All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
.
If I've understood the new rules correctly , what we spend is directly related to income , so there's very little room for manoeuvre.
All the parachutists will have bigger budgets plus Wrexham who have income from other sources.
I reckon we are plumb mid-table with a very much reduced income.
I can't see CoH putting £ in by either share capital or loans -
They must be still reeling from missing their golden chance for a quick flip.
If they had any £ to put in , I believe they could put as much as they want into Dore , but nothing seems to be happening there.
Ps - wages are certainly limited to a fixed % of income - could anyone comment about transfer fees ?
Are they limited in any way ?
Eg : as they were by the "rolling 3yr maximum losses" rules.
Or have those rules gone now ?
Would appreciate any advice from those who've looked deeper into the rules
www.thestar.co.uk
I recall CoH saying their business model relied on player development and profitable player trading ,
Break even? Okay………I recall CoH saying their business model relied on player development and profitable player trading ,
So the "maximum losses" rules would in theory be irrelevant if they could stay at break-even point.
Who knows what their attitude to funding will now be ?
Chug along at break-even and pray for a miracle like 16-19 ?
Or chuck some cash at it , in an attempt to achieve PL ?
They must be on the horns of the classic dilemma affecting all businessmen whose original optimism
is unfulfilled.
If they have some cash , they can invest it in Dore without limitation - but imo that would show a long-term plan which I doubt they have.
I tend to believe they're after a quicker profit than that.
In which case , any new cash in the form of equity or loans would be thrown at getting to PL.
If that's the case , whilst wages are strictly controlled as a % of income , I'm not now sure of what limitations are imposed on P&L losses.
And I think I'm correct to say that P&L losses are influenced by the depreciation applied to transfer fees.
So spending on transfer fees can potentially increase losses over the period of the player's contract.
However , that was the reason for my question to any who've got to grips with the new rules.
In addition to wondering whether they'll put any new cash in (and whether that's limited by rules) ,
There's also the short-term shock of losing our parachutes.
My expectation is that our wages budget will be around mid-table in line with income.
As for our ability to pay transfer fees , there are so many variables , it's beyond guesswork.
My only hope is that we invest a bit more in players who are on the upward trajectory of their respective careers instead of aging injury prone players on their downward trajectory.
Otherwise , I don't see how the "profitable player trading" model can ever arrive.
And that brings into sharp focus our scouting & recruitment , which is another story ....
Hated is too harsh a word to us
can you add the results after 28 March and only one game we saw a decent performance
We lost 2 home games. The argument was clearly our form from January until the collapse. The results are there, not much more I can add
The discussion was our form from January up to the collapse so I would have no reason to do that. We all know the results. Some of us don't gloat over it.
Paste the URL into Grok and ask it to give you the artical verbatim, it will give you the entire article.Sheffield United Q&A inc. Sharp, Walker, Phillips, new kit and Dore state of play
From Billy Sharp's coaching prospects and Alan Knill's departure to the latest on Kyle Walker, Kalvin Phillips, Gus Hamer and the new training ground, we tackle your latest Sheffield United questions.
Anyone got premium access to the star?
OK , forget Dore and concentrate on PL.
Bloody hell, that’s nearly as long as one of Blacksea posts…I recall CoH saying their business model relied on player development and profitable player trading ,
So the "maximum losses" rules would in theory be irrelevant if they could stay at break-even point.
Who knows what their attitude to funding will now be ?
Chug along at break-even and pray for a miracle like 16-19 ?
Or chuck some cash at it , in an attempt to achieve PL ?
They must be on the horns of the classic dilemma affecting all businessmen whose original optimism
is unfulfilled.
If they have some cash , they can invest it in Dore without limitation - but imo that would show a long-term plan which I doubt they have.
I tend to believe they're after a quicker profit than that.
In which case , any new cash in the form of equity or loans would be thrown at getting to PL.
If that's the case , whilst wages are strictly controlled as a % of income , I'm not now sure of what limitations are imposed on P&L losses.
And I think I'm correct to say that P&L losses are influenced by the depreciation applied to transfer fees.
So spending on transfer fees can potentially increase losses over the period of the player's contract.
However , that was the reason for my question to any who've got to grips with the new rules.
In addition to wondering whether they'll put any new cash in (and whether that's limited by rules) ,
There's also the short-term shock of losing our parachutes.
My expectation is that our wages budget will be around mid-table in line with income.
As for our ability to pay transfer fees , there are so many variables , it's beyond guesswork.
My only hope is that we invest a bit more in players who are on the upward trajectory of their respective careers instead of aging injury prone players on their downward trajectory.
Otherwise , I don't see how the "profitable player trading" model can ever arrive.
And that brings into sharp focus our scouting & recruitment , which is another story ....
Lawyers get paid by the word you know
But seriously , the £ challenges we now face are the biggest since the PL £ first arrived in 2019 and it's going to be intriguing to see what CoH do about it
It means we need to maximise income and utilise our larger number of fans then most have in the Championship.
Why is that "clearly" the argument? I asked you who set the parameters to be only until we beat Coventry, rather than including all results to the end of the season, and you've ignored the question completely. The only one who seems to be adding that stipulation is you.
Back of a fag-packet maths, as I understand the situation:
Burnley at home on Boxing Day as well. Don’t expect these two fan boys to post the whole story though, it’s beyond them. Apparently the football was exhilarating throughout
The reality though is that if CW stays, which l think he will, l won’t be slating the board at every opportunity. If he goes, the Wilder Toddlers won’t be able to stop themselves.
Your point was our form from January not including the dip was shocking. It clearly wasn't. You call us toddlers and yet you cant even admit basic things like that. You just change the argument. Do you think boxing day is in January? So disingenuous again I really dont know why you cant have an honest discussion when it comes to Wilder.
No it wasn’t . The first mention of a dip was by nopigfansintown
Refreshment sales in the ground will belong to Compass l believe. Aren’t we in the middle of a contract with them?
Does that include the fan zone?
No idea to be honest but a good point.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
