@Ed_ said:
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
But any decision relating to attendance is primarily a financial decision, is it not?
I can think of a load of decisions which affect attendance which are made for reasons of health and safety or law and order. Ultimately those decisions will all have some impact on the balance sheet because everything does, but does it mean that those decisions were made with the purposes of improving the balance sheet?
Yes because if those weren't implemented, then the stadium could be shut down or the club sued, which would definitely affect the balance sheet
I assume your comment regarding the banning of musical instruments being a financial decision was a joke.
Declining attendance on the terrace was ‘the straw that broke the camels back’ re drum-gate.
The counter argument to my financially driven imperative that I was waiting for from someone was the decision by the club to cancel the Ipswich game on ‘international duty’ grounds. This was clearly a demand by the coaching staff to earn a rest week, as Ipswich form, our momentum and as importantly the considerable loss of revenue from a Saturday sold out away end + add ons made no business sense.
It is worth noting that last week vs Morecambe we went for the revenue / points rather than a week off.
@Ed_ said:
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
But any decision relating to attendance is primarily a financial decision, is it not?
I can think of a load of decisions which affect attendance which are made for reasons of health and safety or law and order. Ultimately those decisions will all have some impact on the balance sheet because everything does, but does it mean that those decisions were made with the purposes of improving the balance sheet?
But they're generally enforced decisions out of the club's control. They chose to ban instruments - correct decision but ultimately done with £ in mind.
@Ed_ said:
I could agree that every decision has a financial consequence and with respect to contractual decisions on the playing staff those considerations are primary, but the withdrawal of the drum and the consequent removal of the noise was primarily done for the general good of the attendees (minus one).
But any decision relating to attendance is primarily a financial decision, is it not?
I can think of a load of decisions which affect attendance which are made for reasons of health and safety or law and order. Ultimately those decisions will all have some impact on the balance sheet because everything does, but does it mean that those decisions were made with the purposes of improving the balance sheet?
But they're generally enforced decisions out of the club's control. They chose to ban instruments - correct decision but ultimately done with £ in mind.
Like any business the club have budgets and each area has to balance what to spend on and cut back and when to appeal for a bit more but it seems pretty clear the goodwill around decisions are as much of a factor as direct bang for buck. Gaz is very good in acknowledging where the Couhigs have given him a bit more free reign and will be aware that you can't spend it twice.
Arguably a lot of what the Couhigs and many owners are doing financially is as much around overall value of the club as it is direct profit each year. I think they've already said they can tolerate some losses here or there to a point if it's enjoyable and moving forward as they want. Should they want out at some point they will of course be aware it's worth more, and more desirable as a viable championship outfit with stable management and a solid happy fan base.
Should probably add that while they almost certainly found a bit more £ for Vokes that would have been a calculated gamble, Our friends in the Midlands show what happens if you go crazy with that thinking.
@Wendoverman said:
Well, personally, I am happy that that particular 'financial decision' was made. See also giving Darius another shot after an injury ravaged first season and giving Bayo another year. Obviously, there is no place in football for compassion or loyalty, which would ruin the game.
This is a great point. I wonder how many managers/clubs would have given Darius another shot at it given his physical and mental health situation, but boy did we reap the rewards, while helping a superb human being get back doing what he loves and was so good at. I hope and expect Nick will feel similarly inspired now to come back and be the star for Wycombe he can be, and if he doesn't... well, I'd rather we had that level of trust and faith in people than not.
I find nowadays that living life believing there is a disguised cynical or underhand motive for every simple and seemingly obvious action or behavior is quite exhausting.
@Ed_ said:
I don’t think that every policy decision that the club makes is made under the threat of the stadium being shut down or the club being sued.
Almost all law and order/ health and safety ones will be though.
I doubt we pay for policing or paint yellow lines for any other reason than "we have to".
@DevC said:
Apart from the Derby/Keown incident (in slightly different circumstances) are there examples of clubs abandoning seriously injured players?
Alex Samuels was dumped by Stevenage with an ankle injury wasn't he?
@Wendoverman said:
I find nowadays that living life believing there is a disguised cynical or underhand motive for every simple and seemingly obvious action or behavior is quite exhausting.
It can be exhausting agreed. And the possibility some naively assume those in positions of power and authority are acting out an altruistic agenda is quite terrifying.
@Wendoverman said:
I find nowadays that living life believing there is a disguised cynical or underhand motive for every simple and seemingly obvious action or behavior is quite exhausting.
Even for the gasroom, someone trying to make out the club have done this for some kind of financial gain is bizarre.
He was very likely to be released at the end of the season. Not sold on for 500k.
Alex Samuels was dumped by Stevenage with an ankle injury wasn't he?
I genuinely don’t know @EwanHoosaami . I’m sure there are instances both ways but would be interested to know whether this is a very rare act of human decency or pretty much the standard thing clubs would normally do.
@perfidious_albion said:
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
I disagree. Every decision has a financial implication, it doesn't mean every decision is financial. Shall I buy new socks, my old ones have holes in them? Clearly the answer has financial implications but it's not a financial decision.
If I buy new socks will it enhance my appearance? is buying new socks an astute move to improve my appearance given demands on my monthly expenditure? are those socks good value? do I need to wear socks at all given current fashion trends? etc etc…..Is this a tortuous analogy?
Would the club be able to function at any profession level without astute financial management? Are the current owners good at this, driven by this? Yes
You seem to have missed my point.
You (appear) to be making the case that keeping Nick is purely a financial decision - a years wages v sell-on/value of goals scored.
I'm making the case that the decision to offer a contract extension could just be seen as "the right thing to do". If so, then you just have to find the money - there is no analysis of cost v reward to made.
If my new socks confused you I'm sorry.
Personally I'm glad the club made this call and as others have said it has to be viewed in the wider context of the club ethos and moral values of GA/Dobbo/Rob/Pete.
If it helps persuade some up coming talent to sign for us or helps us keep someone like Vokes that's an extra bonus but I do not believe it's the motivating factor.
@Wendoverman said:
I find nowadays that living life believing there is a disguised cynical or underhand motive for every simple and seemingly obvious action or behavior is quite exhausting.
It can be exhausting agreed. And the possibility some naively assume those in positions of power and authority are acting out an altruistic agenda is quite terrifying.
I doubt anyone at all believes that (just ask @Onlooker ) and certainly not me but in this case (bearing in mind I am well aware -perhaps naively -that the man in power Rob C wants the club to do well) I think that it was done for more empathetic and human reasons than just a financial transaction...
If this move were purely financial, the club would have waited until right before Nick's contract ran out to make sure he is sufficiently healed to have value for next season, and also to assess which division we are going to be in.
As it is, the decision was made very quickly after his surgery, with no guarantees as to how long the recovery will be or which division we are playing him in (though I for one think he showed last season he can play in the second tier just fine).
Even for the most cynical person, surely the timing of the announcement indicates compassion rather than cold-eyed bottom line dynamics.
I don’t remember anyone saying this was ‘just’ or ‘purely’ a financial move. The original comment that appears to have generated a pile in was that the deal suited both parties for obvious reasons.
Darius is a great example of reaping the benefit of a decision not based around £. No reason we should have given him a shot when I am sure there were players out there who were fit and ready. But clearly GA etc knew what a guy he was and I still firmly believe there should be a statue of that guy somewhere as he is a legend in my eyes - and considering his number of appearances that's pretty extraordinary.
@perfidious_albion said:
I don’t remember anyone saying this was ‘just’ or ‘purely’ a financial move. The original comment that appears to have generated a pile in was that the deal suited both parties for obvious reasons.
Actually @perfidious_albion at 10:55 today you wrote ...
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
Comments
Yes because if those weren't implemented, then the stadium could be shut down or the club sued, which would definitely affect the balance sheet
Declining attendance on the terrace was ‘the straw that broke the camels back’ re drum-gate.
The counter argument to my financially driven imperative that I was waiting for from someone was the decision by the club to cancel the Ipswich game on ‘international duty’ grounds. This was clearly a demand by the coaching staff to earn a rest week, as Ipswich form, our momentum and as importantly the considerable loss of revenue from a Saturday sold out away end + add ons made no business sense.
It is worth noting that last week vs Morecambe we went for the revenue / points rather than a week off.
I don’t think that every policy decision that the club makes is made under the threat of the stadium being shut down or the club being sued.
But they're generally enforced decisions out of the club's control. They chose to ban instruments - correct decision but ultimately done with £ in mind.
Like any business the club have budgets and each area has to balance what to spend on and cut back and when to appeal for a bit more but it seems pretty clear the goodwill around decisions are as much of a factor as direct bang for buck. Gaz is very good in acknowledging where the Couhigs have given him a bit more free reign and will be aware that you can't spend it twice.
Arguably a lot of what the Couhigs and many owners are doing financially is as much around overall value of the club as it is direct profit each year. I think they've already said they can tolerate some losses here or there to a point if it's enjoyable and moving forward as they want. Should they want out at some point they will of course be aware it's worth more, and more desirable as a viable championship outfit with stable management and a solid happy fan base.
Should probably add that while they almost certainly found a bit more £ for Vokes that would have been a calculated gamble, Our friends in the Midlands show what happens if you go crazy with that thinking.
This is a great point. I wonder how many managers/clubs would have given Darius another shot at it given his physical and mental health situation, but boy did we reap the rewards, while helping a superb human being get back doing what he loves and was so good at. I hope and expect Nick will feel similarly inspired now to come back and be the star for Wycombe he can be, and if he doesn't... well, I'd rather we had that level of trust and faith in people than not.
I find nowadays that living life believing there is a disguised cynical or underhand motive for every simple and seemingly obvious action or behavior is quite exhausting.
Almost all law and order/ health and safety ones will be though.
I doubt we pay for policing or paint yellow lines for any other reason than "we have to".
Alex Samuels was dumped by Stevenage with an ankle injury wasn't he?
It can be exhausting agreed. And the possibility some naively assume those in positions of power and authority are acting out an altruistic agenda is quite terrifying.
Hanlan’s razor applies:
"never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
Although that’s just as frightening!
Even for the gasroom, someone trying to make out the club have done this for some kind of financial gain is bizarre.
He was very likely to be released at the end of the season. Not sold on for 500k.
I genuinely don’t know @EwanHoosaami . I’m sure there are instances both ways but would be interested to know whether this is a very rare act of human decency or pretty much the standard thing clubs would normally do.
I do know that poor Alex only had one S though!
You seem to have missed my point.
You (appear) to be making the case that keeping Nick is purely a financial decision - a years wages v sell-on/value of goals scored.
I'm making the case that the decision to offer a contract extension could just be seen as "the right thing to do". If so, then you just have to find the money - there is no analysis of cost v reward to made.
If my new socks confused you I'm sorry.
Personally I'm glad the club made this call and as others have said it has to be viewed in the wider context of the club ethos and moral values of GA/Dobbo/Rob/Pete.
If it helps persuade some up coming talent to sign for us or helps us keep someone like Vokes that's an extra bonus but I do not believe it's the motivating factor.
I didn't know he was so deep! Is there anything he can't do?!
Lol.
I doubt anyone at all believes that (just ask @Onlooker ) and certainly not me but in this case (bearing in mind I am well aware -perhaps naively -that the man in power Rob C wants the club to do well) I think that it was done for more empathetic and human reasons than just a financial transaction...
If this move were purely financial, the club would have waited until right before Nick's contract ran out to make sure he is sufficiently healed to have value for next season, and also to assess which division we are going to be in.
As it is, the decision was made very quickly after his surgery, with no guarantees as to how long the recovery will be or which division we are playing him in (though I for one think he showed last season he can play in the second tier just fine).
Even for the most cynical person, surely the timing of the announcement indicates compassion rather than cold-eyed bottom line dynamics.
I need some new socks
I don’t remember anyone saying this was ‘just’ or ‘purely’ a financial move. The original comment that appears to have generated a pile in was that the deal suited both parties for obvious reasons.
How many partys are people expecting fgs
Darius is a great example of reaping the benefit of a decision not based around £. No reason we should have given him a shot when I am sure there were players out there who were fit and ready. But clearly GA etc knew what a guy he was and I still firmly believe there should be a statue of that guy somewhere as he is a legend in my eyes - and considering his number of appearances that's pretty extraordinary.
Hanlan's razor (!)
That's either some comedy wit, or a sign someone is too obsessed with our new forward!
I hear Occam was an amazing forward in his own right.
Capable of the simplest of passes.
Sharp finisher too.
Actually @perfidious_albion at 10:55 today you wrote ...
Jesus Mary (& the wee donkey), every decision at the professional elite level we play at is a financial decision: from not paying the last minute extra £25k demanded for the Shrimps central defender through to withdrawing musical instruments from the terrace. Every decision is financial.
@Twizz indeed I did, no sign of a ‘just’ or ‘purely’ in that post. Thanks.
Or “partly”.