How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
Where did I say that or anything like it?
You said if we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount. On the basis no other of our youth players are subject to a bid - unless that changes in January, I assume the youth player we could sell to pay for any increase in wages to keep Dobson and CBT would be Leaburn?
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
Do contracts work out that way? You sign a new deal in December and immediately are on that extra wedge? Or is it when your initial contract runs out? Or can it be an agreement between the player and the club as to when it kicks in?
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
Where did I say that or anything like it?
You said if we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount. On the basis no other of our youth players are subject to a bid - unless that changes in January, I assume the youth player we could sell to pay for any increase in wages to keep Dobson and CBT would be Leaburn?
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
The only player we publicly turned down an offer for. Also Asiimwe and Anderson have only just burst onto the scene, if they play and play well through to January, they'll attract a lot more interest. Then there's cases like Sarmiento, Palmer, Beadle etc. where we may well sell a youth player before they're even in the first team (or get compensation for as it usually works)
Do contracts work out that way? You sign a new deal in December and immediately are on that extra wedge? Or is it when your initial contract runs out? Or can it be an agreement between the player and the club as to when it kicks in?
If you sign a new deal in Jan for say two and a half years it would kick in immediately not start when your current deal expires.
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
Where did I say that or anything like it?
You said if we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount. On the basis no other of our youth players are subject to a bid - unless that changes in January, I assume the youth player we could sell to pay for any increase in wages to keep Dobson and CBT would be Leaburn?
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
The only player we publicly turned down an offer for. Also Asiimwe and Anderson have only just burst onto the scene, if they play and play well through to January, they'll attract a lot more interest. Then there's cases like Sarmiento, Palmer, Beadle etc. where we may well sell a youth player before they're even in the first team (or get compensation for as it usually works)
TRUST ME - if CAFC had turned down further offers for other youth players it WOULD HAVE been mentioned in the article as it came from CM regarding the offers we had turned down - to use as good press for how well they are running the club.
Again - still hypothetical - but the same question - would you want to sell Asimwe/Anderson/Kanu so we could keep CBT and Dobson if that arises? Because - the point is - one of those things is going to have to happen - and CM has already said it IS going to happen at the end of the year when they have "reduced the losses to £1-2m" before player trading.....
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
Where did I say that or anything like it?
You said if we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount. On the basis no other of our youth players are subject to a bid - unless that changes in January, I assume the youth player we could sell to pay for any increase in wages to keep Dobson and CBT would be Leaburn?
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
No, again you're wrong
You made an incorrect statement about a fee for any U21 player not impacting on FFP.
I pointed out that you were wrong and why.
I said nothing about who could or should be sold and I never said that that was what I wanted.
If we sell an u21 player the profit - and actually as Chelsea have done - would be 100% profit and this can be used for turnover purposes - thus reducing our risk of failing FFP.
Our current mouthpiece says we already have put equity in to stop us failing FFP.
So - if we resign Dobson and CBT - I would assume we are going to improve their wages - being our two of our better performers and CBT was out of favour elsewhere when we signed him as a free agent - then to not break FFP - we could either get rid of other players - Kirk and McGrandles - we tried to.
If that doesn't happen - and as you suggested - it would mean a youth player being sold - I am asking - hypothetically - does that mean you/we want to sell Leaburn (or any other promising youngster - SHOULD any future offers come in for them) so that we can resign and keep Dobson and CBT?
The QUESTION MARK in what I said "but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?" asked you a question, didn't state that is what you wanted.
If you are going to pull me up, then at least make sure you pull me up on the correct things and understand what a question mark means.....
The 3 main guys at least are global Investors who will have countless opportunities presented to them all the time. I don't know what the answer is and maybe you are right and they are just all rich mugs... but I just reckon they paid next to nowt for us (not the fabled and never proven £12M) and then it starts to make a bit of sense as a low risk punt.
Maybe this figure was leaked as part of the deal to save face for TS when it was really a lot less?
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
Where did I say that or anything like it?
You said if we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount. On the basis no other of our youth players are subject to a bid - unless that changes in January, I assume the youth player we could sell to pay for any increase in wages to keep Dobson and CBT would be Leaburn?
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
The only player we publicly turned down an offer for. Also Asiimwe and Anderson have only just burst onto the scene, if they play and play well through to January, they'll attract a lot more interest. Then there's cases like Sarmiento, Palmer, Beadle etc. where we may well sell a youth player before they're even in the first team (or get compensation for as it usually works)
TRUST ME - if CAFC had turned down further offers for other youth players it WOULD HAVE been mentioned in the article as it came from CM regarding the offers we had turned down - to use as good press for how well they are running the club.
Again - still hypothetical - but the same question - would you want to sell Asimwe/Anderson/Kanu so we could keep CBT and Dobson if that arises? Because - the point is - one of those things is going to have to happen - and CM has already said it IS going to happen at the end of the year when they have "reduced the losses to £1-2m" before player trading.....
Yes, because at the end of the day that's what 95% of clubs do, especially ones with good scouting or good academies, or both. You home-grow a player, use them for a bit then sell them on at a profit to fund the next influx of youth, their coaching and development, and wages for the senior players at the club.
I would rather find a fool to sign Kirk or McGrandles for a fee, free up their wages and use that instead, but if that's not an option then selling a youngster to fund it is the next option.
Another option is to try and figure out if Dobson and CBT are actually worth bigger contracts, or if there's someone out there on comparable wages that can have a bigger impact, but then you run the risk of signing another Kirk and the whole cycle starts again.
The problem is there's people that support us that genuinely believe that we should simultaneously buy all the best players in the league, pay them whatever they ask, release all the players that aren't good enough, AND keep all our youth players, and that whoever is our owner should just swallow the ridiculous costs that come with that, which is unsustainable no matter how you look at it
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
Not true.
If we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount so increases our FFP limit so our ability pay wages to CBT and Dobson increases.
It's only u21 wages that don't count
You are correct. My bad. However, we can't sell players until January so any new offer of a contract I guess would get inked then too? but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
Where did I say that or anything like it?
You said if we sell a youth player the fee goes into our turnover amount. On the basis no other of our youth players are subject to a bid - unless that changes in January, I assume the youth player we could sell to pay for any increase in wages to keep Dobson and CBT would be Leaburn?
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
The only player we publicly turned down an offer for. Also Asiimwe and Anderson have only just burst onto the scene, if they play and play well through to January, they'll attract a lot more interest. Then there's cases like Sarmiento, Palmer, Beadle etc. where we may well sell a youth player before they're even in the first team (or get compensation for as it usually works)
TRUST ME - if CAFC had turned down further offers for other youth players it WOULD HAVE been mentioned in the article as it came from CM regarding the offers we had turned down - to use as good press for how well they are running the club.
Again - still hypothetical - but the same question - would you want to sell Asimwe/Anderson/Kanu so we could keep CBT and Dobson if that arises? Because - the point is - one of those things is going to have to happen - and CM has already said it IS going to happen at the end of the year when they have "reduced the losses to £1-2m" before player trading.....
Yes, because at the end of the day that's what 95% of clubs do, especially ones with good scouting or good academies, or both. You home-grow a player, use them for a bit then sell them on at a profit to fund the next influx of youth, their coaching and development, and wages for the senior players at the club.
I would rather find a fool to sign Kirk or McGrandles for a fee, free up their wages and use that instead, but if that's not an option then selling a youngster to fund it is the next option.
Another option is to try and figure out if Dobson and CBT are actually worth bigger contracts, or if there's someone out there on comparable wages that can have a bigger impact, but then you run the risk of signing another Kirk and the whole cycle starts again.
The problem is there's people that support us that genuinely believe that we should simultaneously buy all the best players in the league, pay them whatever they ask, release all the players that aren't good enough, AND keep all our youth players, and that whoever is our owner should just swallow the ridiculous costs that come with that, which is unsustainable no matter how you look at it
I entirely agree with you. 1000%.
But - CM and the rest of the new owners KNEW exactly where we stood with players who they didn't want (they ran the club in January remember through the transfer window) and they have stated that their plan is to get promotion, whilst cutting costs and player sales to balance the books.
So, knowing how close to FFP we are/were - and you are buying the club - WHY would you not invest MORE this season in the form of equity to give you the best possible chance of getting promoted and knowing that at the end of the season if they turned round and said we gave it a damn good try this year but bad luck/injuries/poor performances have stopped us going up and so, as any good management should do, we are going to have to sell Dobson, CBT, Leaburn etc and try again next year.
I simply don't understand why a mixture of freebies and loans and unfit players were recruited when they already know at the end of the year they have a good handful of saleable assets that us fans would have to understand they would need to sell to ensure the club runs itself properly.
They were criminally underprepared and have underestimated what it takes to get out of this Division.
Did we get anything for Sarmiento? He went abroad before Brighton and I thought that negated any benefit for Charlton who he had been with for eight years I believe. I don’t exactly know how it works.
If we sell an u21 player the profit - and actually as Chelsea have done - would be 100% profit and this can be used for turnover purposes - thus reducing our risk of failing FFP.
Our current mouthpiece says we already have put equity in to stop us failing FFP.
So - if we resign Dobson and CBT - I would assume we are going to improve their wages - being our two of our better performers and CBT was out of favour elsewhere when we signed him as a free agent - then to not break FFP - we could either get rid of other players - Kirk and McGrandles - we tried to.
If that doesn't happen - and as you suggested - it would mean a youth player being sold - I am asking - hypothetically - does that mean you/we want to sell Leaburn (or any other promising youngster - SHOULD any future offers come in for them) so that we can resign and keep Dobson and CBT?
The QUESTION MARK in what I said "but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?" asked you a question, didn't state that is what you wanted.
If you are going to pull me up, then at least make sure you pull me up on the correct things and understand what a question mark means.....
pulled you up because you were wrong, twice.
You don't do yourself or your crusade any favours by being wrong so often and doing it so aggressively
If we sell an u21 player the profit - and actually as Chelsea have done - would be 100% profit and this can be used for turnover purposes - thus reducing our risk of failing FFP.
Our current mouthpiece says we already have put equity in to stop us failing FFP.
So - if we resign Dobson and CBT - I would assume we are going to improve their wages - being our two of our better performers and CBT was out of favour elsewhere when we signed him as a free agent - then to not break FFP - we could either get rid of other players - Kirk and McGrandles - we tried to.
If that doesn't happen - and as you suggested - it would mean a youth player being sold - I am asking - hypothetically - does that mean you/we want to sell Leaburn (or any other promising youngster - SHOULD any future offers come in for them) so that we can resign and keep Dobson and CBT?
The QUESTION MARK in what I said "but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?" asked you a question, didn't state that is what you wanted.
If you are going to pull me up, then at least make sure you pull me up on the correct things and understand what a question mark means.....
pulled you up because you were wrong, twice.
You don't do yourself or your crusade any favours by being wrong so often and doing it so aggressively
Now you can "LOL" this like you usually do
You are correct, I was wrong. Even stated it.
But are you saying the Question Mark (?) I used, wasn't asking you a question in the wording in bold
but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
I have no crusade. I have an opinion. When that opinion is wrong - either proven over time or actually wrong at the beginning - I will apologise - as I have done - because that is what you should do - but where you clearly have taken what I asked, using a question mark - completely out of context, you can't admit yourself - that you may have been wrong too?
What is plainly more difficult to understand - in that - even me pointing out the question mark - if you choose for it to be hypothetical - then you don't need to answer it - but if you see it as a question, why you would point out it isn't something you said.
I know you didn't say you'd rather Leaburn was sold.
Just another PR move to release this. Blatantly they'll be sold in January.
don’t understand this. of course it gives them good PR but Cawley asked the question. Scott could either give a non committal waffle answer (which some have criticised him for) or he can say we’re offering deals. that’s not a PR strategy, unless they can read Cawley’s mind
The 3 main guys at least are global Investors who will have countless opportunities presented to them all the time. I don't know what the answer is and maybe you are right and they are just all rich mugs... but I just reckon they paid next to nowt for us (not the fabled and never proven £12M) and then it starts to make a bit of sense as a low risk punt.
Maybe this figure was leaked as part of the deal to save face for TS when it was really a lot less?
This. The £12 million is a complete fallacy imo. Why would you pay anything like that for no real assets and an organisation that drains your wallet pretty quickly? Remember ESI payed a £ for it and it was arguably in a much worse state when GFP picked it up.
As you say, either a final ego blast for Sandgaard to make him save face against the many people who probably advised him to not get involved or a made up figure by Methven to show his people really mean business!
Just another PR move to release this. Blatantly they'll be sold in January.
don’t understand this. of course it gives them good PR but Cawley asked the question. Scott could either give a non committal waffle answer (which some have criticised him for) or he can say we’re offering deals. that’s not a PR strategy, unless they can read Cawley’s mind
Why do you think Cawley asked the question? I think you're being a bit naive if you don't think this mob will use the media to get some fan leverage.
Just another PR move to release this. Blatantly they'll be sold in January.
don’t understand this. of course it gives them good PR but Cawley asked the question. Scott could either give a non committal waffle answer (which some have criticised him for) or he can say we’re offering deals. that’s not a PR strategy, unless they can read Cawley’s mind
Because everything, no matter how relatively normal it is for a football club to do, is being criticised by some. It's alarming how OTT some reactions to anything the club does.
Just another PR move to release this. Blatantly they'll be sold in January.
don’t understand this. of course it gives them good PR but Cawley asked the question. Scott could either give a non committal waffle answer (which some have criticised him for) or he can say we’re offering deals. that’s not a PR strategy, unless they can read Cawley’s mind
Why do you think Cawley asked the question? I think you're being a bit naive if you don't think this mob will use the media to get some fan leverage.
Of course they’ll use the media to get fan leverage, they’d be idiots not to. Cawley is using the club to get fans to read the SLP. It’s a two way street and often they will both want to publish similar info. Doesn’t mean Cawley will be being fed PR lines and just publishing them. I think he’s a great journalist to have covering the club as most other L1 clubs will just have a client journalist acting like a mouthpiece
He left Forest after being involved in signing 1,000 players in the close season of 2022/23. To quote "Reds owner Evangelos Marinakis sacked Scott and Syrianos back in October as Forest initially struggled with life back in the top flight"
So, Andy Scott was out of work and needed a job.
Charlie Methven (CM)
He resigned from Sunderland in late 2019 and wasn't working within football when CAFC was highlighted as a club he was interested in acquiring / getting the finance to acquire. CM has 5% of the shares in CAFC and brokered the deal. It is unknown if he paid for his 5% or was given it (+ fees) for brokering the deal. Simon Lenagan (SL)
Lenagan Group: Simon Lenagan Known to CM from CM's time at Oxford United where his Father, Ian Lenagan who owned Oxford United, sold it in 2016 and who now owns Wigan Warriors. SL I would hazard a guess has been majorly helped by his Dad over the years, if you look at Ian Lenagan's wikipedia... Ian Lenagan - Wikipedia Jim Rodwell
Known to CM for his time at Sunderland and previous roles as CEO at Notts County, Scunthorpe, Sunderland and Peterborough. Jim was out of work when CM brokered the deal to buy CAFC. Jim Rodwell - Wikipedia
Ed Warwick
An accountant. His other company he was registered director of had assets of £15,000 at October 2022. application-pdf I believe he was known to CM and JR from previous days. More difficult to find internet history of his whole experience/job status at the time - but I am sure it's been covered before.
That answer it for you? Salaries, fees and the million in one chance that they could get CAFC promoted, whilst cutting costs and selling all the family silverware?
I am still not convinced that any of them are that hard up that they are that desperate for a wage, certainly not Rodwell and Scott, that their is any malice involved.
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
If we sell an u21 player the profit - and actually as Chelsea have done - would be 100% profit and this can be used for turnover purposes - thus reducing our risk of failing FFP.
Our current mouthpiece says we already have put equity in to stop us failing FFP.
So - if we resign Dobson and CBT - I would assume we are going to improve their wages - being our two of our better performers and CBT was out of favour elsewhere when we signed him as a free agent - then to not break FFP - we could either get rid of other players - Kirk and McGrandles - we tried to.
If that doesn't happen - and as you suggested - it would mean a youth player being sold - I am asking - hypothetically - does that mean you/we want to sell Leaburn (or any other promising youngster - SHOULD any future offers come in for them) so that we can resign and keep Dobson and CBT?
The QUESTION MARK in what I said "but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?" asked you a question, didn't state that is what you wanted.
If you are going to pull me up, then at least make sure you pull me up on the correct things and understand what a question mark means.....
pulled you up because you were wrong, twice.
You don't do yourself or your crusade any favours by being wrong so often and doing it so aggressively
Now you can "LOL" this like you usually do
You are correct, I was wrong. Even stated it.
But are you saying the Question Mark (?) I used, wasn't asking you a question in the wording in bold
but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
I have no crusade. I have an opinion. When that opinion is wrong - either proven over time or actually wrong at the beginning - I will apologise - as I have done - because that is what you should do - but where you clearly have taken what I asked, using a question mark - completely out of context, you can't admit yourself - that you may have been wrong too?
What is plainly more difficult to understand - in that - even me pointing out the question mark - if you choose for it to be hypothetical - then you don't need to answer it - but if you see it as a question, why you would point out it isn't something you said.
I know you didn't say you'd rather Leaburn was sold.
Which is why there is clearly a ? being used.....
Maybe take a day off? Boring broken record. (Note the question mark).
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
and there is an argument that Scott got the recruitment right at Forest, and it needed time to bed in
It DOESN'T change the fact he was out of work when he joined us. It also doesn't change the fact he was given an unlimited budget and scope when in the Forest role. That isn't the case here. I'm not saying he won't be good for us - but the question of why - I have answered it, I think.
Wasn't the question "why would the investors stump up their cash on such an unlikely gamble"; rather than "why would a bunch of unemployed folk take a new job" though?
Because the investors simply have no idea what CM has sold them is unachievable. £12m punt between 3 of them, no need for further cash outside what is planned in the business plan - ability worst case to sell three or four players and get their money back.
The upside - significant.
It's small beer for them - they aren't worried about it but if it works, they'll really enjoy the upside.
Not counting Charlieboy, I think there are 6 investors. Do we really think that 6 super wealthy investors have all taken a punt on Charlie's numbers without looking into it themselves? £1-3M each (or whatever it is) may be small beer in their net worth but they will have advisors going through their presented investment opportunities and picking holes or they would not stay wealthy for very long! The 3 main guys at least are global Investors who will have countless opportunities presented to them all the time. I don't know what the answer is and maybe you are right and they are just all rich mugs... but I just reckon they paid next to nowt for us (not the fabled and never proven £12M) and then it starts to make a bit of sense as a low risk punt.
I'm a film distributor - and it's very similar to football. There are many, many, many billionaires and multi millionaires who invest a few hundred thousand - few million into an independent film based on a presentation that the film they are investing into could be the next Blairwitch Project, Paranormal Activity, Lock Stock etc
It happens.
It really does. They are THAT wealthy, it is "risk money" and it's for the hope of it winning an Oscar/breaking out/getting into the Premier League. Delete as applicable.
Fair enough and I don't know a lot about the film industry so Excuse my ignorance there but don't about 50% of movies make money? What is that % in football outside PL or tiny tiny clubs - close to 0%. Seems a much bigger risk.
Also films are a one off investment, not a potential continual drain. There are no fans getting on your back if it goes wrong and there are (or used to be) tax advantages even if you lost money.
It just makes no sense to me.. but then I am not wealthy enough to have to make the call on these things so it doesn't really matter. 😃
90% of independent movies don't make money. This is where smoke and mirrors comes along. Studios only exist and make "profit" due to the Harry Potters/Star Wars/franchise films sadly.
How is there any room in the budget for a wage increase for these two? Charlie Methven has just said the club has had to write an apology letter to the EFL for going over the limit already
sell youth
SELLING YOUTH DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS FFP - IT'S WAGES OF OVER 21 YEAR OLD PLAYERS VERSUS TURNOVER- THAT'S THE ISSUE CM SAYS WE HAVE!
SELLING YOUTH DOES COUNT TOWARDS TURNOVER!!!!
It doesn’t in the accounts, which is presumably the cause of any confusion. The EFL calculations have a different basis.
Comments
or a youth player that nobody wants currently
They would be the two options if Kirk and McGrandles aren't got rid of?
It was more a hypothetical question as we'd rather NOT sell Leaburn - but the suggestion of selling a youth player would, at this time, have to allude to Leaburn as he's the only youth player we turned down an offer for ....
Again - still hypothetical - but the same question - would you want to sell Asimwe/Anderson/Kanu so we could keep CBT and Dobson if that arises? Because - the point is - one of those things is going to have to happen - and CM has already said it IS going to happen at the end of the year when they have "reduced the losses to £1-2m" before player trading.....
You made an incorrect statement about a fee for any U21 player not impacting on FFP.
I pointed out that you were wrong and why.
I said nothing about who could or should be sold and I never said that that was what I wanted.
If we sell an u21 player the profit - and actually as Chelsea have done - would be 100% profit and this can be used for turnover purposes - thus reducing our risk of failing FFP.
Our current mouthpiece says we already have put equity in to stop us failing FFP.
So - if we resign Dobson and CBT - I would assume we are going to improve their wages - being our two of our better performers and CBT was out of favour elsewhere when we signed him as a free agent - then to not break FFP - we could either get rid of other players - Kirk and McGrandles - we tried to.
If that doesn't happen - and as you suggested - it would mean a youth player being sold - I am asking - hypothetically - does that mean you/we want to sell Leaburn (or any other promising youngster - SHOULD any future offers come in for them) so that we can resign and keep Dobson and CBT?
The QUESTION MARK in what I said "but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?" asked you a question, didn't state that is what you wanted.
If you are going to pull me up, then at least make sure you pull me up on the correct things and understand what a question mark means.....
I would rather find a fool to sign Kirk or McGrandles for a fee, free up their wages and use that instead, but if that's not an option then selling a youngster to fund it is the next option.
Another option is to try and figure out if Dobson and CBT are actually worth bigger contracts, or if there's someone out there on comparable wages that can have a bigger impact, but then you run the risk of signing another Kirk and the whole cycle starts again.
The problem is there's people that support us that genuinely believe that we should simultaneously buy all the best players in the league, pay them whatever they ask, release all the players that aren't good enough, AND keep all our youth players, and that whoever is our owner should just swallow the ridiculous costs that come with that, which is unsustainable no matter how you look at it
But - CM and the rest of the new owners KNEW exactly where we stood with players who they didn't want (they ran the club in January remember through the transfer window) and they have stated that their plan is to get promotion, whilst cutting costs and player sales to balance the books.
So, knowing how close to FFP we are/were - and you are buying the club - WHY would you not invest MORE this season in the form of equity to give you the best possible chance of getting promoted and knowing that at the end of the season if they turned round and said we gave it a damn good try this year but bad luck/injuries/poor performances have stopped us going up and so, as any good management should do, we are going to have to sell Dobson, CBT, Leaburn etc and try again next year.
I simply don't understand why a mixture of freebies and loans and unfit players were recruited when they already know at the end of the year they have a good handful of saleable assets that us fans would have to understand they would need to sell to ensure the club runs itself properly.
They were criminally underprepared and have underestimated what it takes to get out of this Division.
I don’t exactly know how it works.
You don't do yourself or your crusade any favours by being wrong so often and doing it so aggressively
Now you can "LOL" this like you usually do
But are you saying the Question Mark (?) I used, wasn't asking you a question in the wording in bold
but you want to keep Dobson and CBT and sell Leaburn in January?
I have no crusade. I have an opinion. When that opinion is wrong - either proven over time or actually wrong at the beginning - I will apologise - as I have done - because that is what you should do - but where you clearly have taken what I asked, using a question mark - completely out of context, you can't admit yourself - that you may have been wrong too?
What is plainly more difficult to understand - in that - even me pointing out the question mark - if you choose for it to be hypothetical - then you don't need to answer it - but if you see it as a question, why you would point out it isn't something you said.
I know you didn't say you'd rather Leaburn was sold.
Which is why there is clearly a ? being used.....
Why would you pay anything like that for no real assets and an organisation that drains your wallet pretty quickly? Remember ESI payed a £ for it and it was arguably in a much worse state when GFP picked it up.
As you say, either a final ego blast for Sandgaard to make him save face against the many people who probably advised him to not get involved or a made up figure by Methven to show his people really mean business!
Either way. It's bollocks
I think you're being a bit naive if you don't think this mob will use the media to get some fan leverage.
(Note the question mark).