Sustainability or bank rolling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bill46

I mentioned those two as an example both in there own right spending way above there income and look at them now.

---

That's not exactly right is it Bill ? , you chose the most extreme financial mismanagement of a football club to support your view .

Nobody that I know is supporting the club gambling millions and millions of pounds with the club's future .

Bill. Your optimism is great. Misguided, but great!
When they sold three of the best five players we had last season to rivals, the writing was on the wall.
In July they’ll do the same. Rather than “let’s dip in and weather this storm” . A storm they have confirmed today that they will allow us to go out in, wearing only what WE supporters can afford.
Which is basically a pair of undies.
Meanwhile they Have enough money to buy an umbrella, yet refuse to buy one at the same time as selling the warm coats we have in the wardrobe and running off with the cash.

Their Philosophy is ... Let the supporters keep it alive long enough for us to realise our assets. Then we will let it fold and it’ll cost us less. A bit like Thomas Cook taking bookings, the night before it collapsed. Only there’s no ABTA for season passes mate.

Your choice Bill. I admire your optimism. I won’t criticise you for your support.

I can sum up the ownership in one paragraph .

They don't associate football with winning football games , they associate football with money .

Morning Bill, it looks like it's down to you mate ,to give us a fans view ( of any matches you may get to see ) , most on here will give their view's via Quest or Sky of the games , admire your dedication and loyalty , I still think we will avoid the drop , but that could be down to my medication !! Keep safe Keep well , and Forza di Reds UTFLWG :heart:

P S i won't be watching this Iplayer thing either ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pass_and_move

The club has never had any money throughout its entire history but up until the last 5 years it's always done it's utmost to succeed on the pitch. These last 5 years have been purely and simply about making money and trying to brainwash supporters that the only way to make ends meet is by operating like this.

---

Im no fan of these owners but what other way is there for the club to be self sustainable. Before the consortium came along we were very reliant on funding from Patrick Cryne who put £11m into the club over 10 yrs in share capital mainly. For obvious reasons he felt he couldn’t continue to do this and we needed a new way of operating hence changing the recruitment policy. We still lose money now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by animallittle3

Bill

If the club isn't run in this fashion then it's Bolton Wanderers .

Yes - No ?

---

How many clubs finish regularly above Barnsley in the football pyramid on 9k season ticket sales with very low serviceable debt ? We either try and generate money with this kind of recruitment to keep low debt or someone pumps millions into the club or the club takes out loans of millions of pounds. The club had debt of £6.5m to Cryne before that was changed to share capital plus we owed around £1.5m in transfer fees.

Point is even with a Cryne running a tight ship and some thinking he was tight with money we still owed millions. The idea of a club being self sustaining just on match day income in the Championship is very rarely possible. Just look at the clubs relegated every season. Usually 2 out of 3 have the lowest budget .... and we’re usually one of them XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastStandRed

Im no fan of these owners but what other way is there for the club to be self sustainable. Before the consortium came along we were very reliant on funding from Patrick Cryne who put £11m into the club over 10 yrs in share capital mainly. For obvious reasons he felt he couldn’t continue to do this and we needed a new way of operating hence changing the recruitment policy. We still lose money now.

---

Looked up the meaning of "share capital" because frankly I'm not fully conversant with the term & this is what I read

Share capital refers to the funds that a company raises in exchange for issuing an ownership interest in the company in the form of shares.

Can someone explain who else had an ownership interest in the club under these circumstances

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

Looked up the meaning of "share capital" because frankly I'm not fully conversant with the term & this is what I read

Share capital refers to the funds that a company raises in exchange for issuing an ownership interest in the company in the form of shares.

Can someone explain who else had an ownership interest in the club under these circumstances

---

Nobody else, you can put your own money into your own business as share capital instead of a loan. It means the business gets a cash injection but isn’t saddled with regular loan payments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EastStandRed

Nobody else, you can put your own money into your own business as share capital instead of a loan. It means the business gets a cash injection but isn’t saddled with regular loan payments

---

So why not share the burden by inviting investors to "put money in" in exchange for a share in the business?
But we all know that Cryne & his board were so few in numbers which does suggest he wanted to keep things for himself

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiletyke

So why not share the burden by inviting investors to "put money in" in exchange for a share in the business?
But we all know that Cryne & his board were so few in numbers which does suggest he wanted to keep things for himself

---

Maybe he did or maybe there weren’t any offers. Maybe he was happy to cover the cash flow himself, it was his business so his decision. If he’d have shared with someone else what would the difference have been. The club would still have needed cash injections