Monkeh

1 hour ago, Shauntaylor85 said:

Cornick. We just need to accept we got that one wrong it appears. 

Not really, we wouldn't have 4 points on the board without him

Thank god they aren't on coach 1 : 

7 minutes ago, italian dave said:

It disappears fairly quickly: it started off at £130m, went down to £125m in the space of a few posts, and now it’s a balance of £50m!

Seriously, when you think about it, we bandy about wage figures on here of £10K, £12K a week, and hardly bat an eyelid. Not long ago we’d assume players were on 3,4 times that.  £10K is half a million quid a year, £2m over a 4 year contract. And we’ve got how many players. It adds up to scary numbers very quickly. 

When it's put like that, it makes me think k the Americans have it right in the mls *shudder*

Wage limit except for 3 marquee signings per squad 

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03230871/filing-history

20/21, 21/22 combine loss is over 60 million, Scots money doesn't even cover half of that

6 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

We’ve bought est something like £75 million in last 6/7 seasons

sold est something like £125 million 

now the balance of £50 odd million should help with a hell of a lot of running costs 

Seriously please read the accounts, 

10 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

Crowds up every year since COVID 

season ticket sales UP every year 

squad numbers reduced for last 3 seasons 

squad wages also reduced 

hospitality at its highest ever at AG 

BALANCE ON BUY AND SELL IN LAST 7 years £50 million plus 

but WERE STILL LOSING MONEY SOMETHING NOT RIGHT THEN 

Turnstile money doesn't even cover the academy 

1 hour ago, Topper 123 said:

thanks for putting me straight can you also tell me where the £130 million transfer income has gone ( not interested in wages as every club has them to pay ) just a question as I can’t find any answers to this one ?

The club has made a profit once in the last 20 years, that's where its gone, that as well as the ground redevelopment, wages that on average have been around 120% of turnover, buying players.....

1 minute ago, Topper 123 said:

Pardon me for not understanding that wages have been near on halved and 2 players that only cost us development costs were sold for £37 million pound . Now I’m not the one who said we never had to sell , that was our 2 billion pound owner so if we didn’t need to sell surely some of that money need re investing, I’m not saying all but you have to speculate to accumulate in my mind 

That's where you are going wrong, lansdowns money isn't the clubs money, he doesn't have to put anything in, 

Also the speculate to accumulate, is that on top of the near 180 million he's already invested into the club and seen 0 return?,

Until new investment comes into the club from a new owner or investor then we have to be self sufficient and not continue to lose close to 20 million a season

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

It might just be a case that having realised the wages to turnover ratio was beyond bonkers, the club decided to act before they were forced to do so. 

If things had contined on a high-spend/high-wage curve then sooner or later, points would have been deducted and further sanctioned applied, the 25Mil for Scott would have quickly dropped to a lower amount as we'd been in fire-sale mode and desperately trying to balance the books.

Until parachute payments change, this is always going to be a division where some clubs have a financial advantage which generally also means a sporting advantage. We can't blame SL (or anyone) for that, it's just the way it is. 

Can the club do more to reduce costs, increase revenue and possibly generate enough cash to either keep hold of, or buy a player or two? Possibly. But we'll still be reliant on the goodwill of SL.

Should the EFL take a look at the advantages that come with parachute payments and seek to make changes? Yes.

I've long held the view that parachute payments should only be used to cover the difference between what a relegated player is on and the average Championship wage, so if they were on 100k a week in the Prem and the average Championship wage is 10k, 90k a week of the parachute could be used to provide some financial smoothing. If they player moves on, then that element of the parachute is retained by the EFL and distributed across the remaining clubs. I'd also exclude players who sign in the last transfer window before relegation as being players they could weigh PP against. I'm sure we've all suspected some clubs of not using their last transfer window to ensure survival, but to try and be ready for their next Championship season. The reward for failure shouldn't result in a club being able to rebuild their side using Premier League relegation funds. 

Good post, but the efl can do nothing about parachute payments, they are voted for and implemented by prem clubs, they won't get rid of them because it's a revenue stream for those relegated,

It's just a different way of trying to keep the prem a closed shop

26 minutes ago, Topper 123 said:

Seem to be selling Crown Jewels then go shopping in Aldi with money accumulated . Don’t forget we reportedly have halved wages and last 2 players alone brought in est £37 million but it was stated we didn’t need to sell  ????????

What money accumulated would that be, the club still is losing money hand over fist

29 minutes ago, mozo said:

Stadium sponsorship?

It should be done imo, people won't like it but that and stand sponsorship are 2 revenue streams we are currently missing out on

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How much higher can it go realistically for a non in modern times top flight club of our size while we remain at the level?

However I do agree, this is another important side of the coin. Just trying to think, significant room for growth hmm.

Covid has had an impact on the events sector although this is in reverse now but WFH persists, Cost of living although our concerts do quite well.

In theory we could get tie ups with some of SL's new ventures in Guernsey provided they are at Fair Value rules but a bit of promotion on the mainland wouldn't do them any harm at all.

I'm not a marketing or commercial expert, but I'm sure there are other things the club could do, though I trust that they are thinking of this already,

6 minutes ago, SydneyCity said:

It could all go horribly wrong… but the one thing I do have faith in at the moment is the development of youth and a knack for bringing them in when they’re ready.

Or it could give us the next buffon, we just don't know,

Not many teams have 2 senior keepers these days, they ether run with an understudy or a player towards the end of their career

1 minute ago, SydneyCity said:

I’m not as concerned about the keeper situation. If we accept bringing young talent through in the outfield, we have to accept it in goal as well.

O'leary isn't young any more

3 minutes ago, Red Cloud said:

Probably a real Donkey question but doesn't Scott's sale raise our FFP limit so we now have a lot more room to manoeuvre?

I think the money we got from Kelly and Webster has effected that,

We had all that money and pissed it up against the wall causing us to get very close to ffp failure and points deductions,

I think we've now become risk adverse, I think we should add a bit more to the budget personally 

I think the answer isn't so much sacrificing a player, it's more increasing commercial revenue,

That would of happened under Gould but sadly he got a better offer,

This is where a CEO needs to earn their crust,

2 hours ago, Miah Dennehy said:

I remember the BCC councillor who turned up to a meeting in a City shirt during a discussion on planning proposals for Rovers new stadium- don't ask me which one, I've lost count on that one- incredibly unprofessional but it had no bearing on the outcome whatsoever. I would imagine plenty of councillors support one or the other (glad that they do) , but the perception by some City fans that BCC is pro Rovers and by some Rovers fans that is pro City really simply isn't true. The same goes for the imagined bias of the Evening Post and Radio Bristol. I  spend a bit of time in Glasgow where fans of Celtic and Rangers accuse organisations of bias toward one team or the other and fans of Partick and Queens Park accuse them of bias towrds the old firm. I suspect the same accusations get made in Sheffield, Liverpool, Stoke, Birmingham etc etc.

Mind you, just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you

It's only pro rovers when decisions go against city,

The council are pretty down the middle and have to apply the law

They won't get a safety cert unless it meets and is granted planning permission and building regs,

The reason they are carrying is because they are tinpot and any delay will lead to increased costs

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hopefully that will be closer to a bluff than fact. Somewhere between 2-4 needed still IMO, accepting that Murphy is somewhat of a development player.

Gardner-Hickman and Murphy are welcome but we very much need to reduce the absentees and keep then well reduced moving forward.

Consider we signed someone yesterday and about to sign another, how can you even say he hasn't been backed,

That would make 6 players through the door, they didn't come free and the club is still losing 300k a week,

5 hours ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

I understand the need for versatility but would really love us to sign someone who is a specialist in a specific position. 

We all would, but I don't think we can afford too with our limited wage budget at the moment,

59 minutes ago, Hot Air said:

Think back a bit further to May 2, 1990, when BRFC beat you 3-0 to clinch the league title.

Enjoy: 

 

Even better than the 4-0 hammering subsequently handed out.

 

Wow, that's all you got? A Derby loss from 33 years ago,

You really are pathetic 

4 hours ago, Hot Air said:

 

Do you have a video of Rickie Lambert ramming a volley down Basso's throat in the JPT area final? I'm struggling to find it...

How many times have you won that trophy?

Just now, Open End Numb Legs said:

Maybe he copied their template but more likely signing players in their prime is a tough thing to nail if you are such an unattractive club to join in L1.

The reason I said it is risky is the oldies could easily end up unavailable putting all the pressure on the loaned youngsters. I wouldn't want JB as my boss, especially if the wage bill is as reported, making it a crunch season.

Piss taking aside, they have made some good signings, but if they don't go up, I think they will be in ffp trouble, it seems to be shit or bust this season for them,

Also if they went up, I dont think they would be allowed to play at the mem as it doesn't meet championship standards

Just now, Open End Numb Legs said:

Are they doing the loans again? So young players on loan and contracts for the oldies?

It is a risky strategy. It will be important to have a strong squad ethic and not one that splits into cliques. They could easily have the youngsters talking in their group about their parent clubs dreams whilst the oldies are all on the physio couch discussing the merits of schools in the area and how many more seasons their legs will last.

Having such a bully for a boss doesn't bode well for bonding any of them, but if they get promoted then fair enough. We will still have a gold mine of laughs to refer to and their team will essentially reset to bare bones when the loans expire.

It worked for Plymouth to be fair

14 minutes ago, TomF said:

As temping as it is, we’d just be dropping to the level of moderation over there when our fans sign up.   Am sure they’ll get bored soon enough 

Lookout for the post on asschat where this poster starts gloating about winding up the Ted's and how we are all raging

When in fact they are entertaining us with new found levels on stupidity, stupidity that makes your average American look like Einstein