Asset Stripping -They need To Go

[Tom Bott]

No one would have paid half of that £65m at the time. Otherwise there would have been a queue at the door.

Berge was a better player by then.

That's the whole point, people use the improved player value as 'evidence' that owners have given players away.
Though there was a regular caller to radio Sheffield who always called him 60 milli Illi.

 

[Russtheblade]

O'Hare should not be sold. Simple as that. Unless he is pushing for a move of course. If that's the case no one can blame the owners

Wilder said tonight that O'Hare wanted the move

 

[Melbourne Blade]

If anyone here can tell me exactly how the owners are asset stripping I'll fly over and buy them 10 pints.

Owners can't take money out of the football club. It's a completely separate entity. They can lend money and receive interest (or repayment of the loan) or take a dividend if the club makes a profit, which has to be agreed.

If they pocketed transfer money it's embezzlement / fraud.

We're selling players because we have a revenue gap now we're no longer receiving parachute payments and have to meet new SCR requirements. It's really fucking simple tbh.

 

[Champagneblade]

Wilder said tonight that O'Hare wanted the move

I always find this a bit of a red herring.

The club accepts a bid. Players then already know the Club is less committed to them.

The Club then allow them to speak to the other club who invariably will offer them an uptick on wages.

I do find it a little mischievous to then say “the player wanted to go”!

You’ve basically told him the club is happy to let him leave and you’ve let him get offered more money. Who wouldn’t want to go?

 

[PrestwichBlade]

I always find this a bit of a red herring.

The club accepts a bid. Players then already know the Club is less committed to them.

The Club then allow them to speak to the other club who invariably will offer them an uptick on wages.

I do find it a little mischievous to then say “the player wanted to go”!

You’ve basically told him the club is happy to let him leave and you’ve let him get offered more money. Who wouldn’t want to go?

Are you honestly saying that the player only finds out after the clubs have agreed something in principle?!

 

[Iffy Onuora's Shiny Head]

If anyone here can tell me exactly how the owners are asset stripping I'll fly over and buy them 10 pints.

Owners can't take money out of the football club. It's a completely separate entity. They can lend money and receive interest (or repayment of the loan) or take a dividend if the club makes a profit, which has to be agreed.

If they pocketed transfer money it's embezzlement / fraud.

We're selling players because we have a revenue gap now we're no longer receiving parachute payments and have to meet new SCR requirements. It's really fucking simple tbh.

Its not probably asset stripping in the conventional way as you're definitely correct regarding dividends/interest etc.

But liquidating Brooks, Hamer and Ohare as assets gives the club a more concrete value that won't diminish - and makes us easier to sell on paper

I think a reasonable proportion of the funds will definitely be going towards the SCR though - my maths sugest a circa £5m annual reduction in the wage bill from the ins and outs which clearly isn't enough to cover the shortfall from parachute payments.

What I can't understand though is the extra money from Ohare not being at least partially re-invested. Surely our budgeting had us in line with the new regulations before this last minute sale?

 

[Finn Keane o' Balmaqueen]

"We are demanding competence, preparation and accountability. The decision to allow players to leave without having suitable replacements secured has left the squad looking dangerous short in key areas."

Agree/Disagree?

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Frank the tank]

I always find this a bit of a red herring.

The club accepts a bid. Players then already know the Club is less committed to them.

The Club then allow them to speak to the other club who invariably will offer them an uptick on wages.

I do find it a little mischievous to then say “the player wanted to go”!

You’ve basically told him the club is happy to let him leave and you’ve let him get offered more money. Who wouldn’t want to go?

He asked to go before any bid was tabled

 

[Champagneblade]

He asked to go before any bid was tabled

I didn’t know that. The way Wilder framed it he just said he signed the contract. Didn’t mention he’s asked to leave.

Bit odd on a couple of counts then.

1. If he'd already indicated he wanted to leave then we should have been well done the line on the replacement.

2. What triggered it? Players leaving and not wanting to be part of it? He was looking like a key player.

 

[Frank the tank]

I didn’t know that. The way Wilder framed it he just said he signed the contract. Didn’t mention he’s asked to leave.

Bit odd on a couple of counts then.

1. If he'd already indicated he wanted to leave then we should have been well done the line on the replacement.

2. What triggered it? Players leaving and not wanting to be part of it? He was looking like a key player.

I would guess money
Isn't it always
He came for tte money and left for the money
The fans at his last club hated him when he left and its not hard to see why

 

[Bladesman]

Cheers for that Keith

 

[The Fox]

Cheers for that Keith

Another finance genuis .. fuck me .

As an aside Keith Hackett is the most boring person ive ever heard speak .. think him and Biggseh would get on famously

 

[Bladesman]

Another finance genuis .. fuck me .

As an aside Keith Hackett is the most boring person ive ever heard speak .. think him and Biggseh would get on famously

I think they know each other. Which doesn't surprise me.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Profit or cash flow? As usual he doesn’t appear to know the difference.

All he’s missed out is any ongoing capital expenditure, loan and mortgage repayments, older debts. Oh, and the funding required for losses in the year to 30/06/2026.

 

[Bladesman]

Profit or cash flow? As usual he doesn’t appear to know the difference.

All he’s missed out is any ongoing capital expenditure, loan and mortgage repayments, older debts. Oh, and the funding required for losses in the year to 30/06/2026.

Don't say that to him Sean or he will have another flounce.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Don't say that to him Sean or he will have another flounce.

His fan boys will console him. He’s a mate of the Prince you know!

 

[Upton_Blade]

The hole will be bigger with relegation, which is more likely, after the sale of COH. But's it's ok because we have reduced the wage bill, but what then replaces to losss in revenue next season in L1? Sell the ground again?

What utter tripe.

The £40m black hole is the loss in parachute payments. This only happens once.

From now on until anything else changes our income will be what we generate ourselves plus the TV money. Yes the TV money is less in L1 than we get now but it isn't £40m less.

 

[Upton_Blade]

Its not probably asset stripping in the conventional way as you're definitely correct regarding dividends/interest etc.

But liquidating Brooks, Hamer and Ohare as assets gives the club a more concrete value that won't diminish - and makes us easier to sell on paper

I think a reasonable proportion of the funds will definitely be going towards the SCR though - my maths sugest a circa £5m annual reduction in the wage bill from the ins and outs which clearly isn't enough to cover the shortfall from parachute payments.

What I can't understand though is the extra money from Ohare not being at least partially re-invested. Surely our budgeting had us in line with the new regulations before this last minute sale?

I've read all your posts on this thread and genuinely don't think you have a clue what you're on about quite frankly.

 

[Upton_Blade]

Another finance genuis .. fuck me .

As an aside Keith Hackett is the most boring person ive ever heard speak .. think him and Biggseh would get on famously

They're part of the "boring, irrelevant, old twats that live in S17 Mafia" and know each other extremely well.

 

[Upton_Blade]

There's a lot of back and forth on this thread re our finances where SCR is concerned.

The long and the short of it is that we can only spend 85% of what we bring in.

That's a fact and is not up for discussion no matter how hard some people may argue.

The other fact is that we have £40m less coming in than we had last season after losing our PP's.

The only way to achieve that is by increasing our income and decreasing our expenditure.

Selling players, especially if they're our higher earners, basically counts against both metrics as we bank their transfer fee (income) and get their wages off the books (expenditure).

The only other way to do it would be by increasing our commercial income by £40m which is never going to happen for a club our size.

It's all completely shit, and I'm as unhappy about the state of affairs as anyone, but that's just how it is at the minute.

 

[Iffy Onuora's Shiny Head]

I've read all your posts on this thread and genuinely don't think you have a clue what you're on about quite frankly.

I do but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Blade56]

We literally have got a pot to piss in

Its that bad we haven’t even got any pi55 even if we did have a pot

 

[Matlock Blade]

When and how do we protest whilst supporting the players (ie no boycott) but making our voices heard?

Unfortunately the owners have already stolen hundreds of pounds off many of us by deceitful statements about a rebuild to persuade us to buy season tickets. For us a boycott won't hurt the owners as they've already got our money.

We need to do a major protest every time we are on Sky TV.

 

[HIBGIA]

What utter tripe.

The £40m black hole is the loss in parachute payments. This only happens once.

From now on until anything else changes our income will be what we generate ourselves plus the TV money. Yes the TV money is less in L1 than we get now but it isn't £40m less.

Your man stated the following: -

"We needed to sell players to plug a 40 m hole and we've not pulled in half of that

Those are the simple economic facts"

So, we still haven't filled half a £40m hole (does this mean loss?) "facts".

Relegation would likely reduce club income in TV payments, reduced gate receipts, reduced sponsorship payments, etc.

So are you and your man stating that we still now have an hole of more than £20m (so what is it, £25m, £30m, £35m)? and if so would this apparent hole not increase due to potential relegation to L1?

 

[Matlock Blade]

The complete and disastrous mismanagement of the club by our owners has likely caused our current financial situation. Selling our best players without replacing them is going to lead to further financial difficulties. It is becoming quite clear that the EFL neglected their duties in allowing them to buy.

 

[bertieblade]

The complete and disastrous mismanagement of the club by our owners has likely caused our current financial situation. Selling our best players without replacing them is going to lead to further financial difficulties. It is becoming quite clear that the EFL neglected their duties in allowing them to buy.

If you sell your best players to raise funds how do you then use those funds to buy replacements without reducing the value of the funds raised when they are already insufficient

 

[Greg.]

Asset stripping is a bit of a silly term

Always think looking at Norwich is a useful reminder of a club that was a bit yo-yo historically between the PL and championship and historically was focused on trying to have a self-funded model before they also inherited some American owners fairly recently:



Done more this season but in the 10 years prior to that they had net sales of €319m and expenditure of €221m or net income of €98m (Transfermarkt) despite being in the PL twice in that time.

These are their latest accounts, notable as 2025 was the first year without parachute payments and bam, huge operating loss before player sales:



Football is a really financially tough business if you aren't in the PL or have very rich owners!

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Asset stripping is a bit of a silly term

Always think looking at Norwich is a useful reminder of a club that was a bit yo-yo historically between the PL and championship and historically was focused on trying to have a self-funded model before they also inherited some American owners fairly recently:

View attachment 243437

Done more this season but in the 10 years prior to that they had net sales of €319m and expenditure of €221m or net income of €98m (Transfermarkt) despite being in the PL twice in that time.

These are their latest accounts, notable as 2025 was the first year without parachute payments and bam, huge operating loss before player sales:

View attachment 243438

Football is a really financially tough business if you aren't in the PL or have very rich owners!

Problem is - fans.
Lots don't seem to realise the owners can't fund £20m loss like above. It isn't allowed.
I wish it was pointed out more clearly. Bettis could give some rough figures or explanation in layman's terms.

 

[Bladesman]

Problem is - fans.
Lots don't seem to realise the owners can't fund £20m loss like above. It isn't allowed.
I wish it was pointed out more clearly. Bettis could give some rough figures or explanation in layman's terms.

Don’t worry El Accounto and Maguire know it all.