Jim Phipps interview - interesting stuff

[Mendi]

He wouldn't say must on Ched Evans fair play to him .

 

[BeatleBlade]

Give me the ongoing farce of premiership Hull anyday.

It's too early, for me, to judge our new owners. They clearly have their own pockets at heart, as the Prince was honest enough to admit. Obviously, our success is their profit. But whilst ever a club of our size remains in the 3rd division, nothing can be classed as success.

UTB

Yeah but it's only just getting started isn't it? Don't forget about FFP, they can't just throw money at this like they could in the past. The limits of that are already being pushed.

 

[alcoblade]

Yeah but it's only just getting started isn't it? Don't forget about FFP, they can't just throw money at this like they could in the past. The limits of that are already being pushed.

Not true fella. They can throw £100M at us if they like. They just can't run debts up, which is different.

UTB

 

[sheffielder]

I don't think Basham will block their path as I don't see them as similar players.

Do you think Reed and Dimaio are similar players to Coady?

I personally Think you would have a better mix of Doyle, Wallace, Reed, Dimaio with Coady rather than Basham, however opinions vary, obviously.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Do you think Reed and Dimaio are similar players to Coady?

I personally Think you would have a better mix of Doyle, Wallace, Reed, Dimaio with Coady rather than Basham, however opinions vary, obviously.

No I think Coady and Wallace are too similar. I think it will be Doyle who is the one who makes way eventually.

 

[BladeFisher]

Here's Jim's exact words on Mr Evans...

I'd say listening to that Ched ain't coming back. They just don't want to say anything yet.

 

[BeatleBlade]

Not true fella. They can throw £100M at us if they like. They just can't run debts up, which is different.

UTB

Fair enough but I can see why they don't do that. After all, it's their money and they can spend it how they want. They don't owe us anything and I'm glad that they've respected the traditions of the club and not gone on a mad spending session because it certainly hasn't worked out for us that way recently.
However, why have Chelsea and other big spenders had to curb their spending in order to meet ffp?

 

[alcoblade]

Fair enough but I can see why they don't do that. After all, it's their money and they can spend it how they want. They don't owe us anything

I agree entirely, nobody owes us. Tell me that, and I wholly accept it. Tell me that they're investing millions every year and I really question it.

However, why have Chelsea and other big spenders had to curb their spending in order to meet ffp?

Chelsea and Man city are having to curb it because even the Gerziollionaires have a limit to how much they want to give away.

UTB

 

[Cyprus Blade]

However, why have Chelsea and other big spenders had to curb their spending in order to meet ffp?

I think the answer to that is the UEFA FFP rules as the ones for the Premiership aren't in place yet I don't think.

UEFA's FFP rules started this season and only apply to clubs who wish to compete in the Champions League or the Europa League. Clubs have to apply to UEFA to take part and will only get a license if they meet the FFP rules. At the moment the maximum permitted loss is 45m euros over the previous 2 seasons. This will fall to 30m euros over the previous 3 seasons by 2016-17 season.

FFP in the Championship is based on putting a ceiling on acceptable annual losses at £3m. Between £3m and £8m owners have to inject additional money to bring the loss down to £3m, If losses exceed £8m then they have additional penalties eg transfer ban or Fair Play Tax.

FFP in divisions 1 & 2 is different and is based on a percentage of turnover figure that can be spent on players wages (60% in div 1, 55% in div 2). Owners can inject as much additional capital as they want in Division 1 and 2 (as a gift not a loan) - not so in the Championship or UEFA FFP schemes. Because of this it is easier to make a substantial game changing investment at Div 1 or 2 level than in the Championship.

 

[super_pig]

if jim or the prince are reading this then you'll have to cut us some slack over our skepticism. we've been dicked around a lot in the past

 

[Blade58]

Actually seeing Phipps in action rather than just hearing him on the radio, I thought he came across even better.

I and a number of other fans have previously questioned the "significant" amount of investment that the Prince has chucked in. Phipps's explanation of running at an operating loss year on year now brings home to me the financial plight of how our club finds itself in and what now appears to be a club whose running losses are being covered by the Prince at last shows me that indeed he is a "significant" investor. Investment in the playing squad alone is only part of is required, although I distinctly remember that the terms of the Prince's arrival was based on his monies "only" being used for the playing squad, so I still find that one slightly confusing

Now get them fkin signings in so we can get out this God forsaken division

 

[Cyprus Blade]

from today's Yorkshire Post - http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/spor...192?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

 

[judge]

Mccabe has been moaning about propping the club up for years hasnt he ?
So id love to know how that works

If they want the club to start making money (or losing less)then success on the pitch is the only way to do that

 

[metalblade]

in a word wages

I thought under FFP rules we could only pay 60% of our turn over same as every other club, are you suggesting we pay more than 60% ?

 

[mattbianco1]

We will not do bad business, and we will not compel management to take a player on terms they don't think are sensible. If you're the football manager you have to live with the consequences of the rest of your team being paid less than this player - we will let these decisions be made by the manager

This ^^^

If people are against this sensible approach then for me, they don't have SUFCs best interests at heart.

 

[Darren]

I'd say listening to that Ched ain't coming back. They just don't want to say anything yet.

To be frank, this is all a load of bollocks. We have known when he was coming out for two and a half years and the issue has been trundling round the media for months. Why on earth has the club not made a decision yet on the non footballing side of the issue - i.e. either, "we don't care how good he has, we are not signing a rapist" or "we see no non footballing barrier to signing him, over to you Nigel".

Or it could be that a decision has been made, but they just don't want to announce it yet.....

 

[sheffielder]

I think the club is waiting for a press/public reaction to what Jim said about not making our mind up. If the decision had been made at this point not to re-sign him then I am sure we would have announced it.

 

[Darren]

I think the club is waiting for a press/public reaction to what Jim said about not making our mind up. If the decision had been made at this point not to re-sign him then I am sure we would have announced it.

I think the only possible reaction is "wtf! how long do you want to make up your minds?"

 

[Cyprus Blade]

It will inevitably attract a lot of negative attention to the club if we re-sign him. Whether he is worth taking that is another question and I would guess they will want to have a good look at him, let him join training "as a former employee" and then make a footballing decision on if he is worth whatever he is asking for in wages and if he is up to it in football terms. If he has gone to pot inside why take a load of negative flak for no benefit - a lose /lose situation. I cannot help feeling they will want a look at him and I doubt the decision will be that quick personally.

 

[Highbury_Blade]

To be frank, this is all a load of bollocks. We have known when he was coming out for two and a half years and the issue has been trundling round the media for months. Why on earth has the club not made a decision yet on the non footballing side of the issue - i.e. either, "we don't care how good he has, we are not signing a rapist" or "we see no non footballing barrier to signing him, over to you Nigel".

Or it could be that a decision has been made, but they just don't want to announce it yet.....

Maybe they want a chat with Evans first, see how his mental state is, and also to see his feelings about what happened on the night of the rape. I think it'd be an easier decision for the club to make if he'd accepted his guilt in the matter, but now they've got to consider whether they want to have someone on the books that doesn't accept his guilt and could potentially (given his apparent lack of intelligence) be a loose cannon in interviews. Of course they could simply ban him from doing any sort of interview, whether it's football related or not as part of his contract.

 

[Darren]

Maybe they want a chat with Evans first, see how his mental state is, and also to see his feelings about what happened on the night of the rape. I think it'd be an easier decision for the club to make if he'd accepted his guilt in the matter, but now they've got to consider whether they want to have someone on the books that doesn't accept his guilt and could potentially (given his apparent lack of intelligence) be a loose cannon in interviews. Of course they could simply ban him from doing any sort of interview, whether it's football related or not as part of his contract.

There are such things as prison visits and day release where they can have chats....

United's media operation always seems to be pretty poor and this seems no exception.

 

[blade too long]

I thought under FFP rules we could only pay 60% of our turn over same as every other club, are you suggesting we pay more than 60% ?

well lets takeit from there we turn over for arguments sake to round off 10 m income from season tickets shop other bits and bpbs
6 m goes on players wages as allowed , then theres ground maintenance physios , policing 1m a year minimum , insurance electric for floodlighting , 250 k a year on pitch if we re lay a pitch every 2 years at half a mill , stewards ticket office staff to pay , PAYE the club pays agent fees , runnung the OS, legal bills and the big one rates , I only recently realised how much a year we get slaughtered for rates, and then running the academy at shirecliffe and all its costs

Looking at similar clubs 5 m a year loss seems the norm unlesstheres some cup run or bigger gates due to doing well
, clubs at the top have people supplementing the bills , we must be getting some investment as we are joint 4th
,

 

[Sothall_Blade]

From my perspective " without a significant, locally-fed youth structure, SUFC wouldn't be as integral to its community as it is." is really fluff, isn't it?

Football can be overcomplicated. It's about winning and not much more. My opinion on the academy it that is raises unrealistic expectations about what can be done - and you have to develop what comes through, even if they aren't in the positions you need. And most importantly, I think it costs a fortune to run, and is bleeding us dry. I doubt very much that all the transfer fees received have nearly covered the costs. And the benefits are outweighed by lots of pissed off fans when they are sold.

If you strip away the academy, what's the premiership infrastructure that we have to maintain? Just a bigger lump of concrete, surely? And one that will generate more cash that its' rivals.

UTB

I personally find that very hard to believe. £8M+ for the two Kyles, £500K+ for Lowton, £800K for Mellis, £2M for Maguire, £1M for Slew.
That's approx £12M received plus the transfer market value of Reed, DiMaio, De Girolamo, Long, Willis, Khan etc..

How much did the Academy facilities cost to build initially?
As you said yourself about the ground, once it's built why would it take a lot of money to keep it running.
The first team train there as well so it's a valuable asset for the club to have, irrespective of the youth teams.
If there is a need to cut costs even further (and there shouldn't be now), we should be looking elsewhere.

 

[Kenilworth]

Wonder if the Sty has a lower rateable value than the Lane?
I'd hazard a guess that they pay less for the rust bucket than we have to for our stadium since we are in the city centre and they are at the arse end of nowhere.

 

[metalblade]

well lets takeit from there we turn over for arguments sake to round off 10 m income from season tickets shop other bits and bpbs
6 m goes on players wages as allowed , then theres ground maintenance physios , policing 1m a year minimum , insurance electric for floodlighting , 250 k a year on pitch if we re lay a pitch every 2 years at half a mill , stewards ticket office staff to pay , PAYE the club pays agent fees , runnung the OS, legal bills and the big one rates , I only recently realised how much a year we get slaughtered for rates, and then running the academy at shirecliffe and all its costs

Looking at similar clubs 5 m a year loss seems the norm unlesstheres some cup run or bigger gates due to doing well
, clubs at the top have people supplementing the bills , we must be getting some investment as we are joint 4th
,

Who are the similar clubs you are looking at ? A nice little list of bills to be paid there are Sheffield United the only club to have such bills don't other clubs have electric I can believe it in Barnsley but even they have stewards and other matchday staff to pay as do all clubs no matter how many people go through the gates Sheffield United are NOT a special case.

 

[blade too long]

Who are the similar clubs you are looking at ? A nice little list of bills to be paid there are Sheffield United the only club to have such bills don't other clubs have electric I can believe it in Barnsley but even they have stewards and other matchday staff to pay as do all clubs no matter how many people go through the gates Sheffield United are NOT a special case.

exactly what I said we arent a special case , all clubs haemorage cash

 

[Northyorksblade]

There are such things as prison visits and day release where they can have chats....

United's media operation always seems to be pretty poor and this seems no exception.

There are such things as prison visits and day release where they can have chats....

United's media operation always seems to be pretty poor and this seems no exception.

Don't you think they've already talked? It was widely reported that various United people including McCabe have visited him.

 

[Silent Blade]

Wonder if the Sty has a lower rateable value than the Lane?
I'd hazard a guess that they pay less for the rust bucket than we have to for our stadium since we are in the city centre and they are at the arse end of nowhere.

I remember being told about 15 years ago that SUFC owns the most valuable land out of the football clubs apart from Chelsea. Since we sold some of the land to various companies (Copthorne Hotel etc) I think the land now has less value

 

[alcoblade]

I personally find that very hard to believe. £8M+ for the two Kyles, £500K+ for Lowton, £800K for Mellis, £2M for Maguire, £1M for Slew.
That's approx £12M received plus the transfer market value of Reed, DiMaio, De Girolamo, Long, Willis, Khan etc..

How much did the Academy facilities cost to build initially?
As you said yourself about the ground, once it's built why would it take a lot of money to keep it running.
The first team train there as well so it's a valuable asset for the club to have, irrespective of the youth teams.
If there is a need to cut costs even further (and there shouldn't be now), we should be looking elsewhere.

I don't know how much it costs. I've seen some numbers suggesting the average for our type is about 2.5m per year.

Interesting that despite being in place for a decade now, it provides none of our current third division team.

Anyway, the point wasn't specifically about our academy, more that for whatever reason our costs seem to be to high.

UTB

 

[Paulus]

It will inevitably attract a lot of negative attention to the club if we re-sign him. Whether he is worth taking that is another question and I would guess they will want to have a good look at him, let him join training "as a former employee" and then make a footballing decision on if he is worth whatever he is asking for in wages and if he is up to it in football terms. If he has gone to pot inside why take a load of negative flak for no benefit - a lose /lose situation. I cannot help feeling they will want a look at him and I doubt the decision will be that quick personally.

I think you are right with this, in particular I have no doubt that NC will want a VERY careful look at him in training before he makes any sort of decision. With regard to the undoubted shitstorm that this will cause if he starts to shine and get his fitness back in training the comments about the damage to the brand are interesting.

If, for footballing reasons, we decide we do want to resign him then it is vital that everything is done to manage this process. If it were down to me I would get the electoral reform society to ballot all the female season ticket holders, all the female employees and all the long term partners of the male employees to clearly establish what they think and to do this now. It is all very well shouting that petitions and actions from outsiders are irrelevant (although clearly politically they are not) the club has to have a rational and arguable case to defend its actions if the decision is taken to re-employ. If the result of a ballot outlined above came back against re-employing him that should be it, we don't re-sign him. If, on the other hand, it comes back in favour of re-signing him. It would represent a completely valid defence that should go a long way to justifying the decision and therefore minimising the damage to the club. It would be a clear statement by the key stakeholders in the club most likely to be put in a really difficult position about any possible re-signing.

I don't think that this ballot alone would be enough I think that the club and Ched would need to put out an agreed statement which I think would have to show contrition on his behalf. I think that it is vital that the opposition cannot pin on the club that it is a decision taken by a bunch of men (the board and the management team); that might well lead to a very prolonged and damaging campaign against the club. To put it in context, I would think that a poorly managed return would produce a media and activist campaign against the club on the scale of the one that MK Dons have had to face. It would be very damaging to our image, it may well cost us sponsorship and development opportunities and it would be prolonged.