Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mello Yello

Club Finances.

Recommended Posts

Do you think we are actually financially deeper in the poop - than the Chief Exec and the board are actually letting on?

There''s Gunny in the dug-out shufflin'' papers, Dion suited and booted sitting among the subs, will there be room for Jerry Goss to cosy up in there next home game - and when can we see Delia in the dug-out?

How long before Munby is appointed Head Chef in Delia''s? (makes a mean cheesy peas)

Do you think the board have pencilled in Duffy and Gunny till the end of the season, because we can''t really afford anything else?

Just a few serious questions, that require serious answers.....NOW!

Anyone else have any serious questions?[:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Mello, the club have get to find £2.55million to pay the loan for the Laurence Scott land by next May, £400k for the infill and £900k to service the main debt. It goes without saying that NONE of these loans benefited the team. And people still can`t seem to figure out where the real problems at the club lie!?

These nodding donkey, happy clapper supporters who have let the club sleepwalk into such a parlous position with barely a word of opposition should hang their heads in shame. Still, at least we`re not going to do a Leeds eh?......[8-)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MrI don''t know what the laurence scott loan land was for but taking loans out to finance assets is normal business practice. As for the 400k for the infill and 900k to service the debt then by implication you are saying we should not have built the infill and the jarrold stand and have a crowd capacity of 15,000. The level of debt is similar to other championship clubs. Man U has huge debts. Debts are normal practice and the interest is tax deductible. According to your arguments we should have 15,000 capacity, everyone should live in rented accomodation and businesses should not use tax deductible debt to finance their businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]MrI don''t know what the laurence scott loan land was for but taking loans out to finance assets is normal business practice. As for the 400k for the infill and 900k to service the debt then by implication you are saying we should not have built the infill and the jarrold stand and have a crowd capacity of 15,000. The level of debt is similar to other championship clubs. Man U has huge debts. Debts are normal practice and the interest is tax deductible. According to your arguments we should have 15,000 capacity, everyone should live in rented accomodation and businesses should not use tax deductible debt to finance their businesses.[/quote]

The Laurence Scott land loan was for, eerrrr, land.......

The Jarrold Stand (admittedly a neccessity) is a completly seperate issue from the infill and you know it. A large cut of the parachute payments went to paying back the £4million short-term loan for the infill and it`s not fully paid yet. A wise decision? And no we certainly won`t need all those seats unless things can be turned around on the pitch.

T, Leeds have shown us the way way to footballing disaster and financial hardship by being profligate on the pitch and ignoring good business sense. We are going exactly the same way by being profligate off the pitch and de-investing the clubs core asset-the team on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mello Yello (The Original)

Do you think we are actually financially deeper in the poop - than the Chief Exec and the board are actually letting on?

There''s Gunny in the dug-out shufflin'' papers, Dion suited and booted sitting among the subs, will there be room for Jerry Goss to cosy up in there next home game - and when can we see Delia in the dug-out?

How long before Munby is appointed Head Chef in Delia''s? (makes a mean cheesy peas)

Do you think the board have pencilled in Duffy and Gunny till the end of the season, because we can''t really afford anything else?

Just a few serious questions, that require serious answers.....NOW!

Anyone else have any serious questions?[:|]

 

Ironic that those who sheepishly praise Smith for "saving" our club are now standing idly by while she finishes off the job Chase began all those years ago. This hasn''t just happened by chance and is the result of a decade or so of poor leadership. If we''re up the creek now...where on earth would we have been without the Prem. money and income from player sales to save their arses?

Reading between the lines...and looking at the evidence....we are certainly deeper in the mire than Smith and Co. are prepared to admit. Enter Turner to try and smooth over the cracks..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way T, as you seem to back the "infrastructure before players" approach can you answer me this. If the club manage to make a few million on it`s last portion of land, where would you like to see the money spent : on the team or on a second tier of the City stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]MrI don''t know what the laurence scott loan land was for but taking loans out to finance assets is normal business practice. As for the 400k for the infill and 900k to service the debt then by implication you are saying we should not have built the infill and the jarrold stand and have a crowd capacity of 15,000. The level of debt is similar to other championship clubs. Man U has huge debts. Debts are normal practice and the interest is tax deductible. According to your arguments we should have 15,000 capacity, everyone should live in rented accomodation and businesses should not use tax deductible debt to finance their businesses.[/quote]

T your arguments would carry a bit more weight if you took the trouble to get your facts right.  The capacity of CR before the Jarrold and the corner infill were built was approximately 22,000 not 15,000. 

We''ve spent a hell of a lot of money to increase the ground capacity by about 4,000.  The South Stand had to be replaced but the NU corner was not a top priority at that particular time.  It could and should have waited.  Judging by their comments at the AGM, the board don''t seem to think the size of our gates is particularly important anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr C - just meant we don''t know have all the background to the land deal to assess whether it made sense or not. Agree the infill was a debateable one but when things were going well most people supported increasing capacity. In fact people on here seem to still argue for increasing the capacity rather than having the hotel so I guess you agree with the board that there were right not to have another infill. I understand most of the interest relates ot the Jarrold stand though and I don'' t think most people would have wanted a 3 sided stadium. I confess the 15,000 capacity came from another quote but my overalll point about debt not necessarily being a bad thing remains. I agree I would like to see any profits from land sales invested in the team given the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mystic megson"]

 Judging by their comments at the AGM, the board don''t seem to think the size of our gates is particularly important anyway.

[/quote]

 

You can guarantee though mystic, that if the attendances drop to 18000  they''ll be begging everyone to come back as they ''need the money''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mystic megson"]

[quote user="T"]MrI don''t know what the laurence scott loan land was for but taking loans out to finance assets is normal business practice. As for the 400k for the infill and 900k to service the debt then by implication you are saying we should not have built the infill and the jarrold stand and have a crowd capacity of 15,000. The level of debt is similar to other championship clubs. Man U has huge debts. Debts are normal practice and the interest is tax deductible. According to your arguments we should have 15,000 capacity, everyone should live in rented accomodation and businesses should not use tax deductible debt to finance their businesses.[/quote]

T your arguments would carry a bit more weight if you took the trouble to get your facts right.  The capacity of CR before the Jarrold and the corner infill were built was approximately 22,000 not 15,000. 

We''ve spent a hell of a lot of money to increase the ground capacity by about 4,000.  The South Stand had to be replaced but the NU corner was not a top priority at that particular time.  It could and should have waited.  Judging by their comments at the AGM, the board don''t seem to think the size of our gates is particularly important anyway.

 

[/quote]Mystic Megson, I think ''T'' is eluding to the fact that the South Stand really couldn''t have been kept open much more than a couple of seasons and if it had been left to rot probably would have been shut on safety grounds by now, hence our capacity wold have been significantly reduced.Mr Carrow, with the greatest respect ''T'' is merely pointing out that the borrowing money, servicing of debt etc is fairly standard practice. All clubs do it.There seems to be a misconception on this board, that if one explains how a finance deal works (or similar) they are automatically shot down as an"infastrucutre before team" sheep. Surely it is just a fact that all clubs need both and that all clubs rich and poor, both champions and relegation candidates invest in both. The problem is finding the balance. And yes it is obvious that our current boards, and the one before that, have not got it right.I don''t believe for a second anyone on this board or for that matter anyone who goes to CR actualy advocates spending all the money we have on stadium development, land purchases, catering etc and peanuts on the team. However, shooting people down for pointing out a few buissness facts is just over the top. Why does it always have to be us or them, With us or against us?None of us enjoy what is going on at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BG has indeed set out where I am coming from although rather more eloquently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best question was why buy all that land behind the old stand and build a slap dash stand that only increased the capacity by 2,000 people? Were they that short sighted to think even though we had had 2 seasons of near sell outs that going for a capacity of 28,000 was too much? They got it wrong didn''t they? How do they fix it? They build a very expensive corner infill and take out another loan and buy more land! Yes I see that''s really going to benefit the fans and the team. Well done the board for that. Dread to think that in the premier league we could have had even more people in the stands behind the team! That would be a great success can''t have that at little ol'' norwich can we!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well Mello, the club have get to find £2.55million to pay the loan for the Laurence Scott land by next May, £400k for the infill and £900k to service the main debt. It goes without saying that NONE of these loans benefited the team. And people still can`t seem to figure out where the real problems at the club lie!?

[/quote]

According to the 2006/07 Accounts, the club has until December 2008 to repay the £2,544k loan re. the ex  LSE  land purchase.

Their is £450k outstanding on the loan re. the Community / Corner stand. £300k (plus interest) is due for repayment during the 07/08 season and the remaining £150k (plus interest) during the first six months of the 08/09 season

I only wished it was £900k to service the main debt! £777k capital repayment is due on the loan notes during the 07/08 season however interest of around £1m is also due during 07/08 ( last season the interest on the loan notes was £1023k.). In 08/09 we are due to pay £838k in capital repayment and

just under  £1m in interest on the loan notes.

As for people not understanding where the problems lie, one of the areas is spending money on fixed assets that could have waited (see the thread on NCFC Finances Part One) and thus reducing the cost of servicing the debt.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well Mello, the club have get to find £2.55million to pay the loan for the Laurence Scott land by next May, [/quote]

One addition to my earlier post :

Doncaster has stated that he expects the loan to be paid off by May 2008 (or words to that effect). Presumably he expects to get a phase 2  land deal completed by then? I hope we get more than £20k. a unit (£6m odd / 330 units)!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]MrI ............... As for the 400k for the infill and 900k to service the debt then by implication you are saying we should not have built the infill [/quote]

Response: We should have not built the Community / Corner stand until the financial position of the club had been greatly improved, due to the long payback. See below part of a post (see NCFC Finances - Part 1 on this Message Board for the rest of it):

2) Payback on fixed asset spendWith reference to two of the fixed asset items (mentioned in point 1 above) which I would have defined as non critical (unless someone can provide information to suggest otherwise):a) Corner stand £3.3m (£2.8m in 04/05 + £0.5m capital commitments note in the 04/05 Accounts)If I remember correctly the club has stated (in the local media) that the revenue from these extra seats would generate an additional £500k. per annum.Excluding interest, the payback (assuming you can sell all the seats) = £3.3m / 500k -> 6.6 yearsIf the club can''t sell all the seats each season then the payback gets longer.

b) Jarrold Stand offices for Broadland Housing and Connexions , £1.23m (£830k capital commitments note in the 04/05 Accounts and £400k in the 06/07 Accounts)Lets assume the rental income is £170k per annum.Excluding interest, the payback = £1.23m / 170k -> 7.2 yearsThis of course assumes that the organisations renting these offices are committed to arental in excess of 7 years. They may not be. There are also two side points here:1) Why is it costing so much to fit these offices out?2) At what point do these offices need refreshing? 8 years? 10 years? So will these offices generate any significant contribution (money) that can be used on the football side of the club?Was / is it worth the risk to the club to increase its borrowings to finance these fixed assets given the long payback periods?Posted By: Financebod on October 15th 2007 at 19:10:06

 

[quote user="T"]

The level of debt is similar to other championship clubs. Man U has huge debts. Debts are normal practice and the interest is tax deductible. According to your arguments we should have 15,000 capacity, everyone should live in rented accomodation and businesses should not use tax deductible debt to finance their businesses.[/quote]

Manchester United have big debts (BUT they are manageable due to their turnover and cash flows) due to the way their takeover was structured.

Another Championship club called, Ipswich can''t service their debts in full hence the "interest holiday"

Debts are normal practice in normal businesses where they service their debts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The Jarrold Stand (admittedly a neccessity) is a completly seperate issue from the infill and you know it. A large cut of the parachute payments went to paying back the £4million short-term loan for the infill and it`s not fully paid yet. A wise decision? And no we certainly won`t need all those seats unless things can be turned around on the pitch.

[/quote]

The Bank Loan was for £2.3m. not £4m.

It comprised of two tranches:

Tranche A - £1.2m., repayable at £75k per quarter (plus interest). At the 31st May 2007, £450k. was outstanding. £300k (plus interest) is due during 07/08 season and the balance (plus interest) is due during 08/09 season.

Tranche B - £1.1m has been repaid as a result of the £1.1m. received from the hotel deal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the question of finances can someone please answer me this. Why did the bored feel the need to borrow £1.6 million (think I have got that right) on offices in the Jarrold stand. These can''t be that old surely they don''t need a refurb already ????

This 1.6mill would have brought us a decent midfielder & god don''t we need one of those !!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]Mr C - just meant we don''t know have all the background to the land deal to assess whether it made sense or not. Agree the infill was a debateable one but when things were going well most people supported increasing capacity. In fact people on here seem to still argue for increasing the capacity rather than having the hotel so I guess you agree with the board that there were right not to have another infill. I understand most of the interest relates ot the Jarrold stand though and I don'' t think most people would have wanted a 3 sided stadium. I confess the 15,000 capacity came from another quote but my overalll point about debt not necessarily being a bad thing remains. I agree I would like to see any profits from land sales invested in the team given the current situation.[/quote]

 

Two lots of land were purchased:

a) ex LSE  £2.75m.

b) ex City Council £0.9m.

Even at a measly average of  £30k a unit on this land, the land deal makes sense.  Mind you it doesn''t help the club that such a large % of the units goes to the City Council or a local Housing Association for free as Social Housing (but it helps the homeless which is a good thing).

 

 

The building of the Community / Corner stand should have been delayed (due to its long payback as expalined earlier).

 

Debt is fine so long as SUFFICIENT people still come to Carrow Rd. in the future to service the debt. Do you think we will have 20,000 season ticket holders next season?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mark Rivers..."][quote user="mystic megson"]

 Judging by their comments at the AGM, the board don''t seem to think the size of our gates is particularly important anyway.

[/quote]

 

You can guarantee though mystic, that if the attendances drop to 18000  they''ll be begging everyone to come back as they ''need the money''

[/quote]

If we get relegated, I hope the NCFC. board has the sense not to expect the same or more for our season tickets. We have tolerated some dire football for the past two seasons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well Mello, the club have get to find £2.55million to pay the loan for the Laurence Scott land by next May, £400k for the infill and £900k to service the main debt. It goes without saying that NONE of these loans benefited the team. And people still can`t seem to figure out where the real problems at the club lie!?

[/quote]

According to the 2006/07 Accounts, the club has until December 2008 to repay the £2,544k loan re. the ex  LSE  land purchase.

Their is £450k outstanding on the loan re. the Community / Corner stand. £300k (plus interest) is due for repayment during the 07/08 season and the remaining £150k (plus interest) during the first six months of the 08/09 season

I only wished it was £900k to service the main debt! £777k capital repayment is due on the loan notes during the 07/08 season however interest of around £1m is also due during 07/08 ( last season the interest on the loan notes was £1023k.). In 08/09 we are due to pay £838k in capital repayment and

just under  £1m in interest on the loan notes.

As for people not understanding where the problems lie, one of the areas is spending money on fixed assets that could have waited (see the thread on NCFC Finances Part One) and thus reducing the cost of servicing the debt.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Thanks Canary Nut. Doncaster has said in black and white that the £2.55million loan "will be repaid by next May", which begs the question if it doesn`t have to be repayed it until December how he can be so certain and what the point is in paying it back early? We have just made roughly that figure as a profit in the transfer market and i would have thought that big land development deals would be fairly thin on the ground in these economically shaky times.

I don`t think anyone is questioning that most businesses are run on sometimes heavy debt. But the idea of taking out short-term loans to cover massive spending on unneccessary infrastructure and then having to use a declining team as a cash-cow to pay off those debts is surely indefensible.

The team on the pitch is still the most important thing to all City supporters isn`t it? Or would some of you lot be quite happy to see City in division 3 as long as the club was making a profit and the ground looked nice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well Mello, the club have get to find £2.55million to pay the loan for the Laurence Scott land by next May, £400k for the infill and £900k to service the main debt. It goes without saying that NONE of these loans benefited the team. And people still can`t seem to figure out where the real problems at the club lie!?

These nodding donkey, happy clapper supporters who have let the club sleepwalk into such a parlous position with barely a word of opposition should hang their heads in shame. Still, at least we`re not going to do a Leeds eh?......[8-)]

[/quote]

Hello again Mr Carrow [8-|][*] So now its the fans fault, but only the fans that go to games, just those nodding donkey types that clap any old rubbish in yellow and green. They should hang their heads in shame shouldn''t they? If only they were more like those knowledgeable stay away and watch it on the wireless types, we need more of them don''t we? If all those donkey clappy fans just stayed at home or went to watch Kings Lynn everything would be fine!

We were having a chat on another thread last time I was here but that seems to have got lost under the a heap of anger and disappointment. Anyway, your post made me realise that the Turners are possibly the nodding donkeyist and happy clappyest supporters of all. Not only have they let the club sleepwalk into such a parlous position without a word but they paid 2m for the privelige. Or maybe they see it differently or maybe they have designs on changing it. Their investment and involvement could just be the start of a change of priorities, I hope so because if not I don''t know where the change will come from. They joined the board in a similar way to how Delia and MWJ joined. I guess the Turners 2m is the same sort of investment as the1m that Delia and MWJ invested in 1996. Two years later Geoffrey Watling chose to sell his shares making them majority shareholders and I guess those 2 years were where the board and the Smith Joneses checked eachother out. Maybe that''s where we are now with the Smith Joneses and the Turners?

It''s nice to again Mr Carrow[8-|][*] I hope it wasn''t me that brought the level of debate down this time[;)] Always a pleasure, never a chore Sir! [Y]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think some would be happy with just that scenerio Mr Carrow.

Second paragraph sums it up. Spending on land (which could come good eventually, but won''t help in the immediate future) - what would help is a sustained and focused drive to recruit some quality players and a manager and just get back to basics. That is the football team. If we then get promoted, budget to stay there, not get relegated again, as happened last time. The board obviously thought we could yo-yo up and down forever, that hasn''t exactly worked has it? Premiership money is worth far more than a few flats. So what do the board do when the land runs out? Start speculating in fine art?

What gets me most is the statements which Doncaster makes re having no money for new players, yet taking out loans for land instead of backing the manager and building a decent squad.

Mr Doncaster, I wonder what you will do to pay off these loans - WHO in the current squad is worth anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That''s the whole point gazza. Why take loans out to buy land when we could do the same with buying actual footballers?It''s as though they think that as soon as we buy a player he is immediately worthless. Look at Ashton, Green etc. all the players we have sold, we have made money on them. I do not agree with selling all our best players but surely if we were to invest in players then we could actually succeed and even if it does go pair-shaped we can just sell them all off like we always do. I really don''t understand, it makes no sence taking out such big and expensive loans that are crippling the club to fund their land purge. In the end, when all the land has been bought and sold what is left? The ground itself. I can bet you that if things became tight that''s exactly what would happen. And in my eyes that''s a disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, I maybe shot down as a neurotic conspiracy theorist, but wasn''t R Chase trying to get the stadium moved to either the old showground or even more radically, at Colney. Just think what the site of CR would be worth.......

Still, only me that sits here thinking that they are capable of such acts. Don''t worry.

So far, they have followed Mr Chase up the same concrete path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally lenders would be more willing to lend money to buy land because the loan will be secured on the land and will give rise to income whereas spending money on a player will lead to cash out. Same as it is easier to get a loan to buy a house then it is to get a loan to spend on consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]

Normally lenders would be more willing to lend money to buy land because the loan will be secured on the land and will give rise to income whereas spending money on a player will lead to cash out. Same as it is easier to get a loan to buy a house then it is to get a loan to spend on consumption.

[/quote]

Fair point but Barry Skipper, who had been on the board for years until a few months ago, has flagged up ways the club could restructure it`s debt to free up money for squad investment- as Ipswich did a few years ago. Where there`s a will there`s a way. The point is our board haven`t had the will to take the neccessary action to halt the slide on the pitch and this is precisely why people are turning against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Well Mello, the club have get to find £2.55million to pay the loan for the Laurence Scott land by next May, £400k for the infill and £900k to service the main debt. It goes without saying that NONE of these loans benefited the team. And people still can`t seem to figure out where the real problems at the club lie!?

These nodding donkey, happy clapper supporters who have let the club sleepwalk into such a parlous position with barely a word of opposition should hang their heads in shame. Still, at least we`re not going to do a Leeds eh?......[8-)]

[/quote]

Hello again Mr Carrow [8-|][*] So now its the fans fault, but only the fans that go to games, just those nodding donkey types that clap any old rubbish in yellow and green. They should hang their heads in shame shouldn''t they? If only they were more like those knowledgeable stay away and watch it on the wireless types, we need more of them don''t we? If all those donkey clappy fans just stayed at home or went to watch Kings Lynn everything would be fine!

We were having a chat on another thread last time I was here but that seems to have got lost under the a heap of anger and disappointment. Anyway, your post made me realise that the Turners are possibly the nodding donkeyist and happy clappyest supporters of all. Not only have they let the club sleepwalk into such a parlous position without a word but they paid 2m for the privelige. Or maybe they see it differently or maybe they have designs on changing it. Their investment and involvement could just be the start of a change of priorities, I hope so because if not I don''t know where the change will come from. They joined the board in a similar way to how Delia and MWJ joined. I guess the Turners 2m is the same sort of investment as the1m that Delia and MWJ invested in 1996. Two years later Geoffrey Watling chose to sell his shares making them majority shareholders and I guess those 2 years were where the board and the Smith Joneses checked eachother out. Maybe that''s where we are now with the Smith Joneses and the Turners?

It''s nice to again Mr Carrow[8-|][*] I hope it wasn''t me that brought the level of debate down this time[;)] Always a pleasure, never a chore Sir! [Y]

 

[/quote]

Nutty, my best reply to that is the one on the previous thread. It`s only 3 or 4 pages back- not that hard to find. To be honest Nutty debating with you is like leading a donkey which is about to die of thirst to a crystal clear mountain pool.....then watching it turn it`s back.

As far as your digs at Keith Roads go, i`m afraid if you wanted to debate City games attended over the years he would almost certainly put you to shame.

By the way, if the Turner`s influence leads the club to restructuring the debts as Skipper has stated can be done, pledging the lot to the team on the pitch (at least £5million) and getting a Jewell type in to reinvigorate the club they would get support and a big [Y] [Y] from me. Do you think it`s likely to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="gazzathegreat"] Premiership money is worth far more than a few flats. So what do the board do when the land runs out? Start speculating in fine art? [/quote]

Keep an eye out for Doncaster in case he''s buying EuroMillions lottery tickets for the club. Winning £88m (as it was the other week) would help the club dig itself out of its debt pile!

[;)][;)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] If the club manage to make a few million on it`s last portion of land, [/quote]

More than a few million, more like £10m. The club needs every penny  it can get.

 

[/quote]

What i was really trying to get at was the amount of clear profit they will make. How much will go towards sorting the mess out created by this obsession with land and infrastructure? Will there be ongoing costs related to obtaining the planning permission ie. the new road the club had to pay for? And will any clear profit be spent on the team or will it be yet another infrastructure project? They don`t seem to be doing the team much good at the moment do they?

The thing with investing in land rather than top young players is that land is much harder to shift if the club is in dire need of money (ie.right now). If we had an Ashton right now at least the club would have the option of cashing in on Jan.1st and using the money to at least have a stab at sorting things out. Whose to say anyone is interested in buying the land in the current economic climate? How long would it take to thrash out a deal even if they are? My whole point is that the club have been endlessly preaching the recklessless of spending large amounts on the team and yet the amount they have spent away from it has ended up looking far more reckless. At least if we`d spent money on top young talent we could be challenging for the play-offs, or may well have assets Premier clubs are queueing up to buy. The other big thing is that if they had at least TRIED to invest in creating a decent team on the pitch people like me would still be 100% behind them.

They have sold our dreams of success on the pitch for an infill, land, a road, a new ticket office, offices etc.etc. Unforgiveable.

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...