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

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Not going to Iast. Palo to resign or quit can see it happening

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

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Stfc is club is a joke.

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare

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.

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

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

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!

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
name not dick come and say it to my face. Or to scare

RICHARDPIKE wrote:
Duncan shearer is a dick. As he only supports stfc sado

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

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.....

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

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!!!!

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!

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

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...

EastleazeRed wrote:
Paolo`s scrapped his pre - match press conference today ??

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...

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

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.

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!!

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?

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...

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.

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 wrote:
Don't know how true it is I'm hearing paolo has left club possibly going to Coventry! I hope not

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??

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??

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

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

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 !

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

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

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.

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.

Robinonfire wrote:
Coventry....Leon Clark will be happy

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

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

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.

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 :-)))

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!!!

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 !

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 :-))

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

umpcah wrote:
DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.

Stratton Red wrote:

umpcah wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.

I hope not...

Stratton Red wrote:

Stratton Red wrote:

umpcah wrote: DI Canio has resigned. DEFINITELY.

I hope not...

Aparently just been announced on the radio...

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