Looking a gift horse in the mouth

[horsefly 4,300]

37 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

It’s not about blaming Delia - it’s about pointing out that we lack the investment to take this club any further and I believe it is time for new ownership. You might not like that view but it’s perfectly reasonable. 

I look forward to seeing your list of potential new owners. Please don't include any names of individuals only interested in stripping the club of its assets. And if you could, limit the list to billionaires who have expressed a desire to throw huge amounts of money at the club with no expectation of a profit on their investment.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Haus said:

same as transfer fees and wages dont come all at once either.

True, but parachute payments and Premier League prize money is definitely spread over a prolonged period - especially the parachute stuff by definition.

I think people underestimate the effect and indeed importance of cashflow, in fact it's probably even more important than actual profits in the very short term.

At the same time, gate receipts aren't quite the same source of income for clubs as they used to be. Sponsorship deals and TV rights are the main income sources nowadays.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I look forward to seeing your list of potential new owners. Please don't include any names of individuals only interested in stripping the club of its assets. And if you could, limit the list to billionaires who have expressed a desire to throw huge amounts of money at the club with no expectation of a profit on their investment.

Not this again. 
Yes there are bad rich owners but there are also decent ones. As for attracting them- lots of other similar sized clubs have- from Watford to villa and palace- so why not us? 
The answer is because our owners want investment but not retirement and want to continue to hold the reigns. So the club isn’t for sale. Fine- it’s where we are but given that they cannot compete with other sides in premiership it is a little frustrating at times. Not least when we gain promotion and sell our best player!! 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

How did we finance the Giannoulis and Gibson signings then? Not to mention they've been a considerable improvement.

We sold Godfrey and Lewis for a combined £35m.

Gibson and Giannoulis together cost £15m, and we didn't even pay that until this transfer window.

That's £20m.

To be clear, I'm not going to claim Delia is pocketing the money or something daft, but we've raised BIG sums from player sales over the last 12 months and the club has raised funds from iFollow etc to at least partially offset the COVID losses, I simply cannot mathematically swallow that all the Buendia money is just going to disappear into a big black hole "because COVID". I'm not sure most fans would swallow that either.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

4 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

We sold Godfrey and Lewis for a combined £35m.

Gibson and Giannoulis together cost £15m, and we didn't even pay that until this transfer window.

That's £20m.

To be clear, I'm not going to claim Delia is pocketing the money or something daft, but we've raised BIG sums from player sales over the last 12 months and the club has raised funds from iFollow etc to at least partially offset the COVID losses, I simply cannot mathematically swallow that all the Buendia money is just going to disappear into a big black hole "because COVID". I'm not sure most fans would swallow that either.

Then add your signing-on fees, bonuses and wages to it. We don't know what they are, but no doubt they'll be a not inconsiderable sum.

No-one also said "all the Buendia money is going to disappear into a big black hole either". What I reckon is we'll have taken in £33m, and we'll probably have around £20m of that to throw in the form of transfer fees, but that's Webber's call. This is, more than anything, going to be a considerable proportion of the transfer kitty with the Covid explanation being for why it's not as large as some fans seem to be thinking.

I can see the club transfer record going. But I doubt we'll spend much more than what Emi's sale has brought in.

 

[horsefly 4,300]

7 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Not this again. 
Yes there are bad rich owners but there are also decent ones. As for attracting them- lots of other similar sized clubs have- from Watford to villa and palace- so why not us? 
The answer is because our owners want investment but not retirement and want to continue to hold the reigns. So the club isn’t for sale. Fine- it’s where we are but given that they cannot compete with other sides in premiership it is a little frustrating at times. Not least when we gain promotion and sell our best player!! 

I guess you don't see the irony of you using the phrase, "Not this again"

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then add your signing-on fees, bonuses and wages to it. We don't know what they are, but no doubt they'll be a not inconsiderable sum.

All of which should be coming out of the operational costs, not the big lump sums raised through player sales.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

6 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

All of which should be coming out of the operational costs, not the big lump sums raised through player sales.

In an ideal world with a benevolent sponsor in the boardroom, sure. However, the crux of the point is this: anyone who seriously thinks selling a player for x million means all of that is available for buying players when taking all other costs into account clearly has not understood the premise and the realities behind a self-sufficient model.

Alternatively, it's the grief and frustration talking that we lost a player of Emi's stature to us.

[Walcombe canary 69]

Forget FFP. Absolute nonsense. Does it exist ? How can these Top Teams Be Billions and Millions in Debt if FFP exists ?

[Uncle Fred 526]

3 hours ago, Hairy Canary said:

You see, there is a difference this year. The previous three relegations you quoted the club had very little cash to play with. 
 

This time we are in a different boat and there is now serious money to strengthen. Of course it depends on how much and on how well it’s spent but we should at least be in a position to give it a go. Big transfer window for SW

You are assuming that it will be spent on players rather than disappearing down a black hole like previous seasons 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

24 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then add your signing-on fees, bonuses and wages to it. We don't know what they are, but no doubt they'll be a not inconsiderable sum.

No-one also said "all the Buendia money is going to disappear into a big black hole either". What I reckon is we'll have taken in £33m, and we'll probably have around £20m of that to throw in the form of transfer fees, but that's Webber's call. This is, more than anything, going to be a considerable proportion of the transfer kitty with the Covid explanation being for why it's not as large as some fans seem to be thinking.

I can see the club transfer record going. But I doubt we'll spend much more than what Emi's sale has brought in.

 

Unless we were paying Godfrey and Jamal with club shop vouchers I don’t see why we have to factor in wages with the costs of replacements, if your going to do that then why don’t we claim to have got £29m for Godfrey (25m plus wages saved) so it’s like for like when we describe additions with their wage cost?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Unless we were paying Godfrey and Jamal with club shop vouchers I don’t see why we have to factor in wages with the costs of replacements, if your going to do that then why don’t we claim to have got £29m for Godfrey (25m plus wages saved) so it’s like for like when we describe additions with their wage cost?

For starters, you don't know their wages / bonuses / signing-on fees. You don't know if they're higher than the player replaced. I actually should have mentioned agent fees as well as they're rarely inconsiderable.

Either way, the premise still holds. In a self-funding model, not all transfer money taken in will be spent back out, so expecting that is a recipe for disappointment when it shouldn't be.

[Haus 259]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Then add your signing-on fees, bonuses and wages to it. We don't know what they are, but no doubt they'll be a not inconsiderable sum.

No-one also said "all the Buendia money is going to disappear into a big black hole either". What I reckon is we'll have taken in £33m, and we'll probably have around £20m of that to throw in the form of transfer fees, but that's Webber's call. This is, more than anything, going to be a considerable proportion of the transfer kitty with the Covid explanation being for why it's not as large as some fans seem to be thinking.

I can see the club transfer record going. But I doubt we'll spend much more than what Emi's sale has brought in.

 

The players they replaced also had wages too, that were removed from the books

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

I get that wages could differ slightly but we are talking pennies in the pound overall here. The necessary evil of agents fee’s do undoubtedly take a bite out of any kitty as would signing on fees to a lesser extent but we have now sold three, soon to be four first team players in the last two seasons taking 4 out of the top 5 biggest sales ever against a backdrop of sky money, parachute or full. If some are starting to question the model I can see why as it’s it’s looking unfit for purpose if that purpose is to move forward from a yo yo club. We were a yo-yo club before generally but only had to sell a big player once every 2-3 seasons.

[Essjayess 307]

2 hours ago, Tetteys Jig said:

this covid hole is surely all relative? Every side in the world will have a "covid hole" so why does it seem we are the only ones getting punished?

Does this mean we'll now get some bargains to cover up other sides covid holes like getting Armstrong from Blackburn or Tosin from Fulham?

Indeed, but most clubs, especially those outside the Prem, although quite a few in the Prem to are just adding the Covid hole to the already pile of debts they have, whereas City actually have a model that pretty much dictates  immediate action to cover such things as the Covid hole. Honestly...Spurs are realistically over half a billion in debt and thats the way for  a big amount of football clubs...living beyond their means. We are not being punished, we just have a proper business set up these days to actually deal with any debts that come along.

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

It's amazing how fast fans forget about the 'Super League' threat only a few weeks ago and the financial reasons behind it  - the big club owners being unable/unwilling to continue to bankroll these fantasies. Football generally will have to start to live within its means. That has to be good for our model.

Its sad Emi has gone, and maybe a few others but I believe in Webber and Farke and suspect we will be far better equipped/savvy next season in the EPL than we were last. It may not be quite be the same Farkeball we had in the EFL but we will survive this time in the EPL.

And yes better Delia with her heart and (pun) sole (and money) in the club than the Super League floozies anyday!

Edited June 7, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[hogesar 9,674]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

It's amazing how fast fans forget about the 'Super League' threat only a few weeks ago and the financial reasons behind it  - the big club owners being unable/unwilling to continue to bankroll these fantasies. Football generally will have to start to live within its means. That has to be good for our model.

Its sad Emi has gone, and maybe a few others but I believe in Webber and Farke and suspect we will be far better equipped/savvy next season in the EPL than we were last. It may not be quite be the same Farkeball we had in the EFL but we will survive this time in the EPL.

And yes better Delia with her heart and sole (and money) in the club than the Super League floozies anyday!

A few of us called it at the time. Some of the posters on this thread and others over the weekend were horrified with the concept of the ESL and the owners behind it - today they'd happily swap owners with any one of them with absolutely no concept of hypocrisy attached to them.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It's amazing how fast fans forget about the 'Super League' threat only a few weeks ago and the financial reasons behind it  - the big club owners being unable/unwilling to continue to bankroll these fantasies. Football generally will have to start to live within its means. That has to be good for our model.

Its sad Emi has gone, and maybe a few others but I believe in Webber and Farke and suspect we will be far better equipped/savvy next season in the EPL than we were last. It may not be quite be the same Farkeball we had in the EFL but we will survive this time in the EPL.

And yes better Delia with her heart and sole (and money) in the club than the Super League floozies anyday!

I know we are on a "shoestring" YF but that is ridiculous

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I know we are on a "shoestring" YF but that is ridiculous

Originally a typo but must of been a Freudian slip....

Anyway - Next season I suspect we'll be mid table and Villa about 18th 😉.  Might be some bargains! 

There is never a great deal to choose  between the lower to mid table sides. 

Edited June 7, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

By squandering the opportunity I was clearly referring to the fact that many clubs would give their eye teeth for a shot in the premiership- and give it a real go to stay up. But we  always seem to roll over and not really try to stay up. 

Also I struggle with people who delight in pointing out that transfers also involve wage costs etc - isn’t that true for every team? Why then do we use it as an excuse for being unambitious?

I also note that the very same people who gave grief last time people bemoaned the obvious lack of ambition - are now happy to admit it was true once Webber himself admitted it. So we were right then- why are we wrong now? 

You'll be wrong if we stay up,  but if we go down, that still doesn't  make tou right. 

Ambition doesn't necessarily mean  new owners/ more money.

We are ambitious,  just not ambitious and profligate.  We own our house and are developing it and improving it as we go. I'd much rather that than a shiny palace ,mortgaged to the hilt  with future income uncertain.

These are the options until  Mr moneybags city fan donator, not investor,  rides over mousehold and into the board room.  Investors  want returns....never forget  that. 

[C.I.D 302]

3 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

You'll be wrong if we stay up,  but if we go down, that still doesn't  make tou right. 

Ambition doesn't necessarily mean  new owners/ more money.

We are ambitious,  just not ambitious and profligate.  We own our house and are developing it and improving it as we go. I'd much rather that than a shiny palace ,mortgaged to the hilt  with future income uncertain.

These are the options until  Mr moneybags city fan donator, not investor,  rides over mousehold and into the board room.  Investors  want returns....never forget  that. 

Indeed ............# prayforipswich 😟