Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
River End Canary

Steve Stone getting the excuses in nice and early

Recommended Posts

I''ve just re-listened to Steve Stone''s comments about selling a player for X amount and not actually receiving the full amount immediately - instead being paid in installments.

Whilst this is obviously true, we should remember that:

a) that works both ways - when we buy a player, we don''t immediately spend X amount all in one go, and

b) In theory, we should still be receiving a considerable amount from past transfers, potentially including the sales of Redmond, Olsson, Brady, Howson, Jacob Murphy, Pritchard, Josh Murphy and potentially Maddison.

I just thought it was worth mentioning. It often gets used as an excuse for why we can''t re-invest that money but it seems that people forget that we are most likely still benefiting from previous transfers, especially considering that the players mentioned above have raised about 90 million.

It would be interesting to see the actual details of each transfer. Paying in installments means that it is not transparent and difficult for the fans to understand the club''s financial position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes that ''paid in stages'' argument has always been a bit of a red herring IMO.

Good to see them saying that the pitch was already budgeted for though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
[quote user="Rock The Boat"][quote user="Splat the Cat"]It''s a rehash of the old prudence with ambition strategy and we know how that ended[/quote]

No it isn''t, your memory must be fading. Prudence with Ambition was about creating extra revenue streams to finance the club. It was about building offices to rent. We used to joke on this forum about the spending on spine roads.

When McNally came in, he threw out this model saying that every spare penny had to go on the playing squad. Which was a pretty good plan to get us into the Premier Division, but didn''t work so well once we got there.[/quote]
No. If there was someone who was obsessed with buildings it was Chase. The prudence-with-ambition mantra of the Smith and Jones era involved spending every spare penny on  the squad. That was not brought in by McNally. The problem Smith and Jones had was that the one obvious project that Chase could have done - the rebuilding of the South Stand - he somehow never got round to, leaving it - and the crippling debt it necessitated - to them.
[/quote]

Something of a contradiction here. You say Chase was obsessed with buildings, yet somehow neglected the South Stand on purpose. Given that during his tenure he completed the City Stand, Barclay Stand, the two corner infills, undersoil heating and Colney plus buying the old River End car park and land behind the South Stand, he obviously had it in mind to complete all 4 sides of the ground, but was hounded out by the fans before he could do so. And in any event he sold out to Watling, not the Suffolk Socialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"]during his tenure he completed the City Stand, Barclay Stand[/quote]The City Stand was paid for with insurance money and the Barclay with a Football League grant. Why did he put off replacing the South Stand instead of all these other ventures you speak of Vinnie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He didn''t put it off at all. He had to buy the land behind the South Stand before any replacement stand could be contemplated. There was not enough land to build the structure that you see there today.

He had a model of the completed stadium in the boardroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Big Vince"]during his tenure he completed the City Stand, Barclay Stand[/quote]The City Stand was paid for with insurance money and the Barclay with a Football League grant. Why did he put off replacing the South Stand instead of all these other ventures you speak of Vinnie?
[/quote]
I wouldn''t say all the building work Chase did was wrong-headed. It wasn''t. But as lapps, indicates, those big-ticket items were in effect paid for from outside. He may well have had a nice model in his office of what he wanted to do with the South Stand, but he never got further than that, almost certainly because he knew he could not afford it.  So it was S&J who got lumbered with having to do it, for safety reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colney was not paid for from the outside.

The undersoil heating was not paid for from the outside.

The 2 corner infills were not paid for from the outside.

The River End car park was not paid for from the outside.

The land behind the South Stand was not paid for from the outside.

The fire insurance money did not pay for the City Stand IN FULL.

The grants did not pay for the Barclay Stand IN FULL.

How can you then get round to doing the South Stand if you have been hounded out by the fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Vince"]Colney was not paid for from the outside.

The undersoil heating was not paid for from the outside.

The 2 corner infills were not paid for from the outside.

The River End car park was not paid for from the outside.

The land behind the South Stand was not paid for from the outside.

The fire insurance money did not pay for the City Stand IN FULL.

The grants did not pay for the Barclay Stand IN FULL.

How can you then get round to doing the South Stand if you have been hounded out by the fans?[/quote]
I think you have just outlined perfectly why we sold the crown jewels and still ended up in debt and in trouble with Barclays Bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, so people on here should not be advocating a reckless retrospective building programme that was not sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple Canary:

The problem Smith and Jones had was that the one obvious project that Chase could have done - the rebuilding of the South Stand - he somehow never got round to, leaving it - and the crippling debt it necessitated - to them.

DD.:

He never got round to it because he had to deal with the Taylor report. If he had not left the club he may have rebuilt the South Stand.

As for the AXA loan notes, roughly half was to refinance the working capital of the club and not the construction costs of the new stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Donkey dangler"]If he had not left the club he may have rebuilt the South Stand.[/quote]Hardly likely as the banks were threatening foreclosure. How many saleable assets did he leave us with after he''d sold Jon Newsome and Ashley Ward?[quote user="Donkey dangler"]As for the AXA loan notes, roughly half was to refinance the working

capital of the club and not the construction costs of the new

stand.[/quote]And of course, the re-financing included the £7m debt he left us with. Did you forget that bit Tangy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DD.: As for the AXA loan notes, roughly half was to refinance the working capital of the club and not the construction costs of the new stand.

Comrade Lapdog: And of course, the re-financing included the £7m debt he left us with. Did you forget that bit Tangy?

DD.:

At the 30/6/96 the Net Debt was £5,290k (k=1,000)

30/6/96 - 31/5/03

---------------------

Profit from the sale of players £10,329k

Despite those profits the Net Debt increased by £2,674k.

to £7,964k by the 31/5/03.

During the following season:

----------------------------------

The AXA Loan Notes were used for the refinancing of the working capital and to pay for the construction of the South Stand.

In addition the club made a profit of just over £4m by selling non player assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and during the 30/6/96 - 31/5/03 period the Net Debt increased despite the profits from the player sales and the thing I forgot was the Right Issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn''t the total size of the Creditors that "did" Chase, in my opinion it was the £1.467m of Bank overdraft that was the issue.

The Late (and Great) Geoffrey Watling RIP. lent the club £1.5m to stabilise the finances.

Delia, MWJ. and Michael Foulger (directly and indirectly) then lent the club £1.6m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Donkey dangler"]It wasn''t the total size of the Creditors that "did" Chase, in my opinion it was the £1.467m of Bank overdraft that was the issue.

The Late (and Great) Geoffrey Watling RIP. lent the club £1.5m to stabilise the finances.

Delia, MWJ. and Michael Foulger (directly and indirectly) then lent the club £1.6m.[/quote]They also paid £500k each (£1m) for seats on the board before they bought Watlings shares.
BTW Tangy, you never did tell us - How much did Watling wallet? [:^)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]
[quote user="Donkey dangler"]It wasn''t the total size of the Creditors that "did" Chase, in my opinion it was the £1.467m of Bank overdraft that was the issue.

The Late (and Great) Geoffrey Watling RIP. lent the club £1.5m to stabilise the finances.

Delia, MWJ. and Michael Foulger (directly and indirectly) then lent the club £1.6m.[/quote]They also paid £500k each (£1m) for seats on the board before they bought Watlings shares.
BTW Tangy, you never did tell us - How much did Watling wallet? [:^)]
[/quote]

They didn''t buy the seats they lent the club money (that is what I am referring to above).

As for how much money Watling was paid may I suggest you do some homework!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...