Simon Walton

[lenners]

Are we paying him Len?

We have a player for whom his main club are paying all his wages and expenses?
Excellent. We need to get more players like this.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

We have a player for whom his main club are paying all his wages and expenses?
Excellent. We need to get more players like this.

No I asked if you know how much we are paying him?

Just trying to establish if you are attacking the club without any knowledge of the facts. I think we might have just established that you might be.

 

[lenners]

No I asked if you know how much we are paying him?

Just trying to establish if you are attacking the club without any knowledge of the facts. I think we might have just established that you might be.

Bob, if you're saying Plymouth are paying all his wages and expenses, I think that would be a great deal and highly unusual for any football club.
If you're not, I can't see what your point is.

 

[Rattly Noise]

Unbelievable. Give the lad a chance ffs. What matters is does he do a good job for us? Not. Crewe. Not Plymouth. Us. That's all that matters.

 

[Micalijo]

Totally agree Rattly, it is a truly unbelievable signing. Don't worry though, he's injured and Blackie's back in the loan market.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Bob, if you're saying Plymouth are paying all his wages and expenses, I think that would be a great deal and highly unusual for any football club.
If you're not, I can't see what your point is.

My point is you don't know the answers and yet you are attacking the club. Not that it matters, you don't need to see the point, my intention was just to make it obvious to everyone else.

==========================================Mission Complete=========================================

 

[Kev Gee]

Fucks sake. It was an accident. The player DIDNT get injured on purpose. It HAPPENS...........
Frankly i think its a discrace if anyone uses this as a stick to beat the board or Blackwell with.

 

[lenners]

My point is you don't know the answers and yet you are attacking the club. Not that it matters, you don't need to see the point, my intention was just to make it obvious to everyone else.

==========================================Mission Complete=========================================

Bob, you asked if we are paying him, not how much we are paying him.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Bob, you asked if we are paying him, not how much we are paying him.

Indeed and you don't even know the answer to that.

That's my last comment on it, the point is proven that you will have a go at the club even when you have no idea of the facts.

I'll leave you to enjoy your obligatory last word. Knock yourself out.

 

[2ndtenorblade]

Bob, you asked if we are paying him, not how much we are paying him.

He asked if YOU KNEW how much we are paying him, is this too subtle a question?

 

[Revolution]

The most depressing thing I've seen this close season football wise is the back page of the Star 10 days or so ago, which contained two stories - Doncaster bleeding Rovers spending over a million pounds on one of our players, and Blackwell's excitement at signing Matthew Spring, sorry Simon Walton.

It's embarrassing.

 

[lenners]

He asked if YOU KNEW how much we are paying him, is this too subtle a question?

Bob actually asked if we were paying him.
I have no idea what we're paying him but I was intrigued by Bob's suggestion we might be getting him for free.
I think it's unlikely Plymouth are paying all his wages and expenses, don't you?
If you look back, the issue was whether we can send him back if he's now out injured and can't play.
I don't think any of that is difficult, subtle or hard to understand.

 

[LouTheBlade]

The most depressing thing I've seen this close season football wise is the back page of the Star 10 days or so ago, which contained two stories - Doncaster bleeding Rovers spending over a million pounds on one of our players, and Blackwell's excitement at signing Matthew Spring, sorry Simon Walton.

It's embarrassing.

I'm afraid its the price we are paying for shooting our boat, about mmm........3 years ago precisely.

Our chairman has a lot to answer for. For all the good things he has has done (and he has), he made some huge errors in judgment when we came down and the legacy it has left basically puts us back to where we were 7 years ago. More proof of that was evident this morning with the confirmation we have re-signed Kozluk whom for the record, I have nothing against.

All it shows is that we have taken several steps backwards after once being a progressive club. That signing is like stepping into a time machine! I just accept it now though. I'll just wait for slightly better times to come along - perhaps in a few years who knows.

Based on what we're doing at the moment though, we will probably stay where we are for the forseable future. We just have to roll up our sleeves and get on with it really.

 

[Revolution]

I'm afraid its the price we are paying for shooting our boat, about mmm........3 years ago precisely.

I am starting to wonder how long the club will use this as an excuse for a lack of investment.

 

[Micalijo]

The most depressing thing I've seen this close season football wise is the back page of the Star 10 days or so ago, which contained two stories - Doncaster bleeding Rovers spending over a million pounds on one of our players, and Blackwell's excitement at signing Matthew Spring, sorry Simon Walton.

It's embarrassing.

Totally agree, and even better, according to Bob we might not even be paying him owt. What a deal.

 

[JohnDenver]

I'm afraid its the price we are paying for shooting our boat, about mmm........3 years ago precisely.

I am starting to wonder how long the club will use this as an excuse for a lack of investment.

For as long as it takes to pay down the debt incurred after that day.

 

[LouTheBlade]

I am starting to wonder how long the club will use this as an excuse for a lack of investment.

What excuse???? Its fact. We have no money and debt to service. What money do you want them to spend?

 

[Revolution]

For as long as it takes to pay down the debt incurred after that day.

Given that the debt is owed to McCabe, essentially as long as he likes, then.

What excuse???? Its fact. We have no money and debt to service.

We only have the hotel debt to service, and that, we are told, should not come out of football money. The rest of the debt is owed to McCabe and as I understand it there is no "servicing" required.

 

[JohnDenver]

Given that the debt is owed to McCabe, essentially as long as he likes, then.

Guess so. He may not be charging interest on his loans, but he has stated that the club must now fund itself pending new backers appearing from somewhere or other.

My take on that is lower playing budgets, tighter cost controls and less speculation and risk taking. Getting out the division (upwards) will be difficult when we're competing with clubs who are heavily bankrolled or don't bother paying the tax man.

 

[SwissBlade]

The most depressing thing I've seen this close season football wise is the back page of the Star 10 days or so ago, which contained two stories - Doncaster bleeding Rovers spending over a million pounds on one of our players, and Blackwell's excitement at signing Matthew Spring, sorry Simon Walton.

It's embarrassing.

I think it'd be more embarrassing if we were thinking that 1 Mill signings = guaranteed success.

We're building the squad for the season not for the prize of "most expensive squad assembled 2010"

 

[LouTheBlade]

We only have the hotel debt to service, and that, we are told, should not come out of football money. The rest of the debt is owed to McCabe and as I understand it there is no "servicing" required.

This is where the club spin has worked a treat on supporters:-

Hotel debt:- It is still debt. If its not coming out of the football club, where is it coming from then? Someone or something has to pay it and whatever money goes back into servicing it will be money that could have gone into the football side of things. Of course it will come out of the football money! No matter how much they want to tell you it won't.

McCabe debt:- He will want that money back one way or another, regardless of whether we are servicing that debt now or in 10 years. He's not going to give £25M (or however much it is) away for nothing. We will have to pay that debt back somehow.

United arent going to keep spending money when we have debt hanging over our heads. There is nothing to invest in the team because we are cost cutting to service our current overheads, like any business in a similar situation will. Lets not let club hierarchy pull the wool over our eyes. They will tell you such things because they want you to buy season tickets and shirts.

 

[raul]

Lets not let club hierarchy pull the wool over our eyes. They will tell you such things because they want you to buy season tickets and shirts.

I did, but I'm onto em now, cheers Lou.

 

[LouTheBlade]

I did, but I'm onto em now, cheers Lou.

Happy to help

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

This is where the club spin has worked a treat on supporters:-

Hotel debt:- It is still debt. If its not coming out of the football club, where is it coming from then? Someone or something has to pay it and whatever money goes back into servicing it will be money that could have gone into the football side of things. Of course it will come out of the football money! No matter how much they want to tell you it won't.

Couldn't it be coming out of the money the hotel is making?

Given that we haven't seen the first years figures yet (always going to be on the negative side) we have no idea if anything is taken away from the footballing side.

 

[LouTheBlade]

Couldn't it be coming out of the money the hotel is making?

Given that we haven't seen the first years figures yet (always going to be on the negative side) we have no idea if anything is taken away from the footballing side.

Well it could Bob yeh. But the point I was making is that its all money that could be going into the football club. The whole idea of the hotel etc. was to increase revenue for the football club, or so I was told.

I understand that the building of the hotel and its running needs to be paid for and I understand that any debt on it has to be serviced by some sort of revenue stream. All I'm saying is, the football side will be affected because whatever income is servicing that debt, is not going into the football club. On that basis its just a hotel in the middle of Sheffield that is paying for itself.

I dont claim to know all the ins and outs of how the club is run financially. Yourself and one or two others probably have a better idea than me to be honest. Would you agree though that even if the hotel income is paying its own debt, it still impacts on the football club in terms of lost potential income???? I suppose other failed projects would have paid for it originally but again I dont know.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Well it could Bob yeh. But the point I was making is that its all money that could be going into the football club. The whole idea of the hotel etc. was to increase revenue for the football club, or so I was told.

I understand that the building of the hotel and its running needs to be paid for and I understand that any debt on it has to be serviced by some sort of revenue stream. All I'm saying is, the football side will be affected because whatever income is servicing that debt, is not going into the football club. On that basis its just a hotel in the middle of Sheffield that is paying for itself.

I dont claim to know all the ins and outs of how the club is run financially. Yourself and one or two others probably have a better idea than me to be honest. Would you agree though that even if the hotel income is paying its own debt, it still impacts on the football club in terms of lost potential income???? I suppose other failed projects would have paid for it originally but again I dont know.

Finances ain't my thing, but I do know we wouldn't have gotten a multi-million pound loan to improve the first team squad. The loan (and the debt) was against the hotel we can't raise that money for team building.

 

[Revolution]

I think it'd be more embarrassing if we were thinking that 1 Mill signings = guaranteed success.

I don't think Doncaster think that. They are presumably fairly confident, based on last season, that Sharp will do well for them and so have pushed the boat out. there are no guarantees, but they are trying a little bit of speculating in an attempt to improve. we gave that up in January 2009.

We're building the squad for the season not for the prize of "most expensive squad assembled 2010"

Of course. Simon Walton, from what I know of him, will not help us next season.

 

[Revolution]

This is where the club spin has worked a treat on supporters:-

Hotel debt:- It is still debt. If its not coming out of the football club, where is it coming from then? Someone or something has to pay it and whatever money goes back into servicing it will be money that could have gone into the football side of things. Of course it will come out of the football money! No matter how much they want to tell you it won't./

Lou, I assure you KM/the club's spin hasn't worked on me. I would not be at all surprised if we are having to dip into football money to service that loan on the hotel. However, many people on this site seem unconcerned about it, saying it's easily serviceable. as Bob says, we do not know at present.

McCabe debt:- He will want that money back one way or another, regardless of whether we are servicing that debt now or in 10 years. He's not going to give £25M (or however much it is) away for nothing. We will have to pay that debt back somehow.

United arent going to keep spending money when we have debt hanging over our heads. There is nothing to invest in the team because we are cost cutting to service our current overheads, like any business in a similar situation will. Lets not let club hierarchy pull the wool over our eyes. They will tell you such things because they want you to buy season tickets and shirts.

I look at it like this (assuming, for a moment, that the hotel debt is easily serviceable from hotel income):

- it isn't United investing or spending, it is McCabe. the accounts show that most of the money that we have been loaned comes from him.

- this money has undoubtedly been useful, particularly in 2005-6, though it has largely been squandered since in terms of transfer fees. Without such money, United cannot spend or buy decent players.

- Like Brearley and Mcdonald, McCabe invested with the aim of turning United into an established top flight side. Like McDonald, McCabe has given up with the job unfinished. He was unluckier than McDonald, but the result is the same. He has decided not to put more cash in. that's obviously bad for the club and for the supporters, but it's his money and his decision, and you can't quarrel with it (although what we could quarrel with is being told investment is being made when it plainly is not, but that's another story).

- Accordingly, United do not have to cut their cloth because of what was spent in 2007. They have to economise because our main shareholder won't advance more funds, for various reasons. Conscious decisions have been taken not to spend significant money, and to sell our best players, and to cut wages. This is not Hillsborough. We have no bank telling us what we can and cannot do. We are like this because the owner wants it that way.

 

[Wards]

cruciate knee ligaments - out for the season

 

[Foxy]

cruciate knee ligaments - out for the season

Yup, the lad must be gutted. Was looking forward to seeing (more than the short time at Mansfield) what he could do and potentially having the added height in midfield.