Can someone please explain ......

[Alain Perrin]

Surely, if we pay lots of money to run an academy in order to produce players that we can then sell at a profit, then there will inevitably be a revolving door of young players being brought into the squad and then sold on once they have gained enough experience. That means no stability in the team, mistakes through inexperience and no players that the young supporters can identify with.

 

Agreed but the aim is to get a balance of profit and progression. The higher up the league(s) the club gets, the longer the players will stay for, the more money we can charge, the more profit we make, the better players we can buy.

[chivvy1664]

Because we are paying Rasiak, Stern John, Kelvin Davies, Saganowski, Wayne Thomas, Rudi Skacel and Jason Euell far too much money per week? And nobody wants them on the money they are on let alone getting a fee. Plus we are getting 15,000 through the door. Nutshell

[Alanh]

Surely, if we pay lots of money to run an academy in order to produce players that we can then sell at a profit, then there will inevitably be a revolving door of young players being brought into the squad and then sold on once they have gained enough experience. That means no stability in the team, mistakes through inexperience and no players that the young supporters can identify with.

 

You have to look at the main reason for the academy slightly differently. It's there to develop footballers, some of whom will play for us for ages and others who will never make the grade with us, and all steps in between. The natural pecking order in football transfers will determine how long we keep hold of a player regardless of whether we brought them through our academy or we bought them from another club. There can be no predetermined plan to train a player up to a certain standard and then sell him when that level is reached as you have to have a buyer who is interested in the player for them to be sold.

 

Just about the only way to achieve player turnover stability is to pay over inflated wages to mediocre players who will then not want to leave as no one else will match the wages. I'd say that is what we tried last year and I don't think anyone would say it has been a roaring success

[Chez]

NOt quite sure about the hysteria - the problem would not appear to be the overdraft, but the continued 'growth of the overdraft' ege expentidure continuing to be greater than income - Now this is apparently a lot lower than it was but effectively the debt is still growingbut be a smaller amount each year.

 

Do we have to sell the kids? NO we may be ASKED/TOLD by the bank to realise some assets in oder to underwrite the growth in losses - The club would have NO choice if teh bank would like us to reduce the overall size of the OD facilty - The bank are also not stupid - the last thing they would want is administration, afterall they make their money by servicing our debt, but they do want to minimise theie exposed risk - If they see the income falling, as in lower gate receipts and no prospect of this increasing, they will demand the asset sale.

 

Now what these assets sold are will depend on many factors - 1) What someone is offering, 2) the current wages etc. We may not have to sell the kids - in fact I would suggest these are the LAST players LOwe would want to sell, whatever some may think he does believe in the youth development policy, he would much rather sell off the older high earners, Rasiak, John, Saga etc - reduce the wage bill and get some money in etc.

 

However its never that simple. NO one may want those players, or the value of offeres may be insignificant so we may need to sell them PLUS one of the better kids.... or an offer might come in for one of the kids at 3-4 mil and we only need to sell ONE of them to keep things stable with the bank... or the top kids may be unsettled by Agent w@nkers - the old - 'can get you 20K a week at a prem club - you could get injured ...carreer ...blah, blah blah...' so they want to go.

 

But of course, if any of them leave it will be blamed on the board...as usual. My hope would be that we are able to off load the older high wage earners and this together with the Cup cash will allow us to maintain the young squad till the end of the seaosn at least - what next season brings who knows, but thats another matter.

 

We know that mistakes by the board contributed to relegation, we know mistakes by those who superseeded them contributed to our current financial situation, one risked on mangagers, one risked spending to get promted - both risky, both failed. NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT NOW. We have this board, and this situation and the club will need to deal with that and ensure the bank maintains the best possible support ... and if that means exit of players sobeit.

 

Alternative owner/baord will make feck all difference unless they are load... and when was the last time we interested a seriously loaded potential owner? No the rumoured takeover currently seems to be another case of potential change of ownership without any additional funds - or fund made availabe by alternative forms of debt - so the result is the same.... the only way we get out this hole is promotion or increasing revenues through other means - the Gate and realistically we simply dont have the level of support necessary to sustain a full ground in this division and with the current level of success, no matter how much some of us might like the style of play.

 

 

But , please for once can we acknowledge that whatever happens in Jan , the last playesr Lowe WANTs to sell is the kids, but he may not have that choice.

 

 

Very good post this. Totally agree about Lowe wanting (and probably doing everything in his power) to offload Rasiak, Saga, John, Thomas and even Davis. It's their wages that cripple the clubs finances. Players like Lallana, Surman, McGoldrick etc will be on absolute peanuts compared to Stern John.

 

Loaning players out is no good either. Yes it gets players off the wage bill temporarily and if you close your eyes tight and try really hard you might just dream that Bristol City and the like are paying a small loan fee, but they will be back come June 1st and then you face 10 weeks of summer wages (if not more if we can loan them out in the window).

 

Try Rasiak and Stern john on a combined £35k a week x 10 and see how quickly the FA cup game money dissapears.

 

I know Saga et al have their fans, but I personally will be mightly pleased if he and John can find perment homes come January (and Rasiak if at all possible). Sadly I fear they will both come back and we'll have no choice but to sell Surman for buttons to keep the overdaft under £5m.

Edited 2 December, 2008 by Chez

[Chez]

Because we are paying Rasiak, Stern John, Kelvin Davies, Saganowski, Wayne Thomas, Rudi Skacel and Jason Euell far too much money per week? And nobody wants them on the money they are on let alone getting a fee. Plus we are getting 15,000 through the door. Nutshell

 

spot on. I think people need to realise that Rasiak was on £20k a week at Spurs. He didn't leave them to earn £10k a week. He will be on £17k a week for sure. Thats £884,000 a year. Stern John was a Premiership striker. How many of those are on 10k a week these days? These guys are on monsterous wages and thats why they are still here. No other reason.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by Frank's cousin

NOt quite sure about the hysteria - the problem would not appear to be the overdraft, but the continued 'growth of the overdraft' ege expentidure continuing to be greater than income - Now this is apparently a lot lower than it was but effectively the debt is still growingbut be a smaller amount each year.

 

Do we have to sell the kids? NO we may be ASKED/TOLD by the bank to realise some assets in oder to underwrite the growth in losses - The club would have NO choice if teh bank would like us to reduce the overall size of the OD facilty - The bank are also not stupid - the last thing they would want is administration, afterall they make their money by servicing our debt, but they do want to minimise theie exposed risk - If they see the income falling, as in lower gate receipts and no prospect of this increasing, they will demand the asset sale.

 

Now what these assets sold are will depend on many factors - 1) What someone is offering, 2) the current wages etc. We may not have to sell the kids - in fact I would suggest these are the LAST players LOwe would want to sell, whatever some may think he does believe in the youth development policy, he would much rather sell off the older high earners, Rasiak, John, Saga etc - reduce the wage bill and get some money in etc.

 

However its never that simple. NO one may want those players, or the value of offeres may be insignificant so we may need to sell them PLUS one of the better kids.... or an offer might come in for one of the kids at 3-4 mil and we only need to sell ONE of them to keep things stable with the bank... or the top kids may be unsettled by Agent w@nkers - the old - 'can get you 20K a week at a prem club - you could get injured ...carreer ...blah, blah blah...' so they want to go.

 

But of course, if any of them leave it will be blamed on the board...as usual. My hope would be that we are able to off load the older high wage earners and this together with the Cup cash will allow us to maintain the young squad till the end of the seaosn at least - what next season brings who knows, but thats another matter.

 

We know that mistakes by the board contributed to relegation, we know mistakes by those who superseeded them contributed to our current financial situation, one risked on mangagers, one risked spending to get promted - both risky, both failed. NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT NOW. We have this board, and this situation and the club will need to deal with that and ensure the bank maintains the best possible support ... and if that means exit of players sobeit.

 

Alternative owner/baord will make feck all difference unless they are load... and when was the last time we interested a seriously loaded potential owner? No the rumoured takeover currently seems to be another case of potential change of ownership without any additional funds - or fund made availabe by alternative forms of debt - so the result is the same.... the only way we get out this hole is promotion or increasing revenues through other means - the Gate and realistically we simply dont have the level of support necessary to sustain a full ground in this division and with the current level of success, no matter how much some of us might like the style of play.

 

 

But , please for once can we acknowledge that whatever happens in Jan , the last playesr Lowe WANTs to sell is the kids, but he may not have that choice.

Very good post this. Totally agree about Lowe wanting (and probably doing everything in his power) to offload Rasiak, Saga, John, Thomas and even Davis. It's their wages that cripple the clubs finances. Players like Lallana, Surman, McGoldrick etc will be on absolute peanuts compared to Stern John.

 

Loaning players out is no good either. Yes it gets players off the wage bill temporarily and if you close your eyes tight and try really hard you might just dream that Bristol City and the like are paying a small loan fee, but they will be back come June 1st and then you face 10 weeks of summer wages (if not more if we can loan them out in the window).

 

Try Rasiak and Stern john on a combined £35k a week x 10 and see how quickly the FA cup game money dissapears.

 

I know Saga et al have their fans, but I personally will be mightly pleased if he and John can find perment homes come January (and Rasiak if at all possible). Sadly I fear they will both come back and we'll have no choice but to sell Surman for buttons to keep the overdaft under £5m.

 

Completely agree and worth repeating. Combine this with CBFry's post on administration and you have it all in a nut shell. Whether it's Jan or Pearson, we have little option but the path we are now on. If we have expensive pro's, every angle is required to move them on. Once we are lumbered with them, that is a different matter. My gut feeling has favoured Pearson, but I don't have that many complaints about JP. Any manager that continues to function with these shifting sands below their feet require a medal. I really am surprised he has stood up to events this well, but you get the feeling that he knew what was coming. I believe his early decision to only use those players he knew would be here, a major factor in how he has managed to cope.

 

A lot of fans want the hurt to stop and we have all had those moments where misery descends after another loss or disappointing draw. Administration is not the answer as that will just bang us down even further, with even less resources to function on. If we are in misery now, just add the anvil and millstone to each gooseberry and that will be the effect after administration. Our only real chance is if our current actions will drag in some kind of investment to get us out of this mess. I believe what Lowe and Wilde are doing is to make this club as attractive as possible from that angle, because it is underlining the positives from this mess. Then hopefully they can move over to let some real investment come in, not Billy ****** and the other side of never.

However slim that option looks, our only other alternative is to fill the stadium and sort the problem ourself. But I would put money on Paul Allen coming in before that.

 

Although we are struggling this season I have found a lot of positives from the youth players, even after the defeat by Wolves things were not depressing. Last season I felt as if there was a divide created between the fans and the players by lack lustre performances, no effort and high salaries. That gulf has definitely gone this season and I just hope we can emerge from this mess going forward.

[chivvy1664]

We need to batton down the hatches pray we survive this year get more big earners out of contract in the summer. Lets not forget the money Lundekvam,Idiakez,Jesus,Makin,Wright and Powell where on also last year not surprising we are in the ****.

[CB Fry]

Exactly WHY do we HAVE to sell off the very youngsters that are slowly coming together as a TEAM ???

 

My train of thought is this ..

 

Currently, in the CCC, we are averaging circa 15000, which is not enough for us to break even financially

 

So, how can attendances be improved ? Surely by continuing to improve results, to get more points, to move UP the table ...... Success breeds Success etc etc

 

However, it looks as though SFC will embark on a Fire Sale in January, to get monies in ....... but to what end is that ??

 

First and foremost, it will considerably weaken the Team yet again, and Jan will have to soldier on with whatever is left. That will most likely mean a down turn in results, which will mean a further downturn in attendance levels

 

We are led to believe that there must be a "Cull", so as to get monies for Barclays .... but how true IS that....... Assuming we are circa £4.5M overdrawn, it will take about three players to accumalate that ( bear in mind, the BUYER calls the shots, because WE are the paupers) ..... At best, it may clear the overdraft, but it will NOT improve the Club as a whole

 

Indeed, I think it will be false economy. A January Sale will only WEAKEN the Team, jeopardise the rest of our season, and guarentee that gates will fall even lower than they are now ( bar the Man Utd match of course )

 

Unfortunately, IMHO, our Football Club is run 1000% as a Business, with NEVER a thought about the PRODUCT, ie Football

 

It would be far better to let Poortvliet concentrate on the potentially very good TEAM he is getting to perform, move us up the CCC table , and see gates climb to circa 25000 again.

 

But, alas, under our present Regime, it will not happen

 

 

 

 

Can someone please explain why you were ranting, raving and whining about all our players being sold more than one month before the transfer window even opened and then followed that up with eight weeks of moaning about how ridiculous it was to have a fire sale of all our best players and how Lowe would sell every single player at the first opportunity and blah, blah frigging blah.......on and on with lots...... of............ dots.......... every....w.....h.....e..........r........e And these really annoying things too :cool:

 

 

Well, I can explain. You're a dopey twonk.

 

What's that sound? Oh, it's Saint Richmond's tiny world caving in.

 

 

What a despicable fire sale that turned out to be, then :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

I really cannot wait for your spin on this story. I give it half an hour before you weave this comparitively pretty good transfer window for us into being part of some dastardly evil Lowe masterplan you've cooked up in your head.

 

Go............on..................start.......weaving..............:cool:

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

 

 

PS - Don't come the "you love Lowe" routine either. I don't love Lowe, but I do think you waste too much time making up stuff that doesn't happen and then getting upset about stuff that might not will not and/or did not happen. So you are fair game for a darn good laughing at.

[um pahars]

It would be far better to let Poortvliet concentrate on the potentially very good TEAM he is getting to perform

 

I was more concerned with that quote:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[CB Fry]

I was more concerned with that quote:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

 

He he. Just to confirm to all that was SR's quote and not mine.

 

 

 

It's funny how fantastic our players are to the hysterics like SR when they think they are going to be sold.

 

I wonder if he thinks they are so fantastic now they all look like they are staying - it's almost like Lowe has let his manager(s) (!) build a team.....

 

Oh, and I see we've just signed someone else at the stroke of the deadline........!

 

What money troubles..?

[um pahars]

What money troubles..?

 

I now worry we might get there a bit earlier than we had thought, given we haven't raised any income this window!!!!!!

[CB Fry]

I now worry we might get there a bit earlier than we had thought, given we haven't raised any income this window!!!!!!

 

 

Well, we do always need a fresh supply of sticks to beat our man with.

 

Our chairman is a **** because he failed to sell anyone could be the stick de nous jours and no doubt Richmond and friends will be weilding it shortly!

 

 

 

 

That's not to say you're not right - the bank will look at the last month as an opportunity to bring in a million or two and/or cut the wage bill and frankly on those criteria we've failed.

[um pahars]

That's not to say you're not right - the bank will look at the last month as an opportunity to bring in a million or two and/or cut the wage bill and frankly on those criteria we've failed.

 

But it's also not to say I'm right!!!!!!!

 

Lowe could have reduced costs so much, that one off sums aren't as important anymore. The interims (due out soon) might give us some indication.

 

But my gut feel is that we probably should have raised some cash this window.

 

Of course, we may have agreed with the bank that relegation has to be avoided at all costs and the slashing has to be twice as big in the summer, or alternatively some other assets might be up for disposal (or even a sale and lease back on some of them).

[Window Cleaner]

But it's also not to say I'm right!!!!!!!

 

Lowe could have reduced costs so much, that one off sums aren't as important anymore. The interims (due out soon) might give us some indication.

 

But my gut feel is that we probably should have raised some cash this window.

 

Of course, we may have agreed with the bank that relegation has to be avoided at all costs and the slashing has to be twice as big in the summer, or alternatively some other assets might be up for disposal (or even a sale and lease back on some of them).

 

Indeed, If,as we may be led to believe from the last round of Leon hype,the overdraft is back down to 4.5 or 5 million then it has been significantly reduced despite falling crowds and poor form. We made money from Davies,Crouch,more Bale money,Safri and the Euro 2008 handout. We may have received other trail payments as well. If the overdraft has been partially tamed the bank might not be so miffed after all. Although someone did say it was up to over 8 million a while back, probably just wishful thinking, I think Longshot was involved in that rumour actually.

[Gemmel]

But it's also not to say I'm right!!!!!!!

 

Lowe could have reduced costs so much, that one off sums aren't as important anymore. The interims (due out soon) might give us some indication.

 

But my gut feel is that we probably should have raised some cash this window.

 

Of course, we may have agreed with the bank that relegation has to be avoided at all costs and the slashing has to be twice as big in the summer, or alternatively some other assets might be up for disposal (or even a sale and lease back on some of them).

 

I had resigned myself to losing at least two players, so am chuffed to have been wrong. The signing of the Hungarian means we have come out of the transfer window with larger expenses than we went in with and that just isn't a club on the verge of adminstration. The fact that we turned offers down suggests there is no compelling need to sell cheaply and that we are not in danger of administration in the short term.

[Window Cleaner]

I had resigned myself to losing at least two players, so am chuffed to have been wrong. The signing of the Hungarian means we have come out of the transfer window with larger expenses than we went in with and that just isn't a club on the verge of adminstration. The fact that we turned offers down suggests there is no compelling need to sell cheaply and that we are not in danger of administration in the short term.

 

I still think that some of the directors have probably stumped up a bit, not a lot but probably enough.

[saintjay77]

Indeed, If,as we may be led to believe from the last round of Leon hype,the overdraft is back down to 4.5 or 5 million then it has been significantly reduced despite falling crowds and poor form. We made money from Davies,Crouch,more Bale money,Safri and the Euro 2008 handout. We may have received other trail payments as well. If the overdraft has been partially tamed the bank might not be so miffed after all. Although someone did say it was up to over 8 million a while back, probably just wishful thinking, I think Longshot was involved in that rumour actually.

 

If we have reduced the OD even with the falling crowds then getting the likes of saga back and keeping hold of the others we may even look stronger and start pulling upwards. If that happens there is a good chance the crowds may rise a little which should do no end of good in keeping the bank happy.

 

I doubt that will please many fans that want Lowe to fail so he can be kicked out again but at least the club is moving in the right direction.

[um pahars]

I doubt that will please many fans that want Lowe to fail so he can be kicked out again but at least the club is moving in the right direction.

 

Oh yeah, that's right, there's a mass of supporters who want us to fail and go under just so they can rid themselves of Lowe.

 

What a pathetic statement and as with Franks Cousin, I think you have a rather lwo opinion of your fellow fans.

 

(two or three nutters maybe, nut not the many you and Frank whinge on about).

[um pahars]

I still think that some of the directors have probably stumped up a bit, not a lot but probably enough.

 

I would be very, very, very surprised if that was the case.

 

(and besides I'm sure there would have been some announcement had this been the case).

[saintjay77]

Oh yeah, that's right, there's a mass of supporters who want us to fail and go under just so they can rid themselves of Lowe.

 

What a pathetic statement and as with Franks Cousin, I think you have a rather lwo opinion of your fellow fans.

 

(two or three nutters maybe, nut not the many you and Frank whinge on about).

 

steady on young man. I wasnt having a go at a mass of supporters. just having a laugh at the expence of a few extremists. Should have put a lil winky smiley thingy on there

[um pahars]

steady on young man. I wasnt having a go at a mass of supporters. just having a laugh at the expence of a few extremists. Should have put a lil winky smiley thingy on there

 

Well maybe you should have written:

 

I doubt that will please the few extremists that want Lowe to fail

 

as opposed to:

 

I doubt that will please many fans that want Lowe to fail

[saintjay77]

Well maybe you should have written:

 

I doubt that will please the few extremists that want Lowe to fail

 

as opposed to:

 

I doubt that will please many fans that want Lowe to fail

 

What I meant was

 

I doubt that will please many of the fans that want Lowe to fail

 

but basically the same as you 1st said.

 

Sorry to be a pain

[um pahars]

What I meant was

 

I doubt that will please many of the fans that want Lowe to fail

 

but basically the same as you 1st said.

 

Sorry to be a pain

 

In which case you posting to an even smaller number!!!!!

 

Those that want Lowe to fail (and therefore the Club to fail as well) are a very small minority, so if you're accepting that, then by suggesting it won't be even all of those you're whittling it down to one or two.

[saintjay77]

In which case you posting to an even smaller number!!!!!

 

Those that want Lowe to fail (and therefore the Club to fail as well) are a very small minority, so if you're accepting that, then by suggesting it won't be even all of those you're whittling it down to one or two.

 

this is very true and it is about the same percentage of Lowe Luvies that i also laugh at.

 

The other 98% of fans are more than capable of thinking a variaty of different things and hold a meaningful debate. Something that the 2% seem in capable of doing yet somehow get the most time from many of the 98%.