Ashton nailed it.

[BobLoz3 607]

People who say they don't want to go up to the Prem frustrate me as much as the people who boo substitutions at games. 

When you're in this league, that should always be the aim for a club such as ours. One thing is that we can keep hold of the players we want to keep. Another is that we get a much needed cash injection. 

The past is what it is. We have a new manager, new SD, soon to be new owners. The fans seemingly get what they want and call for, but some then have the temerity to question the decisions afterwards, when things go ever so slightly wrong. 

Also, we play a bit of a different style now which might actually work for the Prem with a few additions if it's possible. I mean... Wagner managed to keep Huddersfield up which was a pretty impressive feat in itself.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,577]

9 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

It got us 4 goals though - a big positive. Long may it ring out, to continue the positive outlook!

I love a bit of positivity.. but that’s a fair leap 😅

[Sufyellow 250]

1 hour ago, BobLoz3 said:

People who say they don't want to go up to the Prem frustrate me as much as the people who boo substitutions at games. 

When you're in this league, that should always be the aim for a club such as ours. One thing is that we can keep hold of the players we want to keep. Another is that we get a much needed cash injection. 

The past is what it is. We have a new manager, new SD, soon to be new owners. The fans seemingly get what they want and call for, but some then have the temerity to question the decisions afterwards, when things go ever so slightly wrong. 

Also, we play a bit of a different style now which might actually work for the Prem with a few additions if it's possible. I mean... Wagner managed to keep Huddersfield up which was a pretty impressive feat in itself.

Emi proves the first point wrong and the cash injection covers wages and bonuses. Yes I have been thinking about the style, that may be part of why fans want him out, the set up he is using gets absolutely destroyed in the prem, those mistakes at the back would be goals in the prem. To push your full backs so far up the pitch and split your central defenders with a non defensive midfielder would kill us. 

[chicken 3,045]

On 14/02/2024 at 22:38, Sufyellow said:

Pl money has not stopped us getting in so much debt , it hasn't stopped us having to sell our best players. We can't afford players Brentford can buy. 

That's not true.

We're in debt as we took out a loan against parachute payments. In other words we asked the bank for a forward of the money.

Selling our best players hasn't been about debt either. Not really. More about lack of ability to stay up and those players believing they were good enough to get a move to another club to stay there.

As for Brentford, I think the biggest frustration is that they signed one or two, who we could have afforded had we not, say, splashed out on Tzolis.

[chicken 3,045]

On 15/02/2024 at 14:01, Sufyellow said:

Emi proves the first point wrong...

No, it doesn't. Emi was convinced to stay, to fight to take us up. He'd put his parts on. He bucks the rule, but not in the way you think.

[Sufyellow 250]

13 hours ago, chicken said:

That's not true.

We're in debt as we took out a loan against parachute payments. In other words we asked the bank for a forward of the money.

Selling our best players hasn't been about debt either. Not really. More about lack of ability to stay up and those players believing they were good enough to get a move to another club to stay there.

As for Brentford, I think the biggest frustration is that they signed one or two, who we could have afforded had we not, say, splashed out on Tzolis.

We took the loan out against the parachute money to give it ago, are you saying after this year we will be debt free because the debt is covered by the last payment? Because that's not how it is coming across. Emi left when we were in the prem, we couldn't nowhere near  compete with what villa offered in wages, any decent player will do the same , but you can't blame the club for that , it's just football. Brentford kept their star man and added to it. Our most expensive signing still is about 8 million up front, that gets you nothing unfortunately. Every year in the championship we have to sell our best players to balance the books , you don't build a strong team like that. 

[Sufyellow 250]

13 hours ago, chicken said:

That's not true.

We're in debt as we took out a loan against parachute payments. In other words we asked the bank for a forward of the money.

Selling our best players hasn't been about debt either. Not really. More about lack of ability to stay up and those players believing they were good enough to get a move to another club to stay there.

As for Brentford, I think the biggest frustration is that they signed one or two, who we could have afforded had we not, say, splashed out on Tzolis.

We need to raise about 20 million a season every time we are in the championship to Balance the books. Our running costs are way higher than money coming in without player sales, go back and look at every season. The only time we haven't is to back smith which added to the debt. 

[chicken 3,045]

7 hours ago, Sufyellow said:

We need to raise about 20 million a season every time we are in the championship to Balance the books. Our running costs are way higher than money coming in without player sales, go back and look at every season. The only time we haven't is to back smith which added to the debt. 

You mean the summer we bought Nunez and Sara for a combined £10m-ish?

It's still accurate though, we're in debt right now, because we took loans out against future income. It'll largely all be paid off by the summer.

[essex canary 601]

14 minutes ago, chicken said:

You mean the summer we bought Nunez and Sara for a combined £10m-ish?

It's still accurate though, we're in debt right now, because we took loans out against future income. It'll largely all be paid off by the summer.

What will be paid off by the summer? This year's total income won't cover the £96 million debt let alone when this year's running costs are added

[Sufyellow 250]

48 minutes ago, chicken said:

You mean the summer we bought Nunez and Sara for a combined £10m-ish?

It's still accurate though, we're in debt right now, because we took loans out against future income. It'll largely all be paid off by the summer.

Yep , that was a gamble that has put us about 40 Million in debt . And no it will not all be paid off by the summer. 

[chicken 3,045]

10 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

Yep , that was a gamble that has put us about 40 Million in debt . And no it will not all be paid off by the summer. 

Not all... discussion has been had on this elsewhere, leaves about £10-12m unaccounted for by those who have scrutinised the figures better. Though I believe that is the amount to the to be new joint majority shareholders...

Point is, the vast majority of it is accounted for. We're not in debt via the reason you give. We spent money when you suggested we couldn't and sold players when there wasn't financial pressure to do so.

 

[chicken 3,045]

...

 

Edited February 17 by chicken
Stupid forum

[chicken 3,045]

...

 

Edited February 17 by chicken
Repeat post for unknown reasons.

[chicken 3,045]

51 minutes ago, essex canary said:

What will be paid off by the summer? This year's total income won't cover the £96 million debt let alone when this year's running costs are added

I could be incorrect in memory here but pretty sure this was in a thread you were part of...

@shefcanary was it your good self that had done rough calculations? I seem to remember someone had.

The repayment deadlines were included in the loan amount details I believe. That's all you'll get from me though Essex. I'm not going to provide you with information you can find yourself because you disagree with what is being said again.

[Sufyellow 250]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Not all... discussion has been had on this elsewhere, leaves about £10-12m unaccounted for by those who have scrutinised the figures better. Though I believe that is the amount to the to be new joint majority shareholders...

Point is, the vast majority of it is accounted for. We're not in debt via the reason you give. We spent money when you suggested we couldn't and sold players when there wasn't financial pressure to do so.

 

The big Andy 10 million looked like a sale we had to do. We will be in debt after the last parachute payment. Even webber said we were gambling on promotion after buying Nunez and Sara , he backed the wrong manager. Relegation before we had to raise 20 million through selling godfrey and Lewis. 

[essex canary 601]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

I could be incorrect in memory here but pretty sure this was in a thread you were part of...

@shefcanary was it your good self that had done rough calculations? I seem to remember someone had.

The repayment deadlines were included in the loan amount details I believe. That's all you'll get from me though Essex. I'm not going to provide you with information you can find yourself because you disagree with what is being said again.

All that stuff from Shef was very confusing because the loans will simply be refinanced. I think the best we will do on what is known currently is pay off £20 million of the £96 million unless there are more high profile player sales before 30 June.

[Shannock Bob 5]

You would have to hope that lessons from last time have been learned. We totally ballsed that one up didn’t we!

I don’t think we would be far off a team capable of survival with the spine we have and then the right signings and maybe a couple of key loans (a raid on Mr Knappers old Arsenal academy perhaps?) 

I mean who would have given Luton a sniff of staying up at this point in the season. We would be starting at a far better grounding than them and the best thing for us if we were to go up, would be Luton staying up as surely they couldn’t last two years.

Then we just have to hope that Chelsea and Man City receive 100 point deductions and there we go...job done! Safety assured!

 

[chicken 3,045]

42 minutes ago, essex canary said:

All that stuff from Shef was very confusing because the loans will simply be refinanced. I think the best we will do on what is known currently is pay off £20 million of the £96 million unless there are more high profile player sales before 30 June.

That's incorrect. Just because YOU were confused doesn't mean you just get to dismiss someone else's post.

In fact, knowing you, you're not confused but as it doesn't suit your stance you want to ignore it.

I believe there are multiple loans. One against known player trading income eg; player payment installments. Another was against parachute payments.

The £96m was in the accounts before last summer's player sales. I believe it also detailed that certain loans would be paid back by certain dates owing to being set against known incomes.

It wasn't complicated at all.

[essex canary 601]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

That's incorrect. Just because YOU were confused doesn't mean you just get to dismiss someone else's post.

In fact, knowing you, you're not confused but as it doesn't suit your stance you want to ignore it.

I believe there are multiple loans. One against known player trading income eg; player payment installments. Another was against parachute payments.

The £96m was in the accounts before last summer's player sales. I believe it also detailed that certain loans would be paid back by certain dates owing to being set against known incomes.

It wasn't complicated at all.

They won't find £96 million to repay the loans in full without refinancing them short of winning the Euro Millions lottery or selling all the players worth anything. 

[chicken 3,045]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

They won't find £96 million to repay the loans in full without refinancing them short of winning the Euro Millions lottery or selling all the players worth anything. 

Prove it.

I find your statements too confusing owing to the lack of substance and supporting information.

Otherwise please just go away and troll another forum with your 'I'll ignore inconvenient truths'... or better, just hand waive them away.

[essex canary 601]

2 minutes ago, chicken said:

Prove it.

I find your statements too confusing owing to the lack of substance and supporting information.

Otherwise please just go away and troll another forum with your 'I'll ignore inconvenient truths'... or better, just hand waive them away.

No wonder the country is in such a mess.

I heard of a case the other day of an ED of a Football Club who wanted to ask the question about whether a £1 discount on a coach fare to a match for season ticket holders was fair whilst being totally oblivious to the fact that such people attending all away games will be paying the same £1 back again in Away Members charges. She is sitting in a meeting at the end of a working day with volunteers discussing this point whilst at the same time proposing increases in season ticket prices to 20,000 fans that will contribute less than half of her near £500,000 salary. 

You couldn't make it up could you. Not even the Monster Raving Loony Party would have thought of it. We can't tell the difference between them and the Tories to be fair.

They would all be better off spending precious time at home with their families. The Nation's mental health would be far better in that event.

[chicken 3,045]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

No wonder the country is in such a mess.

I heard of a case the other day of an ED of a Football Club who wanted to ask the question about whether a £1 discount on a coach fare to a match for season ticket holders was fair whilst being totally oblivious to the fact that such people attending all away games will be paying the same £1 back again in Away Members charges. She is sitting in a meeting at the end of a working day with volunteers discussing this point whilst at the same time proposing increases in season ticket prices to 20,000 fans that will contribute less than half of her near £500,000 salary. 

You couldn't make it up could you. Not even the Monster Raving Loony Party would have thought of it. We can't tell the difference between them and the Tories to be fair.

They would all be better off spending precious time at home with their families. The Nation's mental health would be far better in that event.

You failed.

Prove that what I've said isn't accurate. Forget the poor attempts at character assassination. Forget the 'it's too confusing' attempts at dismissal.

Prove that what I've said about debts and loans is wrong/inaccurate.

Edited February 18 by chicken

[essex canary 601]

2 hours ago, chicken said:

You failed.

Prove that what I've said isn't accurate. Forget the poor attempts at character assassination. Forget the 'it's too confusing' attempts at dismissal.

Prove that what I've said about debts and loans is wrong/inaccurate.

If I had told you last night it would be raining today you would have asked me to prove it. A Forecast based on best known information is exactly that. Even Michael Fish got it wrong once, there are many times he got it right though. If going out today remember to take your Brolly.

[chicken 3,045]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

If I had told you last night it would be raining today you would have asked me to prove it. A Forecast based on best known information is exactly that. Even Michael Fish got it wrong once, there are many times he got it right though. If going out today remember to take your Brolly.

Again, poor and irrelevant. We're not talking about forecasting the future but known information.

Information you have so far only dismissed as confusing. As such, you declared that information wrong.

Prove it. It's pretty simple. Find information that proves it otherwise. 

[essex canary 601]

48 minutes ago, chicken said:

Again, poor and irrelevant. We're not talking about forecasting the future but known information.

Information you have so far only dismissed as confusing. As such, you declared that information wrong.

Prove it. It's pretty simple. Find information that proves it otherwise. 

I will post a thread shortly breaking down how the £96 million has occurred over each of the last 5 years. You can reach your own conclusion about the likely outcome for year 6.