SL Speaks

[downendcity]

6 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

The only thing that worries me is that he doesn't look well there, I don't know when he bought that shirt but he looks like Harry Hill the collar is so large on him. He's lost a lot weight by the look of it.

O'Neills?

[Mr Popodopolous]

It's good to have a cohesive plan and a lot of what SL says I like- but a bit concerned by a few aspects of it.

While we don't have a £25m target or any such hypothetical concern by me- is SL expecting the club to be  a bit more self financing? Bit hard under the current system at this level I fear.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[awbb]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

is SL expecting the club to be  a bit more self financing? Bit hard under the current system at this level I fear.

He’s always wanted that, despite the losses, cut-backs and then allowing the wage bill to balloon again.

I remember vividly a picture of SL standing in front of a projected image of Concorde with the caption ‘Passion versus Finance’ on it at a talk on how he envisioned the club should be run. This was probably in the very early 2000s and before he became a billionaire. The desire for the club to be self-sufficient has always been there. 
 

However, he’s a realist, after all he let GJ increase the wage budget after he got us within a gnats whisker of promotion. If you’re going to back someone, they would seem the obvious person, but as we all know GJ couldn’t forge anything with that investment and we couldn’t sustain those losses.
 

The second time he did it was with Ashton who brought a lot of money into the football club while we generally improved our league position as the wage bill increased. Obviously he allowed it as the transfer fees were covering it. Then we ran out of valuable players to liquidate and COVID happened. Unsustainable losses again, regardless of our FFP position.

You’d know better than me, but FFP can allow clubs to go for it, having 2 years without too much loss allows significant investment in the 3rd year. Managing that years afterwards is hard but not impossible and I got the feeling that was his indication.

[mozo]

8 hours ago, spudski said:

I thought it was interesting that SL dealt with the Scott transfer and not our CEO.  Saying he doesn't usually do it, but because it was such a large sum of money...

Does that add context to NP's grumpy response?

[ExiledAjax]

9 hours ago, spudski said:

I thought it was interesting that SL dealt with the Scott transfer and not our CEO.  Saying he doesn't usually do it, but because it was such a large sum of money...

To be fair the new CEO is still getting settled after only 7 months in the job, so you can understand why SL would want to take the reins on the Scott deal. Alexander only has about 25 years of experience as a football CEO/director so you can't expect him to do much more than make the tea after 7 months.

[Henry]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be fair the new CEO is still getting settled after only 7 months in the job, so you can understand why SL would want to take the reins on the Scott deal. Alexander only has about 25 years of experience as a football CEO/director so you can't expect him to do much more than make the tea after 7 months.

Shades of ‘these things take time’ about him

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, mozo said:

Does that add context to NP's grumpy response?

 I must have missed that.

I thought Nige had accepted that AS would be moving on. He understands how football finances work despite not being involved in the clubs fiscal matters - he’s a football man after all.

[Davefevs]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

is SL expecting the club to be  a bit more self financing? Bit hard under the current system at this level I fear.

Yes, imho.

When you’re looking for new investment (looking to get out) why would you want to pump £15-20m in each year to cover losses which you won’t get all of it back. That’s if you look at the football club (Holdings).  You’re basically throwing money away for the benefit of the new ownership team.

Ignoring Scott sale for a minute….it’s why I think our budget is lower than the limit of FFP.  We could have a higher budget and max-out £39m, but 1) it leaves no wiggle room and 2) when can you have space to go for it if you need to, I.e. in January, or you get hit by something unexpected.

Imagine running to your limit….being in a good spot in January but can’t improve the team?

Imagine running to your limit….and Covid hitting?

Budgets can be flexed, but only if you set them beneath the max in the first place.  I think that is where it went wrong previously.

So, even though I might moan about SL on certain things I can see why he wants to set budgets lower than the limits of FFP.  Maybe he’s mindful of new P&S rules too?

What I don’t expect is for a manager to sell a player for £25m and budgets not be flexed to reflect that.  Now, if that sale was pre-empted and used to fund Knight, McCrorie, Dickie and Roberts, so be it.  I’d like to that £25m spread over a few years coupled with a constrained budget already would give opportunities to improve the squad however is deemed fit.  That might be with likes of the signings above and / or this lad Murphy.  I’m not convinced Willock is coming, but happy to be wrong.  I think recruitment has improved, it’s the odd-miss now, rather than odd-hit of previous set-ups.

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Imagine running to your limit….being in a good spot in January but can’t improve the team?

Imagine running to your limit….and Covid hitting?

Next you're going to tell me that I should be tucking money away into a savings account instead of spending all my spare cash on ketamine and lapdances...? 

 

Disclaimer: Mozo does not endorse or condone substance abuse or the giving or receiving of lapdances (unless you're offering).

[spudski]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be fair the new CEO is still getting settled after only 7 months in the job, so you can understand why SL would want to take the reins on the Scott deal. Alexander only has about 25 years of experience as a football CEO/director so you can't expect him to do much more than make the tea after 7 months.

From what SL says...he did the hard negotiating, and that Alex Scott had a few harsh words towards SL in the weeks leading up to finalising the deal. And in SLs words it could have been handled better if Bournemouth had got ' excited' during the negotiations. 

Reading between the lines...Alex wanted the move to happen quicker and that SL and Bournemouth banged heads over a final figure. 

[ExiledAjax]

29 minutes ago, spudski said:

From what SL says...he did the hard negotiating, and that Alex Scott had a few harsh words towards SL in the weeks leading up to finalising the deal. And in SLs words it could have been handled better if Bournemouth had got ' excited' during the negotiations. 

Reading between the lines...Alex wanted the move to happen quicker and that SL and Bournemouth banged heads over a final figure. 

Whilst Phil furiously took notes and polished Steve's shoes. Thank god Steve was there to do his employee's job for him. 

I guess the criticism is that if you employ someone to do a job, let them do it, and trust them to do it. Steve Lansdown is a shareholder in the club, he has no employment contract with the club, he has no legal duty to the club (beyond his indirect limited liability), and he's not a director. 

He can absolutely act as an ambassador for the club, network, set up meetings, and introduce people, but he shouldn't really be getting involved with the nitty gritty of a deal.

It's just wrong from a basic corporate governance perspective.

[spudski]

19 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Whilst Phil furiously took notes and polished Steve's shoes. Thank god Steve was there to do his employee's job for him. 

I guess the criticism is that if you employ someone to do a job, let them do it, and trust them to do it. Steve Lansdown is a shareholder in the club, he has no employment contract with the club, he has no legal duty to the club (beyond his indirect limited liability), and he's not a director. 

He can absolutely act as an ambassador for the club, network, set up meetings, and introduce people, but he shouldn't really be getting involved with the nitty gritty of a deal.

It's just wrong from a basic corporate governance perspective.

Our CEO may have also been involved. Maybe we'll never know. 

However I think it's telling that SL only mentions himself in getting the deal done. 

No mention of CEO or NP. 

It comes across as very narcissistic. 

As in...as it's so much money involved, only SL could be trusted to get the deal done on our best player and taking the glory for that done deal. 

I respect SL...but sometimes he does come across as ' it's all about me'. Maybe not intentionally... however...

[ExiledAjax]

8 minutes ago, spudski said:

Our CEO may have also been involved. Maybe we'll never know. 

However I think it's telling that SL only mentions himself in getting the deal done. 

No mention of CEO or NP. 

It comes across as very narcissistic. 

As in...as it's so much money involved, only SL could be trusted to get the deal done on our best player and taking the glory for that done deal. 

I respect SL...but sometimes he does come across as ' it's all about me'. Maybe not intentionally... however...

Yeh, narcissistic, ego-driven, and disrespectful to the bloke he pays hundreds of thousands a year to.

[One Team]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Our CEO may have also been involved. Maybe we'll never know. 

However I think it's telling that SL only mentions himself in getting the deal done. 

No mention of CEO or NP. 

It comes across as very narcissistic. 

As in...as it's so much money involved, only SL could be trusted to get the deal done on our best player and taking the glory for that done deal. 

I respect SL...but sometimes he does come across as ' it's all about me'. Maybe not intentionally... however...

It’s certainly been intentional in the past, exhibit A being his “it’s my club” comment in the infamous Twentyman interview on why he hadn’t sacked LJ following the worst run in our history. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Our CEO may have also been involved. Maybe we'll never know. 

However I think it's telling that SL only mentions himself in getting the deal done. 

No mention of CEO or NP. 

It comes across as very narcissistic. 

As in...as it's so much money involved, only SL could be trusted to get the deal done on our best player and taking the glory for that done deal. 

I respect SL...but sometimes he does come across as ' it's all about me'. Maybe not intentionally... however...

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yeh, narcissistic, ego-driven, and disrespectful to the bloke he pays hundreds of thousands a year to.

Totally.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, imho.

When you’re looking for new investment (looking to get out) why would you want to pump £15-20m in each year to cover losses which you won’t get all of it back. That’s if you look at the football club (Holdings).  You’re basically throwing money away for the benefit of the new ownership team.

Ignoring Scott sale for a minute….it’s why I think our budget is lower than the limit of FFP.  We could have a higher budget and max-out £39m, but 1) it leaves no wiggle room and 2) when can you have space to go for it if you need to, I.e. in January, or you get hit by something unexpected.

Imagine running to your limit….being in a good spot in January but can’t improve the team?

Imagine running to your limit….and Covid hitting?

Budgets can be flexed, but only if you set them beneath the max in the first place.  I think that is where it went wrong previously.

So, even though I might moan about SL on certain things I can see why he wants to set budgets lower than the limits of FFP.  Maybe he’s mindful of new P&S rules too?

What I don’t expect is for a manager to sell a player for £25m and budgets not be flexed to reflect that.  Now, if that sale was pre-empted and used to fund Knight, McCrorie, Dickie and Roberts, so be it.  I’d like to that £25m spread over a few years coupled with a constrained budget already would give opportunities to improve the squad however is deemed fit.  That might be with likes of the signings above and / or this lad Murphy.  I’m not convinced Willock is coming, but happy to be wrong.  I think recruitment has improved, it’s the odd-miss now, rather than odd-hit of previous set-ups.

Thanks for the detail.

On one level tbis is good, while on another level it concerns me slightly. If we have e.g. frontloaded some of the Scott expenditure on slightly higher wages than we anticipate or whatever then all fine as long as it remains sensible.

Recruitment has improved sure, so has the fitness regime and manager to get more out of said recruitment (IMO), it all helps.

I see the rationale, prime it for a takeover or new investor in a reasonably healthy state but Birmingham appear to have got tbis despite being a shambles for years now.

More recent top flight history of course and I digress a bit..why put in cash to benefit the new owner, suppose the problem is and good to have flex though it is, until such time as the potential changes to P&S come in if this is a factor we may as I suggested elsewhere be waiting a while. In the context of a League and I'm not saying we should go for it with £39m, but while ever some clubs may see that as a bit of a target to aim at rather than something to steer clear of we maybe pricing ourselves out of the market a  bit.

Yes but Covid..Stoke got away with a disgraceful tactic it must be said. To am extent Nottingham Forest I wonder about their 3rd year of losses vs their Covid claims in said year.

I believe the distribution issue will align with the rule changes and we and the League could be waiting years for that. Years.

[Davefevs]

46 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thanks for the detail.

On one level tbis is good, while on another level it concerns me slightly. If we have e.g. frontloaded some of the Scott expenditure on slightly higher wages than we anticipate or whatever then all fine as long as it remains sensible.

Recruitment has improved sure, so has the fitness regime and manager to get more out of said recruitment (IMO), it all helps.

I see the rationale, prime it for a takeover or new investor in a reasonably healthy state but Birmingham appear to have got tbis despite being a shambles for years now.

More recent top flight history of course and I digress a bit..why put in cash to benefit the new owner, suppose the problem is and good to have flex though it is, until such time as the potential changes to P&S come in if this is a factor we may as I suggested elsewhere be waiting a while. In the context of a League and I'm not saying we should go for it with £39m, but while ever some clubs may see that as a bit of a target to aim at rather than something to steer clear of we maybe pricing ourselves out of the market a  bit.

Yes but Covid..Stoke got away with a disgraceful tactic it must be said. To am extent Nottingham Forest I wonder about their 3rd year of losses vs their Covid claims in said year.

I believe the distribution issue will align with the rule changes and we and the League could be waiting years for that. Years.

I didn’t suggest the bit in bold (above) at all.  Not saying you are implying that either!

I fully expect the four signings to fall into the wage structure relevant to what we think is right.  The expected sale of Scott just gave Tins the chance to do his work early…at some point in the year we knew we were gonna see a big credit in the P&L or promotion or both!!!  Who knows, we may have got better deals, on one or both of fees and wages.  Whilst other clubs were waiting to sell, we nipped in.  We saw how Derby were desperate to get more clubs interested, but they needed the money to do their recruitment so we were able to complete it quickly.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/bristol-city-manager-nigel-pearson-8685950

Hmm..

We know we cannot compete directly let alone offer more than Parachute clubs. We know this.

However it feels a bit reductionist as how are Preston with their income levels doing the sort of business they do, have been doing?

Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea are three others. We appear to be hemming ourselves in just a bit.

The funny thing is I actually agree with a lot but I worry about the competitive balance bit in respect of any kinda top 6 challenge..our intentions are great but the external reality is also the external reality.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[marmite]

If we can't compete on wages for our targets and the home grown/developed  talent is continually offloaded,  then it appears that our best hope is the status quo. Are we really just hoping that we can stay in the Championship? Is that plan A and plan B?

[bcfc01]

2 minutes ago, marmite said:

If we can't compete on wages for our targets and the home grown/developed  talent is continually offloaded,  then it appears that our best hope is the status quo. Are we really just hoping that we can stay in the Championship? Is that plan A and plan B?

I think that is the outcome rather than any plan.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I mean with luck with injuries, some penalties our way and the young players who we do have continuing to develop then yes a top 6 tilt isn't wholly out of the question.

We need a lot to fall our way however. I'm a broken record but...

Vyner- 2024

Pring- 2024 (Year option in our favour to 2025 if needed).

Bell- 2025

Conway- 2025

It is a fairly uninspiring short and medium term message however. Intentions v external environment reality hmm.

Edited August 17, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

54 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/bristol-city-manager-nigel-pearson-8685950

Hmm..

We know we cannot compete directly let alone offer more than Parachute clubs. We know this.

However it feels a bit reductionist as how are Preston with their income levels doing the sort of business they do, have been doing?

Birmingham, Cardiff, Swansea are three others. We appear to be hemming ourselves in just a bit.

The funny thing is I actually agree with a lot but I worry about the competitive balance bit in respect of any kinda top 6 challenge..our intentions are great but the external reality is also the external reality.

Don’t just look at their income, look at their costs!

Their losses have gone up a bit through Covid and they aren’t generating transfer profit, but their amortisation and other costs are low.

a few undisclosed in there, but they probably got a bit for Jacob Slater, not huge, but would help.

 

[Tim Monaghan]

On 16/08/2023 at 17:15, ciderwithtommy said:

Hi Steve if you are reading this, Luton didn’t “get lucky”, that’s a crazy statement and a sign of someone who doesn’t get it. They built steadily with manager(s) and scouts that stuck to a plan, and then crucially when they were in sight of the promised land held on to their talent to get them over the line. 
 

could it be that rather then luck, you give the current staff a pat on the back and give them as much as you can to get us where we want to be.

luck, and hope, aren’t strategies 

Sooooooooo, are you saying we should have stuck with Lee Johnson? 

[Tim Monaghan]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

narcissistic, ego-driven, and disrespectful

Are you talking about Ian Gay again?

[Sleepy1968]

10 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

To be fair the new CEO is still getting settled after only 7 months in the job, so you can understand why SL would want to take the reins on the Scott deal. Alexander only has about 25 years of experience as a football CEO/director so you can't expect him to do much more than make the tea after 7 months.

I need to give you some extra

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Don’t just look at their income, look at their costs!

Their losses have gone up a bit through Covid and they aren’t generating transfer profit, but their amortisation and other costs are low.

a few undisclosed in there, but they probably got a bit for Jacob Slater, not huge, but would help.

 

Fair but I reckon their aggregate losses last 2 year's were maybe £35m before tax. Wouldng surprise me if they lost approaching £15m last season.

Maybe is a bit of messaging from NP and SL, strategically but squad too thin atm I think.