Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Self Sustainability in Football

2»

Comments

  • Sad thing is, he (won't say his name) is obviously very clever to amass his fortune that can't be denied. Football was his little mix of a business/social experiment that went very wrong for him, hence why he has sold his other cloobs, we were unfortunately part of his crazy experiment.

    His eyes though are very firmly on Sarf London real estate,  that's the biggest worry.
  • edited August 2019
    I'm sure most of us didn't need to read any article about sustainability to know that football in Britain has been heading towards skid row for years as the rich get richer the poor get poorer. Add into the mix those wide boys who gamble to get rich quick upon reaching the premier league. And when it fails to come to fruition they either wait for some mug investor to come along to try their hand failing which, sell / develop the land and or liquidate the club. I have no doubt RD would have done the latter but fortunately he failed to do his DD properly and now he's had to revert to the former.

    Football is broken, RD has fluked the current resurgence of our fortunes on the pitch and is hanging around like a bad smell with his unrealistic price demands. Nothing this egotistical megalomaniac owner wanted to do with this club can be dressed up as being good.
  • Would mean many clubs, possibly even the smaller Championship clubs going part time. More regionalisation is needed. Recently in the National League North, Hereford travelled to Kings Lynn for a game. Apart from asking when was Hereford towed 'up north', I wonder what the losses were for that little outing. Another example, Gateshead travelling to Torquay for a midweek league game.
     So many clubs are dependant on a sugar daddy to keep them going, and when daddy gets bored, there is nowhere to turn to get the bills paid.
    I know that @ElfsborgAddick likes to wander the country in search of football pastures new, but I'll wager that even he would not consider a return trip from Durham to Devon to watch a NL game on a blustery Tuesday evening
  • edited August 2019
    Champs85 said:
    Off_it said:
    So depressing reading more and more of this type of thing.

    A few wins and people are quick to forget. The gullible fools.
    I haven’t forgotten and I’m not praising him. So many people are completely missing my point, or maybe I didn’t communicate it clearly enough. I said he’s got it wrong. But his ‘idea’ of self sustainability wasn’t a bad idea. He just never managed to put it into practice because he’s an idiot.

    And also to the other posters I know he has run up 60 million. But what I mean is I’m kind of glad now that he didn’t throw obscene transfer fees and wages at people in a desperate attempt to reach the premier league. Imagine he had, we would now be sitting on far worse debts and in much deeper trouble. 
     Why stop at the 'idea is self sustainability?' Why not make a profit? If he had, had any ambition it might have been a different scenario but within 12 months of buying us his FFP plan was scuppered and he should have sold then. His failure to control Meire or take a sufficiently close hand has left him in the state he is.
  • Off_it said:
    So depressing reading more and more of this type of thing.

    A few wins and people are quick to forget. The gullible fools.

    That's nothing, you should see the comments on Twitter from imbeciles slagging of CARD and making snide remarks about the effort that has been put in by an awful lot of wonderful people who all have the best interests of our club at heart. ... and no I'm not an active member of CARD but fully support all they are setting out to achieve.
  • Part of the £60m debt was existing debts of around £34m.  So he has doubled the debt through accumulated operating losses.  You can add to the accumulated losses all the transfer fees we have received to get to the real extent of losses.  This is hardly evidence of having found the formula for a self sustaining football club - or a model that doesn't involve creating debt - which some seem to have missed.

    All he has done is to restrict the budget regardless of what the impact is on the team, and because he is assuming he can sell the club, regardless of the longer term impact.

    Yes it makes sense to restrict the budget, it makes even more sense to spend it sensibly in the first place.  

    He has accidentally stumbled on LB and SG to spend an entirely inadequate budget that has been set without any reference to any clever business model but to arbitrarily stem the flow of cash RD has to find to cover losses of his own creation regardless of all other considerations.  He lies to obscure this truth by insisting it is to make the club attractive to a buyer.

    Due to the transfer fees received he is actually more likely to make a profit this year to service the interest on the debt he created rather than on the staff or the squad. 

    Please don't give this man any credit whatsoever.

  • Part of the £60m debt was existing debts of around £34m.  So he has doubled the debt through accumulated operating losses.  You can add to the accumulated losses all the transfer fees we have received to get to the real extent of losses.  This is hardly evidence of having found the formula for a self sustaining football club - or a model that doesn't involve creating debt - which some seem to have missed.

    All he has done is to restrict the budget regardless of what the impact is on the team, and because he is assuming he can sell the club, regardless of the longer term impact.

    Yes it makes sense to restrict the budget, it makes even more sense to spend it sensibly in the first place.  

    He has accidentally stumbled on LB and SG to spend an entirely inadequate budget that has been set without any reference to any clever business model but to arbitrarily stem the flow of cash RD has to find to cover losses of his own creation regardless of all other considerations.  He lies to obscure this truth by insisting it is to make the club attractive to a buyer.

    Due to the transfer fees received he is actually more likely to make a profit this year to service the interest on the debt he created rather than on the staff or the squad. 

    Please don't give this man any credit whatsoever.

    I hesitate to question a well informed poster, but I'm almost certain that the current £65M debt, does not include any existing debt at the takeover, apart from the following.

    It includes the purchase price @£18M & the loan for the North Stand, which possibly had @£5m still owing.

    I'm confident Airman Brown, will provide accurate figures.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Surely we can't have run ip 65m of debt through just roland, that's crazy! Read somewhere that we were 30m in debt on relegation from the prem  and there's no way cash/jiminez/slater improved the financial situation. Terrible management all round :-(
  • Part of the £60m debt was existing debts of around £34m.  So he has doubled the debt through accumulated operating losses.  You can add to the accumulated losses all the transfer fees we have received to get to the real extent of losses.  This is hardly evidence of having found the formula for a self sustaining football club - or a model that doesn't involve creating debt - which some seem to have missed.

    All he has done is to restrict the budget regardless of what the impact is on the team, and because he is assuming he can sell the club, regardless of the longer term impact.

    Yes it makes sense to restrict the budget, it makes even more sense to spend it sensibly in the first place.  

    He has accidentally stumbled on LB and SG to spend an entirely inadequate budget that has been set without any reference to any clever business model but to arbitrarily stem the flow of cash RD has to find to cover losses of his own creation regardless of all other considerations.  He lies to obscure this truth by insisting it is to make the club attractive to a buyer.

    Due to the transfer fees received he is actually more likely to make a profit this year to service the interest on the debt he created rather than on the staff or the squad. 

    Please don't give this man any credit whatsoever.

    I hesitate to question a well informed poster, but I'm almost certain that the current £65M debt, does not include any existing debt at the takeover, apart from the following.

    It includes the purchase price @£18M & the loan for the North Stand, which possibly had @£5m still owing.

    I'm confident Airman Brown, will provide accurate figures.
    I'm just going by the bank loan and creditors (exclusive of the directors loans) shown in the 2013 accounts which disappeared and which i am assuming were settled by Staprix in the form of new debt. Not a forensic examination, and there would have been spending on Sparrows Lane I guess which I have not covered, so will stand corrected on exact debt he has racked up through losses.
  • Would mean many clubs, possibly even the smaller Championship clubs going part time. More regionalisation is needed. Recently in the National League North, Hereford travelled to Kings Lynn for a game. Apart from asking when was Hereford towed 'up north', I wonder what the losses were for that little outing. Another example, Gateshead travelling to Torquay for a midweek league game.
     So many clubs are dependant on a sugar daddy to keep them going, and when daddy gets bored, there is nowhere to turn to get the bills paid.
    I know that @ElfsborgAddick likes to wander the country in search of football pastures new, but I'll wager that even he would not consider a return trip from Durham to Devon to watch a NL game on a blustery Tuesday evening
    Certainly would not mate.

    Particularly as I'd have to take the journey from Bromley to Devon/Durham first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Aside from that @Lincsaddick is 100% right.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!