|
Post by junior1 on Apr 7, 2011 21:38:17 GMT
Is it me or could Gav be in need of a decimal point or 2?!
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Apr 7, 2011 21:49:51 GMT
Is it me or could Gav be in need of a decimal point or 2?! No, all full £ values. No pence.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Apr 10, 2011 8:38:42 GMT
Can anyone translate the recent accounts please.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on Apr 10, 2011 18:23:37 GMT
I'll have a go:
Turnover (ie revenue/income for all sources except player transfers) increased by almost £700k in the year to 30 June 2010.
Direct Operating Costs (includes players, coaches, management) increased by just £73K.
Admin expenses decreased by £120k so there have been some significant cost savings in this area.
The operating loss (normal revenue less normal expenditure - excluding player transfers) fell from £833k to £91k.
Presumably the disposal of players contracts amounting to £531k is mainly down to the Whitehead sell on clause. I think some players were paid off (Murray?) so would have reduced the profit in this area but I am not certain of this.
In 2009 the club earned £11580 in interest but paid out £13,203 in 2010 so that is a change of £25K to the negative in this area. This could be from a number of sources interest on loans including the bank or to HMRC?
Debtors (where the club is owed money)had increased by about £180k to £368k. This could be money not yet received from the Whitehead sell on or from Wembley or could be from another source. It has been mentioned that some of the fans loans have been repaid since the end of the 2010 accounting years so maybe this was the source of the cash?
Creditors (debts owed by the club to others) (short term) fell by £213k to just over £1.5M. Included in this figure was: HMRC £142k down from £443k the previous year; Bank £47k down from £92k; other loans £355k up £300k (fans?); Other Creditors down £200k to £904k. This is the area that could affect the ability of the club to continue operating so it is good to see a fall especially to HRMC but still fairly high but low compared to many other clubs at this level.
Long term debt (mainly WPL) did not change so stayed level at £3,461,059 with £100k owed to other parties icluded in that figures.
KT's company provided services of £80k but was owed £37.5k of this at the end of the year but he had been repaid a loan of £10k from the previous year.
One area I am a bit unclear on is that Note 2 shows "Operating lease rentals - land and buildings" of £311,078 included in the clubs costs which was down from £330,454 the previous year but Note 13 shows "Operating lease commitments" over five years of £457,005. Is this the difference between the rent and other costs such as groundstaff/repairs/maintenance?
Overall there are many positive but even after the Whitehead money was received the overall debt of the club is not far off where it was when there were alleged problems paying the bills. It would not take much of a negative swing in fortunes to go back to those days. The fans loans clearly took the pressure off cashflow and that was helped further by the Whitehead money.
I feel that KT/CW will have to continue to keep control of playing budgets to ensure we do not slip back into problems.
I am sure there are plenty of gaps in my interpretation for others to fill in.................
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Apr 10, 2011 19:02:41 GMT
Great work Scoob.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on Apr 10, 2011 19:34:56 GMT
I'll have a go: Turnover (ie revenue/income for all sources except player transfers) increased by almost £700k in the year to 30 June 2010. Direct Operating Costs (includes players, coaches, management) increased by just £73K. Admin expenses decreased by £120k so there have been some significant cost savings in this area. The operating loss (normal revenue less normal expenditure - excluding player transfers) fell from £833k to £91k. Presumably the disposal of players contracts amounting to £531k is mainly down to the Whitehead sell on clause. I think some players were paid off (Murray?) so would have reduced the profit in this area but I am not certain of this. In 2009 the club earned £11580 in interest but paid out £13,203 in 2010 so that is a change of £25K to the negative in this area. This could be from a number of sources interest on loans including the bank or to HMRC? Debtors (where the club is owed money)had increased by about £180k to £368k. This could be money not yet received from the Whitehead sell on or from Wembley or could be from another source. It has been mentioned that some of the fans loans have been repaid since the end of the 2010 accounting years so maybe this was the source of the cash? Creditors (debts owed by the club to others) (short term) fell by £213k to just over £1.5M. Included in this figure was: HMRC £142k down from £443k the previous year; Bank £47k down from £92k; other loans £355k up £300k (fans?); Other Creditors down £200k to £904k. This is the area that could affect the ability of the club to continue operating so it is good to see a fall especially to HRMC but still fairly high but low compared to many other clubs at this level. Long term debt (mainly WPL) did not change so stayed level at £3,461,059 with £100k owed to other parties icluded in that figures. KT's company provided services of £80k but was owed £37.5k of this at the end of the year but he had been repaid a loan of £10k from the previous year. One area I am a bit unclear on is that Note 2 shows "Operating lease rentals - land and buildings" of £311,078 included in the clubs costs which was down from £330,454 the previous year but Note 13 shows "Operating lease commitments" over five years of £457,005. Is this the difference between the rent and other costs such as groundstaff/repairs/maintenance? Overall there are many positive but even after the Whitehead money was received the overall debt of the club is not far off where it was when there were alleged problems paying the bills. It would not take much of a negative swing in fortunes to go back to those days. The fans loans clearly took the pressure off cashflow and that was helped further by the Whitehead money. I feel that KT/CW will have to continue to keep control of playing budgets to ensure we do not slip back into problems. I am sure there are plenty of gaps in my interpretation for others to fill in................. Thank you, but I think the Whitehead money has been clouded some what, as you say there are a few things not clear in that area.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 10, 2011 20:01:15 GMT
The increase in turnover from £1.9MM to £2.6MM whilst we were still in the Conference is a result the club can be proud of. £75K increase in direct costs, and £120K reduction in admin expenses.
The WPL investment (loan) was unchanged and was interest free. There seem to be 3 elements to other loans.
At June '09 there was a short term loan of £55K, which was £355K at 2010. Not clear if this is all the same person(s), but it at least seems that there was a £300K loan during the year. There was a long term loan of £100K at start and end of year, which I guess is from someone different to the £300K (and the £55K).
|
|
|
Post by damianvt on May 8, 2011 14:41:01 GMT
Perhaps the club's new owners will invest more in the next season than Ian L has.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on May 8, 2011 16:17:12 GMT
Perhaps the club's new owners will invest more in the next season than Ian L has. New owners? Also, what do you mean by invest?
|
|
|
Post by paulayres on May 8, 2011 17:59:56 GMT
Perhaps the club's new owners will invest more in the next season than Ian L has. New owners? Also, what do you mean by invest? I see the meaning of investment as an injection of capital to to allow Wilder to take the team to the next level. Finishing the season just 5 points off the playoffs would suggest that with an investment in a couple of decent standard players, would have given us a great chance of making the top 7. The money made from just reaching the playoffs would have covered the extra investment. Next season will be harder and therefore CW need imo the budget to not only compete, but push for a top 7 finish as least. As for New Owners, I would suggest that if the current owners show some real faith in the ability of Wilder, they would not want to sell the club as a division 2 outfit.
|
|
|
Post by rollsy on May 8, 2011 19:03:20 GMT
Invest more than the £4.5million that Ian L has?!?!?
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on May 8, 2011 21:42:07 GMT
Invest more than the £4.5million that Ian L has?!?!? Can you break down the amount he put in, to the amount he wasted but will get back?
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 8, 2011 22:10:21 GMT
New owners? Also, what do you mean by invest? I see the meaning of investment as an injection of capital to to allow Wilder to take the team to the next level. Finishing the season just 5 points off the playoffs would suggest that with an investment in a couple of decent standard players, would have given us a great chance of making the top 7. The money made from just reaching the playoffs would have covered the extra investment. Next season will be harder and therefore CW need imo the budget to not only compete, but push for a top 7 finish as least. As for New Owners, I would suggest that if the current owners show some real faith in the ability of Wilder, they would not want to sell the club as a division 2 outfit. How much investment do you feel is needed Paul? There is no reason to suggest that next season will be significantly harder. Chesterfield & Wycombe have relatively large budgets, as do Shrewsbury, and two of the clubs replacing them currently have big budgets but are in a financial mess (ie Plymouth & Scum), Bristol will presumably have a decent budget but their crowds were 1,000 below ours last season. Dagenham will not have a massive budget. Bury, Accrington, Stevenage and Torquay have not had huge budgets this season but have managed to do better than us. However, all but one of those have more experience at this level. Crawley may be able to outspend us but how long will that last? Luton may have a competitive budget if they go up but will the Wombles? It may be slightly more difficult especially to break into the top three but I don't see it being significantly harder to get into the play-offs. Investment is fine if you are able to buy a piece of equipment that is fairly guaranteed to provide a return but in the vast majority of cases overspending on players does not work and will eventually create problems. We are only two years away from several years of massive overspending (Around 40% of turnover for three years in a row). There could be an argument for investing £200k in the team but the problem is if that does not work, and it rarely does, another large sum will be needed the following season then suddenly we are another £1/2M in debt then if/when we get into League One the viscious circle starts again. It appears that the club started this season with a conservative budget with the aim of making a decent profit to generate cash to repay some debt. From what has been said by KT and others on this forum it also appears that the budget was increased significantly mid-season in order to maintain some sort of push (£150k ish - Mclean/Maclaren?) but we have not improved significantly during that time. Overspending is a risk that may pay off but is unlikely so I would prefer to see organic growth and investment in infrastructure to produce future revenue. Plymouth & Swindon are very good examples of why overspending is very high risk and often only brings short term gain. Whatever happens I am confident that IL/KT will not allow their level of overspending but they have a very difficult task with such an uneven playing field because other clubs will continue to overspend massively next season for sure.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 8, 2011 22:11:16 GMT
Invest more than the £4.5million that Ian L has?!?!? Can you break down the amount he put in, to the amount he wasted but will get back? Can you LR?
|
|
|
Post by greatunclekip on May 8, 2011 23:07:04 GMT
When you see the kind of financial crap that Plymouth, Rushden and Wrexham are in, then it amazes me that people are asking for more to be put in.
2 words - Accrington Stanley. Good management targeting the right players at the right price. It can be done. Likewise Torquay. And Bury.
Steady progression is the way forward, and I think we have that. It simply does not need vast wads of cash.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on May 9, 2011 6:43:02 GMT
Can you break down the amount he put in, to the amount he wasted but will get back? Can you LR? As you well know, that wasn't the point, very few would have accurate knowledge to these figures, it was to point out IL has not just put this money in but has covered some mistakes, but he will get it back won't he?
|
|
|
Post by paulayres on May 9, 2011 6:47:31 GMT
What I mean by investmaent is not spending vasts amount of money, but making full use of what you can afford. We have seen a higher than average number of players at the club who have been brought in on wages and not given a chance or are not just good enough. Players like Hackney, Burge, Doble, Sangare, an many others. This in my mind was a waste of resource. With the gates as high as they have been 2 players of quality signed in the Jan window (in addition to the 2 Mac's) or a couple of good loan players could have made the difference. An additional £200k to the wage budget next season could make all the difference. With teams like Bristol Rovers Swindow and possibly Luton our home gates will exceed this seasons average, so an additional £200k should not break the club.
|
|
|
Post by longliveclarkey on May 9, 2011 7:40:58 GMT
What I mean by investmaent is not spending vasts amount of money, but making full use of what you can afford. We have seen a higher than average number of players at the club who have been brought in on wages and not given a chance or are not just good enough. Players like Hackney, Burge, Doble, Sangare, an many others. This in my mind was a waste of resource. With the gates as high as they have been 2 players of quality signed in the Jan window (in addition to the 2 Mac's) or a couple of good loan players could have made the difference. An additional £200k to the wage budget next season could make all the difference. With teams like Bristol Rovers Swindow and possibly Luton our home gates will exceed this seasons average, so an additional £200k should not break the club. On what planet was Burge a waste of resource? His entrance to the club resulted in an immediate upturn in form, he was probably the best of the midfielders at the club in his spell here and was only recalled due to a Doncaster managerial shift, as I remember. It's generally believed that he's high on Wilder's signing list for next season. Hackney wasn't great, but he was hardly a bad signing considering he was a loan signing, went back early and was probably on low wages anyway. Sangare could turn out to be an excellent signing, as well. It's a question of whether Wilder gives him a contract. I don't think there are any clubs in the football league who never bring in players that turn out to be a waste of space. Wilder brought in a couple, but they've often been back-ups and as such on low wages anyway. It seems like you were struggling to find players who were poor signings if you had to bring Burge into it, who was widely regarded as a good signing and one for the future. And investment means putting money into the club. Making full use of it is the manager/chairman/various members of the board's job. Who are you criticising here?
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on May 9, 2011 10:05:59 GMT
I see the meaning of investment as an injection of capital to to allow Wilder to take the team to the next level. Finishing the season just 5 points off the playoffs would suggest that with an investment in a couple of decent standard players, would have given us a great chance of making the top 7. The money made from just reaching the playoffs would have covered the extra investment. Next season will be harder and therefore CW need imo the budget to not only compete, but push for a top 7 finish as least. As for New Owners, I would suggest that if the current owners show some real faith in the ability of Wilder, they would not want to sell the club as a division 2 outfit. How much investment do you feel is needed Paul? There is no reason to suggest that next season will be significantly harder. Chesterfield & Wycombe have relatively large budgets, as do Shrewsbury, and two of the clubs replacing them currently have big budgets but are in a financial mess (ie Plymouth & Scum), Bristol will presumably have a decent budget but their crowds were 1,000 below ours last season. Dagenham will not have a massive budget. Bury, Accrington, Stevenage and Torquay have not had huge budgets this season but have managed to do better than us. However, all but one of those have more experience at this level. Crawley may be able to outspend us but how long will that last? Luton may have a competitive budget if they go up but will the Wombles? It may be slightly more difficult especially to break into the top three but I don't see it being significantly harder to get into the play-offs. Investment is fine if you are able to buy a piece of equipment that is fairly guaranteed to provide a return but in the vast majority of cases overspending on players does not work and will eventually create problems. We are only two years away from several years of massive overspending (Around 40% of turnover for three years in a row). There could be an argument for investing £200k in the team but the problem is if that does not work, and it rarely does, another large sum will be needed the following season then suddenly we are another £1/2M in debt then if/when we get into League One the viscious circle starts again. It appears that the club started this season with a conservative budget with the aim of making a decent profit to generate cash to repay some debt. From what has been said by KT and others on this forum it also appears that the budget was increased significantly mid-season in order to maintain some sort of push (£150k ish - Mclean/Maclaren?) but we have not improved significantly during that time. Overspending is a risk that may pay off but is unlikely so I would prefer to see organic growth and investment in infrastructure to produce future revenue. Plymouth & Swindon are very good examples of why overspending is very high risk and often only brings short term gain. Whatever happens I am confident that IL/KT will not allow their level of overspending but they have a very difficult task with such an uneven playing field because other clubs will continue to overspend massively next season for sure. Well said. I would support investment if it meant buying the stadium on decent terms. By decent terms, the costs associated with purchasing the stadium doesn't cost the club significantly more, whether by increasing income to offset increased mortgage interest payments (vs rent) at the least (in the medium to long term, but risk attached) or similar interest payments to rent. I would fully support investment that bought the stadium outright without any mortgage payments (I can hope .
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on May 9, 2011 10:12:21 GMT
What I mean by investmaent is not spending vasts amount of money, but making full use of what you can afford. We have seen a higher than average number of players at the club who have been brought in on wages and not given a chance or are not just good enough. Players like Hackney, Burge, Doble, Sangare, an many others. This in my mind was a waste of resource. With the gates as high as they have been 2 players of quality signed in the Jan window (in addition to the 2 Mac's) or a couple of good loan players could have made the difference. An additional £200k to the wage budget next season could make all the difference. With teams like Bristol Rovers Swindow and possibly Luton our home gates will exceed this seasons average, so an additional £200k should not break the club. On what planet was Burge a waste of resource? His entrance to the club resulted in an immediate upturn in form, he was probably the best of the midfielders at the club in his spell here and was only recalled due to a Doncaster managerial shift, as I remember. It's generally believed that he's high on Wilder's signing list for next season. Hackney wasn't great, but he was hardly a bad signing considering he was a loan signing, went back early and was probably on low wages anyway. Sangare could turn out to be an excellent signing, as well. It's a question of whether Wilder gives him a contract. I don't think there are any clubs in the football league who never bring in players that turn out to be a waste of space. Wilder brought in a couple, but they've often been back-ups and as such on low wages anyway. It seems like you were struggling to find players who were poor signings if you had to bring Burge into it, who was widely regarded as a good signing and one for the future. And investment means putting money into the club. Making full use of it is the manager/chairman/various members of the board's job. Who are you criticising here? I agree, Burge looks a very good player and one I hope we sign. Doble was signed with a view to bolstering the team this season and looking at for next season, imo, as a season long loan. Sangare did the job when he played and was unfortunate to be injured. Furthermore, I doubt Sangare, Hackney, Hanson and the likes cost that much either.
|
|
|
Post by paulayres on May 9, 2011 11:14:39 GMT
On what planet was Burge a waste of resource? His entrance to the club resulted in an immediate upturn in form, he was probably the best of the midfielders at the club in his spell here and was only recalled due to a Doncaster managerial shift, as I remember. It's generally believed that he's high on Wilder's signing list for next season. Hackney wasn't great, but he was hardly a bad signing considering he was a loan signing, went back early and was probably on low wages anyway. Sangare could turn out to be an excellent signing, as well. It's a question of whether Wilder gives him a contract. I don't think there are any clubs in the football league who never bring in players that turn out to be a waste of space. Wilder brought in a couple, but they've often been back-ups and as such on low wages anyway. It seems like you were struggling to find players who were poor signings if you had to bring Burge into it, who was widely regarded as a good signing and one for the future. And investment means putting money into the club. Making full use of it is the manager/chairman/various members of the board's job. Who are you criticising here? I agree, Burge looks a very good player and one I hope we sign. Doble was signed with a view to bolstering the team this season and looking at for next season, imo, as a season long loan. Sangare did the job when he played and was unfortunate to be injured. Furthermore, I doubt Sangare, Hackney, Hanson and the likes cost that much either. They may not cost that much as individuals but together they could well cost £1800 per week. This would have paid for a better quality player. As for Burge, lets see if Wilder signs him!!! Buying the stadium mortgage free would mean another owner of the club or the club renting from a different landlord. Maybe Marked Ox would like to explain to us all what he means by this. I doubt very much if our current owner could afford the stadium without a mortgage??
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on May 9, 2011 11:55:28 GMT
I agree, Burge looks a very good player and one I hope we sign. Doble was signed with a view to bolstering the team this season and looking at for next season, imo, as a season long loan. Sangare did the job when he played and was unfortunate to be injured. Furthermore, I doubt Sangare, Hackney, Hanson and the likes cost that much either. They may not cost that much as individuals but together they could well cost £1800 per week. This would have paid for a better quality player. As for Burge, lets see if Wilder signs him!!! Buying the stadium mortgage free would mean another owner of the club or the club renting from a different landlord. Maybe Marked Ox would like to explain to us all what he means by this. I doubt very much if our current owner could afford the stadium without a mortgage?? Read the 'Damianvt' post which I replied to and then you replied to the question about investment and you'll have your answer. The smiley face following the 'I can hope' is another big hint, ie. pie in the sky dream that it is nothing more than a wish. Very obvious really! I never suggested IL would buy the stadium outright, just what 'investment' in the club was sensible imo. I don't need to wait to see if CW signs Ryan Burge, he is a good player who added to team when he joined. I just hope we do sign him. As for this £1800 you estimate, is this quality player you're suggesting versatile, as Hackney, Sangare, Doble, Hanson, Burge all played in different positions (on the left, central and right, upfront, midfield and defence)?!
|
|
|
Post by paulayres on May 9, 2011 14:46:38 GMT
They may not cost that much as individuals but together they could well cost £1800 per week. This would have paid for a better quality player. As for Burge, lets see if Wilder signs him!!! Buying the stadium mortgage free would mean another owner of the club or the club renting from a different landlord. Maybe Marked Ox would like to explain to us all what he means by this. I doubt very much if our current owner could afford the stadium without a mortgage?? Read the 'Damianvt' post which I replied to and then you replied to the question about investment and you'll have your answer. The smiley face following the 'I can hope' is another big hint, ie. pie in the sky dream that it is nothing more than a wish. Very obvious really! I never suggested IL would buy the stadium outright, just what 'investment' in the club was sensible imo. I don't need to wait to see if CW signs Ryan Burge, he is a good player who added to team when he joined. I just hope we do sign him. As for this £1800 you estimate, is this quality player you're suggesting versatile, as Hackney, Sangare, Doble, Hanson, Burge all played in different positions (on the left, central and right, upfront, midfield and defence)?! They also spent a lot of time sat on the bench, Sangare, Hanson esp. We had a problem with the central defence, yet Sangare never got a chance until it was too late. We have had a lot of players at the club this season who were nothing more than fringe players. These cost. Wilder has indicated that the squad was too big and is looking a a smaller squad with better quality players. I agree with him on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on May 9, 2011 19:04:52 GMT
They may not cost that much as individuals but together they could well cost £1800 per week. This would have paid for a better quality player. As for Burge, lets see if Wilder signs him!!! Buying the stadium mortgage free would mean another owner of the club or the club renting from a different landlord. Maybe Marked Ox would like to explain to us all what he means by this. I doubt very much if our current owner could afford the stadium without a mortgage?? Read the 'Damianvt' post which I replied to and then you replied to the question about investment and you'll have your answer. The smiley face following the 'I can hope' is another big hint, ie. pie in the sky dream that it is nothing more than a wish. Very obvious really! I never suggested IL would buy the stadium outright, just what 'investment' in the club was sensible imo. I don't need to wait to see if CW signs Ryan Burge, he is a good player who added to team when he joined. I just hope we do sign him. As for this £1800 you estimate, is this quality player you're suggesting versatile, as Hackney, Sangare, Doble, Hanson, Burge all played in different positions (on the left, central and right, upfront, midfield and defence)?! Is KT in America...
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 9, 2011 20:45:54 GMT
As you well know, that wasn't the point, very few would have accurate knowledge to these figures, it was to point out IL has not just put this money in but has covered some mistakes, but he will get it back won't he? He may well get it back. Two years ago he looked like he came close to blowing everything following the mistakes he made. But if the club becomes more successful he may get it back but I think we will all be happy then and he will deserve it but he will have lost out on a lot of interest/investment return from that cash. However, as I know you appreciate, it would be very easy to slip back to the bad old days so there is still plenty of risk associated with his "investment". The thing I don't quite get LR is that you (and a few others) seem to be advocating doing similar things to the past. Surely IL believed that he was doing the right thing allowing the club to overspend. OK it did not work so it could be looked upon as mistakes. However, you suggest potentially overspending again in an attempt to move forward. If it comes off then it may propel us to another level but there is significant risk that it won't pay off. Will you be calling it a mistake then? To me the big problem is that even if he does "invest" in the team and we get into L1/Championship then without massive investment in the infrastructure we will find it very diffiult to stick there. Look at what overspending has done to Swindon, Plymouth, Wycombe, Southend, Gillingham and others. All in the pursuit of the Golden Challice. If the club can gain promotion without the "investment" you crave then we will have a pot of gold to help keep us up there. If the club can show several years of sound trading to the bankers or potential investors it will be easier to raise capital to buy the stadium in a cost effective manner. Hopefully this will provide additional revenue and allow the club to move forward in a lower risk manner. It may take longer for us to get to the promised land but that was should allow us to stay there for longer.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on May 10, 2011 18:33:48 GMT
I don't take the view IL is in this for the long haul, he will get his money back when he sells, when the time and price is right.
The club has set promotion "goals" to achieve over a time frame, that will not be dependant on IL dipping his hand in his pocket also while our owner is prudent, our ways of raising money has to be sourced to move the club forward without stagnating.
|
|
|
Post by scoob on May 10, 2011 19:09:23 GMT
You may well be right about IL and his plans LR we shall see. At some point he will move on but for him to profit from doing so will take some time. If he manages to get us into League One and/or buy the stadium and if, as a result, the club looks to be heading in the right direction then it is bound to attract interest. I just hope it is from people who have the means and focus to do it in the club's best interest.
Set promotion "goals" are just that though aren't they. It is right that they exist but does not mean that the club should take significant risk just to achieve them. At the moment I do not feel that the club is stagnating. I am very disappointed that we did not get into the play-offs especially as it seems more money than originally intended was spent on the team but, I beieive, we need a level of patience. It will be very easy to very quickly blow a lot of cash trying to achieve those goals.
If the club gets into financial trouble again (not that it is that far away from trouble anyway) and IL is forced to sell or worse then the club could end up in even worse hands. In my view the club is better off being relatively sound and strong financially then the right type of investors will come in. Look at our history (Kassam), Wycombe's current situation, Notts County. When club's are in a weak financial position then decisions that are not in the best interest of the club take place because there is no other alternative.
|
|
|
Post by londonroader on May 10, 2011 20:16:39 GMT
You may well be right about IL and his plans LR we shall see. At some point he will move on but for him to profit from doing so will take some time. If he manages to get us into League One and/or buy the stadium and if, as a result, the club looks to be heading in the right direction then it is bound to attract interest. I just hope it is from people who have the means and focus to do it in the club's best interest. Set promotion "goals" are just that though aren't they. It is right that they exist but does not mean that the club should take significant risk just to achieve them. At the moment I do not feel that the club is stagnating. I am very disappointed that we did not get into the play-offs especially as it seems more money than originally intended was spent on the team but, I beieive, we need a level of patience. It will be very easy to very quickly blow a lot of cash trying to achieve those goals. If the club gets into financial trouble again (not that it is that far away from trouble anyway) and IL is forced to sell or worse then the club could end up in even worse hands. In my view the club is better off being relatively sound and strong financially then the right type of investors will come in. Look at our history (Kassam), Wycombe's current situation, Notts County. When club's are in a weak financial position then decisions that are not in the best interest of the club take place because there is no other alternative. I can see the sense in that..
|
|
|
Post by Mark on May 10, 2011 21:29:05 GMT
I don't take the view IL is in this for the long haul, he will get his money back when he sells, when the time and price is right. The club has set promotion "goals" to achieve over a time frame, that will not be dependant on IL dipping his hand in his pocket also while our owner is prudent, our ways of raising money has to be sourced to move the club forward without stagnating. I thought that IL buying OUFC was more to do with his sons than his own interests which we all know lean to Rugby on a sporting side, but he also has local charitable interests and altruism. When WPL issued more shares, wasn't that to bring in a succession plan? I've not heard much about the Lenagan sons, perhaps if they are 'gifted' the club, they could be tempted to do like the old Man U / Arsenal family owned clubs do, and sell out, but OUFC is a much different club to those and would not attract much of a windfall if any.
|
|