Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
League One (non-Charlton) 2024/25 January transfer window
Comments
-
Wycombe spending €1m on a Danish midfielder from Viborg0
-
When are we going to get our expensive and exotic foreign signing?Callumcafc said:Wycombe spending €1m on a Danish midfielder from Viborg0 -
https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?4 -
Because at the moment owners can put in money as equity and spend what they like and Wycombe have very very wealthy owners. The new rules haven’t been implemented yet.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?7 -
Looks like there's been a change of strategy at Wycombe , I believe the sporting director that was behind a lot of their non league signings left and went to Oxford.0
-
I would imagine (but can’t be arsed to check) that one reason is Wycombe’s ongoing losses are significantly lower than ours. Therefore, whilst we might raise more revenue all of it goes on covering our costs (particular the wage bill) and it still isn’t enough to avoid posting multi-million pound losses.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?Presumably Wycombe are closer than us to a break even position.1 -
I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.4
-
They have already covered that eventuality (If Low is sold this month)Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.0 -
they have on paper but going into the second half of the season with two new CB’s who have not played together or for the same team is a big riskshirty5 said:
They have already covered that eventuality (If Low is sold this month)Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.1 -
It's nothing to do with revenue, it's simply because Wycombe's owner is prepared to put more money in for transfers. We all know from Birmingham's crazy summer spending that you can spend what you want in league one if the owner is willing to fund it.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?9 - Sponsored links:
-
We shall see Fenfenaddick said:
they have on paper but going into the second half of the season with two new CB’s who have not played together or for the same team is a big riskshirty5 said:
They have already covered that eventuality (If Low is sold this month)Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.1 -
From what I heard/was told, that isn't correct for us. If that is the case, why didn't we spend a ton of dosh in the summer when we needed to bulk the squad up?Covered_End_Lad said:
Because at the moment owners can put in money as equity and spend what they like and Wycombe have very very wealthy owners. The new rules haven’t been implemented yet.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?
It isn't about the players themselves, or how good they may or may not be. It's the money.Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.0 -
I was told by one of my old bosses (Wycombe fan) that Wycombe were losing money hand over fist. He spoke to their previous owners about it. Despite their low transfer budgets, they were still losing money.se9addick said:
I would imagine (but can’t be arsed to check) that one reason is Wycombe’s ongoing losses are significantly lower than ours. Therefore, whilst we might raise more revenue all of it goes on covering our costs (particular the wage bill) and it still isn’t enough to avoid posting multi-million pound losses.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?Presumably Wycombe are closer than us to a break even position.
0 -
No one has said we can't technically do it, just that our owners don't think it's the best thing to doBraziliance said:
From what I heard/was told, that isn't correct for us. If that is the case, why didn't we spend a ton of dosh in the summer when we needed to bulk the squad up?Covered_End_Lad said:
Because at the moment owners can put in money as equity and spend what they like and Wycombe have very very wealthy owners. The new rules haven’t been implemented yet.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?
It isn't about the players themselves, or how good they may or may not be. It's the money.Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.2 -
No, it’s because the SMT, well Charlie really, have sold them the notion that he can save them money on operational costs, increase revenue elsewhere, raise funds from saleable academy players, strengthen the squad with an adequate budget and get promotion on the cheap.fenaddick said:
No one has said we can't technically do it, just that our owners don't think it's the best thing to doBraziliance said:
From what I heard/was told, that isn't correct for us. If that is the case, why didn't we spend a ton of dosh in the summer when we needed to bulk the squad up?Covered_End_Lad said:
Because at the moment owners can put in money as equity and spend what they like and Wycombe have very very wealthy owners. The new rules haven’t been implemented yet.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?
It isn't about the players themselves, or how good they may or may not be. It's the money.Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.
The question is how long will it be before they realise they have been sold a pup.9 -
Just for reference (not arguing) they lost £3m in 22/23 compared to our loss of £9.9mBraziliance said:
I was told by one of my old bosses (Wycombe fan) that Wycombe were losing money hand over fist. He spoke to their previous owners about it. Despite their low transfer budgets, they were still losing money.se9addick said:
I would imagine (but can’t be arsed to check) that one reason is Wycombe’s ongoing losses are significantly lower than ours. Therefore, whilst we might raise more revenue all of it goes on covering our costs (particular the wage bill) and it still isn’t enough to avoid posting multi-million pound losses.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?Presumably Wycombe are closer than us to a break even position.0 -
Where did you hear this/read this,fenaddick said:
No one has said we can't technically do it, just that our owners don't think it's the best thing to doBraziliance said:
From what I heard/was told, that isn't correct for us. If that is the case, why didn't we spend a ton of dosh in the summer when we needed to bulk the squad up?Covered_End_Lad said:
Because at the moment owners can put in money as equity and spend what they like and Wycombe have very very wealthy owners. The new rules haven’t been implemented yet.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?
It isn't about the players themselves, or how good they may or may not be. It's the money.Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.
Where did you hear the owners say this, do you speak to them mate, who's your contact point?
And just to clarify, you think that our owners think we can get promoted without spending fees? *0 -
In this context it's the same thing, we technically can but someone (yes, probably CM who is technically an owner) has decided we shouldn'tLargeAddick said:
No, it’s because the SMT, well Charlie really, have sold them the notion that he can save them money on operational costs, increase revenue elsewhere, raise funds from saleable academy players, strengthen the squad with an adequate budget and get promotion on the cheap.fenaddick said:
No one has said we can't technically do it, just that our owners don't think it's the best thing to doBraziliance said:
From what I heard/was told, that isn't correct for us. If that is the case, why didn't we spend a ton of dosh in the summer when we needed to bulk the squad up?Covered_End_Lad said:
Because at the moment owners can put in money as equity and spend what they like and Wycombe have very very wealthy owners. The new rules haven’t been implemented yet.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?
It isn't about the players themselves, or how good they may or may not be. It's the money.Valley11 said:I’m not sure a couple of unknown Scandinavians and an aging centre back represents jaw dropping business. Particualrly when you consider they’ve lost one centre back and are likely to lose the other.
The question is how long will it be before they realise they have been sold a pup.1 -
So they're still losing millions relative to the size of their club. Yet they're spending cash, we aren't.fenaddick said:
Just for reference (not arguing) they lost £3m in 22/23 compared to our loss of £9.9mBraziliance said:
I was told by one of my old bosses (Wycombe fan) that Wycombe were losing money hand over fist. He spoke to their previous owners about it. Despite their low transfer budgets, they were still losing money.se9addick said:
I would imagine (but can’t be arsed to check) that one reason is Wycombe’s ongoing losses are significantly lower than ours. Therefore, whilst we might raise more revenue all of it goes on covering our costs (particular the wage bill) and it still isn’t enough to avoid posting multi-million pound losses.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?Presumably Wycombe are closer than us to a break even position.
Someone's telling porkies, another set of owners without ambition. Hopefully another roll of the dice and we will get a 5th time lucky0 -
It is worth noting just how rich their owner is. He is the 581st richest person on the planet and worth £4.5b. I would love to have an owner that rich and willing to spend (as long as it is spent well) but Wycombe are quite an unusual caseBraziliance said:
So they're still losing millions relative to the size of their club. Yet they're spending cash, we aren't.fenaddick said:
Just for reference (not arguing) they lost £3m in 22/23 compared to our loss of £9.9mBraziliance said:
I was told by one of my old bosses (Wycombe fan) that Wycombe were losing money hand over fist. He spoke to their previous owners about it. Despite their low transfer budgets, they were still losing money.se9addick said:
I would imagine (but can’t be arsed to check) that one reason is Wycombe’s ongoing losses are significantly lower than ours. Therefore, whilst we might raise more revenue all of it goes on covering our costs (particular the wage bill) and it still isn’t enough to avoid posting multi-million pound losses.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?Presumably Wycombe are closer than us to a break even position.
Someone's telling porkies, another set of owners without ambition. Hopefully another roll of the dice and we will get a 5th time lucky0 - Sponsored links:
-
I'm sure you already know this but those finance results are from the 22/23 season.Braziliance said:
So they're still losing millions relative to the size of their club. Yet they're spending cash, we aren't.fenaddick said:
Just for reference (not arguing) they lost £3m in 22/23 compared to our loss of £9.9mBraziliance said:
I was told by one of my old bosses (Wycombe fan) that Wycombe were losing money hand over fist. He spoke to their previous owners about it. Despite their low transfer budgets, they were still losing money.se9addick said:
I would imagine (but can’t be arsed to check) that one reason is Wycombe’s ongoing losses are significantly lower than ours. Therefore, whilst we might raise more revenue all of it goes on covering our costs (particular the wage bill) and it still isn’t enough to avoid posting multi-million pound losses.Braziliance said:https://x.com/F_Abolhosseini/status/1878453949369405678?t=9QJt95HkE28Opbyri3-EnA&s=19
Source ^
So how comes Wycombe can spend 1.5 million, but we can't?
When funds have been mentioned before, we have been told we can't because of revenue or whatever other excuse.
We sell more tickets than Wycombe, presumably have more revenue as bigger stadium and fan base etc.
Their current squad size is 35 unless the stats online are wrong, we sit at 29. So they don't seem too fussed about a big squad because they can only field 22 of the 35 to play practice matches or whatever other ridiculous excuse it was.
How are Wycombe able to spend what seems like 1.5 million before any outs in January?Presumably Wycombe are closer than us to a break even position.
Someone's telling porkies, another set of owners without ambition. Hopefully another roll of the dice and we will get a 5th time lucky
In May 2024 they were taken over by a Kazakh billionaire who has obviously decided that he is willing to put more money into the club to fund transfers than ours are, i'm not sure why is so difficult to understand.2 -
I'm doing it again on another thread.
Just trying to get my head around having billionaire owners who don't actually spend the money on players when evidently we can spend money.
0 -
I have yet to be convinced our owners are particularly wealthy, or if they have enough spare money to fund us beyond survival level.
From the outside we seem to be flying by the seat of our pants in a two engined aircraft where one engine is conked out, and Methven, Rodwell, Scott and Warrick have the only parachutes.3 -
There are alot of football fans that seem very happy to spend other peoples money !Braziliance said:I'm doing it again on another thread.
Just trying to get my head around having billionaire owners who don't actually spend the money on players when evidently we can spend money.5 -
Very wealthy people rarely stay very wealthy by throwing away large sums of money.
Which does beg the question why our owners own a loss-making league one football club that only has one real way to become sustainable and that is promotion to the Prem.
The answer to that likely lies in Charlie Methven's investment proposal - he managed to convince the owners they could get to that position far quicker and cheaper than is realistically possible.
I am sure they will soon realise CM's vision is fairytale, what they do next will be of paramount importance to CAFC;
1. Sack CM and the SMT, bring in their own people and provide the necessary funding to achieve.
2. Call it a day and sell us on at a loss to the next bunch. (99.9% of instances this happens quite quickly as we have seen over the past 10 years, they all come in thinking they can do something different but all end up at the same point and that is losing money hand over fist owning a club stuck in the dregs of League One that doesn't even own its assets).
The above is complicated further with the introduction of the new FFP rules coming in to place soon, funnily enough I do actually think these will benefit CAFC in the long term as naturally at this level we have a much higher revenue base than the mjority of teams and other money-bags clubs won't be able to have owners shovelling in investment to buy the league i.e Brum, Wycombe, Wrexham, Huddersfield.5 -
I agree with all of that apart from the Wrexham bit, they havent exactly spent fortunes in the transfer market, I would think that they have spent less than us !Covered_End_Lad said:Very wealthy people rarely stay very wealthy by throwing away large sums of money.
Which does beg the question why our owners own a loss-making league one football club that only has one real way to become sustainable and that is promotion to the Prem.
The answer to that likely lies in Charlie Methven's investment proposal - he managed to convince the owners they could get to that position far quicker and cheaper than is realistically possible.
I am sure they will soon realise CM's vision is fairytale, what they do next will be of paramount importance to CAFC;
1. Sack CM and the SMT, bring in their own people and provide the necessary funding to achieve.
2. Call it a day and sell us on at a loss to the next bunch. (99.9% of instances this happens quite quickly as we have seen over the past 10 years, they all come in thinking they can do something different but all end up at the same point and that is losing money hand over fist owning a club stuck in the dregs of League One that doesn't even own its assets).
The above is complicated further with the introduction of the new FFP rules coming in to place soon, funnily enough I do actually think these will benefit CAFC in the long term as naturally at this level we have a much higher revenue base than the mjority of teams and other money-bags clubs won't be able to have owners shovelling in investment to buy the league i.e Brum, Wycombe, Wrexham, Huddersfield.0 -
They spend big on wages rather than fees. If they go up again they will need more investment for that to keep workingAndyG said:
I agree with all of that apart from the Wrexham bit, they havent exactly spent fortunes in the transfer market, I would think that they have spent less than us !Covered_End_Lad said:Very wealthy people rarely stay very wealthy by throwing away large sums of money.
Which does beg the question why our owners own a loss-making league one football club that only has one real way to become sustainable and that is promotion to the Prem.
The answer to that likely lies in Charlie Methven's investment proposal - he managed to convince the owners they could get to that position far quicker and cheaper than is realistically possible.
I am sure they will soon realise CM's vision is fairytale, what they do next will be of paramount importance to CAFC;
1. Sack CM and the SMT, bring in their own people and provide the necessary funding to achieve.
2. Call it a day and sell us on at a loss to the next bunch. (99.9% of instances this happens quite quickly as we have seen over the past 10 years, they all come in thinking they can do something different but all end up at the same point and that is losing money hand over fist owning a club stuck in the dregs of League One that doesn't even own its assets).
The above is complicated further with the introduction of the new FFP rules coming in to place soon, funnily enough I do actually think these will benefit CAFC in the long term as naturally at this level we have a much higher revenue base than the mjority of teams and other money-bags clubs won't be able to have owners shovelling in investment to buy the league i.e Brum, Wycombe, Wrexham, Huddersfield.0 -
Agreed, which is why I agree that there should be restrictions as to how much money clubs can spend.AndyG said:
There are alot of football fans that seem very happy to spend other peoples money !Braziliance said:I'm doing it again on another thread.
Just trying to get my head around having billionaire owners who don't actually spend the money on players when evidently we can spend money.
In the old days a local businessman, a builder, a local factory owner, someone who did well in the City, could make a few bob and invest it in his local football team and make a difference. Now we're talking about billionaires.0 -
They also seem to be doing quite well with players that we didnt think were good enough lolfenaddick said:
They spend big on wages rather than fees. If they go up again they will need more investment for that to keep workingAndyG said:
I agree with all of that apart from the Wrexham bit, they havent exactly spent fortunes in the transfer market, I would think that they have spent less than us !Covered_End_Lad said:Very wealthy people rarely stay very wealthy by throwing away large sums of money.
Which does beg the question why our owners own a loss-making league one football club that only has one real way to become sustainable and that is promotion to the Prem.
The answer to that likely lies in Charlie Methven's investment proposal - he managed to convince the owners they could get to that position far quicker and cheaper than is realistically possible.
I am sure they will soon realise CM's vision is fairytale, what they do next will be of paramount importance to CAFC;
1. Sack CM and the SMT, bring in their own people and provide the necessary funding to achieve.
2. Call it a day and sell us on at a loss to the next bunch. (99.9% of instances this happens quite quickly as we have seen over the past 10 years, they all come in thinking they can do something different but all end up at the same point and that is losing money hand over fist owning a club stuck in the dregs of League One that doesn't even own its assets).
The above is complicated further with the introduction of the new FFP rules coming in to place soon, funnily enough I do actually think these will benefit CAFC in the long term as naturally at this level we have a much higher revenue base than the mjority of teams and other money-bags clubs won't be able to have owners shovelling in investment to buy the league i.e Brum, Wycombe, Wrexham, Huddersfield.3 -
Well, don't buy a football club then.AndyG said:
There are alot of football fans that seem very happy to spend other peoples money !Braziliance said:I'm doing it again on another thread.
Just trying to get my head around having billionaire owners who don't actually spend the money on players when evidently we can spend money.
The whole point is to buy it and chase a dream, it's unlikely many owners have made a profit from owning a football club until you get to the prem. If you aren't doing it with the ambition of reaching the Premier league and you don't have an affinity to a club, what's the point.6
