Who would approve of the club

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

taking on a bit of debt (£10-£20m) to enhance the quality of the squad for next season and one have last push against mediocrity?

Two quality strikers for a starters, plus a decent wide man and a decent loanee.

Or would it be considered out of the frying pan into the fire?

The current regimes buying record is not brilliant, but you never know.

On balance I''d prefer relying on our youngsters.

We won''t get £20m for Madisson because Coventry will likely from a hefty sell on clause benefit.

[AJ 1,218]

It''s only worth it as a calculated risk if promotion was more certain than not. IE, in January and we''re in the top 2 and we want to invest to secure our chances. In our position it would be suicide to get the club into debt with our chances of promotion next season looking so slim. It''s a no from me.

[Bill 1,788]

And... err... where would that money come from ?

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

Good point.

It would depend what the repayments were.

And the aquisitions

I don''t suppose Gunn came on the cheap and it''s paid off.

Most clubs in the leagues possibly survive on an element of debt after all.

If it failed it would almost certainly be the end of the Smith regime.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

Referring to AJ''s post.

[king canary 7,562]

I don''t think we need that.

Having owners who could at least let us spend what we bring in would be good.

As far as I can tell we''ve made substantial profits in the last three transfer windows, yet we all know if Maddison goes this summer that won''t be money to spend.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"And... err... where would that money come from ?"

Wonga.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="king canary"]I don''t think we need that.

Having owners who could at least let us spend what we bring in would be good.

As far as I can tell we''ve made substantial profits in the last three transfer windows, yet we all know if Maddison goes this summer that won''t be money to spend.[/quote]And  the moon landings never happened, as they were filmed in disused chalk pits near Kings Lynn.Still, it''s another stick to beat the club with........ so asking for evidence (accounts) to show where the money has gone is a bit of a forlorn hope.

[king canary 7,562]

OK, for added clarity for you City 1st.

Let us spend the money we received on the playing squad.

Which we''ve demonstrably not done.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="king canary"]OK, for added clarity for you City 1st.

Let us spend the money we received on the playing squad.

Which we''ve demonstrably not done.[/quote]OK KC - demonstrate it.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

If we were going to do that we should have done it this season or last season when we have had the basis of a top quality squad. As it is we’ve wasted both seasons by either not strengthening key areas, keeping Neil for too long, not appointing a replacement and writing off last season and then again apparently writing this season off as this nonsensical “transition” season.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]If we were going to do that we should have done it this season or last season when we have had the basis of a top quality squad. As it is we’ve wasted both seasons by either not strengthening key areas, keeping Neil for too long, not appointing a replacement and writing off last season and then again apparently writing this season off as this nonsensical “transition” season.[/quote]Where would the money com from to fund that debtas the banks won''t lend, so where ?

[king canary 7,562]

@badger

Seriously?

At the agm we were told we’d made a profit of £9m and cut the wage bill by £9m a year.

Since then we’ve made further profit on selling Pritchard.

You’d have to be wilfully blind to believe we’ve reinvested the money from selling players back into the squad.

[Bill 1,788]

Yes, it''s not as if any of these players are expected to be paid is it ?Or any of those wages were set at a PL level when next season we do not have PL levels of income is it ?How pleasant it must be to see everything at the level of Noddy.

[Badger 2,405]

KC the accounts show that the money raised from PL football has been spent on the football side of the club - players and wages - whether it has been well spent is a different issue. Now we are having to sell players and reduce wages to enable us to balance the books, following failure to regain Pl status. The fact that we are not able to replace like with like, just reflects the reduction of revenue. It is still invested back in the squad, but to subsidise the wage bill rather than buying players at the same price that we sold them. Where do you think it went?

[king canary 7,562]

Oh christ.

My point was that if we had owners who had the funds to cover that shortfall (like many other clubs at this level) to allow us to reinvest what we made from sales would be enough. That is all.

I don''t think it''s a difficult point to get...

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="king canary"]Oh christ.

My point was that if we had owners who had the funds to cover that shortfall (like many other clubs at this level) to allow us to reinvest what we made from sales would be enough. That is all.

I don''t think it''s a difficult point to get...[/quote]But that was not at all what you said, which was:Let us spend the money we received on the playing squad.You were specifically claiming that  not all  the money received went on the playing squad. You never mentioned having to plug a shortfall.

[Badger 2,405]

KC - it''s not difficult to get the point, but my difficulty lies in believing in the wisdom in the approach. Borrowing money, often at high rates of interest, to fund player purchases is a highly risky strategy with a very mixed record. In essence it is mortgaging your future and a "punt" now.

[king canary 7,562]

@purple

Fair enough, my fault on a lack of clarity.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

All big money lenders, including banks ( where many loans come from .... just Wikid it) lend as long as there is sufficient equity and we all know what that would involve.

Dangerous territory indeed.

Perhaps Ipswich council would like to get involved. They like owning football pitches.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user=" Badger"]KC - it''s not difficult to get the point, but my difficulty lies in believing in the wisdom in the approach. Borrowing money, often at high rates of interest, to fund player purchases is a highly risky strategy with a very mixed record. In essence it is mortgaging your future and a "punt" now.[/quote]The fact is that the club cannot simply borrow money for the purchase of players - too many live in some la la land where they think it can be done.As to so called ''hinvestors'' how many are stiffing the club by the interest being charged. How much ''disappears'' out of the back door via agents'' ?We have NOT been in this position before ie PL wages without the PL moneyAny expensive player will come with a high wage contract. Who is going to pay that and would it be sensible to commit ourselves to that level of outgoings when we do not know where we will be in 3 years - that is ignoring the disruption an unbalanced wage bill can have on other players ?

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

EG: Par extremis.

"- How much money does Liverpool FC owe and to whom? Liverpool and its holding companies owe £350m to two banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia. The football club is liable for £105m of the debt, with its holding company Kop Football Ltd responsible for the remaining £245m. Owners Tom ..."

[Mello Yello 2,273]

Well whoever is to approve of the club, their first task is to deep cleanse the boardroom toilet walls of stale ingrained stains of financial urine......