Goals on Sunday

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

Maybe it was 'game changing' to the extent that without it there'd be no more games, but a lovely property development down at BDTBL? :eek:
 



Well getting Princey onboard with his investment has been 'game changing' for the McCabe's...it's halved their cost's for a start...
 
Sean Thornton said:
They could have made loans. It's investment, due to losses or whatever.

No they don't. They could have borrowed. They haven't.
Click to expand...
Strange, I could have sworn I read somewhere we were paying over £1million per annum in interest to someone.
 
Bladesman said:
Google "game changing investment" and see what articles come up.

You maybe surprised by what other media outlets consider to be game changing.
Click to expand...


The top one is for £23m, £5m less than the owners here. I can't see where they expect instant success though and expect that they'll have a business plan to get them where they want to be in the short to medium term. Maybe I'm wrong though and their money tree will flourish overnight like Jacks beans in the well known fairy tale?
 
metalblade said:
Strange, I could have sworn I read somewhere we were paying over £1million per annum in interest to someone.
Click to expand...


A few years ago there were interest payments. Can't recall it being a million though - although I could be wrong - is it a Wendy rounding up job?

Surprised you can't remember the factual comment that no interest was now being paid to that "someone". I thought that would have had you dancing for joy but instead it seems it's bypassed you. Strange that.?
 
Sean Thornton said:
They could have made loans. It's investment, due to losses or whatever.

No they don't. They could have borrowed. They haven't.
Click to expand...
I don't think they can anymore due to SCMP. What they could have done though is run the club at break even so they're not losing anything. Gone for a cheaper option than Clough and told him to just coach the existing players Weir had brought in. We might have got lucky and stayed up.
 
cahill said:
Out of all the Championship matches I've seen on TV this season, I've enjoyed watching Huddersfield and Preston Both Ends the most

I became cynical about the gravitas of the Saudi Arabian Kings grandson when I learned there were about 5,000 grandsons. :)
Click to expand...
I've taken in quite a few championship games this season,including games that involved the pigs,and the quality in the so called 'the new la liga according to pig fan's,has frankly been shocking.
Out of the teams I've rated the most have been huddersfield and l@@ds.
There is a step up,but not the chasm spoken about from the porcine end.
Wise spending where needed without changing the ethics of the club.
Utb.
 
BushBlade said:
I don't think they can anymore due to SCMP. What they could have done though is run the club at break even so they're not losing anything. Gone for a cheaper option than Clough and told him to just coach the existing players Weir had brought in. We might have got lucky and stayed up.
Click to expand...

SCMP relates to turnover/football costs, not losses. If the % was within the rules it wouldn't matter how they funded other losses. The wage bill was widely reported as (topping)£6m *so it wasn't far off being in line for 2016. A couple of million at most into share investment would have covered that, the rest could have been loaned and converted into shares as and when necessary. They took a longer term view which is why it's "investment" .

* the actual relevant wage figure is unknown as far as the public domain is concerned but even if more, it didn't need £8m to cover any issues.
 



Sean Thornton said:
SCMP relates to turnover/football costs, not losses. If the % was within the rules it wouldn't matter how they funded other losses. The wage bill was widely reported as (topping)£6m *so it wasn't far off being in line for 2016. A couple of million at most into share investment would have covered that, the rest could have been loaned and converted into shares as and when necessary. They took a longer term view which is why it's "investment" .

* the actual relevant wage figure is unknown as far as the public domain is concerned but even if more, it didn't need £8m to cover any issues.
Click to expand...
I don't think loans count as turnover.
 
gavtheblade said:
I've taken in quite a few championship games this season,including games that involved the pigs,and the quality in the so called 'the new la liga according to pig fan's,has frankly been shocking.
Out of the teams I've rated the most have been huddersfield and l@@ds.
There is a step up,but not the chasm spoken about from the porcine end.
Wise spending where needed without changing the ethics of the club.
Utb.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd rather follow Preston / Uddersfield in their approach signing young, hungry players who can develop with the team than signing overpaid, undermotivated twats like Forest, Wolves and the Pigs.
 
Sean Thornton said:
I didn't think I said they did? Share investment would only be needed to keep the televant income/football costs in check. We weren't £8m adrift.
Click to expand...

↑
'They invested in shares in a company which has a business. There are costs associated with running that business. Owners of all clubs who do not make a profit have to meet these costs.

They could have made loans. It's investment, due to losses or whatever.

No they don't. They could have borrowed. They haven't.'

Loans don't count under SCMP so I don't know how they could fund our losses from loans, even if they wanted to.

But they haven't so it's academic anyway, just like my alternative scenario of running the club at cost, whatever the consequences on the pitch. They didn't do that either. They continued to fund losses.
 
BushBlade said:
↑
'They invested in shares in a company which has a business. There are costs associated with running that business. Owners of all clubs who do not make a profit have to meet these costs.

They could have made loans. It's investment, due to losses or whatever.

No they don't. They could have borrowed. They haven't.'

Loans don't count under SCMP so I don't know how they could fund our losses from loans, even if they wanted to.

But they haven't so it's academic anyway, just like my alternative scenario of running the club at cost, whatever the consequences on the pitch. They didn't do that either. They continued to fund losses.
Click to expand...


I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. As long as relevant income- including share investment - was sufficient to cover the % of football costs there is no problem. That means the full £8m wasn't required for SCMP purposes. So they didn't need to put it all in as investment but did so for a long term view.

If you have relevant income of £10m and a wage bill of £7m and your wage bill has to be 60% you need to cover that £1m via investment. That leaves £3m but if your expenses are £6m Youve lost £3m and therefore have a cash deficiency of that amounts the owners could lend the club £3m or, borrow it. That's where SCMP differs from the system we will be under next season if promoted.

I think everyone would want the club to break even, at least. Still unlikely this season.
 
Sean Thornton said:
I'm not quite sure where you are coming from. As long as relevant income- including share investment - was sufficient to cover the % of football costs there is no problem. That means the full £8m wasn't required for SCMP purposes. So they didn't need to put it all in as investment but did so for a long term view.

If you have relevant income of £10m and a wage bill of £7m and your wage bill has to be 60% you need to cover that £1m via investment. That leaves £3m but if your expenses are £6m Youve lost £3m and therefore have a cash deficiency of that amounts the owners could lend the club £3m or, borrow it. That's where SCMP differs from the system we will be under next season if promoted.

I think everyone would want the club to break even, at least. Still unlikely this season.
Click to expand...
That's mathematically correct but an unlikely scenario and if the expenses were higher than the wage bill I'd suggest it indicated something extremely unhealthy, it would be an alarming ratio.

But England u-21s are on and that's far more interesting than arguing numbers so I'll just say 'yes you're absolutely correct' and leave it at that.
 
BushBlade said:
That's mathematically correct but an unlikely scenario and if the expenses were higher than the wage bill I'd suggest it indicated something extremely unhealthy, it would be an alarming ratio.

But England u-21s are on and that's far more interesting than arguing numbers so I'll just say 'yes you're absolutely correct' and leave it at that.
Click to expand...

As an example it's correct in all respects.

The total admin expenses amounted to £7.8m in 2016 btw. So it is unhealthy as a loss in excess of £8m would show, certainly on a business turning over under £11m.

Enjoy the game.
 
Look where we were before the prince came on board. We hadn't signed a player for an actual transfer fee for about 3 years aside from Jamie Murphy who cost about 150k out of the £4.5m we'd received for Lowton and Blackman. We had taken on the likes of David McAllister, Marcus Williams, that shit right back who's name escapes me? Westlake? All on free transfers. We still had to cut the wage bill further. Then into the end of the transfer window all of a sudden we're relatively splashing out 350 / 400k each on the likes of Baxter and Cuvelier (however that turned out they were ambitious signings) just a day or 2 before the arrival of the prince and then following his arrival, Brayford, Scougall, McNulty, Ben Davies on high wages. We'd unsuccessfully gone in for Leon Clarke and Calum Wilson on deadline day, naively perhaps not willing to front up £1m, but it certainly was game changing investment.

Without it we'd have been stuck with David Weir as boss and Daryl Westlake and Marcus Williams down the wings. Don't tell me we'd have survived in league one.

All of the prince's investment so far was used hugely underwhelmingly. Almost every single penny, bar 500k on Sharp. That doesn't mean the £18-20m he's invested so far didnt change the game. Where we are right now and league 2 and skint is the difference he's made.
 
Revolution said:
They invested in shares in a company which has a business. There are costs associated with running that business. Owners of all clubs who do not make a profit have to meet these costs.
Click to expand...
or seek an alternative exit strategy.

Fortunately our owners haven't done this and have continued to invest in the business assets.
 
gavtheblade said:
I've taken in quite a few championship games this season,including games that involved the pigs,and the quality in the so called 'the new la liga according to pig fan's,has frankly been shocking.
Out of the teams I've rated the most have been huddersfield and l@@ds.
There is a step up,but not the chasm spoken about from the porcine end.
Wise spending where needed without changing the ethics of the club.
Utb.
Click to expand...


I'm looking forward to next season. Was a time we were bored with the Championship and craved higher level football, I think our sights are significantly lowered temporarily. Bring it on. Exciting times ahead and I'm sure having a manager with such attachment to Sheffield and the club will be a great plus
Compared to that lot with Thai owners and Manuel as manager we're looking increasingly like THE Sheffield club, not that it's ever been in doubt.
 
I watched the show last night on catch up.

I know some on here have said how they like Rosler, but 95% of what he said made me want to chuck the remote at the telly.

When he came out with things like "The DNA of the team", "Counter pressing", "Building blocks" and "Will take xx of transfer windows..." - he just sounded like a German Nigel Adkins.

Got the impression Wilder was one Rosler quote from doing this;

BS.jpg
 
Rodley said:
Agreed. I'd rather follow Preston / Uddersfield in their approach signing young, hungry players who can develop with the team than signing overpaid, undermotivated twats like Forest, Wolves and the Pigs.
Click to expand...



But whilst Udders and Preston are good examples of how you can achieve without spending mega-bucks, they are just the better case scenarios. For every Huddersfield there is a Rotherham, for every Preston a Burton, Donny, Yeovil etc. when they were in this league. Similarly, for every Forest or Wolves there’s a Newcastle or Middlesborough who use their financial muscle to make sure they get up.


Make no mistake, the more we have to spend, the better our chances of success are. That being said, Wilder is proving to be a real asset which will hopefully see us punch above our financial weight (whatever that may be).
 



1danewhitehouse said:
But whilst Udders and Preston are good examples of how you can achieve without spending mega-bucks, they are just the better case scenarios. For every Huddersfield there is a Rotherham, for every Preston a Burton, Donny, Yeovil etc. when they were in this league. Similarly, for every Forest or Wolves there’s a Newcastle or Middlesborough who use their financial muscle to make sure they get up.


Make no mistake, the more we have to spend, the better our chances of success are. That being said, Wilder is proving to be a real asset which will hopefully see us punch above our financial weight (whatever that may be).
Click to expand...

The key is signing good, hungry players who are motivated and can grow with the club. We've done that this season. We need to keep doing that next season.

I'd rather we didn't spend big bucks on twats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ShorehamRevolution
Goals on Sunday 4/3/1990
Replies
5
Views
614
Blade In Flame
Blade In Flame
Koh Samui Blade
Trams on Sunday
Replies
4
Views
1K
Koh Samui Blade
Koh Samui Blade
S64 Blade
Sunday - TV viewing
Replies
7
Views
2K
Sandygate Blade
Sandygate Blade
BiggerBladeThanThou
Songs for Sunday
2
Replies
59
Views
4K
manxblade
M
Roygbiv
Roy's View From... Pre-Match View From Wednesday
5 6 7
Replies
186
Views
10K
blademark
blademark

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