eddie Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 They have not paid off the revolving loan, thats why its called a revolving loan. It gets paid down every year out of ST renewal monies and then they borrow against it again to cover operating costs. Then come ST renewal time they have to repeat the process again. In answer to your question G-Star that exactly what i think, starve the owners of customer money and they will either improve the product to attract more customers or weaken the product further and look to sell on the business for the best deal possible for themselves. What they won't do is hang on for ever while the costs go up and the income goes down. There is no guarantee that we will get better owners next time but i for one am willing to take the chance because the alternative is death by apathy. After 4 years of clough and the Rush admitting that FFP is dead in the water is there anyone left who seriously expects this flawed project to succeed ? Serious question - would you be prepared to see the club go into Administration and/or be relegated in order to get rid of GSE and their Investors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnClement Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 As a parasite is by definition a bad thing, presumably a negative parasite is good, thus critiscism is good. We are certainly progressing at the speed of an elephant being towed uphill on a skateboard. I was reasonably pleased with last seasons performance, because it was the only season under NC when we were safe from relegation before April. I was therefore looking to add to last seasons squad and improve a bit more (that I thought was the stated aims of owners & manager). What happened instead was that 3 of our best and most experienced players left (Shackell, Davies & Green). According to the stats on this thread we got less money for them than we paid for the replacements. I know Sammon (although he looks and plays like an oap) and Keogh are younger, but really they are grossly inferior players to the other 2. The best teams are a mixture of experience & youth. Last summers transfer dealings were frankly like a negative parasite - a negative improvement. Ps I went on Saturday & do go to aways as well as homes, although for reasons of residence aways are often closer than homes. I have supported the club since 1966, and it costs with fares, tickets & accomodation approx £100 to attend a home game, so I don't think I am a good time Charlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
top 6 finish Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Such a shame you fail to look at the bigger picture. The improvement in the club is sustainable. Far more important than league position. How much has he shaved off the wage bill? To keep the status quo with the league position is, my opinion a degree of success. That is how I see it and thankfully, that is how the owners see it. The board members have all become wealthy and successful people by knowing what they are doing in business and employing the right people. Thankfully, they appear to have faith in Clough and not some rather short sighted fans. You appear to take an unusual stance by both supporting Clough and the board.Yet on 2 other posts on this thread you say he has been underfunded.I wish you would make your mind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich3478 Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 How is it stable to lose £8m a season? Is this actually a plan? Lose £8m a season for an indefinite length of time and hope we fluke promotion one year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCFCfranco Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You can tell its a Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondJovi Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Finances. Fed up of them. Hate them being used as an excuse for an inept performance or as coat from which to protect Clough from his mistakes. I do not care how much spending power other clubs have. They could have millions and burn it on all on complete crap, every club is in a different situation. If finances truly did dictate all, then the same 6 clubs would be involved in the promotion/relegation Premiership battle each season. Having money is one thing...spending it wisely is another. Some of you are guilty on here of equating cost to quality and it does not always work that way. I simply do not believe Clough is getting the best out of what he has on a consistent basis and that has applied for all his seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Radio Derby moan in at 6. I sense loads of members will be getting in touch to say their piece? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Radio Derby moan in at 6. I sense loads of members will be getting in touch to say their piece? Thanks for reminding me i hardly ever listen yet i listen to the call in when i get back to the car after home games every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 We need a board that puts the money available into improving the team and not the 'match day experience'. That board will immediately see that having Mr. Average will not get us anywhere and bring in a new manager. I'd keep Wassall though, he's doing a good job. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Fwiw I haven't paid to watch us since Boro at home last season when Clough told everyone on RD that we couldn't expect to compete (at home) with a club like Boro. We lost, obviously, with a meek performance from the players, and the fans just sat there quietly accepting it. My view now is that the lack of atmosphere at PPS is because of this meek acceptance, we aren't going up, aren't going down, nothing really to play for in the games apart from Forest and Leeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You have said yourself before that the Premiership is split into tiers. These tiers are formed by hard cash. How much they can afford to pay their players. It's the same in the Championship. Are you seriously trying to suggest that DCFC can compete with clubs who can fork out close to 10M a season on new players? Really Bris. You don't understand this modern game of ours. I understand that in the past 7 years the following teams have finished in the top 6 in the PL.. Man Utd, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton, Liverpool and Newcastle... 8 different teams have occupied the top 6 spots in each of the last 7 years.. I also understand that the following teams have occupied a top 6 spot in the NPC... WHU, Reading, Derby, Southampton, Norwich, QPR, WBA, Newcastle, Sunderland, Stoke City, Swansea, Cardiff, Leicester, Birmingham, Hull, Burnley, Forest, Bristol City, Blackpool, Watford, Crystal Palace, Sheffield Utd and Preston... They all must have been loaded... Am I suggesting that DCFC can compete with clubs that fork out $10mill a season on new players? Erm didn't Bradford beat 3 PL teams en route to the League Cup final? Isn't there a 10 point gap between Blackburn (who spent over $10mill this season) and the top 6.. 2 of those clubs which haven't spent anything (Palace, Watford) The 3 clubs that have spent the most and occupy the biggest wage bill with all those parachute payments are 15th, 16th and 18th.. I understand modern day football quite well.. You on the other hand simply don't understand that Clough is just average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddesdenRam Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 We need a board that puts the money available into improving the team and not the 'match day experience'. That board will immediately see that having Mr. Average will not get us anywhere and bring in a new manager. I'd keep Wassall though, he's doing a good job. HTH To be fair to the board they are investing money 8 million a year to cover our loses with no complaints. It would be nice for a board member to come out with a Q and A. Sam Rush can try and relay messages but it wont be straight to the point enough. It is their money but you would have thought if they have put in a ridiculous amount i guess since 2007 they have put at least 30 million pounds. They could cough up a little bit more for those 3 extra experienced players we need to get out the division. Its their money so who am I to say how they should spend it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rammieib Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 There is no guarantee that replacing Clough will make us any better. We could be worse, we could be the same or we could be better. There is a guarantee that we will see the same predictable and horizontal football and finish mid table. So many different people have given us facts about why the current state of affairs is so poor, yet a few of still believing in the acceptance of mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abu Derby Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 All of the negativity will disappear once we've disposed of Huddersfield on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 As I've seen a wage table somewhere on here,I'll chip in with figures I've seen for 10/11,two of which I extracted from 'Swiss Rambler' blogs (Leeds and Bristol).A couple of weeks ago I said that Cardiff were at £21m-I apologise as I obviously mixed them up with Hull (though I did say it was from memory only):- Ipswich £17.552m,Hull £21.208m,Cardiff £15.262m,Leeds £16.5m,Bristol City £13.8m and finally,Boro,who due to a change of year end reported an 18 month period at £40.938m (implying way over £20m for 12 months). The accounts usually give employee numbers,and we seem to be at the high end for non players,which obviously has an influence on the players only elements of the figures.I think we were a shade lower on total wages than BC for 10/11 -I'll check,and if I don't correct it you can take it as being ok. I can't give figures for other clubs,simply because I don't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needles Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 What would you have the wage bill down as at this moment Ramblur? As I've seen a wage table somewhere on here,I'll chip in with figures I've seen for 10/11,two of which I extracted from 'Swiss Rambler' blogs (Leeds and Bristol).A couple of weeks ago I said that Cardiff were at £21m-I apologise as I obviously mixed them up with Hull (though I did say it was from memory only):- Ipswich £17.552m,Hull £21.208m,Cardiff £15.262m,Leeds £16.5m,Bristol City £13.8m and finally,Boro,who due to a change of year end reported an 18 month period at £40.938m (implying way over £20m for 12 months). The accounts usually give employee numbers,and we seem to be at the high end for non players,which obviously has an influence on the players only elements of the figures.I think we were a shade lower on total wages than BC for 10/11 -I'll check,and if I don't correct it you can take it as being ok. I can't give figures for other clubs,simply because I don't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 What would you have the wage bill down as at this moment Ramblur? If I had to hazard a guess,I'd say around £12m,but as I mentioned earlier,it would appear likely that our proportion of players' wages is less than most others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needles Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 If I had to hazard a guess,I'd say around £12m,but as I mentioned earlier,it would appear likely that our proportion of players' wages is less than most others. Hmm. I must admit that's taken the wind out of my sails a bit. I'd assumed the player wage bill was now <£10m, which I suppose isn't inconcievable from what you're saying about the number of non-playing staff in the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Hmm. I must admit that's taken the wind out of my sails a bit. I'd assumed the player wage bill was now <£10m, which I suppose isn't inconcievable from what you're saying about the number of non-playing staff in the mix. Either I've not explained things properly,or you've misinterpreted what I said,needles.I'm talking about a total wages bill of around £12m (including ENIC,as all the other figures do).If we have greater numbers of non playing staff,then non players' wages becomes higher,and thus players' lower,so I'd be fairly confident it's less than £10m.Even in 10/11 we were told it fluctuated between £9m and £10m.As Hulse and Commons left during the year,we might expect that the lower end of the fluctuation came towards the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearson Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 So many different people have given us facts about why the current state of affairs is so poor, yet a few of still believing in the acceptance of mediocrity. Or perhaps they can see the on going progress and developement, as slow as that may be. We will eventually taste the good wine:-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.