Sustaining the future

[Len 74]

The problem hasn''t been not having a rich owner, it''s been having an owner who hasn''t had a bloody clue what he''s doing and letting his wife interfere in the running of the club. Finally he has de facto admitted his error by reverting back to the winning model from Chase''s years.We would

be stupid to risk a rich foreigner coming in and changing course. As long as the money from rich owners is going into transfer fee inflation then we''ll prosper!

[Jim Smith 2,317]

This thread continues to provoke some excellent discussion. Personally I accept that money is not everything (i.e. it is theoretically possible to compete to a certain level if everything else about your club is absolutely par excellence and everything falls into place although successes are likely to be the exception rather than the rule) albeit I think that having the finance to compete with your divisional rivals massively, massively reduces your odds. I also think that had we introduced this "restructure" and business model during our premier league years then it would have been markedly easier to implement and would have been far more likely to succeed. For example we might have ended up with a squad full of exciting young players with re-sale value rather than the likes of Bassong, Turner, Lafferty, Mulumbu, Naismith and Jarvis. Spending money in the prem is not really a risk if your recruitment is right and the player you buy are youngish and thus saleable in the event that the worst happens and you go down and are stuck down. Sadly we did not do this and are trying to restructure at a time when money is tight.

Striking a particular chord with me is Parma pointing our Delia''s delusion by on the one hand lambasting the evil premier league (on the same day she was charging away fans £41 in the championship) whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that our club has only been "sustainable" under her watch during periods where we have been receiving tv revenues from the evil premier league. I think that those on here who praise our "solid" business model also do not quite grasp this. we are not "debt free" (although not sure we are now anyway) because we have been particularly well run or because those that run the club have been some kind of business wizards but primarily because we have been handed extremely large sums of money year on year regardless of performance.

I really do not think that some fans really appreciate what a "sustainable" future without parachute payments really looks like perhaps thinking we will just have to sell the other Murphy or something. Personally I think that if we do not go up this season then Klose, Jerome, Oliveira, Pritchard, Murphy and Maddison will all be gone (along with Gunn and Reed) before you can say the words "Delia is a champagne socialist."

As to how attractive we are to investors that all depends upon the terms the club would be available on. As we all know, its simply not been available so its hard to judge. Its also true to say that clubs tend to get taken over when they are at a low ebb because that''s when they are available for a cheap price (or in some cases no price at all) so as have been commented above the longer we stay down and the more debt we start to accrue then ironically perhaps the more attractive we become to possible new owners. However it is also the case that what the owners would want for their shareholding will have a huge bearing on things. Back in the day Delia used to say that they never expect to see any of the money they have put into the club back. If that were the case (i.e. she were prepared to sell to the right owner for a nominal sum on the basis they committed to put money into the club) then I suspect we would be very attractive and indeed even if she only wanted back a sum equivalent to the estimated £6-7m (I think - sure purple will correct me if this is incorrect) they have put in then I suspect again we would be very attractive to buyers. If, however, they would want the £35m or so that their shares are worth if you take the book value then I suspect that at this point in time with our parachute payments about to run out then we would not be very attractive at all because a buyer will be able to see the struggle that is coming.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Good post Jim.  One point however - even with an investor on board we would still probably sell our best players........Southampton, for all their success in staying in the PL and a reputed owner, have been forced to sell players....because players themselves want to move to bigger more fashionable clubs, so no real difference there.  

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Still have some excellent players though. Forster, Van Dijk, Tadic etc would walk into many Premier League teams.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Good post Jim.  One point however - even with an investor on board we would still probably sell our best players........Southampton, for all their success in staying in the PL and a reputed owner, have been forced to sell players....because players themselves want to move to bigger more fashionable clubs, so no real difference there.  

[/quote]

Yes LDC but they do so for huge sums of money and largely on their terms because they do not need to sell for financial reasons and they are able to reinvest significant amounts of the money into the team.

We will be selling purely to keep afloat for the next couple of seasons at least.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Len, if you start at your point, as so many others do, that we have an owner who hasn''t had a bloody clue what he''s doing. Then, given that he''s out performed many of the richer owners, how are you going to categorise them?

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Ahh, Southampton. Surely there are about 30 clubs ahead of us in the race to become them.

[ricardo 7,385]

I''d categorise them as having had more than their fair share of luck. It''s not to be sneezed at but but luck by its very nature is a random event and we can''t plan for it to continue.

Without another infusion of Premiership money in the coming seasons we face a predictable slide into mediocrity. It''s happened before and will happen again.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

So successfully navigating the last 20 years, that so many others have failed, is down to luck. That''s the ultimate get out of jail card but renders further sensible discussion useless.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="ricardo"]I''d categorise them as having had more than their fair share of luck. It''s not to be sneezed at but but luck by its very nature is a random event and we can''t plan for it to continue.

Without another infusion of Premiership money in the coming seasons we face a predictable slide into mediocrity. It''s happened before and will happen again.[/quote]How would you class mediocrity?   The football may have been mediocre at times in the past, but what caused it was - from Grant to Gunn, a club heavily in debt trying to make progress in spite of the debt.  From Walker to Worthington - the same thing.  Apart from those times I mentioned, we were either in the top flight or making progress towards it.  No doubt the football gets poor at times, but debt and poor management of the debt have been responsible for stifling the club.  The difference in the future model is no debt and an ability to function within a good business model - that will always allow us to do reasonably well - it may not satisfy the glory hunters in our fans, but it should mean we have a stable healthy club with a good ethos that will stand the test of time - and with a progressive system of management as we have at the moment, that will mean some success along the way too.  

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Not sure it''s fair to label some supporters who''d like Premier League as glory hunters. I''d rather call myself ambitious with a will to see my team compete with the best.

[Len 74]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Len, if you start at your point, as so many others do, that we have an owner who hasn''t had a bloody clue what he''s doing. Then, given that he''s out performed many of the richer owners, how are you going to categorise them?[/quote]It depends on the time period you are looking at. Under Wynn-Jones I would say that only two managers have made a real difference - Nigel Worthington from 2001-2005 helped revive the club post Chase, and Paul Lambert did similar from 2009-2012.Lambert''s impetus lasted longer, and in the absence of the luck we had in the playoffs the fire could have possibly died a couple of years ago. Worthington was allowed to squander the gains quicker than he made them by being allowed to buy the wrong sort of players and overspend in general.I would categorise Wynn-Jones as someone who placed too much importance on getting a good strong manager, someone who was slow to learn, and someone who didn''t understand how we achieved our prior success.Under Chase our success derived from a good footballing department making wise buys, often for peanuts, coupled with Chase making wise sales. The youth system, exceptional coaching and continuity helped enormously.The transfer system can be a source of revenue like it was under Chase, instead of being a burden where fans feel the need for a sugar daddy to buy the club.The club has taken twenty years to turn full circle.

[ricardo 7,385]

Yes, I think there is a lot of luck involved. Some appointments and transfers have been fantastically successful and the revenue from these good times has sustained us through the periods of poor appointments and purchases.

There is no formula for consistent success that doesn''t include in large part a big pile of cash. Without regular forays into the top league the clubs self financing model cannot succeed.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="ricardo"]Without regular forays into the top league the clubs self financing model cannot succeed.[/quote]Depends what you regard as success.  Being self-sufficient, we could spend five years developing a great way of playing that sustains us in the championship and enables us to challenge for the top in maybe the fourth or fifth year and get promoted. That would see us to a windfall of at least one season in the PL.  Would those four or five years be seen as failing or as a development towards the PL?  If that development took 6 or 8 years, would that still be seen as not succeeding?   Football, as you have said many times is a series of ups and downs, surely that would still apply in a self-financing model? 

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Len, that old Chase chestnut also doesn''t bear scrutiny. He inherited one of the best sides in our history and left a club plummeting towards the third tier.

[Len 74]

[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="ricardo"]Without regular forays into the top league the clubs self financing model cannot succeed.[/quote]Depends what you regard as success.  Being self-sufficient, we could spend five years developing a great way of playing that sustains us in the championship and enables us to challenge for the top in maybe the fourth or fifth year and get promoted. That would see us to a windfall of at least one season in the PL.  Would those four or five years be seen as failing or as a development towards the PL?  If that development took 6 or 8 years, would that still be seen as not succeeding?   Football, as you have said many times is a series of ups and downs, surely that would still apply in a self-financing model?[/quote]If we aren''t in the top league then we need to make profits on transfers. That is the challenge!

[ricardo 7,385]

Wishful thinking LDC. The longer you go without success the more difficult it becomes. Cast your eyes down the A140 for a view of a possible future.

We are just one of a number of middle sized clubs all with an equally valid claim to occasional sojourns in the top league. Having deep pockets doesn''t guarantee success but is an enormous advantage. The law of the jungle ultimately rules and you are either predator or prey.

[ricardo 7,385]

Len, the gap between the clubs is much greater than in the Chase Era and is increasing with every season. Premiership stability would be my ultimate dream but I can live with being a yoyo club. My concern now is that we could be witnessing a time when the string finally breaks.

[hogesar 9,658]

I think last seasons somewhat poor ownership and direction, a combination of:

1) Keeping Alex Neil for too long

2) Deciding not to appoint a new manager and essentially writing off play-offs

has really cost us, and it''s to the point that the fans around me in the ground now seem pretty unified on us needing new ownership, where that wasn''t the case before.

It''s unfair to criticise Delia etc because, with their limited financial input they''ve done well. But we''ve been on a tight-rope in a couple of occasions. Imagine if Lambert hadn''t worked out? We''d have been in administration judging by what was said after that season. Future would have been unknown.

I always had it in my head that the finances weren''t as bad as some were making out - we spent big in January under Alex Neil with Naismith and Klose but not getting a CB in the summer seemed to be because McNally was targeting players a little out of our reach. Ambitious, and a little unrealistic. Not something most would label at our board but there you go!

The disappointing thing to hear - which in all honesty shouldn''t have been too surprising - is Steve Stones honesty that not getting promoted this year would result in us selling our young talent. I imagine that would be the likes of Maddison and Pritchard. It''s a slippery slope and doesn''t take long to end up with an XI similar to that of those down the road. That is a team devoid of talent and after what we''ve been used to in the last 10 years, I imagine would be a pretty difficult watch.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

But that''s the point Hoggy. The binners have had to sell even though they have the investment people craze for. So will other clubs with this investment. However you dress it up 40 will never fit into 20. Especially when others get there through pure luck.

[king canary 7,605]

Regarding crowd numbers, I think whoever said earlier that over the last 10-15 years we''ve had very few seasons with nothing to play for is spot on. My feeling is stagnation is the worst thing that can happen to a football club so a future of hovering in mid table in the Championship does nothing for me.

One of the underrated aspects of the current regime has been the community outreach done years ago to bring fans in. I got my first season ticket in 01/02 as a 13 year old and I think it cost less than £50. Before that my parents would take me to the odd ''kids for a quid'' game that made football much more accessible for me. Since then I''ve had a season ticket that now costs about £600.

The problem with being reliant on ticket revenues will be what we do if those numbers start to drop. Do we keep the prices high and risk dwindling attendance in order to maximise funds or do we drop those prices to keep people coming even during mediocre spells?

[king canary 7,605]

@hoegsar

It does feel like there has been some confusing messaging coming out of the club. For instance Neil was quoted in March saying that the deals done in January meant we didn''t need to sell in the summer. Of course he went but I then assumed the £20m odd in sales were needed to help with the restructuring of the squad- however the lack of reinvestment suggests otherwise. Now it seems like the word coming out from the club is that we''re basically going to have to make sales just to break even, let alone actually invest.

What is going to be interesting is how big those sales have to be though. Say we sell Pritchard in the summer for £12m. Does that give us £3 or £4m to reinvest or does it just break us even. Does it mean that we can resist offers for other players or are we looking at losing a couple every season?

[ricardo 7,385]

You miss the point Nigel. The Binners haven''t had any real investment, just a transfer of their debt to someone who won''t call it in immediately. It is obvious that ME uses them for a tax write off. There is no meaningful attempt on his part to change this scenario.

[Len 74]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Len, that old Chase chestnut also doesn''t bear scrutiny. He inherited one of the best sides in our history and left a club plummeting towards the third tier.[/quote]You appear to be viewing the club through ''Delia and Michael'' coloured glasses!Chase''s undoing was spending too much too quickly and racking up too much debt. Similar happened to Wynn-Jones when we actually got relegated to the third tier in 2009. Given the outlay on the new stand we should have avoided spending too much and continued in a similar way to the early part of Worthington''s reign where our buys were much more cautious.Wynn-Jones'' mistake was throwing the baby out with the bathwater, perhaps incorrectly thinking that Chase''s faults included not spending enough on transfers and not keeping our most valuable players. Under Wynn-Jones we''ve usually got into trouble when we''ve tried to buy our way to success and ended up wasting millions.As long as debt is avoided, the present Chase-like set up should prosper!

[Captain Birdseye 0]

Fortunately Nepotism Tom is waiting in the wings to be our saviour

[Mr Apples 1,320]

I just hope Tom ensures our scampi is sourced from a sustainable fishery.Apples

[Len 74]

[quote user="ricardo"]Len, the gap between the clubs is much greater than in the Chase Era and is increasing with every season. Premiership stability would be my ultimate dream but I can live with being a yoyo club. My concern now is that we could be witnessing a time when the string finally breaks.[/quote]Yes times are different, but we should still be able to survive in the Championship and have the prospect of promotion. A rich owner is at least as likely to end up seeing their money disappear into inflated fees and wages as they are on seeing their club achieve success.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

No Len. I''m viewing things from the vantage point of what Chase left and what our owners achieved with it.

[Guest]

You miss the point Nigel. The Binners haven''t had any real investment, just a transfer of their debt to someone who won''t call it in immediately. It is obvious that ME uses them for a tax write off. There is no meaningful attempt on his part to change this scenario.

In fact, Evans didn''t pay the full price for Ipswich debt. He buys up debt and in fact got the debt for around half its value. I suppose he believes the club has enough assets to recover and sell on in the future.

[Len 74]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]No Len. I''m viewing things from the vantage point of what Chase left and what our owners achieved with it.[/quote]Does this mean that we are headed for trouble again? I think we''ll do very well.