CONFIRMED Ryan Leonard

[Rootshallbloke]

I don't think he came across as convincing as you seem to think.

Woah, I didn't say anything about him being convincing. I think it's more of a case of him being resigned to staying with us. Only a far larger bid from you guys will change any of this in terms of him going now. But we've probably done that debate to death on here.

 

[Weasel]

United have traded at a loss for many years. The business isn't providing CW with a budget ( as Maidenhead ) has said. It's not even been paying the bills in the past few years. The owners are putting money in to keep going with the ultimate aim of getting to the PL and staying there. If that doesn't happen, even with a takeover, they are unlikely, certainly in Kevin McCabes case, to get the money back.

Yes I know that United are losing money each year. Thats beyond dispute. Anyone only has to look at the annual accounts to see this. In fact my original post mentioned that you 'could surmise that they are a struggling standalone entity'.

We are completely at the mercy of what our benefactors decide to put in or not put into the club as we would really struggle on the pitch if we were to try and run on a break even basis as a business. In fact, with the way other clubs gamble with excessive wages and daft transfer budgets I would say we would be in real danger of getting relegated...if not this season then perhaps next as it is not a level playing field and some clubs owners seem to lose their senses by chucking 'silly money' at a short term gamble. Then it would cost our benefactors even more cash as we are back in division 1 and even further away from potentlally attracting other third parties with investment interests.

So in my mind, sometimes a relatively small outlay (in championship football terms not in every day living terms) is a good investment if it means that you go a long way to insuring that your business doesnt take a larger financial hit further down the line. There are no guarantees in football so on that sense it is very different to many businesses and balance sheets but you can still plan to give your football club / business the best possible chance of success by investing or insuring in the right areas.

If i had a salesman in my business who brought in a lot of business for me but I was trying to keep a tight reign on costs, do I say to him, I will keep you on but I'm cutting back on the petrol so you can't get out and see your potential customers...or do i continue to pay for the petrol and believe that he will perform with his targets and bring in more income for my business in the long run? I would be investing a small amount to hopefully get my money back with interest. Or put another way, I invest in better players if these are wanted, so we get better results on the pitch and we don't end up struggling against relegation or even gping down.

When I take out building insurance Im investing a small amount of money to insure myself from potentially losing everything if the worse case should happen. In a footballing sense, if i was McCabe / the Prince and I was asked to subsidise the club for a few hundred grand extra if it meant that CW could get the players who he deems to be important to the side, then I would probably pay 'that insurance premium' to protect my already substantial investment in the club. No one can make the owners put more in...it's their call. But sometimes it makes sense to do so.

I have already tried to make this point on numerous posts now, so I shall post no more on this hypothetical point. Some may disagree with me, some may agree. Thats up to them.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yes I know that United are losing money each year. Thats beyond dispute. Anyone only has to look at the annual accounts to see this. In fact my original post mentioned that you 'could surmise that they are a struggling standalone entity'.

We are completely at the mercy of what our benefactors decide to put in or not put into the club as we would really struggle on the pitch if we were to try and run on a break even basis as a business. In fact, with the way other clubs gamble with excessive wages and daft transfer budgets I would say we would be in real danger of getting relegated...if not this season then perhaps next as it is not a level playing field and some clubs owners seem to lose their senses by chucking 'silly money' at a short term gamble. Then it would cost our benefactors even more cash as we are back in division 1 and even further away from potentlally attracting other third parties with investment interests.

So in my mind, sometimes a relatively small outlay (in championship football terms not in every day living terms) is a good investment if it means that you go along way to insuring that your business doesnt take a larger financial hit further down the line. There no guarantees in football so on that sense it is very different to many businesses and balance sheets but you can still plan to give your football club / business the best possible chance of success by investing or insuring in the right areas.

If i had a salesman in my business who brought in a lot of business for me but I was trying to keep a tight reign on costs, do I say to him, I will keep you on but I'm cutting back on the petrol so you can't get out and see your potentail customers...or do i continue to pay for the petrol and believe that he will perform with his targets and bring in more income for my business in the long run? I'm. Investing a small amount to hopefully get my money back with interest.

When I take out building insurance Im investing a small amount of money to insure myself from potentially losing everything if the worse case should happen. In a footballing sense, if i was McCabe / the Prince and I was asked to subsidise the club for a few hundred grand extra if it meant that CW could get the players who he deems to be important to the side, then I would probably pay 'that insurance premium' to protect my already substantial investment in the club.

I have already tried to make this point on numerous posts now, so I shall post no more on this hypothetical point. Some may disagree with me, some may agree. Thats up to them.

Would you lend to a company that was losing money. After you'd loaned them money to cover losses for say the previous five years? On which the capital hadn't been repaid.
If the answers no, why would you advise owners to keep putting money in?

 

[Bladeinleeds]

If this doesn't happen - and I'd say chances are that it won't now.

It should be used as a a counterpoint to every time - we 'can't possibly keep a player' who fancies a move up a level.

The player clearly fancies a move - but is being professional (as would 99% of all our squad)

 

[Weasel]

Sean, I think i have tried to put across my point enough times now and I would refer you back to the last paragraph from my previous post. I will let all you other young bloods carry on this debate if you wish to do so as I'm now bored with debating a hypothetical situation and I have other commitments on my time. I've expressed my view and will say no more on the subject. So....is he going to sign or are we signing someone else...or are we gunna go with what weve got?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Sean, I think i have tried to put across my point enough times now and I would refer you back to the last paragraph from my previous post. I will let all you other young bloods carry on this debate if you wish to do so as I'm now bored with debating a hypothetical situation and I have other commitments on my time. I've expressed my view and will say no more on the subject. So....is he going to sign or are we signing someone else...or are we gunna go with what weve got?

Hypothetical or not, I asked you a very reasonable and specific question on financial advice to clients/customers, based on what you said about additional investment.

 

[Weasel]

Would you lend to a company that was losing money. After you'd loaned them money to cover losses for say the previous five years? On which the capital hadn't been repaid.
If the answers no, why would you advise owners to keep putting money in?

Wouldn't happen as I would have done my due diligence on the company in question and wouldn't have invested in the first place! I suspect that McCabe did more out of being a blade fan than thinking Utd were going to fill his pockets with gold.

For that McCabe will always have my thanks as he came in when no none else seemed to want to.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Wouldn't happen as I would have done my due diligence on the company in question and wouldn't have invested in the first place! I suspect that McCabe did more out of being a blade fan than thinking Utd were going to fill his pockets with gold.

For that McCabe will always have my thanks as he came in when no none else seemed to want to.

Understandably. But you think it would be good advice for them to keep spending? That's the anomaly I don't get.

 

[Weasel]

Hypothetical or not, I asked you a very reasonable and specific question on financial advice to clients/customers, based on what you said about additional investment.

See post 1349.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

Would you lend to a company that was losing money. After you'd loaned them money to cover losses for say the previous five years? On which the capital hadn't been repaid.
If the answers no, why would you advise owners to keep putting money in?

I get where you're coming from but I agree with Weasel on this occasion.

The investments over the last 5 or so years have all been with a view to regaining Championship status, previous failings have led to a failed return of investment. As an investor I'd see this year as the best opportunity to start to see a return on my investment should we stay up (or dare I say do better than that). It's a huge gamble of course, however, if we were to go straight back down how many more years of reinvestment would it take to get back into the same position we are in now?

Easy to say I know as it's not my money but my mindset would be now or never in regards to top targets that could *potentially* help us stay up, whilst retaining an overall conservative approach in regards to P&L.

 

[Sean Thornton]

See post 1349.

That basically says pump more money in. But you as a lender would run a mile. (The insurance analogy doesn't work because there's no pay out on the additional investment if anything goes wrong ).

 

[Weasel]

Understandably. But you think it would be good advice for them to keep spending? That's the anomaly I don't get.

Remind me of this when my insurance premiums are due. I've never had to claim on them yet thankfully so it seems pointless to keep on paying for them. Fingers crossed nowt goes wrong though afterwards...I'm sure it will all be alreight though.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I get where you're coming from but I agree with Weasel on this occasion.

The investments over the last 5 or so years have all been with a view to regaining Championship status, previous failings have led to a failed return of investment. As an investor I'd see this year as the best opportunity to start to see a return on my investment should we stay up (or dare I say do better than that). It's a huge gamble of course, however, if we were to go straight back down how many more years of reinvestment would it take to get back into the same position we are in now?

Easy to say I know as it's not my money but my mindset would be now or never in regards to top targets that could *potentially* help us stay up, whilst retaining an overall conservative approach in regards to P&L.

It's all dependent on how much money they have to spend on the club. It's rather simplistic to just say keep on spending when in the real world lenders wouldnt lend and no decent financial advisor would tell them to keep investing without at least knowing what the current business plan is and how much is/will be available short term. In football promotion being the ultimate aim, it's a gamble as much, if not more so, than an investment opportunity. It's also someone else's money.

 

[Weasel]

I get where you're coming from but I agree with Weasel on this occasion.

The investments over the last 5 or so years have all been with a view to regaining Championship status, previous failings have led to a failed return of investment. As an investor I'd see this year as the best opportunity to start to see a return on my investment should we stay up (or dare I say do better than that). It's a huge gamble of course, however, if we were to go straight back down how many more years of reinvestment would it take to get back into the same position we are in now?

Easy to say I know as it's not my money but my mindset would be now or never in regards to top targets that could *potentially* help us stay up, whilst retaining an overall conservative approach in regards to P&L.

Exactly.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Remind me of this when my insurance premiums are due. I've never had to claim on them yet thankfully so it seems pointless to keep on paying for them. Fingers crossed nowt goes wrong though afterwards...I'm sure it will all be alreight though.

Point me to where I've said insurance premiums aren't worth paying please. If the owners pump more money in and it doesn't work, where is the "pay out". It's a nonsense analogy.

I'm still wondering if what you've posted would be advice you'd give professionally to KMc and HRH if asked to do so.

 

[JJBlade]

If this doesn't happen - and I'd say chances are that it won't now.

It should be used as a a counterpoint to every time - we 'can't possibly keep a player' who fancies a move up a level.

The player clearly fancies a move - but is being professional (as would 99% of all our squad)

Ahhh but that's different

 

[Weasel]

I'm still wondering if what you've posted would be advice you'd give professionally to KMc and HRH if asked to do so.

I'm not a personal financial advisor so no i wouldnt. However if I was to know the fellas on a personal level and they asked my advice on the matter then I would advise them as per my previous post 1349. So in essence I would tell them to put more money in if the intention was for a relatively small further outlay to be used to help safeguard their own existing interests. Clear enough for you? You clearly wouldn't, I would.

 

[Maidenhead]

I'm not a personal financial advisor so no i wouldnt. However if I was to know the fellas on a personal level and they asked my advice on the matter then I would advise them as per my previous post 1349. So in essence I would tell them to put more money in if the intention was for a relatively small further outlay to be used to help safeguard their own existing interests. Clear enough for you? You clearly wouldn't, I would.

And assuming that we don't get promoted again next year, and that the club continues to run at a loss, how many years would you recommend that they continue this strategy in order to support the stairs quo?

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'm not a personal financial advisor so no i wouldnt. However if I was to know the fellas on a personal level and they asked my advice on the matter then I would advise them as per my previous post 1349. So in essence I would tell them to put more money in if the intention was for a relatively small further outlay to be used to help safeguard their own existing interests. Clear enough for you? You clearly wouldn't, I would.

You said you were a corporate banker. Is that what you'd advise them to do as directors of a business? You don't even know any of the costs involved. They've done exactly what you've suggested over five years and it's continued to cost them fortunes. How much is "relatively small" compared to what they've already put in, taking the not unreasonable view that theyare also funding ongoing losses?

 

[Weasel]

And assuming that we don't get promoted again next year, and that the club continues to run at a loss, how many years would you recommend that they continue this strategy in order to support the stairs quo?

For as long as I thought it was in MY best interests financially to do so, provided of course i had the financial means to do so.

Personally I would have cut my losses a long time ago if i was McCabe so kudos to him for that.

 

[I should coco]

So in essence I would tell them to put more money in if the intention was for a relatively small further outlay to be used to help safeguard their own existing interests.

A word like 'safeguard' makes it all sound comforting but basically you are saying:

"You've already spunked a shedload of cash so keep trickling a bit more in to stop it all going tits up".

As Sean says, your insurance policy analogy is wrong as their is no 'insurance' for KM if it goes tits up. So his only way of preventing 'tits up', is to continue chucking more in. Catch 22.

Again as Sean says, no sensible business person would pursue this strategy. Only gamblers buy shares on the way down in the hope of reducing their average cost. and making up losses on an unlikely rise in price.

McCabe basically has one exit route only and that is the Prem. He could then sell for >£100m and get everything back and a tidy profit but otherwise he is screwed.

The economics of the mad house.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

It's all dependent on how much money they have to spend on the club. It's rather simplistic to just say keep on spending when in the real world lenders wouldnt lend and no decent financial advisor would tell them to keep investing without at least knowing what the current business plan is and how much is/will be available short term. In football promotion being the ultimate aim, it's a gamble as much, if not more so, than an investment opportunity. It's also someone else's money.

Completely understandable and if it was me investing I'm sure I would be a lot more anxious about the thought of pumping more money into it. However, the investment it's taken to get us here has all been a gamble as there were no assurances of promotion. For a club of our size operating in League 1 we would always be running at a loss, for me it's as much of a gamble to 'cut the losses' as it is putting more money into it giving the additional revenue we'd receive by staying in the Championship. Assuming the Harry Maguire (and possibly Kyle) windfall money would go into balancing the books as apposed to playing budget, I would like to think we can take a slightly less rigid approach to certain targets should that give us a much better opportunity to stay where the money is and see much greater long term return.

I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than this but wishful thinking and all that!

 

[Weasel]

You said you were a corporate banker. Is that what you'd advise them to do as directors of a business? You don't even know any of the costs involved. They've done exactly what you've suggested over five years and it's continued to cost them fortunes. How much is "relatively small" compared to what they've already put in, taking the not unreasonable view that theyare also funding ongoing losses?

I think ive made my point fairly clear in previous posts.

Fun though it is, I don't think I want to bother answering whatever questions you decide you want to throw at me. I do have other things in my life than responding to anonymous individuals on a football forum just because they may not happen to agree with a view I have.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Completely understandable and if it was me investing I'm sure I would be a lot more anxious about the thought of pumping more money into it. However, the investment it's taken to get us here has all been a gamble as there were no assurances of promotion. For a club of our size operating in League 1 we would always be running at a loss, for me it's as much of a gamble to 'cut the losses' as it is putting more money into it giving the additional revenue we'd receive by staying in the Championship. Assuming the Harry Maguire (and possibly Kyle) windfall money would go into balancing the books as apposed to playing budget, I would like to think we can take a slightly less rigid approach to certain targets should that give us a much better opportunity to stay where the money is and see much greater long term return.

I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than this but wishful thinking and all that!

I think as the owners money pots dwindle, trading income will become ever more important. Just pumping money n has never worked for us. Making the right decision over Wilder has. It's those decisions which are increasingly important.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I think ive made my point fairly clear in previous posts.

Fun though it is, I don't think I want to bother answering whatever questions you decide you want to throw at me. I do have other things in my life than responding to anonymous individuals on a football forum just because they may not happen to agree with a view I have.

yes you keep saying. Didn't stop you posting it originally though. It's football, it's emotive, in the real world it's different. You stated your real world employment I assume to substantiate your point. It actually does the opposite. Let's leave it with points unanswered, probably for the best.

 

[Weasel]

Only gamblers buy shares on the way down in the hope of reducing their average cost. and making up losses on an unlikely rise in price.

Or to look at it another way, gamblers don't invest monies into a football side which has just been promoted hoping that they have already got enough to make do and it will all be OK.

 

[I should coco]

Or to look at it another way, gamblers don't invest monies into a football side which has just been promoted hoping that they have already got enough to make do and it will all be OK.

.....or people who have no money left to 'invest'.

 

[Weasel]

You stated your real world employment I assume to substantiate your point. It actually does the opposite. Let's leave it with points unanswered, probably for the best.

I agree with the above. But as it happens I did this as another poster had made the point of being 'an ex banker'. I was simply stating to them in my response that their views carried no more weight to them because of any previous employment position they might have had as coincidentally as I was also in the same business!

Yes let's leave it with points unanswered. You seem an intelligent guy, I'm sure you've got the jist of my point. It just so happens you disagree. No worries I can still sleep at night with that revelation.

 

[CockneyBlade93]

I think as the owners money pots dwindle, trading income will become ever more important. Just pumping money n has never worked for us. Making the right decision over Wilder has. It's those decisions which are increasingly important.

In Wilder we trust!

 

[HoodedClaw]

Weasel

I'm sorry I'm a bit confused, I've seen you mention that the board should give Wilder a few more £100K so that he can get the players that should make a difference to us. The bit I don't get is why you think that money isn't available now in the existing budget.

Wilder has said numerous times about players having a value. I'm assuming he's got one for RLand RH. His valuation must fall within the budget he's got otherwise no point in opening negotiations, I would think it's more likely to be his valuations that are having an impact on negotiations rather than the owners needing to give him a bit more cash.

Overall I get what you mean about investing to protect your investment, I just don't feel it's relevant to RL or RH bids in this instance.