worked closely together. It doesn't read like that to me.
I disagree @HomerLone. Why rack up more unecessary debt contributing to his wages when it is highly unlikely that the remaining matches will be played other than perhaps the playoffs.
After such a long lay off, I would hope that we now have an injury free squad. Grimmer, Stewart, Charles and JJ should be able to play a maximum of three games. It may be that Pete Couhig tried to persuade Millwall to let us have him on reduced wages but failed so advised Gareth accordingly.
@mooneyman, it wasn't the fact of letting McCarthy go which raised an eyebrow. It was the tone of the sentence. It read to me like a dictate from above rather than a mutually agreed step.
@HomerLone said: @mooneyman, it wasn't the fact of letting McCarthy go which raised an eyebrow. It was the tone of the sentence. It read to me like a dictate from above rather than a mutually agreed step.
I think we've all spent too long reading Government announcements.
@HomerLone said: @mooneyman, it wasn't the fact of letting McCarthy go which raised an eyebrow. It was the tone of the sentence. It read to me like a dictate from above rather than a mutually agreed step.
With respect I think you’re reading too much into it. They genuinely have a close working relationship and I’m sure the decision, though regrettable, was reached in an amicable fashion. Rob has a direct way of talking and writing and doesn’t resort to the usual football cliches so it may have come across harsher than intended.
At the end of the day, a manager is always going to want the best players for his team if given the chance.
The point about Mccarthy being "singled out" isn't a fair one.
Stockdale is out of contract I believe in, so I suspect we'll be looking at signing him up. I also expect we're paying him next to nothing as he isn't short of a bob or two.
I expect the wages of Oforbah and Smyth are much smaller than Mccarthy, he moved to a championship club for a fee just this summer, and then we signed him on loan mid season to cover a long term injury. I expect Millwall would happily have kept him as a backup so we may have had to "persuade" them by offering to pay a significant chunk of his wages- justified by our need and league position
@DevC said:
I mentioned this on another thread. In these emergency times when potentially a significant number of lower league clubs could be going out of business, it is obscene that Man Utd may be spending a nine figure sum on one player this summer. Seems to me like the FA should mandate a transfer levy (say 1% £5m-£10m, 3% 10m-25m,5% thereafter). It would increase Sancho's price from £100m to £105m. It woud provide afund of £5m to keep some clubs alive.
I brought this very fact up weeks ago @DevC
Love the idea of a transfer levy. I think you could probably even reduce the %'s a little and still produce enough cash for Leagues 1,2 and top 3 divisions in non-league
The Premier League was designed to take more of the TV money away from other league clubs, I'd love them to contribute more but I won't hold out too much hope as it doesn't seem anyone can make them.
I'd give Rob C the benefit of the doubt on the wording above, I think he's being responsible, can't see Gaz not understanding it's necessary.
Comments
Interesting. A year ago a whip-round with the fans would have generated a significant amount of cash for the club (ala the 500 club etc). Given the owner has more money that all of us (at a guess), it will be interesting to see how he plays it
Nah mate, it raised about £50k which wouldn't cover the electric bill. We were at our limits off the pitch owing money all over the place. Couldn't barely get a printer to do posters from what I heard at one point. Did you buy a wall brick? That's probably our only income since early march.
The bit where he is advising furloughed employees to find alternative employment, presumably that includes players?
The start of that paragraph states "non-football staff"
Apologies, I should have read that more carefully. Thanks for putting me right.
Thoughts are with all the staff this affects, it's such a horrible time for so many people.
The worrying thing is that other League 1 and 2 clubs who had substantial debt BEFORE lockdown are really going to be in shit street. The likes of Sunderland, Ipswich, Peterborough, Doncaster, Oxford etc can probably comfortably see out the financial crisis, but I'm not sure about the rest of us.
Aren't Bristol Rovers over £20 million in the hole? Southend also in similarly bad shape if I remember correctly.
Not sure about BRFC but Southend seem to get a winding-up order issued against them every other season, and I’m not joking.
Sad times for the club and of course the affected staff but we’re not the first to take this kind of step and I can’t see us being the last.
Fingers crossed for those looking for alternative employment.
There needs to be some serious Robin hood style system set up! Steal from the rich (premiership) to give to the poor! (Lower division clubs)
Now is the time some serious thought should be put into, not leveling the field so much, but making it sustainable. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting out of control. Hmmmm... Much like society as a whole really!!
Yeah, Rovers announced debt of more than £24 million in March https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52071690
If that happens (unlikely), I hope any money doesn't all just go to the clubs that have spent irresponsibly like Southend and the horse punchers, whereas clubs like us who have spent according to our means get sweet FA.
how the hell? I know they were talking about a new stadium, so perhaps that’s it, but they’ve never struck me as a club that have blown tons of cash on big signings. Anyway, probably going a bit off topic.
Thank heavens we were sensible enough to clear our debts to Hayes when we had the cash to do so.
Let's unpack that statement a little.
Firstly: why single out Jason McCarthy? I suppose we were paying a significant proportion of his salary - but what about David Stockdale? Are we getting him subsidised by Birmingham to sit on our bench? Or have we decided that we're signing him next season so can't let him go now? Because if we're continuing to pay him anything like the rumoured £30k a week he was on at Brum - while at the same time telling all our non-playing staff to look for jobs in what will be an extremely depressed market... well, I for one will be less than impressed. And what about Smyth, Ofoborh? Are they totally paid for by their parent clubs or have we taken the decision that it's more important to pay them to provide squad competition than it is to continue to pay our off-field staff the salaries they were previously earning?
Let's say that those off-field staff do all find employment elsewhere - they'll need to with the tapering out of the furlough scheme later in the summer and no salary provided by the club. What happens when the crowds are allowed to return? Our trained staff have scattered to the winds - we now have to recruit from scratch? With no one even left to train them up? That sounds like it may present some logistical issues to me. It could prove to be a somewhat short-sighted strategy.
I was intrigued by the formulation of what looks like a very clear marker to me - we haven't threatened the Trust's enshrined rights yet (I paraphrase, obviously). The implication left unsaid, to my mind anyway, is that that paragraph should end 'but any more cuts and we'll have to'. Given this full statement by Rob Couhig does not come close to addressing how the club will sustain the projected £2.5m losses by the end of the year, I suspect we'll get a part two before too long, 'with heavy heart' etc. Let's see. I hope I'm wrong.
Finally - £1m revenues lost so far. Yes, but also costs cut dramatically. Wages subsidised (I'm pleased to read the club has been topping up the furlough ceiling, even if that stops now); business rates holiday; utility bills and other outgoings pared down. If Rob Couhig wants to take us with him he needs to fill in the full story and be honest about the figures.
My point being, he can't go cap in hand to supporters like The Trust could have
An interesting take on it.... I do wonder how with all the reduced out goings 2.5 million dept can stack up so fast. I don't know the ins and outs of running a football club though.
"May exceed £2,500,000" is the key, he's not said we have yet. But with no fans if we played on until December who knows.
It's possible some of this is to head off the likes of Peterborough forcing us to play the full season with no gates and extra costs, many of their fans rather unbelievably can't see how 3 games on Sky are any better for finances than 13 mostly without.
On the question of staffing If we are effectively cutting loyal people's incomes by 20 percent and their futures are in any question long term it's perfectly right to allow them to explore other possibilities and the club will have to re hire where needed later if it comes to that, let's hope the staff can get by. I'd be happy to chip in to a fund.
On the Stockdale question if he's on that much money and due to be released about now anyway there's no way we were paying even 10-15% is there? and Birmingham have nothing to lose by letting him stay with us a few weeks more.
Sounds like the statement is confusing revenue and loss. The mention of the non revenue producing furlough scheme in the same sentence as the million figure suggests that.
Plus I am not sure about the million in revenue for four games as season ticket holders are not repaid and the Oxford games was already a sell out.
All sounds quite depressing but anyone not experiencing concern about your job or your next salary cheque are really lucky. Many millions are and I suppose the football club are no different.
I suppose loads of sports clubs are going through the same process.
Another sad reminder that the scars of the last few weeks will continue for some time to come. We've all just got to stay safe, help others and rebuild once things return nearer normal.
I mentioned this on another thread. In these emergency times when potentially a significant number of lower league clubs could be going out of business, it is obscene that Man Utd may be spending a nine figure sum on one player this summer. Seems to me like the FA should mandate a transfer levy (say 1% £5m-£10m, 3% 10m-25m,5% thereafter). It would increase Sancho's price from £100m to £105m. It woud provide afund of £5m to keep some clubs alive.
Very well made point Dev
Have you ever considered jumping to a few conclusions?
I read this all as loss of revenues, not losses. We should have minimal expenditure at the moment so I’d hope we aren’t making substantial losses.
Worth bearing in mind that it was pretty good of the club to make up salaries to 100%. Furlough only goes up to a maximum of £2500 a mth (equivalent to £30,000 a year). That means they will be making a fairly substantial contribution each month for staff that are doing no work.
Many businesses have not been so generous and haven’t contributed at all to salaries for furloughed staff.
We’ve also kept some staff employed. Matt has kept the media channels running, for instance, which has been a nice way to keep some connection.
The statement seems reasonable to me and good to have some transparency.
Proof indeed that we live in very strange times
Am I the only one who finds the wording of this statement a little odd, if not almost sinister? :- "I have also informed our manager that the Club will be without the services of Jason McCarthy". I'd always understood that Rob and Gaz worked closely together. It doesn't read like that to me.
I disagree @HomerLone. Why rack up more unecessary debt contributing to his wages when it is highly unlikely that the remaining matches will be played other than perhaps the playoffs.
After such a long lay off, I would hope that we now have an injury free squad. Grimmer, Stewart, Charles and JJ should be able to play a maximum of three games. It may be that Pete Couhig tried to persuade Millwall to let us have him on reduced wages but failed so advised Gareth accordingly.
@mooneyman, it wasn't the fact of letting McCarthy go which raised an eyebrow. It was the tone of the sentence. It read to me like a dictate from above rather than a mutually agreed step.
I think we've all spent too long reading Government announcements.
With respect I think you’re reading too much into it. They genuinely have a close working relationship and I’m sure the decision, though regrettable, was reached in an amicable fashion. Rob has a direct way of talking and writing and doesn’t resort to the usual football cliches so it may have come across harsher than intended.
At the end of the day, a manager is always going to want the best players for his team if given the chance.
The point about Mccarthy being "singled out" isn't a fair one.
Stockdale is out of contract I believe in, so I suspect we'll be looking at signing him up. I also expect we're paying him next to nothing as he isn't short of a bob or two.
I expect the wages of Oforbah and Smyth are much smaller than Mccarthy, he moved to a championship club for a fee just this summer, and then we signed him on loan mid season to cover a long term injury. I expect Millwall would happily have kept him as a backup so we may have had to "persuade" them by offering to pay a significant chunk of his wages- justified by our need and league position
I brought this very fact up weeks ago @DevC
Love the idea of a transfer levy. I think you could probably even reduce the %'s a little and still produce enough cash for Leagues 1,2 and top 3 divisions in non-league
The Premier League was designed to take more of the TV money away from other league clubs, I'd love them to contribute more but I won't hold out too much hope as it doesn't seem anyone can make them.
I'd give Rob C the benefit of the doubt on the wording above, I think he's being responsible, can't see Gaz not understanding it's necessary.