Kev an BRP

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




I thought that mediation had failed and they were due in court in May? Which would suggest that they are well beyond sorting anything out amongst themselves.
 
By the time of the court case, they’ll likely know which division we’re in next season.

Neither of them will want to give an inch if we’re in the Premier League! In which case it could be an expensive trial I suspect :(
 
Stretch said:
I thought that mediation had failed and they were due in court in May? Which would suggest that they are well beyond sorting anything out amongst themselves.
Click to expand...
Maybe not as bad as it may seem.
Isn't the Court case about whether or not Prince's purchase of shares and the transferring of a chunk of them somewhere else to avoid having to follow the procedures and prices that were agreed in the original agreement?
If it is found not acceptable to the Court they will both be back to square one.
It will depend very much on where we finish as to who wants what afterwards.
Must admit, the team doesn't seem to be suffering from the current impasse, so it seems some sort of package has been arranged for continuing the clubs activities
 
I bet neither of them has thought about sorting something out.

Did the judge mentioning anything in his summary about it?
 
Blade56 said:
Time them two put the club first and sorted summert out between them. Only dark cloud in the BDTBL sky. :mad:
Click to expand...
Come on B56, let’s have just a few hours of this wonderful “If Carlsberg did...” Satdi before smashing us back to reality please pal? :rolleyes:
 
GrayBlade said:
Come on B56, let’s have just a few hours of this wonderful “If Carlsberg did...” Satdi before smashing us back to reality please pal? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It's a tough job GB but someone has to carry the mantle. I won't allow myself the luxury of believing until it's mathematically certain.

Even then I'll await any ploy to deduct us points retrospectively for not spending enough or having a fax machine not certified by the safety officer or even belittling and humiliating our neighbours with such a wide GAP.
 



FallowfieldBlade said:
No they havent u plonk david brooks funded it and barely half of his sale was spent
Click to expand...
You don’t realise how football finances work do you?

You haven’t just got transfer fees. You’ve got loan fees. You’ve got Wages, agent fees, bonuses, contract extensions to the current group... the Brooks money won’t have covered that.

He’s been backed as well as he could’ve expected to be with our current situation.
 
Akinbiyi said:
You don’t realise how football finances work do you?

You haven’t just got transfer fees. You’ve got loan fees. You’ve got Wages, agent fees, bonuses, contract extensions to the current group... the Brooks money won’t have covered that.

He’s been backed as well as he could’ve expected to be with our current situation.
Click to expand...
As far as I remember the club took a loan of £6.5 million out against the future Brooks payments so the club could function without the owners funding it.
 
BladeInIreland said:
Hopefully if we went up someone would buy them both out.
Click to expand...

Do you think we'd get better owners then?

Akinbiyi said:
They’ve backed Wilder this season all things considered. You’d be a fool to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure they've backed him with their own money, as pointed out, I believe they took a loan out at the start of the season.

However, you can't argue that the playing budget has increased, and doing so has allowed us to bring in the likes of Norwood and Egan, while renewing the contracts of some of our better players. Something which the owners are ultimately responsible for.

FallowfieldBlade said:
No they havent u plonk david brooks funded it and barely half of his sale was spent
Click to expand...

If you read the court documents, you'll realise that the David Brooks fee was paid in instalments, it's not like we have/had £12m sitting in an account.

Secondly, the club operates at a huge loss. Last year we lost £10m, or £200k a week - this year, thanks to our increased budget, those losses will increase. This means that even if we did have the Brooks money as a lump sum, it would be eaten up by the club's operating losses.

For those reasons, you shouldn't call him a plonk.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
No they havent u plonk david brooks funded it and barely half of his sale was spent
Click to expand...

Good to know that McGoldrick, Hogan, Hendo, Madine, Egan & Norwwod are all playing for free.

Chali 2na said:
f you read the court documents, you'll realise that the David Brooks fee was paid in instalments, it's not like we have/had £12m sitting in an account.

Secondly, the club operates at a huge loss. Last year we lost £10m, or £200k a week - this year, thanks to our increased budget, those losses will increase. This means that even if we did have the Brooks money as a lump sum, it would be eaten up by the club's operating losses.
Click to expand...

#WagesDon'tCount

#SpendSumMuneh

Sat 2nd in the league and we still have Flat Earth fans moaning about transfer fees......it's the Bladesway!
 
Chali 2na said:
Do you think we'd get better owners then?



I'm not sure they've backed him with their own money, as pointed out, I believe they took a loan out at the start of the season.

However, you can't argue that the playing budget has increased, and doing so has allowed us to bring in the likes of Norwood and Egan, while renewing the contracts of some of our better players. Something which the owners are ultimately responsible for.



If you read the court documents, you'll realise that the David Brooks fee was paid in instalments, it's not like we have/had £12m sitting in an account.

Secondly, the club operates at a huge loss. Last year we lost £10m, or £200k a week - this year, thanks to our increased budget, those losses will increase. This means that even if we did have the Brooks money as a lump sum, it would be eaten up by the club's operating losses.

For those reasons, you shouldn't call him a plonk.
Click to expand...

Yes but will we be paying for Norwood in one lump sum ? That will be over a few years
 
I should coco said:
Good to know that McGoldrick, Hogan, Hendo, Madine, Egan & Norwwod are all playing for free.



#WagesDon'tCount

#SpendSumMuneh

Sat 2nd in the league and we still have Flat Earth fans moaning about transfer fees......it's the Bladesway!
Click to expand...


No ones moaning about transfer fees just don’t make out that the board has suddenly started backing wilder

They’ve been very lucky to have got money from Maguire & Walker sell ons and Brooks

We’re still in the bottom 6 in terms of club budget and this is with money from sell ons and having increased revenue

But must think the earth is flat to point out something blindingly obvious
 
The words “free transfer” are so misleading.

When an agent has a client/ player out of contract they become available on a free.
This enables the agent to add the notional transfer/ valuation fee into the salary request.

Basically free transfers and most loanees are paid what many would deem excessive/ poor value for money wages
But that’s only because they are include the notional transfer fee/ loan fee.
 
Akinbiyi said:
You don’t realise how football finances work do you?

You haven’t just got transfer fees. You’ve got loan fees. You’ve got Wages, agent fees, bonuses, contract extensions to the current group... the Brooks money won’t have covered that.

He’s been backed as well as he could’ve expected to be with our current situation.
Click to expand...

Supporters seldom do. They think it’s like playing a video game where you get one number on a balance sheet that goes up and down as you buy/sell players. They assume there are no other running costs.

Need to be careful what we wish for re: owners. Do we want to end up with an owner like the pigs, Charlton and Blackpool have had? It could be a lot worse.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
Yes but will we be paying for Norwood in one lump sum ? That will be over a few years
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. I'll try and explain again, using rough figures:

If we dont increase the budget, the Brooks money (asuming we get it right away - which we don't.) would only just cover the losses: the losses are around £10.5m, leaving around £1.5m of the £12m Brooks fee left.

If reported fees are to be believed, then we've increased our transfer spend by £2m. Meaning that we're already at a loss of £500k, even after the sale of Brooks.

In addition to the increase in transfer fees spent, the wage budget will have increased as well. We've signed 2 relatively high profile players in Egan and Norwood, we've improved contracts for several existing players and we've signed a handful of unattached players who will require a signing on fee.
It would be pointless trying to guess that figure. Rest assured though that it will be several million pounds.

In short, the Budget has increased, regardless of the fee we received for Brooks.
 
The wage bill this year is way up on previous years
On the flip side we have been on Sky loads of times which will have brought in increased revenue
But if we don’t go up I would expect a big loss reported even with the sale of DB
Wilder has been backed and the team/club have been magnificent this season
6 more to go, massively exciting
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Silent Blade
No point in building up your hopes when we get a free kick 40/50 yards from goal
Replies
6
Views
536
LudlamBlade
LudlamBlade
JayGreen17
Managed Decline
Replies
5
Views
677
HeCanDoMagic
HeCanDoMagic
derfblade.3
The Prince and Kev.....and the new guy's.
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
HillStreet Blade
HillStreet Blade
Blade56
New Wesite
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Matlock Blade
M
Silent Blade
1971-72 (55 years ago today) match reports and photos
2 3
Replies
66
Views
3K
Silent Blade
Silent Blade

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom