Russian Roulette!

[Ramondo]

[quote="roger_ramjet"]Since the subject of transparency has come up, I have to ask why on earth does anyone assume that they have a right to know the management strategy of a (mostly) private limited company?

Would you expect Marks & Spencer to provide full details of their marketing and medium term business plans (beyond that required to be disclosed in the accounts) into a general public forum? No - so why should a football club do so, just because it has fans? So do M&S, although I do not number myself as one of them! So we need to get our collective heads out of our ****s and smell the fresh air.

Football fans seem to think that they have some sort of "right" to confidential and potentially commercially sensitive information about the way the club that they follow is run. Fact is, they don't.

Football fans are no more a stakeholder in their club than I am because I buy raspberries in M&S. The average season ticket holder probably spends more per

[AnagRam]

Agree with every word of that Ramondo. Unfortunately I doubt that any of the 'economists' will.

[roger_ramjet]

Surprisingly for an alleged economist I too have sympathy with Ramondo's emotional attachment argument.

HOWEVER the emotional attachment is a one way thing: the fans are emotionally attached to the Club: I could never switch my allegiance myself, but the emotional attachment does not work the other way round. The Club could not give a **** if I did not come as long as someone else did - its about numbers of attendees, not theirs.

So there is a dilemma of expectation: fans expect (unreasonably in my view) to have a greater knowledge about what the Club is doing - the Club does not share (and indeed cannot commercially share) that aspiration.

Football has moved on from when the fans were that intimately involved - it went with Jimmy Hill and professionalism, with freedom of contract, with Bosman, and yes with the Sky riches too. Its no longer a local club serving a local community: the bond between club and location not longer exists. The clubs recognise this, but the fans h

[AnagRam]

[quote="roger_ramjet"]Surprisingly for an alleged economist I too have sympathy with Ramondo's emotional attachment argument.

HOWEVER the emotional attachment is a one way thing: the fans are emotionally attached to the Club: I could never switch my allegiance myself, but the emotional attachment does not work the other way round. The Club could not give a **** if I did not come as long as someone else did - its about numbers of attendees, not theirs.

So there is a dilemma of expectation: fans expect (unreasonably in my view) to have a greater knowledge about what the Club is doing - the Club does not share (and indeed cannot commercially share) that aspiration.

Football has moved on from when the fans were that intimately involved - it went with Jimmy Hill and professionalism, with freedom of contract, with Bosman, and yes with the Sky riches too. Its no longer a local club serving a local community: the bond between club and location not longer

[Rattea]

What roger says is true ... But it's not all silver linings!

It's like buying everything including your house in hp and can least to severe cash flow problems further down the line. So to push it to th limit in one transfer window is a very flawed approach.

So say as a person you have £1000 months. £500 covers your house and bills. So you go out and buy new furniture, car, TV and cooker on HP. Now that's fine but what happens if there is a change in your income.

If it goes up fine but if it goes down!!!!

And what happens if your basic outgoings increase. You are running over the limits.

Or your car breaks down and you have to get a new one to sustain you income.

This is where people go bankrupt gambling in this way it's not a clever business model.


Oh and not all players are bought on instalments that depends on the agreement between clubs. If a small club needed funds urgently they would want it all in one go or instalments in a short period. Or as rumoured hull wanted i

[chili756]

I do not wish to sound smug, but I did say this last season.

We cleared the decks and under Clough rebuilt, but the downside was the decline in crowds. SR bought in Mac and we had a pretty much instant upturn and almost gained promotion. Last year we collapsed, and I am still adamant it was done purposefully to gain promotion this season and get the 100m tv deal as opposed to going up last season and more than likely coming straight back down with "only" 65m.

I know the club didnt injure Martin or destroy the confidence in our defence, but we could have acted faster to cover the injuries if we really were serious about it.

I am however in agreement with Rattea. Our current level of spending in unsustainable, we have now got a very good squad, with depth in all areas. We could even afford to lose one or two more, and we are still to use the loan system, which Clement has said he is already looking at. Should we fail to win promotion, what then? Another 10m plus spent? Change of manag

[AnagRam]

[quote="chili756"]I do not wish to sound smug, but I did say this last season.

We cleared the decks and under Clough rebuilt, but the downside was the decline in crowds. SR bought in Mac and we had a pretty much instant upturn and almost gained promotion. Last year we collapsed, and I am still adamant it was done purposefully to gain promotion this season and get the 100m tv deal as opposed to going up last season and more than likely coming straight back down with "only" 65m.

I know the club didnt injure Martin or destroy the confidence in our defence, but we could have acted faster to cover the injuries if we really were serious about it.

I am however in agreement with Rattea. Our current level of spending in unsustainable, we have now got a very good squad, with depth in all areas. We could even afford to lose one or two more, and we are still to use the loan system, which Clement has said he is already looking at. Should we fail to win promotion, what

[SlimyLimey]

I agree with RR. How the finances of the club are managed is none of our business. If an individual is that upset about it... Go find another club or another pastime.

Although retired now I spent most of my adult life in business, and tried to take advantage of any opportunity that I thought would advance my company.

Derby, have not only survived on a shoe string budget but have come close to reaching the "Promised Land" in the last two seasons.

Now the board, in their infinite wisdom have decided to inject some money, which, in their opinion will make the difference. I believe that is called speculation!
The potential rewards far outstrip the risk & I take my hat off to them.

It would be much easier to stay with the status quo & be satisfied with mid table mediocrity, but they have shown they have the balls to shoot for the stars.

[blackandwhite56]

I do not wish to sound smug, but I did say this last season.

We cleared the decks and under Clough rebuilt, but the downside was the decline in crowds. SR bought in Mac and we had a pretty much instant upturn and almost gained promotion. Last year we collapsed, and I am still adamant it was done purposefully to gain promotion this season and get the 100m tv deal as opposed to going up last season and more than likely coming straight back down with "only" 65m.

I know the club didnt injure Martin or destroy the confidence in our defence, but we could have acted faster to cover the injuries if we really were serious about it.

****-up is a far more probable explanation than what you propose Chili . The implications of what you say are unpleasant not least because there is no way promotion is guaranteed and you have to take promotion when you can get it.
With what we now know, the inability of Mac to put right our sudden loss of for

[chili756]

[quote="AnagRam"]I do not wish to sound smug, but I did say this last season.

We cleared the decks and under Clough rebuilt, but the downside was the decline in crowds. SR bought in Mac and we had a pretty much instant upturn and almost gained promotion. Last year we collapsed, and I am still adamant it was done purposefully to gain promotion this season and get the 100m tv deal as opposed to going up last season and more than likely coming straight back down with "only" 65m.

I know the club didnt injure Martin or destroy the confidence in our defence, but we could have acted faster to cover the injuries if we really were serious about it.

I am however in agreement with Rattea. Our current level of spending in unsustainable, we have now got a very good squad, with depth in all areas. We could even afford to lose one or two more, and we are still to use the loan system, which Clement has said he is already look