Swindon AdvertiserBack in the Black (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

SWINDON TOWN: Back in the Black

Swindon Advertiser: Swindon Town chairman Sir William Patey Swindon Town chairman Sir William Patey

SWINDON Town chairman Sir William Patey has revealed the club could bring in new faces on loan as soon as this weekend, after announcing the Robins have emerged from embargo.

Majority shareholder Andrew Black has pumped in the equity necessary to drop Town’s projected expenditure back below the 65 per cent of turnover limit imposed by Football League rules and the authorities yesterday lifted the ban on the club drafting reinforcements in their battle for a League One play-off place.

That means manager Paolo Di Canio is free to start scouring the loan market and, with the Swindon boss having already identified his targets, Patey suggested that transfer news could be coming out of the County Ground before the trip to Walsall on Saturday.

“We heard from the Football League. A new injection of money came into the club.

“The owner Andrew Black injected enough money into the club to get us out of the current embargo with a little bit of head-room for bringing in new players on loan.

“It’s not a huge amount, we’re basically spending the whole budget that we had set for the year of £4.5million now instead of waiting until January because we’d already overspent it – hence we got into embargo.

“There are limited funds and I have said that Paolo has to decide how he wants to spend that, who he wants to bring in. He talked about a striker, he talked about a midfielder, he talked about the defence – here’s the money you’ve got, do with it what you can.

“We’ve been working at this. I inherited an embargo and it was quite clear that we wanted to get the club out of embargo, we want to get the club on a sound financial footing, we want proper budgeting in place and that’ s what we’re doing.

“This is the first step. We’ve got to build from here and I think the more that we can show that we’re using the resources available wisely the more likely the owners are to say it is money well spent.

“It could be by the weekend, it depends on how quickly the due diligence can be done. We’ve got to do medicals and make sure all the financials are in place. We don’t want to make the mistakes of the past where people came in willy nilly and the odd medical problem arrives afterwards or didn’t quite understand the full contractual commitments.

“We have to make sure we get these things properly done.”

Meanwhile, Patey dismissed reports linking Di Canio with the not-yet-vacant managerial position at Southampton.

“It’s all speculation,” he said. “We have not had any approaches and Paolo is contracted to us for the next two years. He’s got a mandate to take us up the Championship.”

Comments (54)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:30am Wed 7 Nov 12

graham81 says...

Good good :)my bro is saints fan and mentioned Paola favourite to take over. Told him to dream on (for now anyway) can't see Paolo going anywhere just yet.
Good good :)my bro is saints fan and mentioned Paola favourite to take over. Told him to dream on (for now anyway) can't see Paolo going anywhere just yet. graham81
  • Score: 0

6:54am Wed 7 Nov 12

Anoldgreymoonraker says...

Glad ta read that , onwards n upwards then ....:o))
Glad ta read that , onwards n upwards then ....:o)) Anoldgreymoonraker
  • Score: 0

8:33am Wed 7 Nov 12

mallorca says...

Godd point last night .As to Embargo glad it;s removed just hope pdc does not blow it all on sick note players.
As to Saudi Investors was a nice dream/rumour whilst it lasted and where some of pdc getting 20 million was for sure way off mark.
Main thing is club are still 7th and lsitnening in last night they gave it all so on that score well done.
Quiteright about Pdc leaving for him I think he will honour his contract.
As to revenuesSWP mentioned don't get excited ef CA well again at weekend was with my friend who is Burnley FC Director and he said theres been great interest in CA in fact 2 bids in to date.Also the Townwould be surprised at there % of slae.No figures mentioned.
Also sad as it is I think Mat Ritchie be be off but only if the money is right for the Club and the Player wants to,do hope again this is just nasty rumours.
So onwards to saturday let's hope they get a result.
Any rumours on New faces Arriving????
Godd point last night .As to Embargo glad it;s removed just hope pdc does not blow it all on sick note players. As to Saudi Investors was a nice dream/rumour whilst it lasted and where some of pdc getting 20 million was for sure way off mark. Main thing is club are still 7th and lsitnening in last night they gave it all so on that score well done. Quiteright about Pdc leaving for him I think he will honour his contract. As to revenuesSWP mentioned don't get excited ef CA well again at weekend was with my friend who is Burnley FC Director and he said theres been great interest in CA in fact 2 bids in to date.Also the Townwould be surprised at there % of slae.No figures mentioned. Also sad as it is I think Mat Ritchie be be off but only if the money is right for the Club and the Player wants to,do hope again this is just nasty rumours. So onwards to saturday let's hope they get a result. Any rumours on New faces Arriving???? mallorca
  • Score: 0

8:35am Wed 7 Nov 12

Rondogers says...

I thought the whole point of the financial fairplay is that you can't just pump money in?

Sure I read that on here last week? confused :S...

Not that i'm complaining if it gets us promoted! :)
I thought the whole point of the financial fairplay is that you can't just pump money in? Sure I read that on here last week? confused :S... Not that i'm complaining if it gets us promoted! :) Rondogers
  • Score: 0

9:31am Wed 7 Nov 12

madterrier says...

Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income?

If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out.

So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad.

That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.
Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now. madterrier
  • Score: 0

9:38am Wed 7 Nov 12

Stilloyal says...

I said last week after the meeting with Black & Patey that we'd be out of the embargo within 14 days.
I said last week after the meeting with Black & Patey that we'd be out of the embargo within 14 days. Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

9:46am Wed 7 Nov 12

Oi Den! says...

madterrier wrote:
Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income?

If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out.

So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad.

That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.
I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.[/p][/quote]I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)? Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

9:49am Wed 7 Nov 12

Oi Den! says...

By the way, the rules for the Championship are different from ours, and in the Premier League they are different again.
By the way, the rules for the Championship are different from ours, and in the Premier League they are different again. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:05am Wed 7 Nov 12

Stilloyal says...

Oi Den! wrote:
madterrier wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.
I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?
How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages.

It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.[/p][/quote]I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?[/p][/quote]How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages. It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol. Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

10:38am Wed 7 Nov 12

Oi Den! says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
madterrier wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.
I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?
How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages.

It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.
Whoa there loyal! I wasn't arguing about the rights and wrongs of it - just answering terrier's question. Anyway, Patey made it clear that PDC is not getting any more money than was originally planned so I wonder if lifting the embargo is going to make much difference? I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out.
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.[/p][/quote]I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?[/p][/quote]How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages. It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.[/p][/quote]Whoa there loyal! I wasn't arguing about the rights and wrongs of it - just answering terrier's question. Anyway, Patey made it clear that PDC is not getting any more money than was originally planned so I wonder if lifting the embargo is going to make much difference? I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:49am Wed 7 Nov 12

madterrier says...

Loyal - I'm not sure that adds anything to the debate! If you know what the actual financial fair play rules are (for the FL) and how they work, then please do share them with us.
Loyal - I'm not sure that adds anything to the debate! If you know what the actual financial fair play rules are (for the FL) and how they work, then please do share them with us. madterrier
  • Score: 0

10:57am Wed 7 Nov 12

the wizard says...

Den wrote,

I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out.


While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able.

Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.
Den wrote, I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able. Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative. the wizard
  • Score: 0

11:07am Wed 7 Nov 12

Ginge09 says...

Without knowing exactly how it happens I presume it has something to do with moving funds between the holding company and the club. As they are seperate entities - I presume, by putting equity into the holding company, thay can move that money as revenue into the club. Thus increasing the revenue in the entity that is the club, and wages as a % of the 'new revenue' is under the wage cap that is in place. Equals back in the marekt for players, and a happy (or slightly happier) PDC
Without knowing exactly how it happens I presume it has something to do with moving funds between the holding company and the club. As they are seperate entities - I presume, by putting equity into the holding company, thay can move that money as revenue into the club. Thus increasing the revenue in the entity that is the club, and wages as a % of the 'new revenue' is under the wage cap that is in place. Equals back in the marekt for players, and a happy (or slightly happier) PDC Ginge09
  • Score: 0

11:07am Wed 7 Nov 12

Oi Den! says...

terrier, hope this helps:
(Explanatory note first: "SCMP" is Salary Cost Management Protocol - the system used by the bottom two divisions)
.
"Turnover for SCMP is not strictly turnover as laid out in a club’s accounts. It is relevant income that we allow to use against player wages. Relevant income comprises of all football related revenues, such as gate income, League distributions, prize money etc. We then use gross profit for a club’s commercial revenues (e.g. sponsorship, advertising hospitality etc.), rather than turnover and also net transfer monies (i.e. sales less purchases), which can be negative. Also, cash injections via donations and/or equity, which does not appear in the turnover figure in a club’s financial statements, can also be included as relevant income.

All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation."

"That reply came within 7 minutes
of my email and is very full and clear. I am impressed.

So transfer fees on acquisitions are included - not in the wages part of the calculation, but as a reduction in turnover, which is more favourable in terms of making it harder to breach the 65% barrier.”

The last couple of paras are obviously my thoughts at the time. You'll no doubt have spotted the FL's reference to equity injections counting as "turnover" - strange!
terrier, hope this helps: (Explanatory note first: "SCMP" is Salary Cost Management Protocol - the system used by the bottom two divisions) . "Turnover for SCMP is not strictly turnover as laid out in a club’s accounts. It is relevant income that we allow to use against player wages. Relevant income comprises of all football related revenues, such as gate income, League distributions, prize money etc. We then use gross profit for a club’s commercial revenues (e.g. sponsorship, advertising hospitality etc.), rather than turnover and also net transfer monies (i.e. sales less purchases), which can be negative. Also, cash injections via donations and/or equity, which does not appear in the turnover figure in a club’s financial statements, can also be included as relevant income. All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation." "That reply came within 7 minutes of my email and is very full and clear. I am impressed. So transfer fees on acquisitions are included - not in the wages part of the calculation, but as a reduction in turnover, which is more favourable in terms of making it harder to breach the 65% barrier.” The last couple of paras are obviously my thoughts at the time. You'll no doubt have spotted the FL's reference to equity injections counting as "turnover" - strange! Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:15am Wed 7 Nov 12

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

On the embargo, we will clearly try and sell Caddis in January and hopefully we will get some money from Charlie's sale. Someone will take a punt on him in the Premiership.

I thought Sheff Utd were dreadful last night, was really shocked about a Danny Wilson side like that. Made for a terrible game and we must must learn not to get suckered into it. That said until the last minute we never looked like losing.

Roberts for me is not the answer, doesn't do enough going forward and never tracks back and offers Jay any protection. Preferably you do both but to do neither is unforgiveable in my eyes. Was amazed he was on until the 65th minute.

I'm also with others that it's disappointing not to see the fullbacks drop back to try and get the ball off Wes, especially when the ref is giving us nothing for all the climbing.

Just tried to go onto the Town official site to see how many times Williams and Collins have started together but couldn't find info. Anyone help? Last night they really didn't have an understanding and were often in each others way which is a worry as I think they can both be good strikers.

All in all not as despondent as most as only ever thought one team could win last night.

Still expecting great things over the season. Remember fitness will tell January/Feb onwards and we clearly have it.

Ps do you think Paolo has lost the dressing room with his 7.30 am training session? Doesn't look like it to me......
On the embargo, we will clearly try and sell Caddis in January and hopefully we will get some money from Charlie's sale. Someone will take a punt on him in the Premiership. I thought Sheff Utd were dreadful last night, was really shocked about a Danny Wilson side like that. Made for a terrible game and we must must learn not to get suckered into it. That said until the last minute we never looked like losing. Roberts for me is not the answer, doesn't do enough going forward and never tracks back and offers Jay any protection. Preferably you do both but to do neither is unforgiveable in my eyes. Was amazed he was on until the 65th minute. I'm also with others that it's disappointing not to see the fullbacks drop back to try and get the ball off Wes, especially when the ref is giving us nothing for all the climbing. Just tried to go onto the Town official site to see how many times Williams and Collins have started together but couldn't find info. Anyone help? Last night they really didn't have an understanding and were often in each others way which is a worry as I think they can both be good strikers. All in all not as despondent as most as only ever thought one team could win last night. Still expecting great things over the season. Remember fitness will tell January/Feb onwards and we clearly have it. Ps do you think Paolo has lost the dressing room with his 7.30 am training session? Doesn't look like it to me...... dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 0

11:24am Wed 7 Nov 12

MITTED says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
madterrier wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.
I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?
How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages.

It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.
The rules didn't exist last season.....

Forgive me if I am wrong but Black has invested equity. ie. he officially can't take it back as if it were a loan. (although for most clubs, a loan is pretty much guaranteed to be kissed goodbye!)

This is why loans can't count under fair play, otherwise, billionaire owners could invest massive amounts one day and take it out the next, thus making a mockery of the fair play rules.

I think that makes sense.
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.[/p][/quote]I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?[/p][/quote]How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages. It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.[/p][/quote]The rules didn't exist last season..... Forgive me if I am wrong but Black has invested equity. ie. he officially can't take it back as if it were a loan. (although for most clubs, a loan is pretty much guaranteed to be kissed goodbye!) This is why loans can't count under fair play, otherwise, billionaire owners could invest massive amounts one day and take it out the next, thus making a mockery of the fair play rules. I think that makes sense. MITTED
  • Score: 0

11:31am Wed 7 Nov 12

EastleazeRed says...

the wizard wrote:
Den wrote,

I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out.


While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able.

Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.
Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool !
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Den wrote, I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able. Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.[/p][/quote]Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool ! EastleazeRed
  • Score: 0

11:42am Wed 7 Nov 12

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

Eastlease, please please tell me not so. Can't have him going to the hated red scouse. Please no.
Eastlease, please please tell me not so. Can't have him going to the hated red scouse. Please no. dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 0

11:59am Wed 7 Nov 12

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Praise The Board.
Praise The Board. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Wed 7 Nov 12

themoonraker says...

PDC must be a happy man, the embargo is lifted and he can now go about his business in strengthening the team albeit with loan players for the time being.
I look forward to welcoming more players of the class and calibre of Miller, Roberts, Navarro, TAH, Ward, Collins, Rooney L, Rooney A, Clarke, Tehoue, Montano, Murray, not to mention the odd Italian, Dutchman and Easten European into the club.
It was pointed out to me on another thread to be careful what I wished for so I shall one again trust PDC'S judgement in what is a good addittion to our squad.
Phil Spencer must be a bit miffed though, assuming that he wont receive any agents fees on loan players, still at least he can look forward to new year when the transfer window re-opens.
Serously though, I do hope PDC realises quality is what is needed not quantity for the sake of it.
I am wishing for sucess for my club, and for that we need a manager who has an 'eye' for a good player who will do well for our club, what I do not wish for is a large squad of ineffecive players who will cost my club both on and off the field.....Is that such a bad thing to wish for?
PDC must be a happy man, the embargo is lifted and he can now go about his business in strengthening the team albeit with loan players for the time being. I look forward to welcoming more players of the class and calibre of Miller, Roberts, Navarro, TAH, Ward, Collins, Rooney L, Rooney A, Clarke, Tehoue, Montano, Murray, not to mention the odd Italian, Dutchman and Easten European into the club. It was pointed out to me on another thread to be careful what I wished for so I shall one again trust PDC'S judgement in what is a good addittion to our squad. Phil Spencer must be a bit miffed though, assuming that he wont receive any agents fees on loan players, still at least he can look forward to new year when the transfer window re-opens. Serously though, I do hope PDC realises quality is what is needed not quantity for the sake of it. I am wishing for sucess for my club, and for that we need a manager who has an 'eye' for a good player who will do well for our club, what I do not wish for is a large squad of ineffecive players who will cost my club both on and off the field.....Is that such a bad thing to wish for? themoonraker
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Wed 7 Nov 12

the wizard says...

themoonraker wrote:
PDC must be a happy man, the embargo is lifted and he can now go about his business in strengthening the team albeit with loan players for the time being.
I look forward to welcoming more players of the class and calibre of Miller, Roberts, Navarro, TAH, Ward, Collins, Rooney L, Rooney A, Clarke, Tehoue, Montano, Murray, not to mention the odd Italian, Dutchman and Easten European into the club.
It was pointed out to me on another thread to be careful what I wished for so I shall one again trust PDC'S judgement in what is a good addittion to our squad.
Phil Spencer must be a bit miffed though, assuming that he wont receive any agents fees on loan players, still at least he can look forward to new year when the transfer window re-opens.
Serously though, I do hope PDC realises quality is what is needed not quantity for the sake of it.
I am wishing for sucess for my club, and for that we need a manager who has an 'eye' for a good player who will do well for our club, what I do not wish for is a large squad of ineffecive players who will cost my club both on and off the field.....Is that such a bad thing to wish for?
Top post, best bit of pointed humour in a while.

Phil Spencer probably going into a clinic shortly suffering from cash-withdrawl symptoms ?
[quote][p][bold]themoonraker[/bold] wrote: PDC must be a happy man, the embargo is lifted and he can now go about his business in strengthening the team albeit with loan players for the time being. I look forward to welcoming more players of the class and calibre of Miller, Roberts, Navarro, TAH, Ward, Collins, Rooney L, Rooney A, Clarke, Tehoue, Montano, Murray, not to mention the odd Italian, Dutchman and Easten European into the club. It was pointed out to me on another thread to be careful what I wished for so I shall one again trust PDC'S judgement in what is a good addittion to our squad. Phil Spencer must be a bit miffed though, assuming that he wont receive any agents fees on loan players, still at least he can look forward to new year when the transfer window re-opens. Serously though, I do hope PDC realises quality is what is needed not quantity for the sake of it. I am wishing for sucess for my club, and for that we need a manager who has an 'eye' for a good player who will do well for our club, what I do not wish for is a large squad of ineffecive players who will cost my club both on and off the field.....Is that such a bad thing to wish for?[/p][/quote]Top post, best bit of pointed humour in a while. Phil Spencer probably going into a clinic shortly suffering from cash-withdrawl symptoms ? the wizard
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 7 Nov 12

umpcah says...

EastleazeRed wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Den wrote,

I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out.


While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able.

Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.
Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool !
Liverpool is said to be Charlie`s favourite club but I doubt that he will join up with them directly. To put it another way Liverpool usually recruit from above Championship so Charlie will probably have to prove his quality at another Prem. club first.
[quote][p][bold]EastleazeRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Den wrote, I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able. Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.[/p][/quote]Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool ![/p][/quote]Liverpool is said to be Charlie`s favourite club but I doubt that he will join up with them directly. To put it another way Liverpool usually recruit from above Championship so Charlie will probably have to prove his quality at another Prem. club first. umpcah
  • Score: 0

12:49pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Brainy_G93 says...

£4.5 million !!! and the team isn't as good as last years. We may have more options up front but that's about it. Quality wise we're worse off.
£4.5 million !!! and the team isn't as good as last years. We may have more options up front but that's about it. Quality wise we're worse off. Brainy_G93
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Wed 7 Nov 12

SAPFanSTFC says...

umpcah wrote:
EastleazeRed wrote:
the wizard wrote:
Den wrote,

I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out.


While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able.

Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.
Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool !
Liverpool is said to be Charlie`s favourite club but I doubt that he will join up with them directly. To put it another way Liverpool usually recruit from above Championship so Charlie will probably have to prove his quality at another Prem. club first.
Different type of manager now and they seriously need someone who can score but as per their normal process it would be a break with tradition to recruit directly.
....
It would have to be a £5 million bid surely?...hopefully we've got 20% of the profit clause giving us £700K+ over the next year or so.
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EastleazeRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Den wrote, I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able. Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.[/p][/quote]Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool ![/p][/quote]Liverpool is said to be Charlie`s favourite club but I doubt that he will join up with them directly. To put it another way Liverpool usually recruit from above Championship so Charlie will probably have to prove his quality at another Prem. club first.[/p][/quote]Different type of manager now and they seriously need someone who can score but as per their normal process it would be a break with tradition to recruit directly. .... It would have to be a £5 million bid surely?...hopefully we've got 20% of the profit clause giving us £700K+ over the next year or so. SAPFanSTFC
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 7 Nov 12

umpcah says...

£5 million ? If more than one Prem club ,and I gather that there is , looking to recruit Charlie easy that in current footie. Charlie not only finishes but is creative too..With quality players around him he`ll carry on scoring for fun i.m.o. Shame about off-field behaviour though !
£5 million ? If more than one Prem club ,and I gather that there is , looking to recruit Charlie easy that in current footie. Charlie not only finishes but is creative too..With quality players around him he`ll carry on scoring for fun i.m.o. Shame about off-field behaviour though ! umpcah
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Wed 7 Nov 12

RamsburyRed says...

Oi Den! wrote:
terrier, hope this helps: (Explanatory note first: "SCMP" is Salary Cost Management Protocol - the system used by the bottom two divisions) . "Turnover for SCMP is not strictly turnover as laid out in a club’s accounts. It is relevant income that we allow to use against player wages. Relevant income comprises of all football related revenues, such as gate income, League distributions, prize money etc. We then use gross profit for a club’s commercial revenues (e.g. sponsorship, advertising hospitality etc.), rather than turnover and also net transfer monies (i.e. sales less purchases), which can be negative. Also, cash injections via donations and/or equity, which does not appear in the turnover figure in a club’s financial statements, can also be included as relevant income. All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation." "That reply came within 7 minutes of my email and is very full and clear. I am impressed. So transfer fees on acquisitions are included - not in the wages part of the calculation, but as a reduction in turnover, which is more favourable in terms of making it harder to breach the 65% barrier.” The last couple of paras are obviously my thoughts at the time. You'll no doubt have spotted the FL's reference to equity injections counting as "turnover" - strange!
Well found Den, that's a clear and very illuminating summary. It explains how equity injections can be factored in, and the role of transfer fees. Also interesting to see that players' wages include other costs and agents' payments. There's another reason for reducing the eye-watering 500k we spent on those last year!
*
It also shows how it's a complex and moving target, and how something totally beyond our control - such as the sale of Charlie Austen, assuming we are entitled to a cut - can affect it, for the better in this case.
*
This complexity perhaps explains why JW was not 'axed' because of the embargo itself, but I feel it was considered that his grip on the finances was not adequate - see the interesting comments in the article about getting the club on a sound financial footing and having proper budgetting. Also references to mistakes in the past, some of them apparently over contractual obligations.
*
Once again we should be grateful for Andrew Black's continued support, but reading between the lines there's a hint that his patience might be running out. I think in the future the club will really have to stick to the budget and spend the money wisely.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: terrier, hope this helps: (Explanatory note first: "SCMP" is Salary Cost Management Protocol - the system used by the bottom two divisions) . "Turnover for SCMP is not strictly turnover as laid out in a club’s accounts. It is relevant income that we allow to use against player wages. Relevant income comprises of all football related revenues, such as gate income, League distributions, prize money etc. We then use gross profit for a club’s commercial revenues (e.g. sponsorship, advertising hospitality etc.), rather than turnover and also net transfer monies (i.e. sales less purchases), which can be negative. Also, cash injections via donations and/or equity, which does not appear in the turnover figure in a club’s financial statements, can also be included as relevant income. All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation." "That reply came within 7 minutes of my email and is very full and clear. I am impressed. So transfer fees on acquisitions are included - not in the wages part of the calculation, but as a reduction in turnover, which is more favourable in terms of making it harder to breach the 65% barrier.” The last couple of paras are obviously my thoughts at the time. You'll no doubt have spotted the FL's reference to equity injections counting as "turnover" - strange![/p][/quote]Well found Den, that's a clear and very illuminating summary. It explains how equity injections can be factored in, and the role of transfer fees. Also interesting to see that players' wages include other costs and agents' payments. There's another reason for reducing the eye-watering 500k we spent on those last year! * It also shows how it's a complex and moving target, and how something totally beyond our control - such as the sale of Charlie Austen, assuming we are entitled to a cut - can affect it, for the better in this case. * This complexity perhaps explains why JW was not 'axed' because of the embargo itself, but I feel it was considered that his grip on the finances was not adequate - see the interesting comments in the article about getting the club on a sound financial footing and having proper budgetting. Also references to mistakes in the past, some of them apparently over contractual obligations. * Once again we should be grateful for Andrew Black's continued support, but reading between the lines there's a hint that his patience might be running out. I think in the future the club will really have to stick to the budget and spend the money wisely. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Wed 7 Nov 12

billbst says...

Thank you Mr Black. Paolo will need to be very careful over the next steps. Hopefully we will have some real scouting input not agent's speak. Also clear that Paolo will have tomanage the playing budget with his "team" as Sir Will put it. (Spencer + who?)
Listened to Sir Wills Q&A today. Lifting the embargo is what has been stressed most but the points he made on the youth development side were to me the most important. Vital to the club's future - Paolo and Paul to work on this (I hope!) - Paul highly thought of by the board - fitness regimes to be brought in line with the first team. Very pleased he will be focussing on this because there needs to be some diplomacy exerted. Great potential with some good fruitage showing up now in the first team.
Thank you Mr Black. Paolo will need to be very careful over the next steps. Hopefully we will have some real scouting input not agent's speak. Also clear that Paolo will have tomanage the playing budget with his "team" as Sir Will put it. (Spencer + who?) Listened to Sir Wills Q&A today. Lifting the embargo is what has been stressed most but the points he made on the youth development side were to me the most important. Vital to the club's future - Paolo and Paul to work on this (I hope!) - Paul highly thought of by the board - fitness regimes to be brought in line with the first team. Very pleased he will be focussing on this because there needs to be some diplomacy exerted. Great potential with some good fruitage showing up now in the first team. billbst
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Wed 7 Nov 12

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

Brainy_G93 wrote:
£4.5 million !!! and the team isn't as good as last years. We may have more options up front but that's about it. Quality wise we're worse off.
Difficult to judge we are in a higher division holding our own.
Far better standard.

Take a player like Benson or Macca for example finding it more difficult than last season and of course expected.

You could argue that Crawley are doing OK.
Watch and judge in January I think we will get better and our fitness will pay dividends.
[quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: £4.5 million !!! and the team isn't as good as last years. We may have more options up front but that's about it. Quality wise we're worse off.[/p][/quote]Difficult to judge we are in a higher division holding our own. Far better standard. Take a player like Benson or Macca for example finding it more difficult than last season and of course expected. You could argue that Crawley are doing OK. Watch and judge in January I think we will get better and our fitness will pay dividends. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Wed 7 Nov 12

themoonraker says...

TheDukeOfBanbury wrote:
Brainy_G93 wrote:
£4.5 million !!! and the team isn't as good as last years. We may have more options up front but that's about it. Quality wise we're worse off.
Difficult to judge we are in a higher division holding our own.
Far better standard.

Take a player like Benson or Macca for example finding it more difficult than last season and of course expected.

You could argue that Crawley are doing OK.
Watch and judge in January I think we will get better and our fitness will pay dividends.
Surely our ''fitness'' will only tell if players stay off the treatment table, and so far this season despite of (or is it because of?) the training regime in place we seem to have a lot of injuries.
Also, a lot of the injuries seem to be taking longer to heal, maybe the treatment of injuries is not as good as it should be?? .....thoughts anybody?
[quote][p][bold]TheDukeOfBanbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brainy_G93[/bold] wrote: £4.5 million !!! and the team isn't as good as last years. We may have more options up front but that's about it. Quality wise we're worse off.[/p][/quote]Difficult to judge we are in a higher division holding our own. Far better standard. Take a player like Benson or Macca for example finding it more difficult than last season and of course expected. You could argue that Crawley are doing OK. Watch and judge in January I think we will get better and our fitness will pay dividends.[/p][/quote]Surely our ''fitness'' will only tell if players stay off the treatment table, and so far this season despite of (or is it because of?) the training regime in place we seem to have a lot of injuries. Also, a lot of the injuries seem to be taking longer to heal, maybe the treatment of injuries is not as good as it should be?? .....thoughts anybody? themoonraker
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Wed 7 Nov 12

madterrier says...

Listening on Talk Sport yesterday, Burnley value Charlie Austin at £8m (the same amount that Blackburn paid Huddersfield for Jordan Rhodes, so hard to argue with that and it may prove to be a useful marker).

Shows the extent to which we sold Austin on the cheap under pressure, albeit he hadn't proved himself at Championship level at the time, even though we all knew he could.

Trust that we managed to insert a sell-on clause in his contract. Phil Spencer needs the dosh.
Listening on Talk Sport yesterday, Burnley value Charlie Austin at £8m (the same amount that Blackburn paid Huddersfield for Jordan Rhodes, so hard to argue with that and it may prove to be a useful marker). Shows the extent to which we sold Austin on the cheap under pressure, albeit he hadn't proved himself at Championship level at the time, even though we all knew he could. Trust that we managed to insert a sell-on clause in his contract. Phil Spencer needs the dosh. madterrier
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Wed 7 Nov 12

smirg kcab says...

Scary just watched hannible lecter then I came on this site
Onwards and upwards
Scary just watched hannible lecter then I came on this site Onwards and upwards smirg kcab
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Stilloyal says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
madterrier wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.
I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?
How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages. It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.
Wasn't meant to be an arguement , just a question, hence the ? mark.
And the lol means it was meant to be humerous.
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Could someone who understands these Football League financial fair play rules explain to me, in simple terms, how they can be easily circumnavigated by owners simply pumping more money in as equity? I thought it was meant to be based on turnover/operating income? If it's that easy to bypass the rules, there seems little to stop the rich owners of clubs like Man City (snigger at CL exit) and Chelsea continuing to destroy fair play. Football will never sort itself out. So, more money for Paolo to squander on average players, lining the pockets of his agent in the process, and demotivating other players in the squad. That said, we do desperately need some midfield cover right now.[/p][/quote]I agree terrier. It's completely baffling. I can only assume that the rules are not in place to prevent financial muscle prevailing but simply to ensure that clubs don't get too deep in debt. Equity, although still a liability of the company, cannot be called in like a loan and leave the club in the mire. That's all I can think of. Did you see my post of a few weeks ago, quoting an email from the Football League which explained how it works (but not why!)?[/p][/quote]How do you think Crawley got by last season with their meagre gates ? They surely would have exceeded expenditure over turnover with the players they signed and their wages. It may not be right but it's within the rules and I don't care lol.[/p][/quote]Wasn't meant to be an arguement , just a question, hence the ? mark. And the lol means it was meant to be humerous. Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Stilloyal says...

madterrier wrote:
Loyal - I'm not sure that adds anything to the debate! If you know what the actual financial fair play rules are (for the FL) and how they work, then please do share them with us.
London Red is your man
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Loyal - I'm not sure that adds anything to the debate! If you know what the actual financial fair play rules are (for the FL) and how they work, then please do share them with us.[/p][/quote]London Red is your man Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Wed 7 Nov 12

SeanG92 says...

RamsburyRed wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
terrier, hope this helps: (Explanatory note first: "SCMP" is Salary Cost Management Protocol - the system used by the bottom two divisions) . "Turnover for SCMP is not strictly turnover as laid out in a club’s accounts. It is relevant income that we allow to use against player wages. Relevant income comprises of all football related revenues, such as gate income, League distributions, prize money etc. We then use gross profit for a club’s commercial revenues (e.g. sponsorship, advertising hospitality etc.), rather than turnover and also net transfer monies (i.e. sales less purchases), which can be negative. Also, cash injections via donations and/or equity, which does not appear in the turnover figure in a club’s financial statements, can also be included as relevant income. All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation." "That reply came within 7 minutes of my email and is very full and clear. I am impressed. So transfer fees on acquisitions are included - not in the wages part of the calculation, but as a reduction in turnover, which is more favourable in terms of making it harder to breach the 65% barrier.” The last couple of paras are obviously my thoughts at the time. You'll no doubt have spotted the FL's reference to equity injections counting as "turnover" - strange!
Well found Den, that's a clear and very illuminating summary. It explains how equity injections can be factored in, and the role of transfer fees. Also interesting to see that players' wages include other costs and agents' payments. There's another reason for reducing the eye-watering 500k we spent on those last year!
*
It also shows how it's a complex and moving target, and how something totally beyond our control - such as the sale of Charlie Austen, assuming we are entitled to a cut - can affect it, for the better in this case.
*
This complexity perhaps explains why JW was not 'axed' because of the embargo itself, but I feel it was considered that his grip on the finances was not adequate - see the interesting comments in the article about getting the club on a sound financial footing and having proper budgetting. Also references to mistakes in the past, some of them apparently over contractual obligations.
*
Once again we should be grateful for Andrew Black's continued support, but reading between the lines there's a hint that his patience might be running out. I think in the future the club will really have to stick to the budget and spend the money wisely.
It does seem ridiculous that equity injections and donations are included as turnover. Surely that negates the whole attempt at financial fair play as a club backed by a billionaire could just have him pump in 'donations' and equity injections to allow the club to have a ridiculously high turnover?!?
[quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: terrier, hope this helps: (Explanatory note first: "SCMP" is Salary Cost Management Protocol - the system used by the bottom two divisions) . "Turnover for SCMP is not strictly turnover as laid out in a club’s accounts. It is relevant income that we allow to use against player wages. Relevant income comprises of all football related revenues, such as gate income, League distributions, prize money etc. We then use gross profit for a club’s commercial revenues (e.g. sponsorship, advertising hospitality etc.), rather than turnover and also net transfer monies (i.e. sales less purchases), which can be negative. Also, cash injections via donations and/or equity, which does not appear in the turnover figure in a club’s financial statements, can also be included as relevant income. All player wages are included in the calculation. This covers basic wage, bonuses, appearances and any other add-ons. The calculation also includes PAYE, medical costs, cars and travel and also agent payments. Basically the full cost of a player is included. Players included are all contract players (full contract, non-contract, multiplicity etc.) and loan players. Players loaned out are deducted for the period of the loan. Players not included are youth players on a professional contract (i.e. players that have been in the club’s YD scheme and have been given a pro contract. They must be 20 years of age or under at the start of the season to be discounted from the SCMP calculation." "That reply came within 7 minutes of my email and is very full and clear. I am impressed. So transfer fees on acquisitions are included - not in the wages part of the calculation, but as a reduction in turnover, which is more favourable in terms of making it harder to breach the 65% barrier.” The last couple of paras are obviously my thoughts at the time. You'll no doubt have spotted the FL's reference to equity injections counting as "turnover" - strange![/p][/quote]Well found Den, that's a clear and very illuminating summary. It explains how equity injections can be factored in, and the role of transfer fees. Also interesting to see that players' wages include other costs and agents' payments. There's another reason for reducing the eye-watering 500k we spent on those last year! * It also shows how it's a complex and moving target, and how something totally beyond our control - such as the sale of Charlie Austen, assuming we are entitled to a cut - can affect it, for the better in this case. * This complexity perhaps explains why JW was not 'axed' because of the embargo itself, but I feel it was considered that his grip on the finances was not adequate - see the interesting comments in the article about getting the club on a sound financial footing and having proper budgetting. Also references to mistakes in the past, some of them apparently over contractual obligations. * Once again we should be grateful for Andrew Black's continued support, but reading between the lines there's a hint that his patience might be running out. I think in the future the club will really have to stick to the budget and spend the money wisely.[/p][/quote]It does seem ridiculous that equity injections and donations are included as turnover. Surely that negates the whole attempt at financial fair play as a club backed by a billionaire could just have him pump in 'donations' and equity injections to allow the club to have a ridiculously high turnover?!? SeanG92
  • Score: 0

5:01pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

If Austin goes for £8m then we would not have under sold him really as we will get another £1.4m (assuming we have 20%) meaning our total receipts would be £2.6m!
.
Not bad return on a player signed for 10k only 14 months earlier!
.
The was not a cat in hell's chance we would have ever got £2.6m for him while in L1 outright
.
Plus had we boosted his initial fee then the sell on would have been cut as it would mean Burnley would get less when they sell
.
£8m - less £2.6m - £1m = £4.4m
.
Whereas now they get £5.4m
.
Austin was not worth £3.6m at that time
.
As for the SCMP or whatever they call it - basically Income is:
.
Gate Receipts
League/Cup Receipts (inc TV)
Sponsorship (Gross Profit)
Commercial (Gross Profit)
Net Transfer Income
Equity Injection
.
I did a quick analysis on the current L1 items based on our Releagtion campaign as this is the latest numbers available
.
In that season we would have been over budget at 73%
.
As the accounts do not show Gross Profit - I have simply taken the Football related expense from note4 as the cost part to give a "gross profit"
.
Incoem comes from Note 3 and Wages from Note 7
.
Gate 2.3
Foot 1.3
Spon 0.2
Comm 0.8
Tran 1.7
FtEp (0.3)
----------------
Total 6.0
-----------------
65% - 3.9
Actual - 4.4 = 73%
.
So if our budget is £4.5m it means our predicted income is £6.9m
If Austin goes for £8m then we would not have under sold him really as we will get another £1.4m (assuming we have 20%) meaning our total receipts would be £2.6m! . Not bad return on a player signed for 10k only 14 months earlier! . The was not a cat in hell's chance we would have ever got £2.6m for him while in L1 outright . Plus had we boosted his initial fee then the sell on would have been cut as it would mean Burnley would get less when they sell . £8m - less £2.6m - £1m = £4.4m . Whereas now they get £5.4m . Austin was not worth £3.6m at that time . As for the SCMP or whatever they call it - basically Income is: . Gate Receipts League/Cup Receipts (inc TV) Sponsorship (Gross Profit) Commercial (Gross Profit) Net Transfer Income Equity Injection . I did a quick analysis on the current L1 items based on our Releagtion campaign as this is the latest numbers available . In that season we would have been over budget at 73% . As the accounts do not show Gross Profit - I have simply taken the Football related expense from note4 as the cost part to give a "gross profit" . Incoem comes from Note 3 and Wages from Note 7 . Gate 2.3 Foot 1.3 Spon 0.2 Comm 0.8 Tran 1.7 FtEp (0.3) ---------------- Total 6.0 ----------------- 65% - 3.9 Actual - 4.4 = 73% . So if our budget is £4.5m it means our predicted income is £6.9m London Red
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Wed 7 Nov 12

swindon30 says...

I know a few people have mentioned it already, but thank you mr black for keep injecting your hard warned cash into this club. Thank you.

Charlie Austin will get sold and I agree he is worth at least 8million but realistically it will be in the region of 6million
I know a few people have mentioned it already, but thank you mr black for keep injecting your hard warned cash into this club. Thank you. Charlie Austin will get sold and I agree he is worth at least 8million but realistically it will be in the region of 6million swindon30
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Wed 7 Nov 12

RamsburyRed says...

London Red wrote:
If Austin goes for £8m then we would not have under sold him really as we will get another £1.4m (assuming we have 20%) meaning our total receipts would be £2.6m! . Not bad return on a player signed for 10k only 14 months earlier! . The was not a cat in hell's chance we would have ever got £2.6m for him while in L1 outright . Plus had we boosted his initial fee then the sell on would have been cut as it would mean Burnley would get less when they sell . £8m - less £2.6m - £1m = £4.4m . Whereas now they get £5.4m . Austin was not worth £3.6m at that time . As for the SCMP or whatever they call it - basically Income is: . Gate Receipts League/Cup Receipts (inc TV) Sponsorship (Gross Profit) Commercial (Gross Profit) Net Transfer Income Equity Injection . I did a quick analysis on the current L1 items based on our Releagtion campaign as this is the latest numbers available . In that season we would have been over budget at 73% . As the accounts do not show Gross Profit - I have simply taken the Football related expense from note4 as the cost part to give a "gross profit" . Incoem comes from Note 3 and Wages from Note 7 . Gate 2.3 Foot 1.3 Spon 0.2 Comm 0.8 Tran 1.7 FtEp (0.3) ---------------- Total 6.0 ----------------- 65% - 3.9 Actual - 4.4 = 73% . So if our budget is £4.5m it means our predicted income is £6.9m
No wonder we need a cash injection then, as your figures for 2010-11 include net transfer income of £1.7m which I assume is not expected this year unless Mallorca gets his way!
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: If Austin goes for £8m then we would not have under sold him really as we will get another £1.4m (assuming we have 20%) meaning our total receipts would be £2.6m! . Not bad return on a player signed for 10k only 14 months earlier! . The was not a cat in hell's chance we would have ever got £2.6m for him while in L1 outright . Plus had we boosted his initial fee then the sell on would have been cut as it would mean Burnley would get less when they sell . £8m - less £2.6m - £1m = £4.4m . Whereas now they get £5.4m . Austin was not worth £3.6m at that time . As for the SCMP or whatever they call it - basically Income is: . Gate Receipts League/Cup Receipts (inc TV) Sponsorship (Gross Profit) Commercial (Gross Profit) Net Transfer Income Equity Injection . I did a quick analysis on the current L1 items based on our Releagtion campaign as this is the latest numbers available . In that season we would have been over budget at 73% . As the accounts do not show Gross Profit - I have simply taken the Football related expense from note4 as the cost part to give a "gross profit" . Incoem comes from Note 3 and Wages from Note 7 . Gate 2.3 Foot 1.3 Spon 0.2 Comm 0.8 Tran 1.7 FtEp (0.3) ---------------- Total 6.0 ----------------- 65% - 3.9 Actual - 4.4 = 73% . So if our budget is £4.5m it means our predicted income is £6.9m[/p][/quote]No wonder we need a cash injection then, as your figures for 2010-11 include net transfer income of £1.7m which I assume is not expected this year unless Mallorca gets his way! RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 7 Nov 12

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

madterrier wrote:
Listening on Talk Sport yesterday, Burnley value Charlie Austin at £8m (the same amount that Blackburn paid Huddersfield for Jordan Rhodes, so hard to argue with that and it may prove to be a useful marker).

Shows the extent to which we sold Austin on the cheap under pressure, albeit he hadn't proved himself at Championship level at the time, even though we all knew he could.

Trust that we managed to insert a sell-on clause in his contract. Phil Spencer needs the dosh.
A player is only worth what a club will offer.
Austin is a rare commodity.....fair play to the lad in 3 years where he has got to.

Speaks one Supporter who didn't boo him against Burnley.
The lad is a natural finisher.....somethi
ng we currently lack.
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote: Listening on Talk Sport yesterday, Burnley value Charlie Austin at £8m (the same amount that Blackburn paid Huddersfield for Jordan Rhodes, so hard to argue with that and it may prove to be a useful marker). Shows the extent to which we sold Austin on the cheap under pressure, albeit he hadn't proved himself at Championship level at the time, even though we all knew he could. Trust that we managed to insert a sell-on clause in his contract. Phil Spencer needs the dosh.[/p][/quote]A player is only worth what a club will offer. Austin is a rare commodity.....fair play to the lad in 3 years where he has got to. Speaks one Supporter who didn't boo him against Burnley. The lad is a natural finisher.....somethi ng we currently lack. TheDukeOfBanbury
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Wed 7 Nov 12

DarrenSTFCRomain says...

EastleazeRed wrote:
the wizard wrote: Den wrote, I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able. Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.
Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool !
The rumour is around 8 to 10m..
Dont know how true it is but not bad for a bricklayer is it
[quote][p][bold]EastleazeRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote: Den wrote, I can only see that happening if we sell players or loan them out. While I agree, I'm very mindful of who is loanable out of our squad, and terrified about who is sale-able. Only the gems of our side are in any way attractive to potential purchasers, so maybe any money from the Austin move should it happen is the only acceptable, to us, alternative.[/p][/quote]Been told by a sorce close to charlie , he could be off to Liverpool ![/p][/quote]The rumour is around 8 to 10m.. Dont know how true it is but not bad for a bricklayer is it DarrenSTFCRomain
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

Ramsbury - Don't forget we had a equity injection in the summer for £2m
.
That less the £300k paid for Collins/Troy would equal the Net Transfer Income from Austin/Morrison
.
Not at Ramsbury - Also it should be noted the wages in that season were EXACTLY the same as the current budget - so all this cack about PdC being supported more than any other manager is just that cack!
.
Wilson got exactly the same budget and was just as (if not more) supported in transfers fees paid
.
Even with these new funds it is not new funds - just him being given the flexibility to use the reserve now instead of Jan
Ramsbury - Don't forget we had a equity injection in the summer for £2m . That less the £300k paid for Collins/Troy would equal the Net Transfer Income from Austin/Morrison . Not at Ramsbury - Also it should be noted the wages in that season were EXACTLY the same as the current budget - so all this cack about PdC being supported more than any other manager is just that cack! . Wilson got exactly the same budget and was just as (if not more) supported in transfers fees paid . Even with these new funds it is not new funds - just him being given the flexibility to use the reserve now instead of Jan London Red
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

Also in that season Samsung had only joined as 3rd kit sponsors
.
Now they are main Sponsors I would hope we have significantly boosted our income from £200k!!!!!
.
Obviously not going to make up the £2m but hopefully we are now at lead over £500k
Also in that season Samsung had only joined as 3rd kit sponsors . Now they are main Sponsors I would hope we have significantly boosted our income from £200k!!!!! . Obviously not going to make up the £2m but hopefully we are now at lead over £500k London Red
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

Rodriquez left Burnley for £7m and he never netted 20 by October!
.
So £8m is certainly a realistic figure
.
It was also reported over half the Premiership are scouting him - so that is only likely to boost the fee higher
.
I don't like the lad and will never be a hero - but I hope he continues to fire them in and moves for a massive fee so we finally benefit from a sell on!
.
His move alone could "wipe out" the equity injection made this year!
.
We could also see our highest net transfer figure without actually selling a player!
.
At 20% he is worth £160k at £2m and then £200k for each million on top
Rodriquez left Burnley for £7m and he never netted 20 by October! . So £8m is certainly a realistic figure . It was also reported over half the Premiership are scouting him - so that is only likely to boost the fee higher . I don't like the lad and will never be a hero - but I hope he continues to fire them in and moves for a massive fee so we finally benefit from a sell on! . His move alone could "wipe out" the equity injection made this year! . We could also see our highest net transfer figure without actually selling a player! . At 20% he is worth £160k at £2m and then £200k for each million on top London Red
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

Also in that season Samsung had only joined as 3rd kit sponsors
.
Now they are main Sponsors I would hope we have significantly boosted our income from £200k!!!!!
.
Obviously not going to make up the £2m but hopefully we are now at lead over £500k
Also in that season Samsung had only joined as 3rd kit sponsors . Now they are main Sponsors I would hope we have significantly boosted our income from £200k!!!!! . Obviously not going to make up the £2m but hopefully we are now at lead over £500k London Red
  • Score: 0

6:53pm Wed 7 Nov 12

RamsburyRed says...

London Red wrote:
Ramsbury - Don't forget we had a equity injection in the summer for £2m
.
That less the £300k paid for Collins/Troy would equal the Net Transfer Income from Austin/Morrison
.
Not at Ramsbury - Also it should be noted the wages in that season were EXACTLY the same as the current budget - so all this cack about PdC being supported more than any other manager is just that cack!
.
Wilson got exactly the same budget and was just as (if not more) supported in transfers fees paid
.
Even with these new funds it is not new funds - just him being given the flexibility to use the reserve now instead of Jan
But you miss my point - without the player sales we needed that cash input. My wider point - as I've mentioned several times - is that the club is a financial black hole - excuse the pun - and we should be grateful for the investor support.
*
Your summary of the income shows how hard it is. Try as the club might, it is hard to get attendances/gate money up, and I doubt if there is much that can be done to increase sponsorship/commerci
al income. The only way of getting extra income without going cap-in-hand to the board is selling players, which obviously hampers squad-building.
*
OK, gates will be higher if we get promoted, but the wage bill will be so much higher that this will be more than negated.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Ramsbury - Don't forget we had a equity injection in the summer for £2m . That less the £300k paid for Collins/Troy would equal the Net Transfer Income from Austin/Morrison . Not at Ramsbury - Also it should be noted the wages in that season were EXACTLY the same as the current budget - so all this cack about PdC being supported more than any other manager is just that cack! . Wilson got exactly the same budget and was just as (if not more) supported in transfers fees paid . Even with these new funds it is not new funds - just him being given the flexibility to use the reserve now instead of Jan[/p][/quote]But you miss my point - without the player sales we needed that cash input. My wider point - as I've mentioned several times - is that the club is a financial black hole - excuse the pun - and we should be grateful for the investor support. * Your summary of the income shows how hard it is. Try as the club might, it is hard to get attendances/gate money up, and I doubt if there is much that can be done to increase sponsorship/commerci al income. The only way of getting extra income without going cap-in-hand to the board is selling players, which obviously hampers squad-building. * OK, gates will be higher if we get promoted, but the wage bill will be so much higher that this will be more than negated. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

As for the discussion on equity - I think it would be ridiculous to prevent a wealty owner from investing in his/her club
.
It would also most likely just pigeon hole clubs into a league and allow very little movement - removing any potential they have
.
We for example have the potential to be much bigger than mid table L1 - as promotion would give us nearly £4m in boosted Football League payments (Source Scunthorpe) and our gates are likey to be significantly boosted - by both home and away fans
.
Let alone any sponsorship or commercial boosts!
.
So we could then have an income of £10m compared to £5m now
.
So if it means Andrew Black has to invest some equity now to achieve that so what!
.
To prevent that would just mean we are being cheated out of our potential that clubs like Wigan Fulham Cardiff Swansea Posh and Brighton have been able to exploit
.
I'm against loans as said they can be pulled a day later and can just lead to debt - but as Equity doesn't potentially hurt anyone but the owner then it shouldn't be seen as bad
.
Posh is the best example - the owner there always said the wages etc had to be covered by the revenue generated but he would personally fund transfers
.
I think that is what we should aim for as that way Black and Co could get some back when those investments move on - ala Cox and Austin
As for the discussion on equity - I think it would be ridiculous to prevent a wealty owner from investing in his/her club . It would also most likely just pigeon hole clubs into a league and allow very little movement - removing any potential they have . We for example have the potential to be much bigger than mid table L1 - as promotion would give us nearly £4m in boosted Football League payments (Source Scunthorpe) and our gates are likey to be significantly boosted - by both home and away fans . Let alone any sponsorship or commercial boosts! . So we could then have an income of £10m compared to £5m now . So if it means Andrew Black has to invest some equity now to achieve that so what! . To prevent that would just mean we are being cheated out of our potential that clubs like Wigan Fulham Cardiff Swansea Posh and Brighton have been able to exploit . I'm against loans as said they can be pulled a day later and can just lead to debt - but as Equity doesn't potentially hurt anyone but the owner then it shouldn't be seen as bad . Posh is the best example - the owner there always said the wages etc had to be covered by the revenue generated but he would personally fund transfers . I think that is what we should aim for as that way Black and Co could get some back when those investments move on - ala Cox and Austin London Red
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Wed 7 Nov 12

Haydonender says...

All good news. We are still well in touch with the top of the table and so with a couple of reinforcements, there's no reason why we can't push on and get the back to back promotions.

We definitely need at least one quality central midfielder although if I know Paolo he will want competition in quite a few positions
All good news. We are still well in touch with the top of the table and so with a couple of reinforcements, there's no reason why we can't push on and get the back to back promotions. We definitely need at least one quality central midfielder although if I know Paolo he will want competition in quite a few positions Haydonender
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Wed 7 Nov 12

super red says...

London Red wrote:
If Austin goes for £8m then we would not have under sold him really as we will get another £1.4m (assuming we have 20%) meaning our total receipts would be £2.6m!
.
Not bad return on a player signed for 10k only 14 months earlier!
.
The was not a cat in hell's chance we would have ever got £2.6m for him while in L1 outright
.
Plus had we boosted his initial fee then the sell on would have been cut as it would mean Burnley would get less when they sell
.
£8m - less £2.6m - £1m = £4.4m
.
Whereas now they get £5.4m
.
Austin was not worth £3.6m at that time
.
As for the SCMP or whatever they call it - basically Income is:
.
Gate Receipts
League/Cup Receipts (inc TV)
Sponsorship (Gross Profit)
Commercial (Gross Profit)
Net Transfer Income
Equity Injection
.
I did a quick analysis on the current L1 items based on our Releagtion campaign as this is the latest numbers available
.
In that season we would have been over budget at 73%
.
As the accounts do not show Gross Profit - I have simply taken the Football related expense from note4 as the cost part to give a "gross profit"
.
Incoem comes from Note 3 and Wages from Note 7
.
Gate 2.3
Foot 1.3
Spon 0.2
Comm 0.8
Tran 1.7
FtEp (0.3)
----------------
Total 6.0
-----------------
65% - 3.9
Actual - 4.4 = 73%
.
So if our budget is £4.5m it means our predicted income is £6.9m
Good explanation LR. You do seem to get your fair amount of sh1t on here but I believe every footy club forum need a guy like you with your facts and figures!! Keep up the good work.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: If Austin goes for £8m then we would not have under sold him really as we will get another £1.4m (assuming we have 20%) meaning our total receipts would be £2.6m! . Not bad return on a player signed for 10k only 14 months earlier! . The was not a cat in hell's chance we would have ever got £2.6m for him while in L1 outright . Plus had we boosted his initial fee then the sell on would have been cut as it would mean Burnley would get less when they sell . £8m - less £2.6m - £1m = £4.4m . Whereas now they get £5.4m . Austin was not worth £3.6m at that time . As for the SCMP or whatever they call it - basically Income is: . Gate Receipts League/Cup Receipts (inc TV) Sponsorship (Gross Profit) Commercial (Gross Profit) Net Transfer Income Equity Injection . I did a quick analysis on the current L1 items based on our Releagtion campaign as this is the latest numbers available . In that season we would have been over budget at 73% . As the accounts do not show Gross Profit - I have simply taken the Football related expense from note4 as the cost part to give a "gross profit" . Incoem comes from Note 3 and Wages from Note 7 . Gate 2.3 Foot 1.3 Spon 0.2 Comm 0.8 Tran 1.7 FtEp (0.3) ---------------- Total 6.0 ----------------- 65% - 3.9 Actual - 4.4 = 73% . So if our budget is £4.5m it means our predicted income is £6.9m[/p][/quote]Good explanation LR. You do seem to get your fair amount of sh1t on here but I believe every footy club forum need a guy like you with your facts and figures!! Keep up the good work. super red
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Wed 7 Nov 12

DarrenSTFCRomain says...

Haydonender wrote:
All good news. We are still well in touch with the top of the table and so with a couple of reinforcements, there's no reason why we can't push on and get the back to back promotions. We definitely need at least one quality central midfielder although if I know Paolo he will want competition in quite a few positions
There is no reason why we cant push on with the players we have and in about 3 to 4 games we will have are FULL team back...
Remember that we have only played 16 game with another 30 games remaining..

I know Paolo will want new players..
BUT please dont wast money like you did on the last 5 YOU wonted

We’ve got to do medicals and make sure all the financials are in place. We don’t want to make the mistakes of the past where people came in willy nilly and the odd medical problem arrives afterwards or didn’t quite understand the full contractual commitments
[quote][p][bold]Haydonender[/bold] wrote: All good news. We are still well in touch with the top of the table and so with a couple of reinforcements, there's no reason why we can't push on and get the back to back promotions. We definitely need at least one quality central midfielder although if I know Paolo he will want competition in quite a few positions[/p][/quote]There is no reason why we cant push on with the players we have and in about 3 to 4 games we will have are FULL team back... Remember that we have only played 16 game with another 30 games remaining.. I know Paolo will want new players.. BUT please dont wast money like you did on the last 5 YOU wonted We’ve got to do medicals and make sure all the financials are in place. We don’t want to make the mistakes of the past where people came in willy nilly and the odd medical problem arrives afterwards or didn’t quite understand the full contractual commitments DarrenSTFCRomain
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Wed 7 Nov 12

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

We are very lucky to have Andrew Black but sure he'll be expecting a return on his money. Frankly I for one don't begrudge him it.

London gets far to much abuse on here. He is clearly very good with numbers and excellent at explaining them (see above), it's just words he has problems with!!! His direct style doesn't suit everyone and like us all he doesn't get everything right all the time.

Just like our manager Darren - just like every manager. He's got a budget, Patey has made it clear he will allowed to sign players as he sees fit. He also made it clear he will be judged on his results working in that budget. If it's good enough for the Chairman shall we all just back off a bit and let him get on with it?

Makes for a happier life.
We are very lucky to have Andrew Black but sure he'll be expecting a return on his money. Frankly I for one don't begrudge him it. London gets far to much abuse on here. He is clearly very good with numbers and excellent at explaining them (see above), it's just words he has problems with!!! His direct style doesn't suit everyone and like us all he doesn't get everything right all the time. Just like our manager Darren - just like every manager. He's got a budget, Patey has made it clear he will allowed to sign players as he sees fit. He also made it clear he will be judged on his results working in that budget. If it's good enough for the Chairman shall we all just back off a bit and let him get on with it? Makes for a happier life. dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 0

10:28pm Wed 7 Nov 12

mancrobin says...

billbst wrote:
Thank you Mr Black. Paolo will need to be very careful over the next steps. Hopefully we will have some real scouting input not agent's speak. Also clear that Paolo will have tomanage the playing budget with his "team" as Sir Will put it. (Spencer + who?)
Listened to Sir Wills Q&A today. Lifting the embargo is what has been stressed most but the points he made on the youth development side were to me the most important. Vital to the club's future - Paolo and Paul to work on this (I hope!) - Paul highly thought of by the board - fitness regimes to be brought in line with the first team. Very pleased he will be focussing on this because there needs to be some diplomacy exerted. Great potential with some good fruitage showing up now in the first team.
Also just listened to the interview and agree with all you say there Billbst.

I thought there were a lot of clues in the answers he gave to direction the club is going in and while diplomatic, he was pretty clear and direct.

Mentioned the need for a lawyer and development expert on the Board. Interesting? Is this for the ground redevelopment? Relocation? Or preparing for sale?
[quote][p][bold]billbst[/bold] wrote: Thank you Mr Black. Paolo will need to be very careful over the next steps. Hopefully we will have some real scouting input not agent's speak. Also clear that Paolo will have tomanage the playing budget with his "team" as Sir Will put it. (Spencer + who?) Listened to Sir Wills Q&A today. Lifting the embargo is what has been stressed most but the points he made on the youth development side were to me the most important. Vital to the club's future - Paolo and Paul to work on this (I hope!) - Paul highly thought of by the board - fitness regimes to be brought in line with the first team. Very pleased he will be focussing on this because there needs to be some diplomacy exerted. Great potential with some good fruitage showing up now in the first team.[/p][/quote]Also just listened to the interview and agree with all you say there Billbst. I thought there were a lot of clues in the answers he gave to direction the club is going in and while diplomatic, he was pretty clear and direct. Mentioned the need for a lawyer and development expert on the Board. Interesting? Is this for the ground redevelopment? Relocation? Or preparing for sale? mancrobin
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Wed 7 Nov 12

London Red says...

Thanks Dreams - that's why I work with numbers and not words - got to work with the tools you were given and numbers pay the bills
.
As for Black - as I've said before I'm certain we will see profits made once we return to the Championship and then he will be able to stop having to fund the club (unless it is to make player investments)
.
Then we can hopefully develop the stadium and from that he (and the others) will see a return on the investment
.
We pretty much have a squad of 25 (if our loaned out players wages paid by us count as 1) - £4m spent on them so far gives an average of £3k a week
.
The full £4.5m gives £3.5k a week
.
So we would not need to increase our wage bill that dramatically to be competitive - certainly not by the £4m extra in Football League payments let alone any extra in gate receipts etc
.
To increase the average to £5k would be about £6.5m - which is spot on 65% of my projected income
.
That still gives us net gain of £1.7m from TV etc alone based on Scunthorpe's numbers
.
Even if it was felt that is not enough and we took the average to £6k a week or £7.8m a year - that £3.2m increase is still below the TV increase!
.
So we should see a profits regularly
Thanks Dreams - that's why I work with numbers and not words - got to work with the tools you were given and numbers pay the bills . As for Black - as I've said before I'm certain we will see profits made once we return to the Championship and then he will be able to stop having to fund the club (unless it is to make player investments) . Then we can hopefully develop the stadium and from that he (and the others) will see a return on the investment . We pretty much have a squad of 25 (if our loaned out players wages paid by us count as 1) - £4m spent on them so far gives an average of £3k a week . The full £4.5m gives £3.5k a week . So we would not need to increase our wage bill that dramatically to be competitive - certainly not by the £4m extra in Football League payments let alone any extra in gate receipts etc . To increase the average to £5k would be about £6.5m - which is spot on 65% of my projected income . That still gives us net gain of £1.7m from TV etc alone based on Scunthorpe's numbers . Even if it was felt that is not enough and we took the average to £6k a week or £7.8m a year - that £3.2m increase is still below the TV increase! . So we should see a profits regularly London Red
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Thu 8 Nov 12

RamsburyRed says...

London Red wrote:
Thanks Dreams - that's why I work with numbers and not words - got to work with the tools you were given and numbers pay the bills . As for Black - as I've said before I'm certain we will see profits made once we return to the Championship and then he will be able to stop having to fund the club (unless it is to make player investments) . Then we can hopefully develop the stadium and from that he (and the others) will see a return on the investment . We pretty much have a squad of 25 (if our loaned out players wages paid by us count as 1) - £4m spent on them so far gives an average of £3k a week . The full £4.5m gives £3.5k a week . So we would not need to increase our wage bill that dramatically to be competitive - certainly not by the £4m extra in Football League payments let alone any extra in gate receipts etc . To increase the average to £5k would be about £6.5m - which is spot on 65% of my projected income . That still gives us net gain of £1.7m from TV etc alone based on Scunthorpe's numbers . Even if it was felt that is not enough and we took the average to £6k a week or £7.8m a year - that £3.2m increase is still below the TV increase! . So we should see a profits regularly
Dream on.
*
In the Championship we will be on a shoestring compared with most others.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Thanks Dreams - that's why I work with numbers and not words - got to work with the tools you were given and numbers pay the bills . As for Black - as I've said before I'm certain we will see profits made once we return to the Championship and then he will be able to stop having to fund the club (unless it is to make player investments) . Then we can hopefully develop the stadium and from that he (and the others) will see a return on the investment . We pretty much have a squad of 25 (if our loaned out players wages paid by us count as 1) - £4m spent on them so far gives an average of £3k a week . The full £4.5m gives £3.5k a week . So we would not need to increase our wage bill that dramatically to be competitive - certainly not by the £4m extra in Football League payments let alone any extra in gate receipts etc . To increase the average to £5k would be about £6.5m - which is spot on 65% of my projected income . That still gives us net gain of £1.7m from TV etc alone based on Scunthorpe's numbers . Even if it was felt that is not enough and we took the average to £6k a week or £7.8m a year - that £3.2m increase is still below the TV increase! . So we should see a profits regularly[/p][/quote]Dream on. * In the Championship we will be on a shoestring compared with most others. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 8 Nov 12

Steve. Brentford says...

dreamofacleansheet2 wrote:
We are very lucky to have Andrew Black but sure he'll be expecting a return on his money. Frankly I for one don't begrudge him it.

London gets far to much abuse on here. He is clearly very good with numbers and excellent at explaining them (see above), it's just words he has problems with!!! His direct style doesn't suit everyone and like us all he doesn't get everything right all the time.

Just like our manager Darren - just like every manager. He's got a budget, Patey has made it clear he will allowed to sign players as he sees fit. He also made it clear he will be judged on his results working in that budget. If it's good enough for the Chairman shall we all just back off a bit and let him get on with it?

Makes for a happier life.
Hahaha, "its words he has problems with" sorry that made me laugh.
James/Lr please reply in numbers in future and we will all get on better.
PS our managers name is not Darren.
[quote][p][bold]dreamofacleansheet2[/bold] wrote: We are very lucky to have Andrew Black but sure he'll be expecting a return on his money. Frankly I for one don't begrudge him it. London gets far to much abuse on here. He is clearly very good with numbers and excellent at explaining them (see above), it's just words he has problems with!!! His direct style doesn't suit everyone and like us all he doesn't get everything right all the time. Just like our manager Darren - just like every manager. He's got a budget, Patey has made it clear he will allowed to sign players as he sees fit. He also made it clear he will be judged on his results working in that budget. If it's good enough for the Chairman shall we all just back off a bit and let him get on with it? Makes for a happier life.[/p][/quote]Hahaha, "its words he has problems with" sorry that made me laugh. James/Lr please reply in numbers in future and we will all get on better. PS our managers name is not Darren. Steve. Brentford
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Thu 8 Nov 12

DarrenSTFCRomain says...

Steve. Brentford wrote:
dreamofacleansheet2 wrote: We are very lucky to have Andrew Black but sure he'll be expecting a return on his money. Frankly I for one don't begrudge him it. London gets far to much abuse on here. He is clearly very good with numbers and excellent at explaining them (see above), it's just words he has problems with!!! His direct style doesn't suit everyone and like us all he doesn't get everything right all the time. Just like our manager Darren - just like every manager. He's got a budget, Patey has made it clear he will allowed to sign players as he sees fit. He also made it clear he will be judged on his results working in that budget. If it's good enough for the Chairman shall we all just back off a bit and let him get on with it? Makes for a happier life.
Hahaha, "its words he has problems with" sorry that made me laugh. James/Lr please reply in numbers in future and we will all get on better. PS our managers name is not Darren.
Well it should be
[quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dreamofacleansheet2[/bold] wrote: We are very lucky to have Andrew Black but sure he'll be expecting a return on his money. Frankly I for one don't begrudge him it. London gets far to much abuse on here. He is clearly very good with numbers and excellent at explaining them (see above), it's just words he has problems with!!! His direct style doesn't suit everyone and like us all he doesn't get everything right all the time. Just like our manager Darren - just like every manager. He's got a budget, Patey has made it clear he will allowed to sign players as he sees fit. He also made it clear he will be judged on his results working in that budget. If it's good enough for the Chairman shall we all just back off a bit and let him get on with it? Makes for a happier life.[/p][/quote]Hahaha, "its words he has problems with" sorry that made me laugh. James/Lr please reply in numbers in future and we will all get on better. PS our managers name is not Darren.[/p][/quote]Well it should be DarrenSTFCRomain
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree