Investment

[YorkshireRam]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

How much did Longson spend?

Football was VERY different back then, not least because the scale of the finances was tiny in comparison. They're not at all comparable, sorry.

You've dodged the question though; surely you understand why financial safety is important after witnessing the precipice the club was pushed to by Mel's financial recklessness?

[RoyMac5]

Edit.

Edited August 21 by RoyMac5

[jimtastic56]

1 hour ago, CornwallRam said:

Not a queue to take is over? Are you forgetting the delusional boxer, the fake Sheikh and the billionaire retailer who's arms were just too short to reach the bottom of his pockets?

I will never forget Stephen Pearce going on radio Derby to announce that DCFC was now being run jointly by the Sheikh and Mr Morris . Was he fed B S by Mel or is he just inept ? 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

8 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

I will never forget Stephen Pearce going on radio Derby to announce that DCFC was now being run jointly by the Sheikh and Mr Morris . Was he fed B S by Mel or is he just inept ? 

I wouldn't trust him to source me a meal deal from Tesco.

I just know I would end up with a Falafel wrap and he would forget the crisps.

 

[YorkshireRam]

21 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

No you dodged the question - why is investment not financially safe? 

Technically you dodged the question first, I just didn't respond to your follow-up, but that is arguing semantics haha.

We don't know how the finances work in minute detail. We may be already stretched super thin and have no more wiggle room to do business outside of loan deals. We may also have loads left and are being coy to try secure good value towards the latter end of the window. This lack of insight means we're not in a position to comment with any authority on the club's financial position though, and subsequently whether we've proportionally invested enough into the squad.

To directly answer your question: investment is financially safe, we've already done it this season. It's how much you invest against your overall budget that determines whether it's a responsible fiscal decision. I don't have to explain this to you, I'm sure. But given we don't know anything at all about which end of this spectrum we fall on, it makes all of this chat purely idle speculation.

There's plenty of threads on why people speculate negatively so I won't touch that, but that'd be my concern here: complete lack of nuanced knowledge on our part as fans.

[RoyMac5]

Just now, YorkshireRam said:

Technically you dodged the question first, I just didn't respond to your follow-up, but that is arguing semantics haha.

That's why I edited my post. You're just point scoring. This thread is about investment.

[MadAmster]

1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said:

If you don't have money how will you pay the debts the Club runs up? Look it up! 😄

If you don't get into debt you don't have to repay debt. You sir, are a WUM. By far not the only one on here. Kindly refrain from further responses to my posts. I have no wish to communicate with wasters like you.

[RoyMac5]

16 minutes ago, jimtastic56 said:

I will never forget Stephen Pearce going on radio Derby to announce that DCFC was now being run jointly by the Sheikh and Mr Morris . Was he fed B S by Mel or is he just inept ? 

I expect the answer would depend on which of them you asked? How do you express an interest in investing money in the Club? 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, MadAmster said:

If you don't get into debt you don't have to repay debt. You sir, are a WUM. By far not the only one on here. Kindly refrain from further responses to my posts. I have no wish to communicate with wasters like you.

Block me if you can't deal with reading posts about investment. 😄 As for not replying, what? 😄

Edited August 21 by RoyMac5

[Mihangel]

5 hours ago, Raich Carter said:

I would usually have agreed with that but I'm not sure it's entirely true any more. If the Mel Morris experiment had worked, he'd have probably sold the club in the following 2 years assuming we stayed up for a handsome profit. I think at some levels, you can make money from football clubs.

Also, the likes of the Glaziers are managing to do ok out of it from what he hear. I think there's a few out there that turn a profit or will have a positive return once the owners cash in - Brighton and Bournemouth seem well ran despite being very small clubs in reality. 

Problem is, as Mel demonstrated, if not done well, as you say, 'investing' in a football club is a very a good way of losing your money - I won't bother quoting the Alan Sugar line but you know what I mean! 🙂

Re: Wrexham - Reynolds is a seriously wealthy guy (Google it - has lots of business interests outside of acting) but again, I suspect he'll sell once it's increased in value. 

Don't get me wrong - the spending is crazy and there's massive debt overall but remembering that fundamentally, the owners are just leveraging the clubs assets, it'll always be the fans that pay one way or another. Football clubs are very, very attractive brands in that they have an almost pathological following from fans (loyalty) that isn't really present in other markets (e.g. if Ferrari produced crap cars for years, their brand would be damaged and value reduced whereas we'll follow Derby regardless). No matter what they do, we'll still turn up (to one degree or another). Highly exploitable, hence lots of... dodgy people trying to get 'in'. 

Brighton's owner is in for £500+ - Define 'well run'?

Edited August 21 by Mihangel

[hintonsboots]

I preferred the amortisation thread, it was less aggressive.

[Raich Carter]

22 minutes ago, Mihangel said:

Brighton's owner is in for £500+ - Define 'well run'?

1. They're a small club in the Prem - that's success
2. Posted profits of £123m after tax last year
3. This does not include £125m sale of Moises Caicedo and Roberto Sanchez to Chelsea

That's £250m off their £390m debt in one year. Source : BBC.

I'm aware they still have quite considerable debt but at those levels of profit, it seems they'll soon balance things out. Or blow up. Don't care. 

[Foreveram]

29 minutes ago, Raich Carter said:

1. They're a small club in the Prem - that's success
2. Posted profits of £123m after tax last year
3. This does not include £125m sale of Moises Caicedo and Roberto Sanchez to Chelsea

That's £250m off their £390m debt in one year. Source : BBC.

I'm aware they still have quite considerable debt but at those levels of profit, it seems they'll soon balance things out. Or blow up. Don't care. 

So you’re saying they’ve gambled and at present they’ve got some of their stake money back 🥺

[YorkshireRam]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

That's why I edited my post. You're just point scoring. This thread is about investment.

You mean like the ream of text below that very obviously tongue in cheek comment?

If you want to dodge the actual discourse, you do you boo. But it's hard to take you seriously when you selectively pick and choose the points to engage with. It's almost like you don't have a defence for those of us positing very reasonable stances... 🤔

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

1 hour ago, hintonsboots said:

I preferred the amortisation thread, it was less aggressive.

Being able to spread the aggression out over three years helps

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

You mean like the ream of text below that very obviously tongue in cheek comment?

If you want to dodge the actual discourse, you do you boo. But it's hard to take you seriously when you selectively pick and choose the points to engage with. It's almost like you don't have a defence for those of us positing very reasonable stances... 🤔

Oh give over. You have given no real reason, other than emotional responses of fear, as to why there shouldn't be greater investment or spending into the Club. When this was pointed out by looking at our past heritage of where it went right you just said 'but it's not like that now'. Oh really what we've stopped spending money?! 

[Mihangel]

1 hour ago, Raich Carter said:

1. They're a small club in the Prem - that's success
2. Posted profits of £123m after tax last year
3. This does not include £125m sale of Moises Caicedo and Roberto Sanchez to Chelsea

That's £250m off their £390m debt in one year. Source : BBC.

I'm aware they still have quite considerable debt but at those levels of profit, it seems they'll soon balance things out. Or blow up. Don't care. 

The £250m "off their debt" simply isn't true. They reduced their net debt by £33m in the time period specifies but as it stands and as Bloom remains invested to the tune of approximately £500m. Those levels of 'profit' are only sustainable so long as they buy low, sell high which won't always happen. Day to day they operate at a loss.

[Elwood P Dowd]

10 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Being able to spread the aggression out over three years helps

You use a clever twist there 🤣

It took most people 3 years to understand the issue 😀

Edited August 21 by Elwood P Dowd

[Mihangel]

48 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

So you’re saying they’ve gambled and at present they’ve got some of their stake money back 🥺

And spent it again! £170m out v £34m in 

[YorkshireRam]

3 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Oh give over. You have given no real reason, other than emotional responses of fear, as to why there shouldn't be greater investment or spending into the Club. When this was pointed out by looking at our past heritage of where it went right you just said 'but it's not like that now'. Oh really what we've stopped spending money?! 

You mean apart from when I stated it explicitly below?

2 hours ago, YorkshireRam said:

That'd be my concern here: complete lack of nuanced knowledge on our part as fans.

You talk about 'greater investment'. Please can you quantify, using verifiable data, how much 'greater' this investment should be, as measured proportionally against our overall budget? Oh wait, you can't since none of us have this data- that's my point.