|
Net spend
Sept 8, 2015 15:25:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 8, 2015 15:25:24 GMT
I don't see the relevance of figures over 10 years when half the clubs (including us) haven't been in the Prem for 10 years. A long time period makes a lot of sense as what matters here is the player asset base you have. This is why met spend in a year is useless as it is a snapshot. Over along period you get a better feel for investment. It is a very useful analysis
|
|
|
Net spend
Sept 8, 2015 15:33:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 8, 2015 15:33:49 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5-1 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money. Sorry, Lakeland you're wrong about the moaners not complaining about the aim for self-sufficiency. I did because I don't see how one of the lowest income clubs in the EPL could stay in the top tier without a degree of subsidy from 'the owners'. Yes, Bolton has got into a mountain of debt because the owners aren't prepared to write it off! That's why Portsmouth got into trouble too. But,many owners want the power and status of football but ultimately they don't want to pay for it! Now, Stoke aren't that different. The Coates family investment of ca. £120m will be recouped 1. if we are relegated by parachute payments, player sales OR 2. if we stay in the EPL by the sale of the club. The real reason 'the family'has stopped putting more money in is they wouldn't get any of it back e.g. parachute payments aren't increasing on a par with debts of clubs! It isn't because the money is not being made by bet365, it is! This is a personal, political decision. Fine but I think it is too risky! I have always said this and I've said so! It's alright for you! You can continue to salivate over that female Chelsea doctor whilst the rest us will end up watching lower tier football! What utter nonsense. Of course there is a self sufficiency model, it involves investing in the academy and youth system and buying players on a speculative basis such as Bojan and Arnie. Southampton have done very well on both counts after their initial investment and all the activity this summer days the Coated family are committed to this strategy. You also fail to recognise how the Shaqiri purchase shoots down your argument. If we were now in risk management mode to protect the £120 million, we would not have spent £12 million. Finally you also overlook our high wage bill as a share of income, again this would not be the case if we were doing as you say. The failure of villa and WBA to sell when put up for sale also suggests the economics areuch more precarious than your simplistic model. It is entirely possible with relegation the club gets saddled with high wages for players the market wants at fire sale prices, look at Charlie Austin. It is a nice theoretical assertion but the real world is we are a well run, financially astute club
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 8, 2015 16:50:06 GMT
Sorry, Lakeland you're wrong about the moaners not complaining about the aim for self-sufficiency. I did because I don't see how one of the lowest income clubs in the EPL could stay in the top tier without a degree of subsidy from 'the owners'. Yes, Bolton has got into a mountain of debt because the owners aren't prepared to write it off! That's why Portsmouth got into trouble too. But,many owners want the power and status of football but ultimately they don't want to pay for it! Now, Stoke aren't that different. The Coates family investment of ca. £120m will be recouped 1. if we are relegated by parachute payments, player sales OR 2. if we stay in the EPL by the sale of the club. The real reason 'the family'has stopped putting more money in is they wouldn't get any of it back e.g. parachute payments aren't increasing on a par with debts of clubs! It isn't because the money is not being made by bet365, it is! This is a personal, political decision. Fine but I think it is too risky! I have always said this and I've said so! It's alright for you! You can continue to salivate over that female Chelsea doctor whilst the rest us will end up watching lower tier football! What utter nonsense. Of course there is a self sufficiency model, it involves investing in the academy and youth system and buying players on a speculative basis such as Bojan and Arnie. Southampton have done very well on both counts after their initial investment and all the activity this summer days the Coated family are committed to this strategy. You also fail to recognise how the Shaqiri purchase shoots down your argument. If we were now in risk management mode to protect the £120 million, we would not have spent £12 million. Finally you also overlook our high wage bill as a share of income, again this would not be the case if we were doing as you say. The failure of villa and WBA to sell when put up for sale also suggests the economics areuch more precarious than your simplistic model. It is entirely possible with relegation the club gets saddled with high wages for players the market wants at fire sale prices, look at Charlie Austin. It is a nice theoretical assertion but the real world is we are a well run, financially astute club I see, so you don't think investing in 'The Academy' with no previous track record of success isn't risky? It certainly is very expensive in the short term! And investing in players like Arnie(temperament) and Bojan(fitness) you describe as "speculative". You must be only the person who doesn't understand speculation is always high risk! You forgot to mention handing contract extensions to Crouch and Odemwingie is also high risk as they are unlikely to feature much. The person who is advocating high risk strategies is yourself not me! The Shaqiri purchase of £12m is a one-off purchase per se it doesn't prove anything! He's no more expensive than Rondon and cheaper than Wijnaldum and other players teams purchased. I have no idea why Villa or W.B.A. were not sold? If you do, please share this information with us. Derby County have just been bought so not every owner finds it impossible to sell. We are self-sufficient but most posters think because of the Shaqiri sale we had pushed the boat out! However, that nonsense has finally been debunked!
|
|