Lets put this FFP excuse to bed

[judge]

Blade-a-nomics Rule #263

Overheads in a business don't exist.

Hope none of these boys are ICAEW, otherwise we're all in for another crash

5m a year overheads ,that explains it then

 

[judge]

The accounts show how we lose money every year. It's because we spend more than we have coming in. It's not difficult to grasp really. In any event we are under SCMP rules, wages and related costs including transfer fees in and out - when actually cash received/paid - should be a maximum 60% of relevant income/equity investment. Nothing to do with financial losses.

If we are losing 5m a year and its not on wages ,then what exactly is it on ? Pies?

 

[Rodley]

5m a year overheads ,that explains it then

No, look in the last published set of accounts and that will give you a full breakdown of the costs.

What do you think would a reasonable overhead would be?

 

[Sean Thornton]

If we are losing 5m a year and its not on wages ,then what exactly is it on ? Pies?

If I stumbled across a thread on here about say, bricklaying, seeing as I know nothing about laying bricks I wouldn't comment.

But yes, we spend it on pies, so now you know.

 

[Worksop II]

If we are losing 5m a year and its not on wages ,then what exactly is it on ?

The Directors (and sons) are coining it in ................... as always

 

[judge]

If I stumbled across a thread on here about say, bricklaying, seeing as I know nothing about laying bricks I wouldn't comment.

But yes, we spend it on pies, so now you know.

Fascinating stuff sean

 

[mattbianco1]

For the 'board apologists' constantly stating we have to operate within the FFP rules how many of you have read them ?

It states explicitly that ' revenue includes donations and injections of equity from the owner to the club'....it further clarifys that 'in league 1 and 2 a wealthy owner can fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions '

It also says that profit on transfer fees is included in revenue (murphs and harry 4m?) and that there r no restrictions on fees paid.

There we go, pretty clear isn't it ?

So the fact the prince can fund a transfer as and when, makes it even harder to understand why the Murphy money hasn't been spent and why it seems that Hammonds wages are a sticking point as FFP is not an issue.

The logical conclusion is he doesn't have the money to spend or doesn't want to

What an absolutely ridiculous post

 

[AlienBlade]

For the 'board apologists' constantly stating we have to operate within the FFP rules how many of you have read them ?

It states explicitly that ' revenue includes donations and injections of equity from the owner to the club'....it further clarifys that 'in league 1 and 2 a wealthy owner can fund the club spending in a way that is not permitted in other divisions '

It also says that profit on transfer fees is included in revenue (murphs and harry 4m?) and that there r no restrictions on fees paid.

There we go, pretty clear isn't it ?

So the fact the prince can fund a transfer as and when, makes it even harder to understand why the Murphy money hasn't been spent and why it seems that Hammonds wages are a sticking point as FFP is not an issue.

The logical conclusion is he doesn't have the money to spend or doesn't want to

there is a fundemental flaw....

yes there is an injection.... (whether this be from the prince or transfer fees)

an injection of cash covers you for 1 seasons FFP.... say before you have the injection you can afford £5k wage.... obviously with the injection you can pay more.... so lets say we push the boat our that first season... pay £10k a week.... (apart from upsetting the applecart with current contracted players) come the next season when we dont have said "cash Injection" each and every year we are then £5k over the FFP, thus fined and placed under a transfer embargo.... people have a very short termist view.... rather than looking at the longer sustainability.

you also then have to look at the fact that our current wage bill is about 8m (which includes those not included on the FFP such as under 21's etc. which may cross over into the FFP next season) however our income is actually less than you expect, this increasing this actually puts the club further in to debt (I believe the current status is that the club is running at a £5m deficit)

 

[Barney]

If you believe that Cloughs other transfer dealings and the pay off for him and his staff only amounted to £400k you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

You are also mixing up income and expenditure over two financial years and totally ignore the fact that there was a loss of around £4million in the accounts ending June 2014 and further losses expected in the June 2015 accounts which require funding so you aren't so much making the facts fit but are bludgeoning them in with a lump hammer.

Overall, fag packet calculations with the answer already decided before your analysis. All that's missing is " the directors are coining it" claim

Hence why I said over the £4.25m mark.

Funny how you didn't mention the cup run money and how that could have potentially cancelled out some of Clough's signings and the change in management costs.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Hence why I said over the £4.25m mark.

Funny how you didn't mention the cup run money and how that could have potentially cancelled out some of Clough's signings and the change in management costs.

What's funny is you writing down costs and upping income to fit whilst ignoring trading losses. Tha FA Cup run money didn't even cover the 2014 losses. How do you think they were funded? No potentially, it didn't because we spent more than we had coming in. The accounts can be relied upon a tad more than slasher or clapper scenarios as to where the money went. We are still losing money. That's a fact whether it suits or not and has to be addressed by the board. Jims legalese and vague comments on Twitter should be looked at with a bit more caution before deciding what it means according to anyone's agenda.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Fascinating stuff sean

You aren't a bricklayer either?

 

[Barney]

What's funny is you writing down costs and upping income to fit whilst ignoring trading losses. Tha FA Cup run money didn't even cover the 2014 losses. How do you think they were funded? No potentially, it didn't because we spent more than we had coming in. The accounts can be relied upon a tad more than slasher or clapper scenarios as to where the money went. We are still losing money. That's a fact whether it suits or not and has to be addressed by the board. Jims legalese and vague comments on Twitter should be looked at with a bit more caution before deciding what it means according to anyone's agenda.

Show me where I've wrote down costs?

Granted we're still losing money through general practices of running a football club but regardless of financial specifics, it's evident we've hardly invested the amount of money that is required to gain promotion.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

Have we not learnt the lessons of the last 10/20/30/50 years?

We are followers of Sheffield United, which effectively means that we encounter "mushroom management" from the Board - they keep us in the dark, and cover us with shit. Despite this treatment, we still turn up, we even laugh about it.

It has always been this way and it always will be, we're an unfashionable club, a selling club - not for us the Premier League, the Champions League, Charity Shields, if we win a play-off final the place will go ballistic.

But because we are not one of the above, please also consider the fact that there are not many better fans anywhere in the country, so let's carry on with our lives doing what we do best.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Show me where I've wrote down costs?

Granted we're still losing money through general practices of running a football club but regardless of financial specifics, it's evident we've hardly invested the amount of money that is required to gain promotion.

I already did ( as did another poster) . First line of my initial reply. You reckoned £400k would cover Cloughs spending and paying off him and his back room team. A nonsense.

 

[Barney]

I already did ( as did another poster) . First line of my initial reply. You reckoned £400k would cover Cloughs spending and paying off him and his back room team. A nonsense.

No I didn't. I said it would rise to over £400k. Re read my post then come back to me.

 

[Sean Thornton]

No I didn't. I said it would rise to over £400k. Re read my post then come back to me.

"Probably" care to venture how much over?

That's ignoring £2.5m for HM that no one believes and even Bruce denied.

Then you go on about cup money being spent when it had already been used to mitigate losses the balance of which has to be funded by the directors. If we are on course to lose £5m in 2014/15 then that's around £14m in the last three years. Who did we buy and sell to cover that?

We all know why we are here and who the blame can be pointed at without reading effectively the same thread with different words spelling out the same argument day in day out using any figure that fits.

That's not being a board apologist it's understanding what the situation is, what's gone wrong - which we all know btw despite your seeming mission to educate us to the fact - without resorting to half arsed conjecture to prove a point.

I'd say there's little money to spend, we are still losing money and the squad is nowhere near as good as some think - yes blame Clough I agree - but constant whining won't change any of that.

 

[Barney]

"Probably" care to venture how much over?

That's ignoring £2.5m for HM that no one believes and even Bruce denied.

Then you go on about cup money being spent when it had already been used to mitigate losses the balance of which has to be funded by the directors. If we are on course to lose £5m in 2014/15 then that's around £14m in the last three years. Who did we buy and sell to cover that?

We all know why we are here and who the blame can be pointed at without reading effectively the same thread with different words spelling out the same argument day in day out using any figure that fits.

That's not being a board apologist it's understanding what the situation is, what's gone wrong - which we all know btw despite your seeming mission to educate us to the fact - without resorting to half arsed conjecture to prove a point.

I'd say there's little money to spend, we are still losing money and the squad is nowhere near as good as some think - yes blame Clough I agree - but constant whining won't change any of that.

What I don't understand though is why is there little money to spend? What's the reason? We've already concluded FFP has no grounds so what is it that's stopping the Prince dip into his pockets and putting in the amount that's required for promotion? It's a mystery.

 

[Rodley]

"Probably" care to venture how much over?

That's ignoring £2.5m for HM that no one believes and even Bruce denied.

Then you go on about cup money being spent when it had already been used to mitigate losses the balance of which has to be funded by the directors. If we are on course to lose £5m in 2014/15 then that's around £14m in the last three years. Who did we buy and sell to cover that?

We all know why we are here and who the blame can be pointed at without reading effectively the same thread with different words spelling out the same argument day in day out using any figure that fits.

That's not being a board apologist it's understanding what the situation is, what's gone wrong - which we all know btw despite your seeming mission to educate us to the fact - without resorting to half arsed conjecture to prove a point.

I'd say there's little money to spend, we are still losing money and the squad is nowhere near as good as some think - yes blame Clough I agree - but constant whining won't change any of that.

I think the difficulty with transfer fees is that it's impossible to determine the distinction between gross and net, deferments of payment, %ages to players and Agent, signing on fees. Some Purchasers will tend to declare the global, gross sum, disingenuous though it can be, but the net receipt will inevitably be substantially lower. I suspect this is why sums are 'undisclosed' with both parties presumably signing up to a confidentiality agreement. The only observation I go on is the 'volume' of signings and where they are coming from. Before we were looking at Jasper Johns, now we're looking at Billy Sharp.

Anyway I try not to be drawn on this financial stuff, as I don't have the patience to read the accounts.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Unless I'm missing something I find posts like this almost literally incredible.

The Prince is spending around £5m (that's Five Million Pounds) of *his own money* every season.

Instead of support or gratitude or any number of other perhaps more appropriate responses he gets a complaint: "It's not enough you tight-arsed bastard."

It's like someone buys you a fleet of cars for Christmas and you complain bc they're not all Ferraris.

Am I missing something?

I’d say a better analogy is that someone promises a fleet of Audis/BMWs/Mercedes in exchange for half a football club, delivers Skodas, Ladas and Protons in great quantity with maybe the odd VW/Honda etc. and meanwhile flogs the only Mercedes you owned in the first place, promises more Mercs to replace it but then comes back and says “sorry, the dealership wouldn’t give us the discount we wanted to we’ll have to make do with the Ladas and Skodas for now but when the VW and Honda are back from the garage we’ll be OK and we might see if we can hire a Merc from somewhere for a bit”.

I know the above sounds like I’m having a go at the club but I’m not entirely. When the investment was announced, it was also announced that the Prince intended to make money from this project and would not throw good money after bad at it. Terms like “Sensible” and “Gradual” were used to describe the investment. It seems people sometimes only remember the ill advised “game-changing”, “think Liverpool”, “no longer have to sell our young players” and “Prem in 5 years” comments and forget about the others. The fact the prince intends to make money rubbishes the Ferrair analogy made previously though. This is not a gift from him. This is a business deal in which he is obliged to invest in our team in exchange for getting half the football club for a quid.

I think that explains why he doesn’t just utilise the benefactor model to keep pumping more money in. He’s not here to be a benefactor. He’s here to provide some investment that the board deems adequate for the manager to be able to bring home promotion. The reality seems to be that we have had some investment in the team and have been a little stronger in the transfer market than we were previously but not the level to justify those ill advised comments but then again saying “we’ve got some investment that will slightly improve our strength in the transfer market” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it does it?

For me, the finances appear to be adequate for a side going for promotion. Not blowing other teams out of the water but adequate. It’s the way it’s been utilised and the decisions that have been made that have cost us. Sacking Weir and his team, bringing in Clough and his team, letting Clough amass a huge squad of mostly average joes, sacking Clough and his team, appointing Adkins and his team. It all costs money and has done little to move us forward. If we’d got a manager of Adkins quality when we sacked Weir and backed him, we might be up by now and would have spent less in the process.

Meanwhile, we’ve decided to cash in on Murphy and Maguire instead of holding them to their contracts and risking them going for nothing or very little. Personally I would have liked us to use our financial strength to keep those players (taking a risk) and not signing players like Alcock, McEveley, Butler, McGahey, Wallace (although that’s with hindsight- I thought he was a good signing at the time), Coutts (although he ma be starting to come good), Woolford, McNulty, Scougall, Higdon etc. That’s 10 wages, signing on fees, agent’s fees and in the case of Wallace, McGahey, Coutts, McNulty, Scougall and Higdon, a small transfer fee.

I’m not convinced the likes of Preston, MK, Yeovil, Donny, Rotherham etc significantly outspent us, they just spent better. They didn’t generally sell star players at the beginning of the season and they recruited well with the funds they had.

I would love us to throw more money at it if the backers are willing but I understand their reservations given the size of the squad. What I don’t understand is their continued failure to manage expectations by making stupid statements that they fail to live up to. Since those ill advised comments at the time of the investment we’ve had “now if clubs want to take Murphy they will have to do it on FIFA/Football Manager on their PC” and “All of the money will be reinvested in the team” followed by the usual let downs.

It’s not all doom and gloom. There have been some positive steps (signing Brayford, Sharp & Done, appointing Adkins etc) but they are certainly not beyond reproach.

 

[UnitedBlade]

I’d say a better analogy is that someone promises a fleet of Audis/BMWs/Mercedes in exchange for half a football club, delivers Skodas, Ladas and Protons in great quantity with maybe the odd VW/Honda etc. and meanwhile flogs the only Mercedes you owned in the first place, promises more Mercs to replace it but then comes back and says “sorry, the dealership wouldn’t give us the discount we wanted to we’ll have to make do with the Ladas and Skodas for now but when the VW and Honda are back from the garage we’ll be OK and we might see if we can hire a Merc from somewhere for a bit”.

I know the above sounds like I’m having a go at the club but I’m not entirely. When the investment was announced, it was also announced that the Prince intended to make money from this project and would not throw good money after bad at it. Terms like “Sensible” and “Gradual” were used to describe the investment. It seems people sometimes only remember the ill advised “game-changing”, “think Liverpool”, “no longer have to sell our young players” and “Prem in 5 years” comments and forget about the others. The fact the prince intends to make money rubbishes the Ferrair analogy made previously though. This is not a gift from him. This is a business deal in which he is obliged to invest in our team in exchange for getting half the football club for a quid.

I think that explains why he doesn’t just utilise the benefactor model to keep pumping more money in. He’s not here to be a benefactor. He’s here to provide some investment that the board deems adequate for the manager to be able to bring home promotion. The reality seems to be that we have had some investment in the team and have been a little stronger in the transfer market than we were previously but not the level to justify those ill advised comments but then again saying “we’ve got some investment that will slightly improve our strength in the transfer market” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it does it?

For me, the finances appear to be adequate for a side going for promotion. Not blowing other teams out of the water but adequate. It’s the way it’s been utilised and the decisions that have been made that have cost us. Sacking Weir and his team, bringing in Clough and his team, letting Clough amass a huge squad of mostly average joes, sacking Clough and his team, appointing Adkins and his team. It all costs money and has done little to move us forward. If we’d got a manager of Adkins quality when we sacked Weir and backed him, we might be up by now and would have spent less in the process.

Meanwhile, we’ve decided to cash in on Murphy and Maguire instead of holding them to their contracts and risking them going for nothing or very little. Personally I would have liked us to use our financial strength to keep those players (taking a risk) and not signing players like Alcock, McEveley, Butler, McGahey, Wallace (although that’s with hindsight- I thought he was a good signing at the time), Coutts (although he ma be starting to come good), Woolford, McNulty, Scougall, Higdon etc. That’s 10 wages, signing on fees, agent’s fees and in the case of Wallace, McGahey, Coutts, McNulty, Scougall and Higdon, a small transfer fee.

I’m not convinced the likes of Preston, MK, Yeovil, Donny, Rotherham etc significantly outspent us, they just spent better. They didn’t generally sell star players at the beginning of the season and they recruited well with the funds they had.

I would love us to throw more money at it if the backers are willing but I understand their reservations given the size of the squad. What I don’t understand is their continued failure to manage expectations by making stupid statements that they fail to live up to. Since those ill advised comments at the time of the investment we’ve had “now if clubs want to take Murphy they will have to do it on FIFA/Football Manager on their PC” and “All of the money will be reinvested in the team” followed by the usual let downs.

It’s not all doom and gloom. There have been some positive steps (signing Brayford, Sharp & Done, appointing Adkins etc) but they are certainly not beyond reproach.

Good post Dane, that's pretty much how I see it.

Adkins is the way forward.

I have just totted up the squad again and there are about 33 players (I'm not going to argue the toss about whether players like Dimaio should be counted but he was on the bench on Tuesday).

It's far too many and may be a reason why there isn't much room for manouevre.

We haven't spent wisely like the others you've mentioned but it will take time for Adkins to sort out a bloated squad.

Let's hope we are in touch by Christmas.

Three points tomorrow would be very welcome.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

The accounts show how we lose money every year. It's because we spend more than we have coming in. It's not difficult to grasp really. In any event we are under SCMP rules, wages and related costs including transfer fees in and out - when actually cash received/paid - should be a maximum 60% of relevant income/equity investment. Nothing to do with financial losses.

http://www.sufc.co.uk/documents/su-ltd-statutory-accounts-30-june-2014-fully-signed135-2104652.pdf

I'm not an accountant, so I don't really understand the figures.
To the layman, the main reasons that we lost £3.5M last year was paying out £1.7M in interest payments to McCabe's holding companies.
Also, £1.4M in Adminstrative expenses whatever they are. Down from a massive £12.3M the year before!? So that's good. Right?
Why does the football club have no employees? Something to do with holding companies again I suppose?
Can somebody who understands this stuff put a bit of meat on the bones?

 

[UnitedBlade]

http://www.sufc.co.uk/documents/su-ltd-statutory-accounts-30-june-2014-fully-signed135-2104652.pdf

I'm not an accountant, so I don't really understand the figures.
To the layman, the main reasons that we lost £3.5M last year was paying out £1.7M in interest payments to McCabe's holding companies.
Also, £1.4M in Adminstrative expenses whatever they are. Down from a massive £12.3M the year before!? So that's good. Right?
Why does the football club have no employees? Something to do with holding companies again I suppose?
Can somebody who understands this stuff put a bit of meat on the bones?


View attachment 13778
View attachment 13779


View attachment 13780

That's the company that owns the ground and the training pitches.

You need to get the accounts of The Sheffield United Football Club Limited or Blades Leisure. That's the 50/50 McCabe/Prince consortium that owns the football club. That's the one that loses about £4.5M pa (although considerably more when McCabe had it combined with the ground before the Prince arrived)

 

[Sothall_Blade]

That's the company that owns the ground and the training pitches.

You need to get the accounts of The Sheffield United Football Club Limited or Blades Leisure. That's the 50/50 McCabe/Prince consortium that owns the football club. That's the one that loses about £4.5M pa (although considerably more when McCabe had it combined with the ground before the Prince arrived)

Ok, fair enough. But as far as I'm aware the accounts for Blades Leisure aren't available and yet people keep saying "look at the accounts"?

 

[UnitedBlade]

Ok, fair enough. But as far as I'm aware the accounts for Blades Leisure aren't available and yet people keep saying "look at the accounts"?

They are, I use the website Duedil to look these sort of things up. I don't know why the OS doesn't have this information (although I haven't looked).

 

[Sean Thornton]

What I don't understand though is why is there little money to spend? What's the reason? We've already concluded FFP has no grounds so what is it that's stopping the Prince dip into his pockets and putting in the amount that's required for promotion? It's a mystery.

Losses I'd say barny. I've thought for a while investment in the team would be secondary. It makes you wonder how the budget is set if they didn't envisage this. Could be that they massively overspent last year. Clough may have caused even more problems than we thought

http://www.sufc.co.uk/documents/su-ltd-statutory-accounts-30-june-2014-fully-signed135-2104652.pdf

I'm not an accountant, so I don't really understand the figures.
To the layman, the main reasons that we lost £3.5M last year was paying out £1.7M in interest payments to McCabe's holding companies.
Also, £1.4M in Adminstrative expenses whatever they are. Down from a massive £12.3M the year before!? So that's good. Right?
Why does the football club have no employees? Something to do with holding companies again I suppose?
Can somebody who understands this stuff put a bit of meat on the bones?


View attachment 13778
View attachment 13779


View attachment 13780

Those arent the football club accounts. Sheffield United Limited is the name nowadays for Sheffield United PLc. Sheffield United Football Club Limited is a seperate entity altogether. SU Ltd owns 50% of Blades Leisure Ltd, the other 50% belonging to the Prince, and that company owns SUFC Ltd. BL and SUFC are private companies and its unlikely detailed accounts will be made avaiable as there are no outside shreholders.

SU Ltd does of course, hold the freehold to Bramall Lane and no doubt the petty cash tin with the missing millions in it.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Losses I'd say barny. I've thought for a while investment in the team would be secondary. It makes you wonder how the budget is set if they didn't envisage this. Could be that they massively overspent last year. Clough may have caused even more problems than we thought



Those arent the football club accounts. Sheffield United Limited is the name nowadays for Sheffield United PLc. Sheffield United Football Club Limited is a seperate entity altogether. SU Ltd owns 50% of Blades Leisure Ltd, the other 50% belonging to the Prince, and that company owns SUFC Ltd. BL and SUFC are private companies and its unlikely detailed accounts will be made avaiable as there are no outside shreholders.

SU Ltd does of course, hold the freehold to Bramall Lane and no doubt the petty cash tin with the missing millions in it.

In which case, saying to people "look at the accounts" isn't particularly helpful or feasible

 

[him behind you]

What I don't understand though is why is there little money to spend? What's the reason? We've already concluded FFP has no grounds so what is it that's stopping the Prince dip into his pockets and putting in the amount that's required for promotion? It's a mystery.

Not sure it's that simple though Barney - as Alien mentioned in an earlier post. There's nothing to stop the Prince throwing a few £m at us now for us to sign 3-4 top quality players for this league and to pay their wages. The problem is that we then have their wages for the next few years and if our income doesn't bring us under FFP in following seasons due to the higher wages being paid, we then can be penalised either with fines or even points deductions unless he then bungs more in. It's the ongoing impact rather than the current season.

 

[Rodley]

Losses I'd say barny. I've thought for a while investment in the team would be secondary. It makes you wonder how the budget is set if they didn't envisage this. Could be that they massively overspent last year. Clough may have caused even more problems than we thought



Those arent the football club accounts. Sheffield United Limited is the name nowadays for Sheffield United PLc. Sheffield United Football Club Limited is a seperate entity altogether. SU Ltd owns 50% of Blades Leisure Ltd, the other 50% belonging to the Prince, and that company owns SUFC Ltd. BL and SUFC are private companies and its unlikely detailed accounts will be made avaiable as there are no outside shreholders.

SU Ltd does of course, hold the freehold to Bramall Lane and no doubt the petty cash tin with the missing millions in it.

So we do own the freehold?

Presumably we can obtain some of the standard asset / liability / trading information from Companies House?

 

[Barney]

Losses I'd say barny. I've thought for a while investment in the team would be secondary. It makes you wonder how the budget is set if they didn't envisage this. Could be that they massively overspent last year. Clough may have caused even more problems than we thought



Those arent the football club accounts. Sheffield United Limited is the name nowadays for Sheffield United PLc. Sheffield United Football Club Limited is a seperate entity altogether. SU Ltd owns 50% of Blades Leisure Ltd, the other 50% belonging to the Prince, and that company owns SUFC Ltd. BL and SUFC are private companies and its unlikely detailed accounts will be made avaiable as there are no outside shreholders.

SU Ltd does of course, hold the freehold to Bramall Lane and no doubt the petty cash tin with the missing millions in it.

Agree entirely. Even though most of us have spotted that Clough's transfers are what's coming back to bite us, I still think we've underestimated just how much. It's a shame but it's going to have to take Adkins time to re-mould a denser, more quality ridden squad. There is the option of paying the crap Clough bought off and starting again but that is a big financial risk even I would have doubts over. I just don't see a clear way to promotion this season because of all this. It might have to be next season unless Adkins can pull something out of the bag with a few decent loan signings.

 

[BushBlade]

Have we not learnt the lessons of the last 10/20/30/50 years?

We are followers of Sheffield United, which effectively means that we encounter "mushroom management" from the Board - they keep us in the dark, and cover us with shit. Despite this treatment, we still turn up, we even laugh about it.

It has always been this way and it always will be, we're an unfashionable club, a selling club - not for us the Premier League, the Champions League, Charity Shields, if we win a play-off final the place will go ballistic.

But because we are not one of the above, please also consider the fact that there are not many better fans anywhere in the country, so let's carry on with our lives doing what we do best.

It's Magnet. Gallon of Magnet.