Failure to buy a striker

[brendywendy]

I may well be wrong, but I genuinely do believe JM has no intention of promotion while either a) he's still here or b) until the general economic situation (and his business empire) shows signs of massive improvement

if gates continue to drop, and the quality of the team diminishes, hell never make his money back. i just dont get what you think he gains by stopping us going up. its the only way he'll ever make any money out of us.

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

I may well be wrong, but I genuinely do believe JM has no intention of promotion while either a) he's still here or b) until the general economic situation (and his business empire) shows signs of massive improvement

if gates continue to drop, and the quality of the team diminishes, hell never make his money back. i just dont get what you think he gains by stopping us going up. its the only way he'll ever make any money out of us.

I think his problem is that if we go up, it's all "spend, spend, spend" upfront. There's not enough sloshing around to enable him to do it properly, especially as his own wealth (which I think he'd be prepared to use is necessary as a loan to the club) is sparser now that it has been since he sold Auto Trader. Like I said, he may be biding his time until there is that cushion, but in reality who knows?

[Svlad Cjelli]

I may well be wrong, but I genuinely do believe JM has no intention of promotion while either a) he's still here or b) until the general economic situation (and his business empire) shows signs of massive improvement

if gates continue to drop, and the quality of the team diminishes, hell never make his money back. i just dont get what you think he gains by stopping us going up. its the only way he'll ever make any money out of us.

But he will - his investment is actually a lot smaller than many people think and his publicity machine likes to make out.

It's the risk factor - if he was guaranteed that pouring money in would take us up a league he probably would, as long as he could also be relatively sure of selling as soon as we were up, because to compete in the PL also means pouring lots of money in too, at an order of magnitude greater.

But there are no such guarantees - he could pour money in and have 3 other clubs pour more money in and go up instead, with all that money then wasted and making it less likely he'd never recoup it. Similarly he could pour money in and have the team lose a play-off final, be cheated by a poor refereeing decision, or have the expensive star players he's bought break a leg at a crucial time. There are no guarantees that investment equals success - investment only makes success more likely, nothing more.

The only way to make money is to go up relatively cheaply and then sell up, and he knows that that takes time but it can be done because he's done it before.

But that's all largely irrelevant at the moment - although many won't believe it, he simply has no spare liquidity sloshing around to throw at the club. Just about everything he has is tied up in other schemes, like Station Hill, and the recession has hit this and his other businesses hard. There simply isn't spare cash around.

[brendywendy]

But he will - his investment is actually a lot smaller than many people think and his publicity machine likes to make out.

i dont claim to know what we owe/owed him

i only know of 1 million he "gave" us for lita- and i reckon that was a loan anyway.
most of his investment has been converted to shares anyway, but he cant get money for those unless he sells, and i dont see him being able to sell us if we continue to decline.
his only hope is us going up. or him dropping his asking price hugely

[Svlad Cjelli]

But he will - his investment is actually a lot smaller than many people think and his publicity machine likes to make out.

i dont claim to know what we owe/owed him

i only know of 1 million he "gave" us for lita- and i reckon that was a loan anyway.
most of his investment has been converted to shares anyway, but he cant get money for those unless he sells, and i dont see him being able to sell us if we continue to decline.
his only hope is us going up. or him dropping his asking price hugely

As in the bit you didn't quote :

The only way to make money is to go up relatively cheaply and then sell up, and he knows that that takes time but it can be done because he's done it before.

[Snowball]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

There are no guarantees that investment equals success - investment only makes success more likely, nothing more.

Ans the more people playing that same game of throwing money at clubs, the less likely it is that success will come.

[brendywendy]

But he will - his investment is actually a lot smaller than many people think and his publicity machine likes to make out.

i dont claim to know what we owe/owed him

i only know of 1 million he "gave" us for lita- and i reckon that was a loan anyway.
most of his investment has been converted to shares anyway, but he cant get money for those unless he sells, and i dont see him being able to sell us if we continue to decline.
his only hope is us going up. or him dropping his asking price hugely

As in the bit you didn't quote :

The only way to make money is to go up relatively cheaply and then sell up, and he knows that that takes time but it can be done because he's done it before.

i agreed with the whole of the rest of your post- i just think that regardless of the size of his input, hell only get it back on th esale of the club, and he'll only do that if we go up imo

[Hoop Blah]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

There are no guarantees that investment equals success - investment only makes success more likely, nothing more.

Ans the more people playing that same game of throwing money at clubs, the less likely it is that success will come.

I totally agree Dirk, but at the same time, wasn't it a 92% correlation between spending and league position?

That's a pretty good element of risk for most investment opportunities, although of course the return on that investment isn't quite what it's cracked up to be (ie more costs!).

[Victor Meldrew]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

Why quote Ipswich and not QPR?

[brendywendy]

because they spent more and didnt go up either?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

There are no guarantees that investment equals success - investment only makes success more likely, nothing more.

Ans the more people playing that same game of throwing money at clubs, the less likely it is that success will come.

I totally agree Dirk, but at the same time, wasn't it a 92% correlation between spending and league position?

That's a pretty good element of risk for most investment opportunities, although of course the return on that investment isn't quite what it's cracked up to be (ie more costs!).

yes, it's 92%, but that correlation works both ways - if we're in the top 3 spenders in the Championship there's a 92% chance we'd go up, but if we're the 4th highest spenders in the league there's a 92% chance we won't go up.

It's not just about how much we spend, it's how much we spend relative to everyone else, and if you include the likes of Cardiff, QPR, Forest and also the relegated teams with their parachute payments you're talking mega-bucks with no guarantees. How can we realistically compete with teams prepared to spend money they've not got, or gamble all or nothing as some are? It's a pissing competition and I don't blame SJM for not joining in - even if he did have liquidity to do that with.

It's a horrible situation and it's hard to accept if you love football, but the game's financial model is so broken that this is the bleak reality for clubs in our situation.

[Snowball]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

Why quote Ipswich and not QPR?

I quote QPR about a fortnight ago, whenever it was they published their results.
They have lost shedloads but they have a super-bankroll so hardly a good benchmark.

They have lost heavily, for years I believe (can't find the accounts now)

2006-07 LOSS £4,874,000
2007-08 LOSS £6,072,000
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11

Wages went from 60% of turnover to 110% of turnover in 2007-08.

Read more: http://qprreport.proboards.com/index.cg ... z17csxt9qa

This is compared to a loss of £6,565,072 for the previous financial year.


Read more: http://qprreport.proboards.com/index.cg ... z17ct52nnJ

EIGHTEEN-POINT-FOUR MILLION POUNDS LOST in two years








Bristol City Football Club has revealed record losses of £11.8m in the year up to the end of May 2010.


Norwich City are currently 21 Million in debt.

[Snowball]

Maybe the trick is to try and stay mid-table or better and within budget, maybe even making a tiny profit
and when a few things come together (eg 1-2 Gylfi's come through in the same season or you manage to find
a Doyle and a Kitson for peanuts) THEN you figure that a risky investment has an increased chance of paying off.

[brendywendy]

Ipswich lost 14 Million last year. Good spending?

Why quote Ipswich and not QPR?

I quote QPR about a fortnight ago, whenever it was they published their results.
They have lost shedloads but they have a super-bankroll so hardly a good benchmark.

They have lost heavily, for years I believe (can't find the accounts now)

2006-07 LOSS £4,874,000
2007-08 LOSS £6,072,000
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11

Wages went from 60% of turnover to 110% of turnover in 2007-08.

Read more: http://qprreport.proboards.com/index.cg ... z17csxt9qa

This is compared to a loss of £6,565,072 for the previous financial year.


Read more: http://qprreport.proboards.com/index.cg ... z17ct52nnJ

EIGHTEEN-POINT-FOUR MILLION POUNDS LOST in two years








Bristol City Football Club has revealed record losses of £11.8m in the year up to the end of May 2010.


Norwich City are currently 21 Million in debt.

cheezus christ on a bike.

happy with what we are doing thank you!!

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

It's not just about how much we spend, it's how much we spend relative to everyone else, and if you include the likes of Cardiff, QPR, Forest and also the relegated teams with their parachute payments you're talking mega-bucks with no guarantees.

Be interesting to see the effect the new parachutes have on the Championship over the coming seasons. Will it mean that the chances of ever realistically competing again in this league are gone?

[Snowball]

It's not just about how much we spend, it's how much we spend relative to everyone else, and if you include the likes of Cardiff, QPR, Forest and also the relegated teams with their parachute payments you're talking mega-bucks with no guarantees.

Be interesting to see the effect the new parachutes have on the Championship over the coming seasons. Will it mean that the chances of ever realistically competing again in this league are gone?

I think eventually we will get Premiership Two and the big fight will be to get into that.

But the thing about the parachute payments is it tempts clubs to keep spending. Then,
if they fail to go up, they have racked up some scary debts.

Look at RFC, relatively prudent, shipped out a lot of players for good money yet still not exactly flush.

What probably didn't help much was hanging on to the big boys and spending oodles trying to bounce back

[Sir Rodger Doyle]

But the thing about the parachute payments is it tempts clubs to keep spending. Then,
if they fail to go up, they have racked up some scary debts.

Look at RFC, relatively prudent, shipped out a lot of players for good money yet still not exactly flush.

What probably didn't help much was hanging on to the big boys and spending oodles trying to bounce back

I think the parachute money is there to help clubs recover from relegation. I think that we are evidence of that. If a club comes down with players still under lucrative contracts, then the parachute money is there to ensure that said players are not left out of pocket when the club falls on hard times. It would be a gamble for any club to use this money to invest in new playing staff while still retaining Premier league players on Premier league contracts. I think Reading deserve credit for ensuring that the obscene contracts awarded in the premier league included a significant reduction upon relegation. I think we are now seeing where we truly are in the league, with regards to wage structure.

We are not a big club, nor are we a small club. We are Reading, we are happy where we are thanks. We will tick along quite happily as we are, and one day we will have a team that will challenge for promotion again. In the meantime, we will not go bust.

I can live with that, I just wish the club would come out and say it!

[SLAMMED]

Wot no 'you know it makes senseeeee'?

[leon]

Of course selling Gylfi was a business decision, and an understandable one, and the sort of thing the JM has done before (eg the Wembley play off team - well the good bits) - I'm just a little concerned that we were happy to sell a key part of the team at short notice without no contingency in place. That's just not good business planning I'm afraid.

Maybe there was an unexpected hole in the finances - again that's a bit concerning a well run club shouldn't get itself into that sort of a problem. We'll never know I guess. No conspiracy theories just a bit cynical.

it may have been unexpected by you, but it wasnt by the club.
i dont know what you think we could have done about it, other than get rid of our best players even quicker and not go for promotion with SSC

read the post bendy