Bank Support

[slickmick]

If we still have not offloaded any more players come the end of the transfer window, will Barclays still back us ?

I would imagine that transfer fees would have been anticipated for more than we have recieved so far. Skacel, Saga and Rasiak just to name 3, would have expected to have been sold for a fee (maybe even Viafara).

With Skacel,Euell and John still commanding a high wage,(calculated guess of approx £100k a month) will we be forced into administration if we can't move a couple of these on ?

Edited 21 August, 2008 by slickmick

[luke8588]

Our highest paid player is John who is on about £16k a week followed by Rasiak who is on £15k!

[alpine_saint]

Presumably this is why Davies has been sold and Surman is soon to leave.

[saintwarwick]

Presumably this is why Davies has been sold and Surman is soon to leave.

 

Davies left because he was offered premiership football with premiership wages, something that was probably in his contract when he arrived. Not too sure about Surnam but it seems to me like Jan has ben told we are now ok on the money side but if you need more players for the squad then you need to sell, hence our biggest asset in Surnam being sold. All imo of course.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

It's a good question , unfortunately unless someone on here works for Barclay's we won't get an authoritative answer . I'm confident we will transfer Skacel before long , even if we have to virtually give him away to do it . Stern John must stay IMO .

As for Jason Euell I bet he's on £10k p/w or more and at that price who'd have him ? - didn't West Ham end up paying Freddie Ljungberg to leave ?

[buctootim]

IF Rasiak and Saga sign for their loan clubs in January AND attendances average around 22,000 AND Surman signs for £2.5m AND we can get shot of Euell and Skacel I think we'll be okay for this season. If any of those dont happen I reckon were still in trouble.

[70's Mike]

Very interesting

what none of us know now is whether this is bank driven or our we on a campaign to be the only football club without an overdraft facility.

The balance between the 2 is crucial

[up and away]

If we still have not offloaded any more players come the end of the transfer window, will Barclays still back us ?

I would imagine that transfer fees would have been anticipated for more than we have recieved so far. Skacel, Saga and Rasiak just to name 3, would have expected to have been sold for a fee (maybe even Viafara).

With Skacel,Euell and John still commanding a high wage,(calculated guess of approx £100k a month) will we be forced into administration if we can't move a couple of these on ?

 

Very good question and without knowing all the facts we will have to wait and see. I don't believe Davies will provide more capital than the profit on his transfer, as I said at the time i believe we had help with that fee, similar to what has happened with Schneiderlin. I don't know that we have done enough, unless we get capital in to offset our debt, so we still need far more than Surman can bring in on his own. The wage bill is still coming down but without capital from player sales I feel it needs to be more. It all depends if the club can offset some of our current debt onto a more long term basis, but I believe that would require greater cuts in the wage bill than has already occured. It will all come down to the man in Reading by the look of things.

[benjii]

But the man in Reading does not want to force us into administration if he can help it.

 

Firstly - the publicity will suck.

 

Secondly (and more importantly) he probably won't get his money back anyway. Norwich Union are bound to have a far superior priority position in terms of security with legal charges over all fixed assets (and that's assuming the overdraft is secured at all).

 

There's more chance of Barclays getting their money back through a drip feed over many seasons of progressive cost cutting than there is if they make a demand for repayment of a large sum.

[Whitey Grandad]

With Skacel,Euell and John still commanding a high wage,(calculated guess of approx £100k a month) will we be forced into administration if we can't move a couple of these on ?

 

That would be £1.2m a year which is more than the average premiership salary, usually quoted as £1.1m

[70's Mike]

If we still have not offloaded any more players come the end of the transfer window, will Barclays still back us ?

I would imagine that transfer fees would have been anticipated for more than we have recieved so far. Skacel, Saga and Rasiak just to name 3, would have expected to have been sold for a fee (maybe even Viafara).

With Skacel,Euell and John still commanding a high wage,(calculated guess of approx £100k a month) will we be forced into administration if we can't move a couple of these on ?

 

it is not in barclays interest to force us in to administration.

[JonnyLove]

Did the old board not state that we had the banks full support up until the end of this season at the very least and then it would be reviewed again. Of course this might be different now but I would not of thought so.

[Jules]

That would be £1.2m a year which is more than the average premiership salary, usually quoted as £1.1m

 

But surely the $1.2 m a year is for all 3 players?

[Whitey Grandad]

But surely the $1.2 m a year is for all 3 players?

 

Yes, I see what you are saying. I mis-read the post.

[slickmick]

But surely the $1.2 m a year is for all 3 players?

 

 

Yes,the combined total of all 3 players.

[slickmick]

it is not in barclays interest to force us in to administration.

 

 

Even if we still get further and further into debt ?

[benjii]

But the man in Reading does not want to force us into administration if he can help it.

 

Firstly - the publicity will suck.

 

Secondly (and more importantly) he probably won't get his money back anyway. Norwich Union are bound to have a far superior priority position in terms of security with legal charges over all fixed assets (and that's assuming the overdraft is secured at all).

 

There's more chance of Barclays getting their money back through a drip feed over many seasons of progressive cost cutting than there is if they make a demand for repayment of a large sum.

 

Even if we still get further and further into debt ?

 

See above. (IMO, of course)

 

As long as we are moving in the right direction it's not in their interest. If we needed to increase the overdraft further then they might decide they never have any chance of getting their money back and decide to cut their losses.

 

Can't see that happening with the current thrifty-drive though.

 

An extra 5,000 fans at each home game would certainly help too!

[Pongo]

Did the old board not state that we had the banks full support up until the end of this season at the very least and then it would be reviewed again. Of course this might be different now but I would not of thought so.

 

I'd be interested to know if they'd offer us support again next season in the likely event of relegation.

[LukeH]

Unfortunately to get those extra 5000 bums in seats then we've gotta play good football which is negated by selling our quality players like Davies and Surman.

[John B]

Does this seem a familiar story

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2008/08/madjeski_right_to_hit_out_at_w.html#035131

[Legod Second Coming]

Unfortunately to get those extra 5000 bums in seats then we've gotta play good football which is negated by selling our quality players like Davies and Surman.

 

Which is not true.

 

We played good football without Davies last Saturday - albeit Surman did play, but did not shine during the game.

 

FWIW, last Saturday we played 45 mins of the best quality football I have seen since Keegan, Channon, et al.

 

The problem is that you don't get to see that from an armchair, which is the apparent position of authority from where our most verdent critics like to watch games... (withering, rolly eyes)...

Edited 22 August, 2008 by Legod Second Coming

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Does this seem a familiar story

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2008/08/madjeski_right_to_hit_out_at_w.html#035131

 

Madejski is correct , the ridiculous wages being paid to the players is the root cause of most of the financial problems that are crippling SFC and many other non-Premier League clubs .

 

Fundamentally a business of our size should be paying footballers £1,500 p/w not £15,000 , and until wages are brought down to a more realistic level the game will remain a grim survival struggle for even the best run clubs . No one club can solve the problem as market forces would just destroy them , action needs to be taken at a national or even international level . In my view clubs should be legaly restricted in the poportion of their turnover they can spend on player wages - say 33% for arguments sake .

 

If that were to happen you could cut the ticket prices and fill the stadia again , football clubs might even make profits rather than huge losses and we might all end up with a much healthier game .

Edited 22 August, 2008 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE
typo

[John B]

Madejski is correct , the ridiculous wages being paid to the players is the root cause of most of the financial problems that are crippling SFC and many other non-Premier League clubs .

 

Fundamentally a business of our size should be paying footballers £1,500 p/w not £15,000 , and until wages are brought down to a more realistic level the game will remain a grim survival struggle for even the best run clubs . No one club can solve the problem as market forces would just destroy them , action needs to be taken at a national or even international level . In my view clubs should be legaly restricted in the poportion of their turnover they can spend on player wages - say 33% for arguments sake .

 

If that were to happen you could cut the ticket prices and fill the stadia again , football clubs might even make profits rather than huge losses and we might all end up with a much healthier game .

 

Yes you are indeed correct but I feel the way SFC are trying to run the team with youngsters may be the way forward

[Wes Tender]

Madejski is correct , the ridiculous wages being paid to the players is the root cause of most of the financial problems that are crippling SFC and many other non-Premier League clubs .

 

Fundamentally a business of our size should be paying footballers £1,500 p/w not £15,000 , and until wages are brought down to a more realistic level the game will remain a grim survival struggle for even the best run clubs . No one club can solve the problem as market forces would just destroy them , action needs to be taken at a national or even international level . In my view clubs should be legaly restricted in the poportion of their turnover they can spend on player wages - say 33% for arguments sake .

 

If that were to happen you could cut the ticket prices and fill the stadia again , football clubs might even make profits rather than huge losses and we might all end up with a much healthier game .

 

I agree with the sentiment of your argument, but wonder whether the reality could ever be achieved. Ultimately a player's worth is dictated by supply and demand and football is now a global game and players might well emigrate to keep up their inflated wages. The money from Sky has been the root cause of the problem and made it less reliant on bums on seats except at the levels like we find ourselves in whereby there isn't much revenue coming in from televising our matches, making the turnstile revenue vital. The situation has been exacerbated by billionaires buying clubs and obscenely splashing their cash about. Perhaps downturns in their wealth might be helpful, or they might get bored with their toys and some semblance of sanity might begin to manifest itself.

[70's Mike]

Which is not true.

 

We played good football without Davies last Saturday - albeit Surman did play, but did not shine during the game.

 

FWIW, last Saturday we played 45 mins of the best quality football I have seen since Keegan, Channon, et al.

 

The problem is that you don't get to see that from an armchair, which is the apparent position of authority from where our most verdent critics like to watch games... (withering, rolly eyes)...

 

Agreed but as everyone keeps telling me , the game has moved on, you need effective quality football

 

And we lost

[Legod Second Coming]

Agreed but as everyone keeps telling me , the game has moved on, you need effective quality football

 

And we lost

 

It was effective, just not for 90 minutes due primarily to one player who is old enough to bury a header from six yards in the net, and not gift it to someone in the third row...

 

Victory is fundamental of course.

 

But victory and defeat are no measure of a team's capability after two games.

 

And one thing that would aid the Bank to extend support, is for a few more fans to get into the stadium and make a judgement for themselves.

 

But, I guess it's always the way. The sheep outnumber the shepherds.

 

Just wish a few of them would stop bleating on... baaaaa....

[Whitey Grandad]

Which is not true.

 

We played good football without Davies last Saturday - albeit Surman did play, but did not shine during the game.

 

FWIW, last Saturday we played 45 mins of the best quality football I have seen since Keegan, Channon, et al.

 

The problem is that you don't get to see that from an armchair, which is the apparent position of authority from where our most verdent critics like to watch games... (withering, rolly eyes)...

 

I agree that the first half was good stuff but from 55 minutes on we were steamrollered. Unfortunately those who were not there will have seen only the result and not the performance.

[Legod Second Coming]

I agree that the first half was good stuff but from 55 minutes on we were steamrollered. Unfortunately those who were not there will have seen only the result and not the performance.

 

I wouldn't say steamrollered myself, but we simply forgot the things that were causing Birmingham problems and also, from observation, we looked a little shell-shocked by the goal.

 

Prime among those who need to take some flack for this are Kelvin and Killer who should have steadied the lads and maintained the strategy of playing the ball out with purpose.

 

Instead of which for about ten minutes Kelvin reverted to type by punting it in the vague direction of the centre-circle, which was never going to work.

 

We know goals create confidence and we missed a guilt-edged chance - 55 seconds before Birmingham equalised.

 

If we can maintain our style and not be knocked off-stride, the omens are good.

 

My main worry was that we would appear men against boys and from my vantage point we didn't.

 

We did look, however, a touch naive at times and as though we couldn't quite believe how easily we could play against a very experienced side.

[70's Mike]

I wouldn't say steamrollered myself, but we simply forgot the things that were causing Birmingham problems and also, from observation, we looked a little shell-shocked by the goal.

 

Prime among those who need to take some flack for this are Kelvin and Killer who should have steadied the lads and maintained the strategy of playing the ball out with purpose.

 

Instead of which for about ten minutes Kelvin reverted to type by punting it in the vague direction of the centre-circle, which was never going to work.

 

We know goals create confidence and we missed a guilt-edged chance - 55 seconds before Birmingham equalised.

 

If we can maintain our style and not be knocked off-stride, the omens are good.

 

My main worry was that we would appear men against boys and from my vantage point we didn't.

 

We did look, however, a touch naive at times and as though we couldn't quite believe how easily we could play against a very experienced side.

 

 

But are not "forgetting what was causing problem" and men against boys connected.

 

My concern for the younger players, and i agree for an hour they were good, was that they are still getting used to the mental/physical side of the game and will struggle in the last half hour especially if things are going against us.

 

Still another game this week lets hope we do not burn these guys out mentally

[Whitey Grandad]

I wouldn't say steamrollered myself, but we simply forgot the things that were causing Birmingham problems and also, from observation, we looked a little shell-shocked by the goal.

 

Prime among those who need to take some flack for this are Kelvin and Killer who should have steadied the lads and maintained the strategy of playing the ball out with purpose.

 

There were certainly some positives to take from the game but Bent and Jerome were running amok amongst our defence and it didn't help when Killer and Perry both went for the same tackle which let them through for their first goal. For the second, take a look at the marking, if you can find any. The same goes for the one-on-one that Davis saved wher Jerome was totally unmarked 8 yard out and pleading for the ball. For the immediate future at least, I would prefer us to concentrate on getting the defensive shortcomings sorted out before we try to play 'pretty football' in the middle of the field. That applies all the team and not just the back four.