Jump to content
Mafiabob

Two Directors step down

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, RamNut said:

I presume that the annual losses are not sustainable for a single wealthy owner to fund.

we hit and exceed the max permissible losses under ffp before we've spent anything on transfers. So a spending spree seems unlikely even with new money available.

its very hard to build a team that can challenge, whilst staying compliant within ffp financial limits. incoming signings have to be suitably offset by out going players. One step forwards and one step backwards. Recruitment needs to be very smart to tip the scales in favour of two steps forward.

You dancin'? I'm askin,?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Owd miner said:

i meant the TASSET Strippers... they are a lively bunch of girls from north Derbyshire.... they even have live animals in their act...

 

2 hours ago, FindernRam said:

Fleas?

crabs?

Share this post


Link to post

We have one massive advantage over other clubs though, we are owned by a FAN.

Once external ownership kicks in it's anyone's guess which direction the stability of a club will go in

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

We have one massive advantage over other clubs though, we are owned by a FAN.

Once external ownership kicks in it's anyone's guess which direction the stability of a club will go in

I love Mel and would hate to ever see him go. He's made a few mistakes along the way but, on the whole, been great for the club. Having said that, I'm not sure he's a "massive" advantage. We still haven't got promoted and, depending on who you believe, we continue to flirt with significant financial challenges. Also, there are a few clubs out there that seem to do OK without a fan as an owner.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I love Mel and would hate to ever see him go. He's made a few mistakes along the way but, on the whole, been great for the club. Having said that, I'm not sure he's a "massive" advantage. We still haven't got promoted and, depending on who you believe, we continue to flirt with significant financial challenges. Also, there are a few clubs out there that seem to do OK without a fan as an owner.

I wouldn't necessarily say it as a massive advantage, but everything he does is always for the benefit for the club. The same cannot be said for the owners of many other clubs in the EFL. Mel brings stability to the club and confidence for any potential sponsors/investors. Since he took over from Sam Rush I would say we've been run a lot better from a commercial and financial point of view.

Any owner is going to face financial difficulties as long as we are in the Championship - doesn't matter who it is. And its not like we haven't come close to promotion under Mel - 3 of the 4 seasons he has been the majority shareholder we've been in the playoffs and 3 of those 4 seasons had a parachute payment team as champions.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dajstrawb said:

Anyone else’s frightened at how we’d spend the money though? If we did have it to spend?

An half crocked Van Ginkel, lacking fitness and still half limping, you just know it 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Jourdan said:

Every team starts the season on zero. You can’t get any fairer than that.

I think too much is made of parachute payments personally. They can be an advantage in the right hands, but there are numerous examples of clubs who have failed to make them count. For me, it just generates excuses from clubs who use it to justify a poor league position.

If the club that receives them gets the managerial appointment right, if they get their recruitment policy right, if the general decision making is sound, if the infrastructure at the club is well thought out, then parachute payments are potentially advantageous. 

But time and time again we see that the money alone is not enough and so much can go wrong. You need the right people in the right places making the right decisions.

How advantageous have parachute payments been to Huddersfield, Hull, Cardiff, Stoke, Middlesbrough and Sunderland in recent years? Even Villa spent three years getting out of the Championship, so you do have to wonder whether the impact is overstated.

For some, I feel it’s just a case of having more money to waste.

Oh indeed, that is how it should work and there are some spectacular examples of failure but while none parachute clubs shuffle the pack, do stadium sales deals to qualify for FFP you have clubs that come down with a wedge that inflates player prices. They arrive without the FFP balancing act to perform. That just cant be right. A team in third place (3 behind a relegated club has a £ 50,000,000 disadvantage. That is probably 2 years total turnover. 

Warped wages and player costs on one side and modest TV revenues on the other it makes for unbalanced competition and an unsustainable business model. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

15-16: Burnley and Hull City promoted - two parachute payment teams

16-17: Newcastle promoted - one parachute payment team

17-18: Cardiff and Fulham promoted the season after they receive their final parachute payments.

18-19: Norwich and Villa - two parachute payment teams.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, GenBr said:

15-16: Burnley and Hull City promoted - two parachute payment teams

16-17: Newcastle promoted - one parachute payment team

17-18: Cardiff and Fulham promoted the season after they receive their final parachute payments.

18-19: Norwich and Villa - two parachute payment teams.

Doesn’t this enhance the point that money is only an advantage if you manage it well?

Burnley didn’t have money to spend upon their initial promotion but used the parachute payments as intended to keep their promotion team together. 

Hull kept their Prem purchases thanks to parachute payments and by virtue of having a better team were promoted. 

Rafa sold and spent well. 

Cardiff were in austerity following three years of mid-table at best and needed the Warnock grind. 

Fulham’s initial splurge of money went south and they required a sensible rebuild. 

Norwich used the parachute payments as intended, to stabilise the club. They then built sensibly for three transfer windows and were then promoted. 

Villa are the only ones really that got there without clear planning or building. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, cannable said:

Doesn’t this enhance the point that money is only an advantage if you manage it well?

Burnley didn’t have money to spend upon their initial promotion but used the parachute payments as intended to keep their promotion team together. 

Hull kept their Prem purchases thanks to parachute payments and by virtue of having a better team were promoted. 

Rafa sold and spent well. 

Cardiff were in austerity following three years of mid-table at best and needed the Warnock grind. 

Fulham’s initial splurge of money went south and they required a sensible rebuild. 

Norwich used the parachute payments as intended, to stabilise the club. They then built sensibly for three transfer windows and were then promoted. 

Villa are the only ones really that got there without clear planning or building. 

Thats exactly what i argued in my previous posts. Parachute payments are always a huge advantage - i cant really see how anyone can argue against this. It is owners incompetence that tempers this advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Uptherams said:

My two cents. This investment will be to fund that concourse extension and turning the stadium into a multi purpose venue. No FFP.

And thus generate profit which the playing side can’t do in its present form. And with that profit avoid FFP issues when buying the best players. Sounds sensible to me 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Yani P said:

Please be a multi trillionaire who has a dream of taking one of the founding clubs to become the biggest team in world football... 

Notts County......but they're happy just being the biggest team in Nottingham

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Uptherams said:

My two cents. This investment will be to fund that concourse extension and turning the stadium into a multi purpose venue. No FFP.

I don’t think Mels selling the ground too is he?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.