Swindon AdvertiserTrust STFC chief wants football 'prenup' (From Swindon Advertiser)

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

Trust STFC chief wants football 'prenup'

Swindon Advertiser: Consortium leader Jed McCrory, who is poised to takeover Swindon Town Consortium leader Jed McCrory, who is poised to takeover Swindon Town

FOOTBALLING prenups should be considered by the authorities in a bid to avoid a repeat of recent events at Swindon Town.

That is the opinion of Trust STFC chairman John Ward, who has called for the Football League to look into the possibility of making rich benefactors agree to their exit strategy before buying into a club.

Ward’s idea, which echoes the special arrangements made in law between a husband and wife prior to marriage which divide their estate in the event of a divorce, comes after Town’s former majority shareholder, Andrew Black, decided to withdraw his funding in Wiltshire - leaving the club with a frantic search for new owners.

Swindon’s future was secured by the arrival of Jed McCrory’s consortium, but Ward is anxious that clubs are not threatened with such precarious positions again.

“The whole Andrew Black episode made me go overboard in saying the generous benefactor model clearly doesn’t work. I think it could work,” he said.

“Let’s say that the new consortium comes out of the assessments of the Football League with flying colours, what is going to stop it from one or more of them getting cold feet two, three, four years down the line.

“It’s their money, it’s not somebody else’s, and they’re entitled to do what they like with it. What I think needs to be put in place, and it’s very difficult, is some sort of exit strategy so that somebody can’t decide as a big investor overnight that he’s bored with it.

“Of course they’re entitled to take that view, but there ought to be some way this can be phased - perhaps having to give notice. Then there’s the case of what sort of notice. Well, since footballers’ wages are the biggest item maybe it’s related to outstanding contracts of players so they can’t leave the club in the lurch but they can get out.

“A set-up like that is very difficult and it won’t be easy to get some sort of legal framework or even something in writing but I think it should be at least thrown into the debate of how we can avoid not just us but other clubs seeing the same sort of thing happening.

“They can be well intentioned consortia of total integrity who then after a bit isn’t willing to continue. How do we address that? Some sort of exit strategy, which is agreed on all sides, needs to be something where the Football League as a regulatory body makes clubs do this.

“I think expecting individual clubs to do it on their own, given the pressures, would be very difficult. Adopting this approach to the benefactor model would be something well worth exploring.

“It shouldn’t happen to Swindon again and it shouldn’t happen to other clubs again.”

Comments (129)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:31am Mon 18 Feb 13

stfc2012 says...

Interesting but very complex I'd imagine. Obviously for investors their situation may change over the course of the tenure and such measures may actually put some off investing in the first place. Black didn't see through what he started out and left many fans disgruntled and with the rushed sale and sale of Ritchie he's not made it easy for himself in terms of what the fans think. However, we look to have avoided administration and the club is set to be offically taken over, and also his millions saved us and have got us up the top of L1.

This idea suggested should be thrown about and see what people think. I don't have enough experience to in these matters to suggest it would work or not but giving owners an extra duty of responsibility, maybe as part of the fit and proper test seems worth exploring.
Interesting but very complex I'd imagine. Obviously for investors their situation may change over the course of the tenure and such measures may actually put some off investing in the first place. Black didn't see through what he started out and left many fans disgruntled and with the rushed sale and sale of Ritchie he's not made it easy for himself in terms of what the fans think. However, we look to have avoided administration and the club is set to be offically taken over, and also his millions saved us and have got us up the top of L1. This idea suggested should be thrown about and see what people think. I don't have enough experience to in these matters to suggest it would work or not but giving owners an extra duty of responsibility, maybe as part of the fit and proper test seems worth exploring. stfc2012
  • Score: 0

6:49am Mon 18 Feb 13

Chish and Fips says...

Its an idea but is it workable - there is enough red tape it would appear now, throw this in as well and it could be weeks before things are agreed, and look at what problems we have had because of the delay, mind you I think Mr Black's timing was awful from our point of view, but for what ever reason suited him. Another time of the season it might not have been so critical to get it done.
Its an idea but is it workable - there is enough red tape it would appear now, throw this in as well and it could be weeks before things are agreed, and look at what problems we have had because of the delay, mind you I think Mr Black's timing was awful from our point of view, but for what ever reason suited him. Another time of the season it might not have been so critical to get it done. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

7:04am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening
Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

7:10am Mon 18 Feb 13

peatmoor pirate says...

Until the day that clubs have to be self supportng from revenue streams that aren't cash injections from owners, this kind of isue will always be there.
Until the day that clubs have to be self supportng from revenue streams that aren't cash injections from owners, this kind of isue will always be there. peatmoor pirate
  • Score: 0

7:17am Mon 18 Feb 13

Chish and Fips says...

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening
What words of wisdom there - with no substance ....

Resign or Quit - pray tell us what is the difference between those 2 words.oh mighty one.

Its Paolo by the way...
[quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening[/p][/quote]What words of wisdom there - with no substance .... Resign or Quit - pray tell us what is the difference between those 2 words.oh mighty one. Its Paolo by the way... Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

7:19am Mon 18 Feb 13

super red says...

What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going?
What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going? super red
  • Score: 0

7:26am Mon 18 Feb 13

eddyxx says...

good idea in my opinion, if the consortium knew at the begining how much xyz would cost then at beginning they would have to think about the true cost, then you will see genuine investors and not get rich quick off the back of building a new stadium project investors.
good idea in my opinion, if the consortium knew at the begining how much xyz would cost then at beginning they would have to think about the true cost, then you will see genuine investors and not get rich quick off the back of building a new stadium project investors. eddyxx
  • Score: 0

7:29am Mon 18 Feb 13

ciclosporindorset says...

I may be wrong - but I recall an original 5 year plan. And are we not 5 years into it? Time does fly but it seems a long time ago when Malpas took charge!
I may be wrong - but I recall an original 5 year plan. And are we not 5 years into it? Time does fly but it seems a long time ago when Malpas took charge! ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 0

7:35am Mon 18 Feb 13

SAPFanSTFC says...

...that IS a tricky one - would it put them off altogether or would it help them to pull the plug earlier than was done so in this case?
...
Good theory but think that investments in football are far too complex for this to work in every case - IMHO.
...
Well done Super Red! I can't make it due to work but give a big shout and think you'll be rewarded for your efforts!
...that IS a tricky one - would it put them off altogether or would it help them to pull the plug earlier than was done so in this case? ... Good theory but think that investments in football are far too complex for this to work in every case - IMHO. ... Well done Super Red! I can't make it due to work but give a big shout and think you'll be rewarded for your efforts! SAPFanSTFC
  • Score: 0

7:39am Mon 18 Feb 13

eddyxx says...

You can see why PDC quotes breach of contract, hes taken the job off the back of promised investement, gets half way into it then chairman throws one and decides nah not putting any more money in. Don't blame pdc for being cheesed off, half way through an investment project the investors pull the plug and there's nothing the club can do other than sell players to break even. If the situation was the investment was guaranteed the club would have security, for example we all have life assurance to pay off the mortgage if the unfortunate happens, why shouldn't football clubs have an insurance against false investment plans
You can see why PDC quotes breach of contract, hes taken the job off the back of promised investement, gets half way into it then chairman throws one and decides nah not putting any more money in. Don't blame pdc for being cheesed off, half way through an investment project the investors pull the plug and there's nothing the club can do other than sell players to break even. If the situation was the investment was guaranteed the club would have security, for example we all have life assurance to pay off the mortgage if the unfortunate happens, why shouldn't football clubs have an insurance against false investment plans eddyxx
  • Score: 0

7:41am Mon 18 Feb 13

stanharlands6shirt says...

I believe Paolo is still standing by his statement....but I hope waiting for the takeover to be completed and perhaps then, if he does not know already, sees what kind of backing the new board are going to give him, the team and our club, to drive home this promotion push.

If he was just going to resign I believe he would have done it some time ago.

Hopefully today we will see the mess start to be cleared up properly and ALL of us move forward again.

In all this turmoil I feel the current squad deserve massive respect for the way they have tried to concentrate on their jobs and not become too emotional or verbally outspoken. As much as I admired many of the players of the Wilson team/era, I think this paper would have been rife with their comments and the promotion push would have been well and truly derailed. NOT UNDER PAOLO !

Finally, IF the take over is completed and IF Bradley Wright Phillips still completes a loan move, then everyone who verbally hammered him at Plymouth a few seasons ago, "BRADLEY WRIGHT PHILLIPS , HE'S SHI.TER THAN SEAN "'when he played superbly for them against us, would then no doubt have to change the chant to "BETTER THAN SEAN" ?

A fantastic and quick quality league one striker that would really excite me to see in a Town shirt. Just hope his knees are o.k. now ?
I believe Paolo is still standing by his statement....but I hope waiting for the takeover to be completed and perhaps then, if he does not know already, sees what kind of backing the new board are going to give him, the team and our club, to drive home this promotion push. If he was just going to resign I believe he would have done it some time ago. Hopefully today we will see the mess start to be cleared up properly and ALL of us move forward again. In all this turmoil I feel the current squad deserve massive respect for the way they have tried to concentrate on their jobs and not become too emotional or verbally outspoken. As much as I admired many of the players of the Wilson team/era, I think this paper would have been rife with their comments and the promotion push would have been well and truly derailed. NOT UNDER PAOLO ! Finally, IF the take over is completed and IF Bradley Wright Phillips still completes a loan move, then everyone who verbally hammered him at Plymouth a few seasons ago, "BRADLEY WRIGHT PHILLIPS , HE'S SHI.TER THAN SEAN "'when he played superbly for them against us, would then no doubt have to change the chant to "BETTER THAN SEAN" ? A fantastic and quick quality league one striker that would really excite me to see in a Town shirt. Just hope his knees are o.k. now ? stanharlands6shirt
  • Score: 0

8:06am Mon 18 Feb 13

stanharlands6shirt says...

OFF Topic...Is that Nathan Thompson's decorater Paul Everard sat with Jedi McCory in the photo ?
OFF Topic...Is that Nathan Thompson's decorater Paul Everard sat with Jedi McCory in the photo ? stanharlands6shirt
  • Score: 0

8:17am Mon 18 Feb 13

Oi Den! says...

Ward talks about "the whole Andrew Black episode" as if it's been some dark forgettable period in the club's history. How would any pre-contract agreement have put us in a better position than we are in now? When Fitton and his friends arrived, the club was on the brink of collapse with debts of more than £10m. If my understanding is correct, those debts were paid off using loans from the consortium members, mainly Black. Full details are yet to emerge but we now understand that Black has decided to let the club keep several million pounds of his money, leaving behind a largely debt-free club, but one that will probably have to stand on its own two feet. Is that really such a bad thing? Many football clubs would be very envious of our position.
.
It appears that some people are determined to see Black as the villain of this piece, simply because of the immediate hurt they are feeling. Of course it's very disappointing that our bubble's been burst but who would have swapped the last 5 years and the position we are in now for the alternative facing the club in 2008? Somebody mentioned a Diana Ross song a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we should have been mindful of a line from another of her numbers: "... nothing good's gonna last for ever..." Well, it certainly has been good while it lasted. Back to reality now. But at least we are starting from a decent position - assumimg the takeover does happen.
Ward talks about "the whole Andrew Black episode" as if it's been some dark forgettable period in the club's history. How would any pre-contract agreement have put us in a better position than we are in now? When Fitton and his friends arrived, the club was on the brink of collapse with debts of more than £10m. If my understanding is correct, those debts were paid off using loans from the consortium members, mainly Black. Full details are yet to emerge but we now understand that Black has decided to let the club keep several million pounds of his money, leaving behind a largely debt-free club, but one that will probably have to stand on its own two feet. Is that really such a bad thing? Many football clubs would be very envious of our position. . It appears that some people are determined to see Black as the villain of this piece, simply because of the immediate hurt they are feeling. Of course it's very disappointing that our bubble's been burst but who would have swapped the last 5 years and the position we are in now for the alternative facing the club in 2008? Somebody mentioned a Diana Ross song a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we should have been mindful of a line from another of her numbers: "... nothing good's gonna last for ever..." Well, it certainly has been good while it lasted. Back to reality now. But at least we are starting from a decent position - assumimg the takeover does happen. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

8:23am Mon 18 Feb 13

malvernred says...

super red says...
7:19am Mon 18 Feb 13

What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going?

Super red - we're going!!! COYR's
super red says... 7:19am Mon 18 Feb 13 What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going? Super red - we're going!!! COYR's malvernred
  • Score: 0

8:30am Mon 18 Feb 13

madterrier says...

Again, this seems too naive. If you put your money into a business - that happens to be a football club - then you have a right to decide what to do with your money, whether that is equity or loans. Or losses. I don't see how you can legislate in advance for an 'exit'.

The Bundesliga gives some sort of protection through its ownership model, which requires that 51% of the shares are held by club members. Private investors in Germany can still invest in the remaining 49%, which still represents a decent-sized 'investment' opportunity. But many of their clubs began as sporting clubs, and before football was fully codified. It would be hard for the UK to enforce that status as most are already limited companies or even publicly quoted ones.

The root cause of the problem is, of course, overspending. It doesn't matter who owns the club - if you persistently spend more than you earn, you are going to run into trouble.

Part of the Premier League financial fair play agreement is for any annual losses above £5m a year to be guaranteed against owners' personal assets. Obviously that would need to be scaled back to lower levels for the likes of League One, and I haven't seen any agenda yet for such measures to be brought in below the PL. It's hard to see how this would do anything other than deter potential investors. Limited liability companies are there to do just that, and football again looks like it wants to be a special case. I just don't see how this is going to be practical.
Again, this seems too naive. If you put your money into a business - that happens to be a football club - then you have a right to decide what to do with your money, whether that is equity or loans. Or losses. I don't see how you can legislate in advance for an 'exit'. The Bundesliga gives some sort of protection through its ownership model, which requires that 51% of the shares are held by club members. Private investors in Germany can still invest in the remaining 49%, which still represents a decent-sized 'investment' opportunity. But many of their clubs began as sporting clubs, and before football was fully codified. It would be hard for the UK to enforce that status as most are already limited companies or even publicly quoted ones. The root cause of the problem is, of course, overspending. It doesn't matter who owns the club - if you persistently spend more than you earn, you are going to run into trouble. Part of the Premier League financial fair play agreement is for any annual losses above £5m a year to be guaranteed against owners' personal assets. Obviously that would need to be scaled back to lower levels for the likes of League One, and I haven't seen any agenda yet for such measures to be brought in below the PL. It's hard to see how this would do anything other than deter potential investors. Limited liability companies are there to do just that, and football again looks like it wants to be a special case. I just don't see how this is going to be practical. madterrier
  • Score: 0

8:42am Mon 18 Feb 13

ciclosporindorset says...

totally agrtee with Oi Den. Black has given the club 5 years it would not have had. Now we have to move on.
totally agrtee with Oi Den. Black has given the club 5 years it would not have had. Now we have to move on. ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 0

8:48am Mon 18 Feb 13

stfclondon says...

super red wrote:
What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going?
I'm going. Looking forward to it.
[quote][p][bold]super red[/bold] wrote: What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going?[/p][/quote]I'm going. Looking forward to it. stfclondon
  • Score: 0

8:53am Mon 18 Feb 13

StillPav says...

What benefit is there to football as a whole when a rich benefactor ploughs millions of pounds into a single club in order to give them a competitive advantage over their peers?

I think the only way to avoid this situation is to limit investment to infrastructure such as new grounds or training facilities. Investment in the “day-to-day” running of the club should be banned and clubs should be forced to operate using the revenue they generate from their operations.
What benefit is there to football as a whole when a rich benefactor ploughs millions of pounds into a single club in order to give them a competitive advantage over their peers? I think the only way to avoid this situation is to limit investment to infrastructure such as new grounds or training facilities. Investment in the “day-to-day” running of the club should be banned and clubs should be forced to operate using the revenue they generate from their operations. StillPav
  • Score: 0

8:59am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

Stfc is club is a joke.
Stfc is club is a joke. RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

9:01am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

Stfc is club is a joke.
Stfc is club is a joke. RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

9:06am Mon 18 Feb 13

WirralRed says...

malvernred says...
8:23am Mon 18 Feb 13

super red says...
7:19am Mon 18 Feb 13

What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going?

Super red - we're going!!! COYR's

Living 20 minutes away - think I'd better go too!

That makes 4 of us at least...

F
malvernred says... 8:23am Mon 18 Feb 13 super red says... 7:19am Mon 18 Feb 13 What will today bring I wonder. Off to tranmere tomorrow, who's going? Super red - we're going!!! COYR's Living 20 minutes away - think I'd better go too! That makes 4 of us at least... F WirralRed
  • Score: 0

9:07am Mon 18 Feb 13

duncan shearer says...

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Stfc is club is a joke.
this is why your name is dick
[quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: Stfc is club is a joke.[/p][/quote]this is why your name is dick duncan shearer
  • Score: 0

9:24am Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red says...

Can we clear one thing up - Black did NOT save this club single handed!
.
Agreeing to fund budgetted losses is not the same as saving the club
.
The vast amount of Black's money went into this phase of the "plan"
.
Lets also note Fitton was against this as he could see this Jan coming!!!!
.
The club was saved by the initial investments - some 5 or 6 million - when the consortium took over
.
It was THIS what saved the club - ie clearing the £3m Tax bill and £1m CVA bill
.
We know Fitton put £3m in and Sir Arbib at least £1m and Wray put money into - I'm guessing he would have at least out in £1m if the others were putting millions in - so Black was nowhere near the sole financier
.
Yes we are greatful for Black putting money in to try and go for promotion but lets put it in perspective that was HIS choice not a necessity - setting the wage bill to revenue levels would have avoided him putting this money in!!!!
.
To me Fitton saved this club but gets no mention at all - normally just abuse!
Can we clear one thing up - Black did NOT save this club single handed! . Agreeing to fund budgetted losses is not the same as saving the club . The vast amount of Black's money went into this phase of the "plan" . Lets also note Fitton was against this as he could see this Jan coming!!!! . The club was saved by the initial investments - some 5 or 6 million - when the consortium took over . It was THIS what saved the club - ie clearing the £3m Tax bill and £1m CVA bill . We know Fitton put £3m in and Sir Arbib at least £1m and Wray put money into - I'm guessing he would have at least out in £1m if the others were putting millions in - so Black was nowhere near the sole financier . Yes we are greatful for Black putting money in to try and go for promotion but lets put it in perspective that was HIS choice not a necessity - setting the wage bill to revenue levels would have avoided him putting this money in!!!! . To me Fitton saved this club but gets no mention at all - normally just abuse! London Red
  • Score: 0

9:34am Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red says...

Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better!
.
Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!!
.
Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have!
.
The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss!
.
Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!!
.
We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue
.
He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!!
.
That shows the fans real desire!
.
It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act!
.
5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m!
.
Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket!
.
How many actually did it - probably just me!!!!
Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better! . Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!! . Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have! . The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss! . Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!! . We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue . He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!! . That shows the fans real desire! . It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act! . 5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m! . Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket! . How many actually did it - probably just me!!!! London Red
  • Score: 0

9:35am Mon 18 Feb 13

mallorca says...

Totally amazing where everyone gets all this detailed information from??????
What is more worrying is it is the start of another week and still no new news.
This article today very well thought up and intensions good however will never happen.
Just wonder when the FL will make the announcement?????? as post said on Friday is only 5 weeks since it all began.Would have been better if the FL had said this will take us several weeks to come to a decision etc.
Just let´s all hope is good news
Totally amazing where everyone gets all this detailed information from?????? What is more worrying is it is the start of another week and still no new news. This article today very well thought up and intensions good however will never happen. Just wonder when the FL will make the announcement?????? as post said on Friday is only 5 weeks since it all began.Would have been better if the FL had said this will take us several weeks to come to a decision etc. Just let´s all hope is good news mallorca
  • Score: 0

9:37am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare
name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

9:39am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

Duncan shearer is a dick. As he only supports stfc sado
Duncan shearer is a dick. As he only supports stfc sado RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

9:44am Mon 18 Feb 13

hertz says...

This is the first week of the rest of STFC'S life . The take over will go through , Donny to draw with the Crawlies tonight , we beat the Traniies tomorrow , new owners and top of the league what more do you want ? Course its all doom and gloom :0(
COYR
This is the first week of the rest of STFC'S life . The take over will go through , Donny to draw with the Crawlies tonight , we beat the Traniies tomorrow , new owners and top of the league what more do you want ? Course its all doom and gloom :0( COYR hertz
  • Score: 0

9:46am Mon 18 Feb 13

Kingseleven says...

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare
Clearly a child. As for Duncan Shearer your obviously too young to remember. Haven't you got something better to do with your half term !!!
[quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare[/p][/quote]Clearly a child. As for Duncan Shearer your obviously too young to remember. Haven't you got something better to do with your half term !!! Kingseleven
  • Score: 0

9:49am Mon 18 Feb 13

Last step says...

ciclosporindorset wrote:
totally agrtee with Oi Den. Black has given the club 5 years it would not have had. Now we have to move on.
What exactly is wrong with attempting to come up with possible ways to limit the reoccurance of this cliff edge situation as part of moving on?

Looks to me to be a very sensible suggestion, and something that should certainly be looked at by the Football League.
[quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: totally agrtee with Oi Den. Black has given the club 5 years it would not have had. Now we have to move on.[/p][/quote]What exactly is wrong with attempting to come up with possible ways to limit the reoccurance of this cliff edge situation as part of moving on? Looks to me to be a very sensible suggestion, and something that should certainly be looked at by the Football League. Last step
  • Score: 0

9:51am Mon 18 Feb 13

Last step says...

hertz wrote:
This is the first week of the rest of STFC'S life . The take over will go through , Donny to draw with the Crawlies tonight , we beat the Traniies tomorrow , new owners and top of the league what more do you want ? Course its all doom and gloom :0(
COYR
Where is the doom & gloom?!
[quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: This is the first week of the rest of STFC'S life . The take over will go through , Donny to draw with the Crawlies tonight , we beat the Traniies tomorrow , new owners and top of the league what more do you want ? Course its all doom and gloom :0( COYR[/p][/quote]Where is the doom & gloom?! Last step
  • Score: 0

9:59am Mon 18 Feb 13

Stilloyal says...

mallorca wrote:
Totally amazing where everyone gets all this detailed information from?????? What is more worrying is it is the start of another week and still no new news. This article today very well thought up and intensions good however will never happen. Just wonder when the FL will make the announcement?????? as post said on Friday is only 5 weeks since it all began.Would have been better if the FL had said this will take us several weeks to come to a decision etc. Just let´s all hope is good news
Geez give them a chance it's not 10 a.m yet and they are probably just on their first cup of coffee.
These takeovers normally take a lot longer , Towns case is being pushed through a little quicker (don't ask me why ) but by lunchtime I reckon we'll all be happy. The F/L has never put a timescale on when this deal will be finalised, it was just wishful thinking be this paper and us fans.

L/R very good post and very accurate

Who is richardpike ? :-)
[quote][p][bold]mallorca[/bold] wrote: Totally amazing where everyone gets all this detailed information from?????? What is more worrying is it is the start of another week and still no new news. This article today very well thought up and intensions good however will never happen. Just wonder when the FL will make the announcement?????? as post said on Friday is only 5 weeks since it all began.Would have been better if the FL had said this will take us several weeks to come to a decision etc. Just let´s all hope is good news[/p][/quote]Geez give them a chance it's not 10 a.m yet and they are probably just on their first cup of coffee. These takeovers normally take a lot longer , Towns case is being pushed through a little quicker (don't ask me why ) but by lunchtime I reckon we'll all be happy. The F/L has never put a timescale on when this deal will be finalised, it was just wishful thinking be this paper and us fans. L/R very good post and very accurate Who is richardpike ? :-) Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

10:00am Mon 18 Feb 13

hertz says...

Its early give it time :0) COYR
Its early give it time :0) COYR hertz
  • Score: 0

10:02am Mon 18 Feb 13

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Can we clear one thing up - Black did NOT save this club single handed!
.
Agreeing to fund budgetted losses is not the same as saving the club
.
The vast amount of Black's money went into this phase of the "plan"
.
Lets also note Fitton was against this as he could see this Jan coming!!!!
.
The club was saved by the initial investments - some 5 or 6 million - when the consortium took over
.
It was THIS what saved the club - ie clearing the £3m Tax bill and £1m CVA bill
.
We know Fitton put £3m in and Sir Arbib at least £1m and Wray put money into - I'm guessing he would have at least out in £1m if the others were putting millions in - so Black was nowhere near the sole financier
.
Yes we are greatful for Black putting money in to try and go for promotion but lets put it in perspective that was HIS choice not a necessity - setting the wage bill to revenue levels would have avoided him putting this money in!!!!
.
To me Fitton saved this club but gets no mention at all - normally just abuse!
Hold your horses, LR. I agree with you completely about Fitton. I am grateful to all 4 of the departing consortium. But Black is the topic for discussion because Ward is talking about him in this interview.
.
"Agreeing to fund budgeted losses is not the same as saving the club"? Perhaps not quite, but it gave the club the luxury of being able to acquire players in number and quality that many of our rivals could not compete for. You say it was his choice to do that. Well, so it might have been, but isn't that what you and many others were demanding of him, with your suggestions that another £400k here and there was just small change to him? And wouldn't PDC have been out of the door like a shot if he hadn't had that sort of money to spend? It seems you would d@mn Black for not spending the money and now you will d@mn him because he did. By the way, I don't believe for a moment that Black sanctioned the overspending that got us into a transfer embargo. His sacking of Wray was testament to that. Of course the whole venture was his choice. It was his choice to get in, and it was his choice to get out. I would still be very interested to know the reasons for both decisions.
.
But far as I can tell, Black is departing with a generous gesture, and I see no reason for bitterness towards him.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Can we clear one thing up - Black did NOT save this club single handed! . Agreeing to fund budgetted losses is not the same as saving the club . The vast amount of Black's money went into this phase of the "plan" . Lets also note Fitton was against this as he could see this Jan coming!!!! . The club was saved by the initial investments - some 5 or 6 million - when the consortium took over . It was THIS what saved the club - ie clearing the £3m Tax bill and £1m CVA bill . We know Fitton put £3m in and Sir Arbib at least £1m and Wray put money into - I'm guessing he would have at least out in £1m if the others were putting millions in - so Black was nowhere near the sole financier . Yes we are greatful for Black putting money in to try and go for promotion but lets put it in perspective that was HIS choice not a necessity - setting the wage bill to revenue levels would have avoided him putting this money in!!!! . To me Fitton saved this club but gets no mention at all - normally just abuse![/p][/quote]Hold your horses, LR. I agree with you completely about Fitton. I am grateful to all 4 of the departing consortium. But Black is the topic for discussion because Ward is talking about him in this interview. . "Agreeing to fund budgeted losses is not the same as saving the club"? Perhaps not quite, but it gave the club the luxury of being able to acquire players in number and quality that many of our rivals could not compete for. You say it was his choice to do that. Well, so it might have been, but isn't that what you and many others were demanding of him, with your suggestions that another £400k here and there was just small change to him? And wouldn't PDC have been out of the door like a shot if he hadn't had that sort of money to spend? It seems you would d@mn Black for not spending the money and now you will d@mn him because he did. By the way, I don't believe for a moment that Black sanctioned the overspending that got us into a transfer embargo. His sacking of Wray was testament to that. Of course the whole venture was his choice. It was his choice to get in, and it was his choice to get out. I would still be very interested to know the reasons for both decisions. . But far as I can tell, Black is departing with a generous gesture, and I see no reason for bitterness towards him. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:03am Mon 18 Feb 13

Lambourn Red says...

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare
Oh dear half term time, your parent must be so proud of you. Why dont you go and mug an old lady in Blackbird Leys.
[quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare[/p][/quote]Oh dear half term time, your parent must be so proud of you. Why dont you go and mug an old lady in Blackbird Leys. Lambourn Red
  • Score: 0

10:25am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

Don't care what you say
Don't care what you say RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

10:30am Mon 18 Feb 13

RICHARDPIKE says...

Good luck to all stfc supporters. To advertiser get rid of the idiots that write on this wall
Good luck to all stfc supporters. To advertiser get rid of the idiots that write on this wall RICHARDPIKE
  • Score: 0

10:36am Mon 18 Feb 13

Wilesy says...

With the amount of money clubs lose month on month, if you were to introduce say a minimum three month get-out clause this might put people off investing.

In our example, three possible reasons for Black's get-out are either a) cash-flow probs, b) he's lost interest, and c) ill-health (hopefully not this one of course)

if the reason is a) then he wouldn't want to be tied in to racking up further months of debts.

Living within your means and wage capping is the answer but doubt that will ever really be enforced.

Out of interest what might happen if Abramovich decides he wants out of Chelsea and wants his money back where would that leave them?
With the amount of money clubs lose month on month, if you were to introduce say a minimum three month get-out clause this might put people off investing. In our example, three possible reasons for Black's get-out are either a) cash-flow probs, b) he's lost interest, and c) ill-health (hopefully not this one of course) if the reason is a) then he wouldn't want to be tied in to racking up further months of debts. Living within your means and wage capping is the answer but doubt that will ever really be enforced. Out of interest what might happen if Abramovich decides he wants out of Chelsea and wants his money back where would that leave them? Wilesy
  • Score: 0

10:42am Mon 18 Feb 13

Oxon-Red says...

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Duncan shearer is a dick. As he only supports stfc sado
Not sure what you are on but please let me know so I can avoid it. Whatever it is it has affected you mentally.

Or maybe you are one of the monkeys that the scientists have at keyboards in the hope that they will eventually construct a sentence. Have the scientists gone off to celebrate you and forgotten about you ?

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: Duncan shearer is a dick. As he only supports stfc sado[/p][/quote]Not sure what you are on but please let me know so I can avoid it. Whatever it is it has affected you mentally. Or maybe you are one of the monkeys that the scientists have at keyboards in the hope that they will eventually construct a sentence. Have the scientists gone off to celebrate you and forgotten about you ? COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

11:02am Mon 18 Feb 13

EastleazeRed says...

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Good luck to all stfc supporters. To advertiser get rid of the idiots that write on this wall
Are you steven hawking in disguise ?
[quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: Good luck to all stfc supporters. To advertiser get rid of the idiots that write on this wall[/p][/quote]Are you steven hawking in disguise ? EastleazeRed
  • Score: 0

11:07am Mon 18 Feb 13

Oi Den! says...

One other thought about the departure of Black and co... Maybe they simply could see no end to dipping into their own pockets to fund transfer expenditure. Perhaps it came down to 3 possible courses of action:

1. Continue ploughing in millions with no prospect of a return.
.
2. Sack PDC and replace him with somebody who would demand less of their cash (and anyway would be easier to keep in check without upsetting the fans), giving self-sustainability some glimmer of a chance.
.
3. Quit, at considerable cost, but leaving all the headaches behind.
.
Option 1 wouldn't have been attractive to anyone. The political fall-out from number 2 would have been impossible to survive. So that makes number 3 a pretty easy choice. Just musing.....
One other thought about the departure of Black and co... Maybe they simply could see no end to dipping into their own pockets to fund transfer expenditure. Perhaps it came down to 3 possible courses of action: 1. Continue ploughing in millions with no prospect of a return. . 2. Sack PDC and replace him with somebody who would demand less of their cash (and anyway would be easier to keep in check without upsetting the fans), giving self-sustainability some glimmer of a chance. . 3. Quit, at considerable cost, but leaving all the headaches behind. . Option 1 wouldn't have been attractive to anyone. The political fall-out from number 2 would have been impossible to survive. So that makes number 3 a pretty easy choice. Just musing..... Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:23am Mon 18 Feb 13

Norfolk Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
One other thought about the departure of Black and co... Maybe they simply could see no end to dipping into their own pockets to fund transfer expenditure. Perhaps it came down to 3 possible courses of action:

1. Continue ploughing in millions with no prospect of a return.
.
2. Sack PDC and replace him with somebody who would demand less of their cash (and anyway would be easier to keep in check without upsetting the fans), giving self-sustainability some glimmer of a chance.
.
3. Quit, at considerable cost, but leaving all the headaches behind.
.
Option 1 wouldn't have been attractive to anyone. The political fall-out from number 2 would have been impossible to survive. So that makes number 3 a pretty easy choice. Just musing.....
Oi Den,

Completely agree. I really don't know where all the animosity towards Black is coming from.

The consortium saved the club, but Black continued to pump the money in. I don't see people getting hot under the collar about the others not putting in any more money!

Lets just be thankful for all who saved the club 5 years ago, and be grateful for the debt that they have written off.

Yes, the timing could have been better, but it is the end of the FY, which is why Black probably needed to sell quickly. They have written off a substantial amount of money, lets not get petty about who did what.

One chapter closes, another opens, life is never dull supporting the town.

COYR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: One other thought about the departure of Black and co... Maybe they simply could see no end to dipping into their own pockets to fund transfer expenditure. Perhaps it came down to 3 possible courses of action: 1. Continue ploughing in millions with no prospect of a return. . 2. Sack PDC and replace him with somebody who would demand less of their cash (and anyway would be easier to keep in check without upsetting the fans), giving self-sustainability some glimmer of a chance. . 3. Quit, at considerable cost, but leaving all the headaches behind. . Option 1 wouldn't have been attractive to anyone. The political fall-out from number 2 would have been impossible to survive. So that makes number 3 a pretty easy choice. Just musing.....[/p][/quote]Oi Den, Completely agree. I really don't know where all the animosity towards Black is coming from. The consortium saved the club, but Black continued to pump the money in. I don't see people getting hot under the collar about the others not putting in any more money! Lets just be thankful for all who saved the club 5 years ago, and be grateful for the debt that they have written off. Yes, the timing could have been better, but it is the end of the FY, which is why Black probably needed to sell quickly. They have written off a substantial amount of money, lets not get petty about who did what. One chapter closes, another opens, life is never dull supporting the town. COYR Norfolk Red
  • Score: 0

11:33am Mon 18 Feb 13

Oxon-Red says...

I think clubs do have to start to be more reliant on their own income.

There is a good example of two opposites in the same city where one is self-sustaining and the other has spent. One team played Juve in the week while the other had just entertained Queens Park.

One of these clubs has to sell players regularly but consistently finds good replacements which are then sold on for profit. May have to be the way Town and other clubs progress in the future.

The other stumbling block for most clubs is the very high player wages which are inflated by premier league clubs in their pursuit of glory or, in most cases, survival in the league to enable them to continue to pay the inflated wages.

If these ridiculously high wage demands are brought under control we may see clubs becoming more self-sufficient. I would be surprised if there is more than a handful of clubs that are not receiving donations to top up the 65% of their income they are allowed to spend.

Our friends down the road have recently seen this to be the case and look to be in a precaurious position at the moment.

COYMR
I think clubs do have to start to be more reliant on their own income. There is a good example of two opposites in the same city where one is self-sustaining and the other has spent. One team played Juve in the week while the other had just entertained Queens Park. One of these clubs has to sell players regularly but consistently finds good replacements which are then sold on for profit. May have to be the way Town and other clubs progress in the future. The other stumbling block for most clubs is the very high player wages which are inflated by premier league clubs in their pursuit of glory or, in most cases, survival in the league to enable them to continue to pay the inflated wages. If these ridiculously high wage demands are brought under control we may see clubs becoming more self-sufficient. I would be surprised if there is more than a handful of clubs that are not receiving donations to top up the 65% of their income they are allowed to spend. Our friends down the road have recently seen this to be the case and look to be in a precaurious position at the moment. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

11:36am Mon 18 Feb 13

Stilloyal says...

Norfolk Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote: One other thought about the departure of Black and co... Maybe they simply could see no end to dipping into their own pockets to fund transfer expenditure. Perhaps it came down to 3 possible courses of action: 1. Continue ploughing in millions with no prospect of a return. . 2. Sack PDC and replace him with somebody who would demand less of their cash (and anyway would be easier to keep in check without upsetting the fans), giving self-sustainability some glimmer of a chance. . 3. Quit, at considerable cost, but leaving all the headaches behind. . Option 1 wouldn't have been attractive to anyone. The political fall-out from number 2 would have been impossible to survive. So that makes number 3 a pretty easy choice. Just musing.....
Oi Den, Completely agree. I really don't know where all the animosity towards Black is coming from. The consortium saved the club, but Black continued to pump the money in. I don't see people getting hot under the collar about the others not putting in any more money! Lets just be thankful for all who saved the club 5 years ago, and be grateful for the debt that they have written off. Yes, the timing could have been better, but it is the end of the FY, which is why Black probably needed to sell quickly. They have written off a substantial amount of money, lets not get petty about who did what. One chapter closes, another opens, life is never dull supporting the town. COYR
I think it is just the speed that he wanted to get shot that has caused all the animosity. A three month timescale would have given everyone more opportunity and hope . Maybe the sale of Ritchie could have been avoided if A.B had not pushed the panic button.
I'm ever grateful for the Fitton / Black/, Arib/, Wray and Backhouse consortium for saving us 5 years ago.
The pre-nup plan is good in principal but what if a new buyer goes totally and suddenly skint mid term ? can you take out insurance against that ? only asking. Good idea but like a lot of good ideas , flawed. This would have to be so very carefully thought out and constructed .
[quote][p][bold]Norfolk Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: One other thought about the departure of Black and co... Maybe they simply could see no end to dipping into their own pockets to fund transfer expenditure. Perhaps it came down to 3 possible courses of action: 1. Continue ploughing in millions with no prospect of a return. . 2. Sack PDC and replace him with somebody who would demand less of their cash (and anyway would be easier to keep in check without upsetting the fans), giving self-sustainability some glimmer of a chance. . 3. Quit, at considerable cost, but leaving all the headaches behind. . Option 1 wouldn't have been attractive to anyone. The political fall-out from number 2 would have been impossible to survive. So that makes number 3 a pretty easy choice. Just musing.....[/p][/quote]Oi Den, Completely agree. I really don't know where all the animosity towards Black is coming from. The consortium saved the club, but Black continued to pump the money in. I don't see people getting hot under the collar about the others not putting in any more money! Lets just be thankful for all who saved the club 5 years ago, and be grateful for the debt that they have written off. Yes, the timing could have been better, but it is the end of the FY, which is why Black probably needed to sell quickly. They have written off a substantial amount of money, lets not get petty about who did what. One chapter closes, another opens, life is never dull supporting the town. COYR[/p][/quote]I think it is just the speed that he wanted to get shot that has caused all the animosity. A three month timescale would have given everyone more opportunity and hope . Maybe the sale of Ritchie could have been avoided if A.B had not pushed the panic button. I'm ever grateful for the Fitton / Black/, Arib/, Wray and Backhouse consortium for saving us 5 years ago. The pre-nup plan is good in principal but what if a new buyer goes totally and suddenly skint mid term ? can you take out insurance against that ? only asking. Good idea but like a lot of good ideas , flawed. This would have to be so very carefully thought out and constructed . Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

11:42am Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

London Red wrote:
Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better!
.
Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!!
.
Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have!
.
The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss!
.
Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!!
.
We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue
.
He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!!
.
That shows the fans real desire!
.
It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act!
.
5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m!
.
Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket!
.
How many actually did it - probably just me!!!!
£300 is a vast amount of money to a lot,it might not be a lot of money to you.
I imagine a lot of people have to save throughout the season to get their season ticket.
Plus others just plain not want to invest.
Need to calm down with high and mighty attitude i think.
Does your desire get you to the County Ground every home game?
Seem to remember you said you can only get to few games a season.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better! . Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!! . Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have! . The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss! . Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!! . We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue . He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!! . That shows the fans real desire! . It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act! . 5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m! . Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket! . How many actually did it - probably just me!!!![/p][/quote]£300 is a vast amount of money to a lot,it might not be a lot of money to you. I imagine a lot of people have to save throughout the season to get their season ticket. Plus others just plain not want to invest. Need to calm down with high and mighty attitude i think. Does your desire get you to the County Ground every home game? Seem to remember you said you can only get to few games a season. swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

11:49am Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

As for pre-nups,not sure i agree because as someone said above it might stop someone investing and they might be a good investee,things change in companies very quickly.
Mr,Black i hold no resentment parse,the timing i still find strange and no doubt all will come out in the wash.
But also when PDC joined there was a 3 year plan for the Championship and it does seem,as someone else said,that it possibly that they/he got cold feet with the real chance of promotion happening this season and not next.
As for pre-nups,not sure i agree because as someone said above it might stop someone investing and they might be a good investee,things change in companies very quickly. Mr,Black i hold no resentment parse,the timing i still find strange and no doubt all will come out in the wash. But also when PDC joined there was a 3 year plan for the Championship and it does seem,as someone else said,that it possibly that they/he got cold feet with the real chance of promotion happening this season and not next. swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Mon 18 Feb 13

oncearedalwaysared says...

More to the point, it is nearly 12.30. When are we going to get any news about the ratification of the takeover?
More to the point, it is nearly 12.30. When are we going to get any news about the ratification of the takeover? oncearedalwaysared
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stratton Red says...

It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce.
*
Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium.
*
This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable.
*
The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed.
*
Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...)
*
It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons... Stratton Red
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Pewsham Red says...

SAPFanSTFC wrote:
...that IS a tricky one - would it put them off altogether or would it help them to pull the plug earlier than was done so in this case?
...
Good theory but think that investments in football are far too complex for this to work in every case - IMHO.
...
Well done Super Red! I can't make it due to work but give a big shout and think you'll be rewarded for your efforts!
Just what I was thinking SAP. If there had been a pre-nup before Black, Fitton et al invested then it may have put them off investing in the first place

For me, this is a great idea in principle but possibly unworkable in practice.
[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote: ...that IS a tricky one - would it put them off altogether or would it help them to pull the plug earlier than was done so in this case? ... Good theory but think that investments in football are far too complex for this to work in every case - IMHO. ... Well done Super Red! I can't make it due to work but give a big shout and think you'll be rewarded for your efforts![/p][/quote]Just what I was thinking SAP. If there had been a pre-nup before Black, Fitton et al invested then it may have put them off investing in the first place For me, this is a great idea in principle but possibly unworkable in practice. Pewsham Red
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Oxon-Red says...

Off subject:

Having seen numerous comments on the Burgers etc at the CG there is a chance to have some input and maybe change things for the better. The following link is from the club website:

http://www.swindonto
wnfc.co.uk/news/arti
cle/haveyoursay-6623
09.aspx

COYMR
Off subject: Having seen numerous comments on the Burgers etc at the CG there is a chance to have some input and maybe change things for the better. The following link is from the club website: http://www.swindonto wnfc.co.uk/news/arti cle/haveyoursay-6623 09.aspx COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

Oxon-Red wrote:
Off subject:

Having seen numerous comments on the Burgers etc at the CG there is a chance to have some input and maybe change things for the better. The following link is from the club website:

http://www.swindonto

wnfc.co.uk/news/arti

cle/haveyoursay-6623

09.aspx

COYMR
Done!
This needs to be brought up in another thread,i am sure we all have something say!
[quote][p][bold]Oxon-Red[/bold] wrote: Off subject: Having seen numerous comments on the Burgers etc at the CG there is a chance to have some input and maybe change things for the better. The following link is from the club website: http://www.swindonto wnfc.co.uk/news/arti cle/haveyoursay-6623 09.aspx COYMR[/p][/quote]Done! This needs to be brought up in another thread,i am sure we all have something say! swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 18 Feb 13

EastleazeRed says...

Paolo`s scrapped his pre - match press conference today ??
Paolo`s scrapped his pre - match press conference today ?? EastleazeRed
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Mon 18 Feb 13

jam1 says...

I'm starting to lose my patience with this take over... If it doesn't go through today (as we were all led to believe it would) alarm bells will start ringing!!
I'm starting to lose my patience with this take over... If it doesn't go through today (as we were all led to believe it would) alarm bells will start ringing!! jam1
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Swindon1984 says...

Stratton Red wrote:
It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
That first sentence sums it all up for me, inasmuch as there needs to be wholesale changes to the way football clubs are owned and run away from our very narrow view as STFC supporters - and as you say, how would we legally go about enforcing any pre-agreement, and would it put investers off getting involved in the club in the first place?

It's all very well for people to come up with these ideas sat in the county of a Saturday afternoon but none of them seem to have the first clue about what form something like this would take or how it could be implicated - to quote the article -

“It’s their money, it’s not somebody else’s, and they’re entitled to do what they like with it. What I think needs to be put in place, and it’s very difficult, is some sort of exit strategy so that somebody can’t decide as a big investor overnight that he’s bored with it."

So basically "we need big investers and we wouldn't have a club right now without them - they can leave at any point. It'd be nice if they couldn't. I haven't got a clue how to stop them from leaving the club in the lurch or any alternative realistic alternative to the current setup."

Don't get me wrong, it is a difficult situation, and I have no solutions to it either, but then I didn't volunteer my non-opinions to the local paper.
[quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...[/p][/quote]That first sentence sums it all up for me, inasmuch as there needs to be wholesale changes to the way football clubs are owned and run away from our very narrow view as STFC supporters - and as you say, how would we legally go about enforcing any pre-agreement, and would it put investers off getting involved in the club in the first place? It's all very well for people to come up with these ideas sat in the county of a Saturday afternoon but none of them seem to have the first clue about what form something like this would take or how it could be implicated - to quote the article - “It’s their money, it’s not somebody else’s, and they’re entitled to do what they like with it. What I think needs to be put in place, and it’s very difficult, is some sort of exit strategy so that somebody can’t decide as a big investor overnight that he’s bored with it." So basically "we need big investers and we wouldn't have a club right now without them - they can leave at any point. It'd be nice if they couldn't. I haven't got a clue how to stop them from leaving the club in the lurch or any alternative realistic alternative to the current setup." Don't get me wrong, it is a difficult situation, and I have no solutions to it either, but then I didn't volunteer my non-opinions to the local paper. Swindon1984
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Mon 18 Feb 13

billbst says...

Have to agree with many of your points Stratton. Pressure needs to be focussed on the running costs/equity side as you suggest and it needs to define a level playing field. Major investments such as a new stadium would have to be phased back into the model in an agreed way. It is no good trying to go beyond this with such as prenups. Just more money for lawyers and can you imagine how long they would take to agree.
Have to agree with many of your points Stratton. Pressure needs to be focussed on the running costs/equity side as you suggest and it needs to define a level playing field. Major investments such as a new stadium would have to be phased back into the model in an agreed way. It is no good trying to go beyond this with such as prenups. Just more money for lawyers and can you imagine how long they would take to agree. billbst
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Mon 18 Feb 13

RamsburyRed says...

Sustainability is the only answer, with penalties for clubs who don't conform. Limit on total debt to turnover, as suggested above, is a possible way forward. One the one hand you might say 'why not allow a rich owner to plough in what he wants', but on the other hand, this is bad for all clubs in the long run. The market for players gets skewed and it distorts the normal laws of competition.
*
I'm afraid our accounts for the current year are going to look very messy.
Sustainability is the only answer, with penalties for clubs who don't conform. Limit on total debt to turnover, as suggested above, is a possible way forward. One the one hand you might say 'why not allow a rich owner to plough in what he wants', but on the other hand, this is bad for all clubs in the long run. The market for players gets skewed and it distorts the normal laws of competition. * I'm afraid our accounts for the current year are going to look very messy. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Is that you Lovesey says...

EastleazeRed wrote:
Paolo`s scrapped his pre - match press conference today ??
Dont know what to make of that.
[quote][p][bold]EastleazeRed[/bold] wrote: Paolo`s scrapped his pre - match press conference today ??[/p][/quote]Dont know what to make of that. Is that you Lovesey
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Swindon1984 says...

I'm sure the bigger clubs will always find a way to get around any rules which might create a more level playing field anyway - stadium naming seems to be one of the ones that's come up before, the club ostensibly charging the club's owner for advertising their business interests, in reality it's just another way of funneling money into the club without it looking as if a wealthy owner's funding it out of his back pocket.

There are certain clubs who will make enough from merchandise and such that they'll be able to generate enough turnover to comply with rulings that might limit players wages against total turnover because they're global brands (united, chelsea etc) - most however, even clubs like Leeds/Leicester/Fore
st/Derby/etc who are relatively big clubs, really only make money from gate receipts, and will therefore always be operating near a loss if they attempt to sign the players that might bring them success. Even Championship TV money won't come covering the operating costs of a club with a large wage bill. Apart from a select few clubs and the vast majority of players, money is killing football, as most clubs seem to be operating at a loss, which just isn't feasible long term.
I'm sure the bigger clubs will always find a way to get around any rules which might create a more level playing field anyway - stadium naming seems to be one of the ones that's come up before, the club ostensibly charging the club's owner for advertising their business interests, in reality it's just another way of funneling money into the club without it looking as if a wealthy owner's funding it out of his back pocket. There are certain clubs who will make enough from merchandise and such that they'll be able to generate enough turnover to comply with rulings that might limit players wages against total turnover because they're global brands (united, chelsea etc) - most however, even clubs like Leeds/Leicester/Fore st/Derby/etc who are relatively big clubs, really only make money from gate receipts, and will therefore always be operating near a loss if they attempt to sign the players that might bring them success. Even Championship TV money won't come covering the operating costs of a club with a large wage bill. Apart from a select few clubs and the vast majority of players, money is killing football, as most clubs seem to be operating at a loss, which just isn't feasible long term. Swindon1984
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Mon 18 Feb 13

MITTED says...

Stratton Red wrote:
It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce.
*
Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium.
*
This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable.
*
The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed.
*
Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...)
*
It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain".......

The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed.
COYR
[quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...[/p][/quote]Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain"....... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR MITTED
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stratton Red says...

MITTED wrote:
Stratton Red wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain"....
... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR
Did you actually read my post?
[quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...[/p][/quote]Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain".... ... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR[/p][/quote]Did you actually read my post? Stratton Red
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Mon 18 Feb 13

RamsburyRed says...

Swindon1984 wrote:
I'm sure the bigger clubs will always find a way to get around any rules which might create a more level playing field anyway - stadium naming seems to be one of the ones that's come up before, the club ostensibly charging the club's owner for advertising their business interests, in reality it's just another way of funneling money into the club without it looking as if a wealthy owner's funding it out of his back pocket. There are certain clubs who will make enough from merchandise and such that they'll be able to generate enough turnover to comply with rulings that might limit players wages against total turnover because they're global brands (united, chelsea etc) - most however, even clubs like Leeds/Leicester/Fore st/Derby/etc who are relatively big clubs, really only make money from gate receipts, and will therefore always be operating near a loss if they attempt to sign the players that might bring them success. Even Championship TV money won't come covering the operating costs of a club with a large wage bill. Apart from a select few clubs and the vast majority of players, money is killing football, as most clubs seem to be operating at a loss, which just isn't feasible long term.
As regards stadium naming etc, one might argue that if a club can get it - far enough. It's just the same as sponsorship. But debt (not shareholders' funds) is hard to hide - it must be on the balance sheet.
*
The apparent 'panacea' of Championship tv money is actually only about £4m per annum, so wouldn't be our 'saviour' if we got promoted - it's roughly twice what we get this year.
*
The 'medium-sized' clubs, such as those you've mentioned (one could add Brum and Pompey) have nearly all come close to destroying themselves in search of the dream, a salutary lesson there methinks.
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote: I'm sure the bigger clubs will always find a way to get around any rules which might create a more level playing field anyway - stadium naming seems to be one of the ones that's come up before, the club ostensibly charging the club's owner for advertising their business interests, in reality it's just another way of funneling money into the club without it looking as if a wealthy owner's funding it out of his back pocket. There are certain clubs who will make enough from merchandise and such that they'll be able to generate enough turnover to comply with rulings that might limit players wages against total turnover because they're global brands (united, chelsea etc) - most however, even clubs like Leeds/Leicester/Fore st/Derby/etc who are relatively big clubs, really only make money from gate receipts, and will therefore always be operating near a loss if they attempt to sign the players that might bring them success. Even Championship TV money won't come covering the operating costs of a club with a large wage bill. Apart from a select few clubs and the vast majority of players, money is killing football, as most clubs seem to be operating at a loss, which just isn't feasible long term.[/p][/quote]As regards stadium naming etc, one might argue that if a club can get it - far enough. It's just the same as sponsorship. But debt (not shareholders' funds) is hard to hide - it must be on the balance sheet. * The apparent 'panacea' of Championship tv money is actually only about £4m per annum, so wouldn't be our 'saviour' if we got promoted - it's roughly twice what we get this year. * The 'medium-sized' clubs, such as those you've mentioned (one could add Brum and Pompey) have nearly all come close to destroying themselves in search of the dream, a salutary lesson there methinks. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

jam1 wrote:
I'm starting to lose my patience with this take over... If it doesn't go through today (as we were all led to believe it would) alarm bells will start ringing!!
No alarm bells should be ringing necessarily,i think a lot of people are getting jumpy down to the fact we keep reading "it should be complete........"
[quote][p][bold]jam1[/bold] wrote: I'm starting to lose my patience with this take over... If it doesn't go through today (as we were all led to believe it would) alarm bells will start ringing!![/p][/quote]No alarm bells should be ringing necessarily,i think a lot of people are getting jumpy down to the fact we keep reading "it should be complete........" swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Mon 18 Feb 13

MITTED says...

Stratton Red wrote:
MITTED wrote:
Stratton Red wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain"....

... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR
Did you actually read my post?
yes.
[quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...[/p][/quote]Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain".... ... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR[/p][/quote]Did you actually read my post?[/p][/quote]yes. MITTED
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

Stratton Red wrote:
It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce.
*
Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium.
*
This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable.
*
The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed.
*
Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...)
*
It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
Great post Stratton.
[quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...[/p][/quote]Great post Stratton. swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

2:40pm Mon 18 Feb 13

SimonPrice351 says...

Fans ownership sounds romantic, but it too has weaknesses.

If you have ever watched (or read) George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', then you will no doubt be aware that the oppressed can become oppressors and be worse than their masters before. It would only take a few dissenting voices or people with their own agendas to wreck it.

Fans bicker and banter (and sometimes even worse)... can they really work together for the common good if their precious little egos will take a battering?

The idea of a Prenuptial makes sense, and most sensible and honest businessmen (and women!) would say okay to it. However, the toothless FA will never implement it.
Fans ownership sounds romantic, but it too has weaknesses. If you have ever watched (or read) George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', then you will no doubt be aware that the oppressed can become oppressors and be worse than their masters before. It would only take a few dissenting voices or people with their own agendas to wreck it. Fans bicker and banter (and sometimes even worse)... can they really work together for the common good if their precious little egos will take a battering? The idea of a Prenuptial makes sense, and most sensible and honest businessmen (and women!) would say okay to it. However, the toothless FA will never implement it. SimonPrice351
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Always red says...

Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not Always red
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stilloyal says...

Stop employing over rated and over paid average foreign players and the lower wages will filter down the leagues.
Wages in excess of 2k p/w for L/1 players is excessive in my mind. Bearing in mind they get bonuses added in and yes I know they don't get bonuses in the summer and it's a short career. But hey when you finish playing you don't die you still have a working life of a further 30 plus years . You might have to work 8 / 9 hours a day though but you might get some weekends off.
In this day people are having to work longer becauase generally they are fitter and healthier and live longer.
Lower wages would benifit us all but having said that many clubs would still budget to operate at a loss.

An old arguement I know but a relevent one especially in this age of austerity.
Stop employing over rated and over paid average foreign players and the lower wages will filter down the leagues. Wages in excess of 2k p/w for L/1 players is excessive in my mind. Bearing in mind they get bonuses added in and yes I know they don't get bonuses in the summer and it's a short career. But hey when you finish playing you don't die you still have a working life of a further 30 plus years . You might have to work 8 / 9 hours a day though but you might get some weekends off. In this day people are having to work longer becauase generally they are fitter and healthier and live longer. Lower wages would benifit us all but having said that many clubs would still budget to operate at a loss. An old arguement I know but a relevent one especially in this age of austerity. Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Hampshire_ReD says...

(Off-topic), but just how much longer can the league drag this take-over process on for ?

The initial excuses were understandable - then it was announced that the rest of the new board had approval, and we were only waiting on Jed's special dispensation.

But it feels like it's been a week since with no activity.
(Off-topic), but just how much longer can the league drag this take-over process on for ? The initial excuses were understandable - then it was announced that the rest of the new board had approval, and we were only waiting on Jed's special dispensation. But it feels like it's been a week since with no activity. Hampshire_ReD
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

SimonPrice351 wrote:
Fans ownership sounds romantic, but it too has weaknesses.

If you have ever watched (or read) George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', then you will no doubt be aware that the oppressed can become oppressors and be worse than their masters before. It would only take a few dissenting voices or people with their own agendas to wreck it.

Fans bicker and banter (and sometimes even worse)... can they really work together for the common good if their precious little egos will take a battering?

The idea of a Prenuptial makes sense, and most sensible and honest businessmen (and women!) would say okay to it. However, the toothless FA will never implement it.
Good point,especially if you get like on here sometimes where you get the impression that their views and only their views count it would not be helpful would it!
[quote][p][bold]SimonPrice351[/bold] wrote: Fans ownership sounds romantic, but it too has weaknesses. If you have ever watched (or read) George Orwell's 'Animal Farm', then you will no doubt be aware that the oppressed can become oppressors and be worse than their masters before. It would only take a few dissenting voices or people with their own agendas to wreck it. Fans bicker and banter (and sometimes even worse)... can they really work together for the common good if their precious little egos will take a battering? The idea of a Prenuptial makes sense, and most sensible and honest businessmen (and women!) would say okay to it. However, the toothless FA will never implement it.[/p][/quote]Good point,especially if you get like on here sometimes where you get the impression that their views and only their views count it would not be helpful would it! swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Mon 18 Feb 13

EastleazeRed says...

Always red wrote:
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Always red ! Dont believe everything you read on Facebook ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Always red ! Dont believe everything you read on Facebook ;-) EastleazeRed
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Mon 18 Feb 13

smirg kcab says...

Just had a text from a good source, if the deal don't go through today paolo will not be travelling with the squad.
Hope he's wrong.
Onwards and upwards with everything crossed
Just had a text from a good source, if the deal don't go through today paolo will not be travelling with the squad. Hope he's wrong. Onwards and upwards with everything crossed smirg kcab
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

Always red wrote:
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Where are you hearing this from?
I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??
[quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money?? swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Mon 18 Feb 13

hertz says...

I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR hertz
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stilloyal says...

swwindon61uk wrote:
Always red wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??
Coventry are skint, way overspent last season during relegation . Think Paolo will only go to a club that arn't struggling financially , so that rules the Hammers out also, lots of others too.
[quote][p][bold]swwindon61uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??[/p][/quote]Coventry are skint, way overspent last season during relegation . Think Paolo will only go to a club that arn't struggling financially , so that rules the Hammers out also, lots of others too. Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Marmite Soldier says...

swwindon61uk says...
11:42am Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red wrote:
Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better!
.
Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!!
.
Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have!
.
The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss!
.
Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!!
.
We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue
.
He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!!
.
That shows the fans real desire!
.
It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act!
.
5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m!
.
Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket!
.
How many actually did it - probably just me!!!!
£300 is a vast amount of money to a lot,it might not be a lot of money to you.
I imagine a lot of people have to save throughout the season to get their season ticket.
Plus others just plain not want to invest.
Need to calm down with high and mighty attitude i think.
Does your desire get you to the County Ground every home game?
Seem to remember you said you can only get to few games a season.

We're all on here hanging on news from of the takeover, but I have to comment on this. If you buy a season ticket, you don't need to spend any more money on tickets that year (cup matches excluded of course).

So save the cost of each match throughout the season and you'll have the cash for the following year's season ticket. It's called budgeting.

And before I get shot down, it would break my heart if I couldn't carry out these instructions.

Hope all Town fans can get to watch our club.
swwindon61uk says... 11:42am Mon 18 Feb 13 London Red wrote: Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better! . Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!! . Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have! . The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss! . Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!! . We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue . He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!! . That shows the fans real desire! . It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act! . 5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m! . Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket! . How many actually did it - probably just me!!!! £300 is a vast amount of money to a lot,it might not be a lot of money to you. I imagine a lot of people have to save throughout the season to get their season ticket. Plus others just plain not want to invest. Need to calm down with high and mighty attitude i think. Does your desire get you to the County Ground every home game? Seem to remember you said you can only get to few games a season. We're all on here hanging on news from of the takeover, but I have to comment on this. If you buy a season ticket, you don't need to spend any more money on tickets that year (cup matches excluded of course). So save the cost of each match throughout the season and you'll have the cash for the following year's season ticket. It's called budgeting. And before I get shot down, it would break my heart if I couldn't carry out these instructions. Hope all Town fans can get to watch our club. Marmite Soldier
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 18 Feb 13

super reds says...

swwindon61uk wrote:
Always red wrote:
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Where are you hearing this from?
I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??
Coventry are anything but flushed with money, I read somewhere that they are charged extortionate rent & are looking into building a new stadium where they won't have to pay, bit strange as The Ricoh is fairly new
[quote][p][bold]swwindon61uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??[/p][/quote]Coventry are anything but flushed with money, I read somewhere that they are charged extortionate rent & are looking into building a new stadium where they won't have to pay, bit strange as The Ricoh is fairly new super reds
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stilloyal says...

hertz wrote:
I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS !
[quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR[/p][/quote]Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS ! Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Mon 18 Feb 13

louiscassius says...

smirg kcab wrote:
Just had a text from a good source, if the deal don't go through today paolo will not be travelling with the squad.
Hope he's wrong.
Onwards and upwards with everything crossed
Mate,

He's already gone......has anyone seen him at training over the last few days??

I think we're all in for a big shock tomorrow.....i dont know for sure, but i have a really bad gut feeling, somethings terribles round the corner.....

Sorry, just had this feeling all week and the longer this has dragged out, the worse i think the news is going to be.......

One thing we must do, if the worst news comes out......Paolo leaves and we go into "A"........

We must all stick together and be united and show the football commmunity that it takes alot more than that to kill us off......

Louis...Here's hoping....

COYMR'ssssssss

:-))))))
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Just had a text from a good source, if the deal don't go through today paolo will not be travelling with the squad. Hope he's wrong. Onwards and upwards with everything crossed[/p][/quote]Mate, He's already gone......has anyone seen him at training over the last few days?? I think we're all in for a big shock tomorrow.....i dont know for sure, but i have a really bad gut feeling, somethings terribles round the corner..... Sorry, just had this feeling all week and the longer this has dragged out, the worse i think the news is going to be....... One thing we must do, if the worst news comes out......Paolo leaves and we go into "A"........ We must all stick together and be united and show the football commmunity that it takes alot more than that to kill us off...... Louis...Here's hoping.... COYMR'ssssssss :-)))))) louiscassius
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Mon 18 Feb 13

louiscassius says...

Stilloyal wrote:
hertz wrote:
I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS !
To late....

Sorry guys.....

But hey......im still living the dream!!!

STFC forever!!!

Louis :-)))
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR[/p][/quote]Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS ![/p][/quote]To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-))) louiscassius
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Mon 18 Feb 13

chrystovski says...

Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???
Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5??? chrystovski
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Mon 18 Feb 13

The Jockster says...

super reds wrote:
swwindon61uk wrote:
Always red wrote:
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Where are you hearing this from?
I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??
Coventry are anything but flushed with money, I read somewhere that they are charged extortionate rent & are looking into building a new stadium where they won't have to pay, bit strange as The Ricoh is fairly new
A fellow town fan whose late father was a non executive director at Coventry told me earlie I the season they were losing £35k a week just on gate money so hardly likelypdc would go there methinks!
[quote][p][bold]super reds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swwindon61uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??[/p][/quote]Coventry are anything but flushed with money, I read somewhere that they are charged extortionate rent & are looking into building a new stadium where they won't have to pay, bit strange as The Ricoh is fairly new[/p][/quote]A fellow town fan whose late father was a non executive director at Coventry told me earlie I the season they were losing £35k a week just on gate money so hardly likelypdc would go there methinks! The Jockster
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Blazing Riff says...

super reds wrote:
swwindon61uk wrote:
Always red wrote:
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Where are you hearing this from?
I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??
Coventry are anything but flushed with money, I read somewhere that they are charged extortionate rent & are looking into building a new stadium where they won't have to pay, bit strange as The Ricoh is fairly new
They're actually in dispute with the stadium owners over 'exhorbitant rent'.
[quote][p][bold]super reds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swwindon61uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??[/p][/quote]Coventry are anything but flushed with money, I read somewhere that they are charged extortionate rent & are looking into building a new stadium where they won't have to pay, bit strange as The Ricoh is fairly new[/p][/quote]They're actually in dispute with the stadium owners over 'exhorbitant rent'. Blazing Riff
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

Marmite Soldier wrote:
swwindon61uk says...
11:42am Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red wrote:
Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better!
.
Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!!
.
Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have!
.
The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss!
.
Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!!
.
We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue
.
He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!!
.
That shows the fans real desire!
.
It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act!
.
5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m!
.
Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket!
.
How many actually did it - probably just me!!!!
£300 is a vast amount of money to a lot,it might not be a lot of money to you.
I imagine a lot of people have to save throughout the season to get their season ticket.
Plus others just plain not want to invest.
Need to calm down with high and mighty attitude i think.
Does your desire get you to the County Ground every home game?
Seem to remember you said you can only get to few games a season.

We're all on here hanging on news from of the takeover, but I have to comment on this. If you buy a season ticket, you don't need to spend any more money on tickets that year (cup matches excluded of course).

So save the cost of each match throughout the season and you'll have the cash for the following year's season ticket. It's called budgeting.

And before I get shot down, it would break my heart if I couldn't carry out these instructions.

Hope all Town fans can get to watch our club.
I always get my season ticket, but sometimes it does take some doing,i have this years money already for the season ticket so i am ok.
But i still stand by what i say,every penny counts to some people,including me, and is tough to save the £350,mine is self inflicted mind as i am going to New York in May and the pre-season tour where ever that maybe in June/July.
I am putting square pegs in round holes!!
[quote][p][bold]Marmite Soldier[/bold] wrote: swwindon61uk says... 11:42am Mon 18 Feb 13 London Red wrote: Fans ownership is fantasy and the sooner people realise that the better! . Even in clubs where fans own a large portion there is always a benefactor involved - Pompey has Robinson putting in £3m!!!!!! . Had Black given the shares to the Trust what would have happened? Administration would have! . The new owners may not have a pot to "p1ss" in as some say - but at least they have p1ss! . Had the Trust taken over we would not be ale to fund a single month - what did the PdC fun raise £1k maybe!!!!! . We had the opportunity to invest when Fitton did the £2m rights issue . He said everything people want now - but less than £100k was taken up! Not enough to cover a month of our budgetted losses!!! . That shows the fans real desire! . It's all talk - as it's easy to talk - but hard to stick your hand in your pocket to act! . 5000 Season Ticket holders and about another 1000 or 2000 regulars go - so that 6000 or 7000 only needed to invest about £300 - to buy up that £2m! . Hardly a big investment is it - the equivalent of 1 season ticket! . How many actually did it - probably just me!!!! £300 is a vast amount of money to a lot,it might not be a lot of money to you. I imagine a lot of people have to save throughout the season to get their season ticket. Plus others just plain not want to invest. Need to calm down with high and mighty attitude i think. Does your desire get you to the County Ground every home game? Seem to remember you said you can only get to few games a season. We're all on here hanging on news from of the takeover, but I have to comment on this. If you buy a season ticket, you don't need to spend any more money on tickets that year (cup matches excluded of course). So save the cost of each match throughout the season and you'll have the cash for the following year's season ticket. It's called budgeting. And before I get shot down, it would break my heart if I couldn't carry out these instructions. Hope all Town fans can get to watch our club.[/p][/quote]I always get my season ticket, but sometimes it does take some doing,i have this years money already for the season ticket so i am ok. But i still stand by what i say,every penny counts to some people,including me, and is tough to save the £350,mine is self inflicted mind as i am going to New York in May and the pre-season tour where ever that maybe in June/July. I am putting square pegs in round holes!! swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Mon 18 Feb 13

glasred says...

The takeover "should be completed on Monday" said the Advertiser last Friday.
Any chance of some updated info then please ?
PDC wont say anything now until this deal is completed and who can blame him.
I think that we will hear later today or tuesday that the takeover is completed,and then PDC will step up and let us know his position.
Silence from all concerned creates a rumour mill,and when all is made official I think PDC will stay.
He just wants to know whats happening,as do we all.
PDC is a man of his word,and I believe he wants to stay and finish the job he started...lets hope our new owners can convince him that they have the same ambition.!!COYR
The takeover "should be completed on Monday" said the Advertiser last Friday. Any chance of some updated info then please ? PDC wont say anything now until this deal is completed and who can blame him. I think that we will hear later today or tuesday that the takeover is completed,and then PDC will step up and let us know his position. Silence from all concerned creates a rumour mill,and when all is made official I think PDC will stay. He just wants to know whats happening,as do we all. PDC is a man of his word,and I believe he wants to stay and finish the job he started...lets hope our new owners can convince him that they have the same ambition.!!COYR glasred
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Mon 18 Feb 13

swwindon61uk says...

Stilloyal wrote:
swwindon61uk wrote:
Always red wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not
Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??
Coventry are skint, way overspent last season during relegation . Think Paolo will only go to a club that arn't struggling financially , so that rules the Hammers out also, lots of others too.
Just read that they owe £600,000 in 6 months back rent to the stadium owners.
I think they might need to go up!
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swwindon61uk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always red[/bold] wrote: Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not[/p][/quote]Where are you hearing this from? I don't thing Coventry are flush with money??[/p][/quote]Coventry are skint, way overspent last season during relegation . Think Paolo will only go to a club that arn't struggling financially , so that rules the Hammers out also, lots of others too.[/p][/quote]Just read that they owe £600,000 in 6 months back rent to the stadium owners. I think they might need to go up! swwindon61uk
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Robinonfire says...

Coventry....Leon Clark will be happy
Coventry....Leon Clark will be happy Robinonfire
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Mon 18 Feb 13

ChrisWantageRed says...

Robinonfire wrote:
Coventry....Leon Clark will be happy
Imagine PdC walking into THAT dressing room "ay....Leon...rememb
er me? Hope you brought your running shoes!"
[quote][p][bold]Robinonfire[/bold] wrote: Coventry....Leon Clark will be happy[/p][/quote]Imagine PdC walking into THAT dressing room "ay....Leon...rememb er me? Hope you brought your running shoes!" ChrisWantageRed
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Always red says...

Paolo could has put this to bed a while ago by telling us he is staying , but has kept us dangling we all get fed up with work now again but haven't got the luxury of threatening to leave we would be sacked. I love paolo and want him to stay but don't play games with us . After the monkey hangers match why were you waving at us ? You never do that .Dont play mind games with the fans ,remember we are here for life as supporters you are just passing through
Paolo could has put this to bed a while ago by telling us he is staying , but has kept us dangling we all get fed up with work now again but haven't got the luxury of threatening to leave we would be sacked. I love paolo and want him to stay but don't play games with us . After the monkey hangers match why were you waving at us ? You never do that .Dont play mind games with the fans ,remember we are here for life as supporters you are just passing through Always red
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Oldhamred says...

Can't see Paolo going to Coventry.

Not only do they have money worries of their own, but one of his first matches would be against us.

Paolo wouldn't want to insult the STFC fans who have shown so much loyalty and support to him.
Can't see Paolo going to Coventry. Not only do they have money worries of their own, but one of his first matches would be against us. Paolo wouldn't want to insult the STFC fans who have shown so much loyalty and support to him. Oldhamred
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Since 1950 says...

glasred wrote:
The takeover "should be completed on Monday" said the Advertiser last Friday. Any chance of some updated info then please ? PDC wont say anything now until this deal is completed and who can blame him. I think that we will hear later today or tuesday that the takeover is completed,and then PDC will step up and let us know his position. Silence from all concerned creates a rumour mill,and when all is made official I think PDC will stay. He just wants to know whats happening,as do we all. PDC is a man of his word,and I believe he wants to stay and finish the job he started...lets hope our new owners can convince him that they have the same ambition.!!COYR
Tomorrows Headlines:

'Deal expected to be finalised by Friday as take over inches closer'!

I still detect an odour of rodant about this.
[quote][p][bold]glasred[/bold] wrote: The takeover "should be completed on Monday" said the Advertiser last Friday. Any chance of some updated info then please ? PDC wont say anything now until this deal is completed and who can blame him. I think that we will hear later today or tuesday that the takeover is completed,and then PDC will step up and let us know his position. Silence from all concerned creates a rumour mill,and when all is made official I think PDC will stay. He just wants to know whats happening,as do we all. PDC is a man of his word,and I believe he wants to stay and finish the job he started...lets hope our new owners can convince him that they have the same ambition.!!COYR[/p][/quote]Tomorrows Headlines: 'Deal expected to be finalised by Friday as take over inches closer'! I still detect an odour of rodant about this. Since 1950
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Robinonfire says...

Larry Grayson new Preston Manager....First game at county ground Saturday

Come on you REDS
Larry Grayson new Preston Manager....First game at county ground Saturday Come on you REDS Robinonfire
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Mon 18 Feb 13

davel4848 says...

I see all the...."I've heard this and that, from a good source", brigade are on here again today !!!!!!!!!.
I've heard that if Donny don't win tonight and we do win tomorrow, we are top of the league. Let's concentrate on that shall we.
I see all the...."I've heard this and that, from a good source", brigade are on here again today !!!!!!!!!. I've heard that if Donny don't win tonight and we do win tomorrow, we are top of the league. Let's concentrate on that shall we. davel4848
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Mon 18 Feb 13

mike1990 says...

chrystovski wrote:
Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???
That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.
[quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???[/p][/quote]That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season. mike1990
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 18 Feb 13

STFCman&boy1973 says...

mike1990 wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???
That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.
the baggage your on about, is that a cup final, promotion, biggest win % outside of the prem???

Yes your right, no one would want that!!!
[quote][p][bold]mike1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???[/p][/quote]That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.[/p][/quote]the baggage your on about, is that a cup final, promotion, biggest win % outside of the prem??? Yes your right, no one would want that!!! STFCman&boy1973
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stilloyal says...

louiscassius wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
hertz wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS !
To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))
louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect.
I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game.

KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish !
[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR[/p][/quote]Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS ![/p][/quote]To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))[/p][/quote]louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect. I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game. KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish ! Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red says...

Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that
.
Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it!
.
Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity!
.
Why agree if you didn't want to do it?
.
He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell
.
He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago
.
As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees
.
Why - as these are actual investments!
.
On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed
Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed London Red
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Mon 18 Feb 13

eddyxx says...

If pdc was offered any position unless its a cash rich club who could pay out his contract i would say resignation would be his only option as his route out of swindon and at the same time saves the club money if the takeover falls through, certainly has made it obvious he aint happy and his recent statements about summer etc suggests he is on his way anyway. He has achieved all he set out and knows he could get us promotion this season with the right financial backing, maybe he thinks hes got us this far and will wait and see, either way he cant loose
If pdc was offered any position unless its a cash rich club who could pay out his contract i would say resignation would be his only option as his route out of swindon and at the same time saves the club money if the takeover falls through, certainly has made it obvious he aint happy and his recent statements about summer etc suggests he is on his way anyway. He has achieved all he set out and knows he could get us promotion this season with the right financial backing, maybe he thinks hes got us this far and will wait and see, either way he cant loose eddyxx
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Mon 18 Feb 13

mallorca says...

Well the coffe break for the FL is done and dusted.
Silence is worrying?????????
Only hope is AB puts input until end of season then just maybe he will benefit from sale of the clu.
Otherwise don´t look so good why all the silence??????
Well the coffe break for the FL is done and dusted. Silence is worrying????????? Only hope is AB puts input until end of season then just maybe he will benefit from sale of the clu. Otherwise don´t look so good why all the silence?????? mallorca
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Mon 18 Feb 13

mike1990 says...

STFCman&boy1973 wrote:
mike1990 wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???
That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.
the baggage your on about, is that a cup final, promotion, biggest win % outside of the prem???

Yes your right, no one would want that!!!
Well the facts are,PDC has had no other team coming for him yet,Forest didn't want him,nor Udders, Blackpool and of course West Ham,no body wants him,but we love him so best stay.
[quote][p][bold]STFCman&boy1973[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mike1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???[/p][/quote]That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.[/p][/quote]the baggage your on about, is that a cup final, promotion, biggest win % outside of the prem??? Yes your right, no one would want that!!![/p][/quote]Well the facts are,PDC has had no other team coming for him yet,Forest didn't want him,nor Udders, Blackpool and of course West Ham,no body wants him,but we love him so best stay. mike1990
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red says...

61uk - you sort of missed the point and then laid it out!
.
If a one off £300 investment is too much for lots - how the heck are those fans going to run a football club?
.
Thus it is total fantasy to think they can!!!!!
.
I personally am happy to make these small one off investments to keep my club going (rights issues are not frequent) but wouldn't on an ongoing basis as I don't have that much spare cash - which is why I don't think fans can run a club
.
If I or another fan won the Euromillions and was happy to use some of that then it might change and fans could take control - but we are then back to a rich benefactor situation again!!!!!!
.
As I doubt anyone would not retain control if it was their money being spent - I know I would simply hand millions over to the Trust or any other fan group
61uk - you sort of missed the point and then laid it out! . If a one off £300 investment is too much for lots - how the heck are those fans going to run a football club? . Thus it is total fantasy to think they can!!!!! . I personally am happy to make these small one off investments to keep my club going (rights issues are not frequent) but wouldn't on an ongoing basis as I don't have that much spare cash - which is why I don't think fans can run a club . If I or another fan won the Euromillions and was happy to use some of that then it might change and fans could take control - but we are then back to a rich benefactor situation again!!!!!! . As I doubt anyone would not retain control if it was their money being spent - I know I would simply hand millions over to the Trust or any other fan group London Red
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Mon 18 Feb 13

louiscassius says...

Stilloyal wrote:
louiscassius wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
hertz wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS !
To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))
louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect.
I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game.

KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish !
I know mate....

Your right, i just get so uptight and think i would rather have the bad news now and just learn to deal with it....

Thanks for those calming words ....

Just need some good news thats all i think we all need right now.....

God only knows the team could do with it too??

Louis :-))
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR[/p][/quote]Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS ![/p][/quote]To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))[/p][/quote]louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect. I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game. KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish ![/p][/quote]I know mate.... Your right, i just get so uptight and think i would rather have the bad news now and just learn to deal with it.... Thanks for those calming words .... Just need some good news thats all i think we all need right now..... God only knows the team could do with it too?? Louis :-)) louiscassius
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Mon 18 Feb 13

hertz says...

Last step , remember post from this morning ? now do you see how our fans like to drown themselves in bad news then convince themselves the rumour they probably started might actually be true , nobody knows a darn thing about what is actually going on , we can just sit tight listen out for the Donny result then give it our best shot tomorrow night .
COYR
Last step , remember post from this morning ? now do you see how our fans like to drown themselves in bad news then convince themselves the rumour they probably started might actually be true , nobody knows a darn thing about what is actually going on , we can just sit tight listen out for the Donny result then give it our best shot tomorrow night . COYR hertz
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Mon 18 Feb 13

mallorca says...

Look Guys,
Pdc got us promoted yest BUT at what cost,he has wasted all kinds of money,let´s not go there as theres for and against.
However why was JW sacked??? ok swp came in to sell the club.
Pdc has gone quiet but he has milked this situation. Jobs that were possible for him have gone.
Now he neds to say I´m here for the Town.
I think he willhonour his contract.
I also fel if the deal goes bad.
I also think Mr Black willcarry the club until the end of the season as he will HAVE A PRODUCT TO SELL
as we will be champions
Look Guys, Pdc got us promoted yest BUT at what cost,he has wasted all kinds of money,let´s not go there as theres for and against. However why was JW sacked??? ok swp came in to sell the club. Pdc has gone quiet but he has milked this situation. Jobs that were possible for him have gone. Now he neds to say I´m here for the Town. I think he willhonour his contract. I also fel if the deal goes bad. I also think Mr Black willcarry the club until the end of the season as he will HAVE A PRODUCT TO SELL as we will be champions mallorca
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Mon 18 Feb 13

mancrobin says...

What I would like the Trust to do is to give this whole situation a lot more clarity. If it is to gain credibility as the voice of the fans, a few facts would be useful. The key ones for now seem to be:
1. What exactly was the plan agreed with PdC and who agreed it? About the only thing I do know is that it was for 5 years and to get the Town in to the Championship. All the other details are missing so when people start getting indignant about this and that, it leaves me bemused.
2. What exactly are the Trust offering as an alternative model to the benefactor one? If we are going to convince fans to invest their own money, there needs to be a clear, credible plan. In my view, a Red Army Fund isn't that.
What I would like the Trust to do is to give this whole situation a lot more clarity. If it is to gain credibility as the voice of the fans, a few facts would be useful. The key ones for now seem to be: 1. What exactly was the plan agreed with PdC and who agreed it? About the only thing I do know is that it was for 5 years and to get the Town in to the Championship. All the other details are missing so when people start getting indignant about this and that, it leaves me bemused. 2. What exactly are the Trust offering as an alternative model to the benefactor one? If we are going to convince fans to invest their own money, there needs to be a clear, credible plan. In my view, a Red Army Fund isn't that. mancrobin
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Mon 18 Feb 13

super reds says...

louiscassius wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
louiscassius wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
hertz wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS !
To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))
louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect.
I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game.

KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish !
I know mate....

Your right, i just get so uptight and think i would rather have the bad news now and just learn to deal with it....

Thanks for those calming words ....

Just need some good news thats all i think we all need right now.....

God only knows the team could do with it too??

Louis :-))
Louis, no-one stopping you looking at the rumour sites, just don't come on here spouting the rubbish you've seen on there, it just get everyone uptight
[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR[/p][/quote]Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS ![/p][/quote]To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))[/p][/quote]louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect. I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game. KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish ![/p][/quote]I know mate.... Your right, i just get so uptight and think i would rather have the bad news now and just learn to deal with it.... Thanks for those calming words .... Just need some good news thats all i think we all need right now..... God only knows the team could do with it too?? Louis :-))[/p][/quote]Louis, no-one stopping you looking at the rumour sites, just don't come on here spouting the rubbish you've seen on there, it just get everyone uptight super reds
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Mon 18 Feb 13

umpcah says...

Time= 17.17 ! I`m beginning to get impatient like so many other Town fans are and think if a confirmation of the new board`s ratification was to be announced today it would have been made by now.
Time= 17.17 ! I`m beginning to get impatient like so many other Town fans are and think if a confirmation of the new board`s ratification was to be announced today it would have been made by now. umpcah
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Davidsyrett says...

Where did it say that the FL would confirm the takeover today? I heard it maybe Monday or later this week.
Where did it say that the FL would confirm the takeover today? I heard it maybe Monday or later this week. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Mikey107 says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening
What words of wisdom there - with no substance ....

Resign or Quit - pray tell us what is the difference between those 2 words.oh mighty one.

Its Paolo by the way...
Paolo off ski by sounds of it. Missing from press conference and no word on takeover still.

Can't blame him if true just hoped it wouldn't come to this.
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RICHARDPIKE[/bold] wrote: Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening[/p][/quote]What words of wisdom there - with no substance .... Resign or Quit - pray tell us what is the difference between those 2 words.oh mighty one. Its Paolo by the way...[/p][/quote]Paolo off ski by sounds of it. Missing from press conference and no word on takeover still. Can't blame him if true just hoped it wouldn't come to this. Mikey107
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Mon 18 Feb 13

RamsburyRed says...

London Red wrote:
Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed
Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed[/p][/quote]Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Mon 18 Feb 13

johnt1102 says...

STOP PRESS-no news-Watch this space for further no news.Tomorrow there may be more no news.For more no news please go to nonews.com
STOP PRESS-no news-Watch this space for further no news.Tomorrow there may be more no news.For more no news please go to nonews.com johnt1102
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Mon 18 Feb 13

tobruk says...

Patience is a virtue my jolly STFC chums!!! Fear the worst but hope for the best!
Patience is a virtue my jolly STFC chums!!! Fear the worst but hope for the best! tobruk
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Mon 18 Feb 13

johnt1102 says...

Is there any news?
Is there any news? johnt1102
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Rebel_phish says...

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!

Sir Alex to quit.

Sir Alex Ferguson announced this afternoon on MUTV that he is to quit football. "The league this season offers no new challenge for me" he said. "This squad of players are probably better than that of 1999. But I've already won the treble, so to do it again it will be a case on, 'Bin there, done that, got the T-shirt'

Meanwhile, Arsene Wenger was given a torrid time at his press conference. It was said that he to was looking for new ways to win. The posibility of taking over at Manchester was raised, but he did not say whether it was the red or blue side.

The rumour mill went into over drive at this announcement. While Di Canio was linked with the forthcoming vacancy at the Emirates, he cut short his own pre-match press conference this afternoon. Di Canio would not be drawn into his own future at the ill stricken Swindon Town who are going through a long drawn out take-over themselves.

When quizzed about the top job at Arsenal, all Paolo would say is " You'll have to speak to my agent"

Phil Spence replied "I have it from a reliable source, that is, I think I overheard someone say that, Paolo may have said that he had a better chance of silverware at SN1 than at that North London Club, but don't quote me on that."



REMEMBER - YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!! Sir Alex to quit. Sir Alex Ferguson announced this afternoon on MUTV that he is to quit football. "The league this season offers no new challenge for me" he said. "This squad of players are probably better than that of 1999. But I've already won the treble, so to do it again it will be a case on, 'Bin there, done that, got the T-shirt' Meanwhile, Arsene Wenger was given a torrid time at his press conference. It was said that he to was looking for new ways to win. The posibility of taking over at Manchester was raised, but he did not say whether it was the red or blue side. The rumour mill went into over drive at this announcement. While Di Canio was linked with the forthcoming vacancy at the Emirates, he cut short his own pre-match press conference this afternoon. Di Canio would not be drawn into his own future at the ill stricken Swindon Town who are going through a long drawn out take-over themselves. When quizzed about the top job at Arsenal, all Paolo would say is " You'll have to speak to my agent" Phil Spence replied "I have it from a reliable source, that is, I think I overheard someone say that, Paolo may have said that he had a better chance of silverware at SN1 than at that North London Club, but don't quote me on that." REMEMBER - YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST Rebel_phish
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stratton Red says...

MITTED wrote:
Stratton Red wrote:
MITTED wrote:
Stratton Red wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...
Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain".... ... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR
Did you actually read my post?
yes.
OK...
*
1. I'm not "slagging off" the Trust, just saying that I don't think it's a very practical idea and whilst of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, I personally think it does the credibility of the Trust little to come out with statements like that. As an aside, I went on the Trust website today and can't believe there's not even a little synopsis about those who manage the Trust, again a credibility issue for me. Given the recent media attention the Trust has received in the last few weeks they should be capatilising on it and sadly not putting fans like me off.
*
2. I thought my mail was enhancing the wider debate. To focus on benefactors is far too narrow and simplistic in my opinion. The wider issue is debt and the causes of debt and I even mentioned lessons learnt from other soprts, so not sure how that isn't enhancing the debate.
*
3. I'm pretty sure an equity based ratio would be good for clubs in all walks of sporting life, not just football, so again a little bemused at why you think I'm dissmissing an open debate about finances in football as a whole and only focussing on STFC?
*
I guess it boils down to a view of whether you want rules in place to try and protect a club should our type of situation occur or rules that minimise / never let you get into that situation in the first place... My hairbrain suggestion was about the latter...
[quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: It's articles like this that makes me wonder about TRUST STFC. The issue of debt needs to be tackled by the football governing bodies and not by hairbrain pre-nup agreements that would be impossible to enforce. * Rather than having the 65% of turnover on player wages there should simply be a debt to turnover ratio and if you breach this then you are deducted points. This then minimises the risk of benefacors walking away and leaving clubs in the mire. If our turnover is e.g. £10m (I'm sure LR can provide exact figures) and you state that clubs can only have 20% debt to Turnover ratio that would be £2m. This is a far-cry from the £13m+ by AB and clubs like Pompey / Rangers etc racking up the unsustainable debt. If clubs were give e.g. 5 years to implement this, there would be some short term re-adjustment pain but this would be felt by all clubs and what we'd see is the honeymoon period of ridiculous spiraling player wages come to an end and wages fall and all clubs getting back to a sensible equilibrium. * This model also makes the fan sharebase proposition more achieveable. * The distribution of money from TV rights & the premier league also needs to addressed. * Just look at other sports that now operate sensible financial rules. F1 got so ridiculously out of hand and impossible for new teams to join as you needed a budget of £100m to get started they've reduced this now to £20m something the sceptics said could never be achieved and made the sport much better in the process (although it still can be a bit of a procession...) * It would do the football bodies no harm having a chat woth Ecclestone and learning a few lessons...[/p][/quote]Disappointing that you slag off the Trust (that is 100% made up of fellow Town supporters) and you are dismissal of opening a debate that could help football as a whole and not just STFC, and then go off on making your own suggestions, which some might call equally "hairbrain".... ... The bottom line is that something needs to be done and the issues raised by the Trust and yourself are equally valid in my opinion and should not be so disrespectivley dismissed. COYR[/p][/quote]Did you actually read my post?[/p][/quote]yes.[/p][/quote]OK... * 1. I'm not "slagging off" the Trust, just saying that I don't think it's a very practical idea and whilst of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, I personally think it does the credibility of the Trust little to come out with statements like that. As an aside, I went on the Trust website today and can't believe there's not even a little synopsis about those who manage the Trust, again a credibility issue for me. Given the recent media attention the Trust has received in the last few weeks they should be capatilising on it and sadly not putting fans like me off. * 2. I thought my mail was enhancing the wider debate. To focus on benefactors is far too narrow and simplistic in my opinion. The wider issue is debt and the causes of debt and I even mentioned lessons learnt from other soprts, so not sure how that isn't enhancing the debate. * 3. I'm pretty sure an equity based ratio would be good for clubs in all walks of sporting life, not just football, so again a little bemused at why you think I'm dissmissing an open debate about finances in football as a whole and only focussing on STFC? * I guess it boils down to a view of whether you want rules in place to try and protect a club should our type of situation occur or rules that minimise / never let you get into that situation in the first place... My hairbrain suggestion was about the latter... Stratton Red
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Mon 18 Feb 13

clunge_meister says...

RamsburyRed wrote:
London Red wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed
Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.
We do know that at the start of the season contracts were signed commiting to spend cash through this season and into next.

If you knew that you were pulling the plug 2 months into the season why would you commit the club to spend more than it could afford.

Once you have signed up to the budget and the money you cannot backtrack it's simply too late.

Having said that I suspect this does all boil down to the fee for Troy A-H and its up front payment (rather than installments). AB put the money he said he would in but the cash was already spent. Hence needing another £300k for the last few months of the season.
[quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed[/p][/quote]Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.[/p][/quote]We do know that at the start of the season contracts were signed commiting to spend cash through this season and into next. If you knew that you were pulling the plug 2 months into the season why would you commit the club to spend more than it could afford. Once you have signed up to the budget and the money you cannot backtrack it's simply too late. Having said that I suspect this does all boil down to the fee for Troy A-H and its up front payment (rather than installments). AB put the money he said he would in but the cash was already spent. Hence needing another £300k for the last few months of the season. clunge_meister
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Mon 18 Feb 13

STFCman&boy1973 says...

mike1990 wrote:
STFCman&boy1973 wrote:
mike1990 wrote:
chrystovski wrote:
Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???
That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.
the baggage your on about, is that a cup final, promotion, biggest win % outside of the prem???

Yes your right, no one would want that!!!
Well the facts are,PDC has had no other team coming for him yet,Forest didn't want him,nor Udders, Blackpool and of course West Ham,no body wants him,but we love him so best stay.
Hi,
I believe, clubs have come in for him, he's turned them down though, he won't stab us in the back, like wise, hoddle, he's to loyal, imho...
[quote][p][bold]mike1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]STFCman&boy1973[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mike1990[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrystovski[/bold] wrote: Paolo to Coventry is doing the rounds on twitter now...surely people have just put 2+2 together and got 5???[/p][/quote]That's rubbish,Mark Robins jumped ship cause their up to there eye-balls in debt.no other team wants PDC at the moment,because of his baggage and he's still learning,so if he walks from us,it might take him a long time to get another chance,best stay and see what happens make his decision at the end of the season.[/p][/quote]the baggage your on about, is that a cup final, promotion, biggest win % outside of the prem??? Yes your right, no one would want that!!![/p][/quote]Well the facts are,PDC has had no other team coming for him yet,Forest didn't want him,nor Udders, Blackpool and of course West Ham,no body wants him,but we love him so best stay.[/p][/quote]Hi, I believe, clubs have come in for him, he's turned them down though, he won't stab us in the back, like wise, hoddle, he's to loyal, imho... STFCman&boy1973
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Mon 18 Feb 13

mallorca says...

never mind MUFC, our club is the problem
Not a peep this NDA is BS.
As for Pdc he either goes or stays?????
God knows how the team must feel,especially with the game tomorrow evening coming up.
God they could go top
Now is the time for the FL and STFC to come clean is this deal on or off????
never mind MUFC, our club is the problem Not a peep this NDA is BS. As for Pdc he either goes or stays????? God knows how the team must feel,especially with the game tomorrow evening coming up. God they could go top Now is the time for the FL and STFC to come clean is this deal on or off???? mallorca
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Mon 18 Feb 13

louiscassius says...

super reds wrote:
louiscassius wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
louiscassius wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
hertz wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR
Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS !
To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))
louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect.
I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game.

KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish !
I know mate....

Your right, i just get so uptight and think i would rather have the bad news now and just learn to deal with it....

Thanks for those calming words ....

Just need some good news thats all i think we all need right now.....

God only knows the team could do with it too??

Louis :-))
Louis, no-one stopping you looking at the rumour sites, just don't come on here spouting the rubbish you've seen on there, it just get everyone uptight
Right Gruffnutt,

I dont spout anything from the "Rumour Site"

Ya man was mentioning that, because a while ago i used to keep posting it on here....havent done that for ages and ages....

So dont jump on the band wagon and start slaggin me off, whithout reading what i mentioned in my opinion.....

Jesus, get a grip everyone has the right to an opinion, i suggest if you dont like what you read go somewhere else.....

Louis :-((((
[quote][p][bold]super reds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: I would think Paolo not doing his pre match chat may only be because he will only get bombarded with questions about the take over and what his plans for the future are , I doubt there will be much serious pre match football questioning going on . COYR[/p][/quote]Exactly ! Some people tend to panic when news isn't available so they start a rumour which snowballs, some even half hope that the rumour they start will become fact . STOP PANICKING UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRUTH GUYS ![/p][/quote]To late.... Sorry guys..... But hey......im still living the dream!!! STFC forever!!! Louis :-)))[/p][/quote]louis I don't want to get into a debate on this but at this time your statement is incorrect. I've spoken to someone and the Maestro is still at the club. He spoke to reporters today after training (BBC 16.00 hrs) but declined to discuss tomorrows game. KEEP AWAY FROM THOSE RUMOURS SITES, they are worse than rubbish ![/p][/quote]I know mate.... Your right, i just get so uptight and think i would rather have the bad news now and just learn to deal with it.... Thanks for those calming words .... Just need some good news thats all i think we all need right now..... God only knows the team could do with it too?? Louis :-))[/p][/quote]Louis, no-one stopping you looking at the rumour sites, just don't come on here spouting the rubbish you've seen on there, it just get everyone uptight[/p][/quote]Right Gruffnutt, I dont spout anything from the "Rumour Site" Ya man was mentioning that, because a while ago i used to keep posting it on here....havent done that for ages and ages.... So dont jump on the band wagon and start slaggin me off, whithout reading what i mentioned in my opinion..... Jesus, get a grip everyone has the right to an opinion, i suggest if you dont like what you read go somewhere else..... Louis :-(((( louiscassius
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Mon 18 Feb 13

davel4848 says...

The team probably feel fine, as they have a chance of going top.
Everyone does need to calm down a little.
What is the point of fretting and demanding answers, when we knew it was going to be this week, not necessarily today.
The team probably feel fine, as they have a chance of going top. Everyone does need to calm down a little. What is the point of fretting and demanding answers, when we knew it was going to be this week, not necessarily today. davel4848
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Last step says...

hertz wrote:
Last step , remember post from this morning ? now do you see how our fans like to drown themselves in bad news then convince themselves the rumour they probably started might actually be true , nobody knows a darn thing about what is actually going on , we can just sit tight listen out for the Donny result then give it our best shot tomorrow night .
COYR
Ok MysticMeg. You're right & I give up!!
[quote][p][bold]hertz[/bold] wrote: Last step , remember post from this morning ? now do you see how our fans like to drown themselves in bad news then convince themselves the rumour they probably started might actually be true , nobody knows a darn thing about what is actually going on , we can just sit tight listen out for the Donny result then give it our best shot tomorrow night . COYR[/p][/quote]Ok MysticMeg. You're right & I give up!! Last step
  • Score: 0

6:55pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Oi Den! says...

clunge_meister wrote:
RamsburyRed wrote:
London Red wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed
Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.
We do know that at the start of the season contracts were signed commiting to spend cash through this season and into next.

If you knew that you were pulling the plug 2 months into the season why would you commit the club to spend more than it could afford.

Once you have signed up to the budget and the money you cannot backtrack it's simply too late.

Having said that I suspect this does all boil down to the fee for Troy A-H and its up front payment (rather than installments). AB put the money he said he would in but the cash was already spent. Hence needing another £300k for the last few months of the season.
c_m, did we not have a transfer budget of £4m for the close season / early season and another £500k for January? And wasn't most of it, including the £500k, spent in the first couple of months of the season? And didn't AB then dig PDC out of the consequent transfer embargo with the injection of more equity?
.
The fact that the Archibald-Henville fee had to be paid up front is a complete red herring. For a start, the 65% cap relates to budgeted player costs for the season, so the timing is irrelevant. Secondly, even if that were not the case, the club should not have assumed payment could be made in instalments. It took me about two minutes to find the League's rule that says a tribunal can set a transfer fee of any amount, to be paid as and when it sees fit, so ignorance is no excuse. The club simply c0cked that one up.
.
However disappointed we may be in Black's decision to pull out, I don't see how it can be said that he did not keep to his word. It seems to me that he put MORE money in this season than was originally planned. Perhaps in the end he just got fed up with the continual emotional blackmail.
.
I liken the current outcry to the response when a player decides to leave us. If the player has been average or ineffective, he leaves with plaudits and good luck messages. If he's a star player, he's a Judas and all manner of other things. If Andrew Black had been putting in a few grand a year, nobody would have given a toss about his leaving. But because he's put in millions and decided to stop, he's a villain. Where is the vilification of Sir Martyn Arbib (possibly wealthier than Andrew Black) who seemed to retire quietly from the scene some time ago? No, I don't think he deserves it either, but Black committed his money for longer than any of the others and yet he gets all the stick. Seems odd to me.
.
If Black is is getting so much negative comment now, we can only wonder what it will be like at the end of the next chapter, provided there is a next chapter.
[quote][p][bold]clunge_meister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed[/p][/quote]Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.[/p][/quote]We do know that at the start of the season contracts were signed commiting to spend cash through this season and into next. If you knew that you were pulling the plug 2 months into the season why would you commit the club to spend more than it could afford. Once you have signed up to the budget and the money you cannot backtrack it's simply too late. Having said that I suspect this does all boil down to the fee for Troy A-H and its up front payment (rather than installments). AB put the money he said he would in but the cash was already spent. Hence needing another £300k for the last few months of the season.[/p][/quote]c_m, did we not have a transfer budget of £4m for the close season / early season and another £500k for January? And wasn't most of it, including the £500k, spent in the first couple of months of the season? And didn't AB then dig PDC out of the consequent transfer embargo with the injection of more equity? . The fact that the Archibald-Henville fee had to be paid up front is a complete red herring. For a start, the 65% cap relates to budgeted player costs for the season, so the timing is irrelevant. Secondly, even if that were not the case, the club should not have assumed payment could be made in instalments. It took me about two minutes to find the League's rule that says a tribunal can set a transfer fee of any amount, to be paid as and when it sees fit, so ignorance is no excuse. The club simply c0cked that one up. . However disappointed we may be in Black's decision to pull out, I don't see how it can be said that he did not keep to his word. It seems to me that he put MORE money in this season than was originally planned. Perhaps in the end he just got fed up with the continual emotional blackmail. . I liken the current outcry to the response when a player decides to leave us. If the player has been average or ineffective, he leaves with plaudits and good luck messages. If he's a star player, he's a Judas and all manner of other things. If Andrew Black had been putting in a few grand a year, nobody would have given a toss about his leaving. But because he's put in millions and decided to stop, he's a villain. Where is the vilification of Sir Martyn Arbib (possibly wealthier than Andrew Black) who seemed to retire quietly from the scene some time ago? No, I don't think he deserves it either, but Black committed his money for longer than any of the others and yet he gets all the stick. Seems odd to me. . If Black is is getting so much negative comment now, we can only wonder what it will be like at the end of the next chapter, provided there is a next chapter. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Mon 18 Feb 13

RamsburyRed says...

clunge_meister wrote:
RamsburyRed wrote:
London Red wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed
Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.
We do know that at the start of the season contracts were signed commiting to spend cash through this season and into next.

If you knew that you were pulling the plug 2 months into the season why would you commit the club to spend more than it could afford.

Once you have signed up to the budget and the money you cannot backtrack it's simply too late.

Having said that I suspect this does all boil down to the fee for Troy A-H and its up front payment (rather than installments). AB put the money he said he would in but the cash was already spent. Hence needing another £300k for the last few months of the season.
Well, again, assumptions.
*
We don't know what spending limits were agreed or whether JW/PDC kept to those limits.*
*
You say 'once you have signed up to the budget you cannot backtrack' - well, we don't know what the budget was or who 'signed up' to it.
[quote][p][bold]clunge_meister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RamsburyRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Den - I was just pointing out saving the club and excessive spending are two different things and people should remember that . Don't say Black spent £10m saving us - as he didn't - yes he spent £10m and I'm grateful for that - but had he not decided to fund budgetted losses we wouldn't have got use to it! . Black made that choice yet has now decided to up sticks not only mid plan but mid season leaving us in a mess - that is why there is animosity! . Why agree if you didn't want to do it? . He should have told PdC in the summer plan over as I want out - he could have then let him walk i that was PdC's choice and budgetted for break even as he didn't want to spend as looking to sell . He didnt do that an said the plan was still there - That is why I said he should have funded the handover period as he agreed to it only 6 month ago . As for our spending if you actually go back and look at my view point it has always been spending by the owner like Black (or now Jed and Co) should be on infrastructure - both stadium and team in terms of transfer fees . Why - as these are actual investments! . On going costs like wages should always be within the clubs means as if something happens the club are not screwed[/p][/quote]Too many assumptions LR, we don't know what was agreed in the summer, nor on what ongoing basis AB agreed to funding. We don't know whether any agreements made were kept to by either side as we just don't have the details.[/p][/quote]We do know that at the start of the season contracts were signed commiting to spend cash through this season and into next. If you knew that you were pulling the plug 2 months into the season why would you commit the club to spend more than it could afford. Once you have signed up to the budget and the money you cannot backtrack it's simply too late. Having said that I suspect this does all boil down to the fee for Troy A-H and its up front payment (rather than installments). AB put the money he said he would in but the cash was already spent. Hence needing another £300k for the last few months of the season.[/p][/quote]Well, again, assumptions. * We don't know what spending limits were agreed or whether JW/PDC kept to those limits.* * You say 'once you have signed up to the budget you cannot backtrack' - well, we don't know what the budget was or who 'signed up' to it. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Mon 18 Feb 13

umpcah says...

DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.
DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY. umpcah
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stratton Red says...

umpcah wrote:
DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.
I hope not...
[quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.[/p][/quote]I hope not... Stratton Red
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stratton Red says...

Stratton Red wrote:
umpcah wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.
I hope not...
Aparently just been announced on the radio...
[quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.[/p][/quote]I hope not...[/p][/quote]Aparently just been announced on the radio... Stratton Red
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Stratton Red says...

Stratton Red wrote:
Stratton Red wrote:
umpcah wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.
I hope not...
Aparently just been announced on the radio...
Just announced on SKY. Bugger!!!
[quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stratton Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]umpcah[/bold] wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.[/p][/quote]I hope not...[/p][/quote]Aparently just been announced on the radio...[/p][/quote]Just announced on SKY. Bugger!!! Stratton Red
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 18 Feb 13

London Red says...

No assumptions - just public information
.
We know PdC wouldn't commit in the summer until assurances were given that the plan was still in place - once that was given he signed an extension
.
Search this site and you will see those articles
.
We know that this was linked to the equity injection designed to allow us a competitive wage bill
.
Search this site and you will see those articles
.
We know our wage bill was £4m in the summer which was to rise to £4.5m in Jan if we were in with a shout for promotion
.
SWP early interview about the lifting of the enbaego clearly stated this
.
We know that in order to allow this a certain amount of extra equity was always required - why as PdC and Watkins have told us!
.
PdC revealed we are UNDER the £4.5m budget and Watkins revealed we are AHEAD of revenue budget
.
Search this site and you will see those articles
.
So the reason we can not sign people is lack of PLANNED equity increases!
.
They had to be planned as simple math tells you that!
.
So as I said no assumptions it has all been made public
.
AB agreed to pump X in but for what ever reason has decided not too and worse than that decided to stop funding amounts ALREADY in place
.
Saying no more is one thing - and most would say fair enough to that - going back on already signed off spending is another matter though - especially as it saw our jewel given away
No assumptions - just public information . We know PdC wouldn't commit in the summer until assurances were given that the plan was still in place - once that was given he signed an extension . Search this site and you will see those articles . We know that this was linked to the equity injection designed to allow us a competitive wage bill . Search this site and you will see those articles . We know our wage bill was £4m in the summer which was to rise to £4.5m in Jan if we were in with a shout for promotion . SWP early interview about the lifting of the enbaego clearly stated this . We know that in order to allow this a certain amount of extra equity was always required - why as PdC and Watkins have told us! . PdC revealed we are UNDER the £4.5m budget and Watkins revealed we are AHEAD of revenue budget . Search this site and you will see those articles . So the reason we can not sign people is lack of PLANNED equity increases! . They had to be planned as simple math tells you that! . So as I said no assumptions it has all been made public . AB agreed to pump X in but for what ever reason has decided not too and worse than that decided to stop funding amounts ALREADY in place . Saying no more is one thing - and most would say fair enough to that - going back on already signed off spending is another matter though - especially as it saw our jewel given away London Red
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Mon 18 Feb 13

RamsburyRed says...

London Red wrote:
No assumptions - just public information
.
We know PdC wouldn't commit in the summer until assurances were given that the plan was still in place - once that was given he signed an extension
.
Search this site and you will see those articles
.
We know that this was linked to the equity injection designed to allow us a competitive wage bill
.
Search this site and you will see those articles
.
We know our wage bill was £4m in the summer which was to rise to £4.5m in Jan if we were in with a shout for promotion
.
SWP early interview about the lifting of the enbaego clearly stated this
.
We know that in order to allow this a certain amount of extra equity was always required - why as PdC and Watkins have told us!
.
PdC revealed we are UNDER the £4.5m budget and Watkins revealed we are AHEAD of revenue budget
.
Search this site and you will see those articles
.
So the reason we can not sign people is lack of PLANNED equity increases!
.
They had to be planned as simple math tells you that!
.
So as I said no assumptions it has all been made public
.
AB agreed to pump X in but for what ever reason has decided not too and worse than that decided to stop funding amounts ALREADY in place
.
Saying no more is one thing - and most would say fair enough to that - going back on already signed off spending is another matter though - especially as it saw our jewel given away
Wait until you see the accounts.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: No assumptions - just public information . We know PdC wouldn't commit in the summer until assurances were given that the plan was still in place - once that was given he signed an extension . Search this site and you will see those articles . We know that this was linked to the equity injection designed to allow us a competitive wage bill . Search this site and you will see those articles . We know our wage bill was £4m in the summer which was to rise to £4.5m in Jan if we were in with a shout for promotion . SWP early interview about the lifting of the enbaego clearly stated this . We know that in order to allow this a certain amount of extra equity was always required - why as PdC and Watkins have told us! . PdC revealed we are UNDER the £4.5m budget and Watkins revealed we are AHEAD of revenue budget . Search this site and you will see those articles . So the reason we can not sign people is lack of PLANNED equity increases! . They had to be planned as simple math tells you that! . So as I said no assumptions it has all been made public . AB agreed to pump X in but for what ever reason has decided not too and worse than that decided to stop funding amounts ALREADY in place . Saying no more is one thing - and most would say fair enough to that - going back on already signed off spending is another matter though - especially as it saw our jewel given away[/p][/quote]Wait until you see the accounts. RamsburyRed
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Cookie43 says...

Bloody hell paolo's gone!!!!
Bloody hell paolo's gone!!!! Cookie43
  • 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