Money or lack of

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]PS: Of course they have better players but if you''d rather be Portsmouth, jolly good luck![:)][/quote]Erm no thanks simply highlighting that one of the best investments a football club can make is players. Of course just in case we ever did start to purchase players again, decent players for 100''s of £k''s and then started selling them a couple of years later for millions to pay off the clubs debts I reserve the right to be outraged.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="SPat"][quote user="Fuglestad"]When will you people realise that attendances mean bugger all in terms of how much money clubs have? Pompey need to sell, but are in a much better (for now) position than us because they had Mandarich, and more recently the new fella (or really his highly corrupt father) pumping loadsamoney into the club. They have also spent most of the last decade in the Prem, which means loadsmoney each year. A few thousand extra fans sadly cannot compete with TV money. Is it really that hard to get your head round?[/quote]

They will never realise because it''s the biggest stick to beat the board with, we get 24K each week therefore we should be approx 18th in the prem. Yes we have great support, does it mean much else, especially in terms of finances in the Champ? Probably not.
[/quote]

Am I being incredibly thick when I read your post? Have I misunderstood something?
[/quote]

Yes and Yes.

SPat was pointing out that by just going on attendances alone we would be 18th in the Premiership (it would actually be 19th as both Derby and Sheff Utd would be "promoted" above us).

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="SPat"][quote user="Fuglestad"]When will you people realise that attendances mean bugger all in terms of how much money clubs have? Pompey need to sell, but are in a much better (for now) position than us because they had Mandarich, and more recently the new fella (or really his highly corrupt father) pumping loadsamoney into the club. They have also spent most of the last decade in the Prem, which means loadsmoney each year. A few thousand extra fans sadly cannot compete with TV money. Is it really that hard to get your head round?[/quote]They will never realise because it''s the biggest stick to beat the board with, we get 24K each week therefore we should be approx 18th in the prem. Yes we have great support, does it mean much else, especially in terms of finances in the Champ? Probably not. [/quote]Am I being incredibly thick when I read your post? Have I misunderstood something?[/quote]

Yes and Yes.

SPat was pointing out that by just going on attendances alone we would be 18th in the Premiership (it would actually be 19th as both Derby and Sheff Utd would be "promoted" above us).

[/quote]Ah now I see. But wouldn''t Fugelstads and Spats posts about attendances have been better posted in a thread about attendances where it had some relevance instead of in this thread in which I am highlighting the benefits of investing in players? The only slight relevance I can glean from those posts is simply to underline the fact that ticket sales in themselves are not enough to sustain a football club which if you look closely is exactly why I advocate the most extraordinary policy of investing in players for the benefit of both a shorter term increase in squad quality and competiveness and the slightly longer term prospect of a profit on player trading.Failing to invest in players is a far bigger stick to beat the Board with than our attendance levels as I for one understand it''s the quality of the team you field and neither the quality or quantity of supporter you attract which determines your success or failure on the pitch.Maybe you just cannot see or accept that our Board have failed abysmally to invest in players and maybe you think it''s normal for a Champs club to have to borrow a dozen players just to be able to complete a season?

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="SPat"][quote user="Fuglestad"]When will you people realise that attendances mean bugger all in terms of how much money clubs have? Pompey need to sell, but are in a much better (for now) position than us because they had Mandarich, and more recently the new fella (or really his highly corrupt father) pumping loadsamoney into the club. They have also spent most of the last decade in the Prem, which means loadsmoney each year. A few thousand extra fans sadly cannot compete with TV money. Is it really that hard to get your head round?[/quote]They will never realise because it''s the biggest stick to beat the board with, we get 24K each week therefore we should be approx 18th in the prem. Yes we have great support, does it mean much else, especially in terms of finances in the Champ? Probably not. [/quote]Am I being incredibly thick when I read your post? Have I misunderstood something?[/quote]

Yes and Yes.

SPat was pointing out that by just going on attendances alone we would be 18th in the Premiership (it would actually be 19th as both Derby and Sheff Utd would be "promoted" above us).

[/quote]Ah now I see. But wouldn''t Fugelstads and Spats posts about attendances have been better posted in a thread about attendances where it had some relevance instead of in this thread in which I am highlighting the benefits of investing in players? The only slight relevance I can glean from those posts is simply to underline the fact that ticket sales in themselves are not enough to sustain a football club which if you look closely is exactly why I advocate the most extraordinary policy of investing in players for the benefit of both a shorter term increase in squad quality and competiveness and the slightly longer term prospect of a profit on player trading.Failing to invest in players is a far bigger stick to beat the Board with than our attendance levels as I for one understand it''s the quality of the team you field and neither the quality or quantity of supporter you attract which determines your success or failure on the pitch.Maybe you just cannot see or accept that our Board have failed abysmally to invest in players and maybe you think it''s normal for a Champs club to have to borrow a dozen players just to be able to complete a season?[/quote]Perhaps you didn''t actually read the first post in the thread which is about attendances and how we should be doing better because we have 24K in each week [:|] , maybe you should have started a thread to talk about investment in players instead of trying to highjack this one.As it goes, I would like to see better players here (obviously), I think the board gambled in various ways and have mostly lost, though I believe they''ve been trying to put the club on a sound financial footing through off-field investment. Well intentioned, but it hasn''t come off. I don''t believe we have had to borrow a dozen players to get through the season, Roeder has decided to do it as a strategy. We''ll see if it succeeds or fails.  

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="SPat"][quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="SPat"][quote user="Fuglestad"]When will you people realise that attendances mean bugger all in terms of how much money clubs have? Pompey need to sell, but are in a much better (for now) position than us because they had Mandarich, and more recently the new fella (or really his highly corrupt father) pumping loadsamoney into the club. They have also spent most of the last decade in the Prem, which means loadsmoney each year. A few thousand extra fans sadly cannot compete with TV money. Is it really that hard to get your head round?[/quote]They will never realise because it''s the biggest stick to beat the board with, we get 24K each week therefore we should be approx 18th in the prem. Yes we have great support, does it mean much else, especially in terms of finances in the Champ? Probably not. [/quote]Am I being incredibly thick when I read your post? Have I misunderstood something?[/quote]

Yes and Yes.

SPat was pointing out that by just going on attendances alone we would be 18th in the Premiership (it would actually be 19th as both Derby and Sheff Utd would be "promoted" above us).

[/quote]Ah now I see. But wouldn''t Fugelstads and Spats posts about attendances have been better posted in a thread about attendances where it had some relevance instead of in this thread in which I am highlighting the benefits of investing in players? The only slight relevance I can glean from those posts is simply to underline the fact that ticket sales in themselves are not enough to sustain a football club which if you look closely is exactly why I advocate the most extraordinary policy of investing in players for the benefit of both a shorter term increase in squad quality and competiveness and the slightly longer term prospect of a profit on player trading.Failing to invest in players is a far bigger stick to beat the Board with than our attendance levels as I for one understand it''s the quality of the team you field and neither the quality or quantity of supporter you attract which determines your success or failure on the pitch.Maybe you just cannot see or accept that our Board have failed abysmally to invest in players and maybe you think it''s normal for a Champs club to have to borrow a dozen players just to be able to complete a season?[/quote]Perhaps you didn''t actually read the first post in the thread which is about attendances and how we should be doing better because we have 24K in each week [:|] , maybe you should have started a thread to talk about investment in players instead of trying to highjack this one.As it goes, I would like to see better players here (obviously), I think the board gambled in various ways and have mostly lost, though I believe they''ve been trying to put the club on a sound financial footing through off-field investment. Well intentioned, but it hasn''t come off. I don''t believe we have had to borrow a dozen players to get through the season, Roeder has decided to do it as a strategy. We''ll see if it succeeds or fails.   [/quote]Perhaps you didn''t actually read the first post in the thread which is

about attendances and how we should be doing better because we have 24K

in each week [:|] , maybe you should have started a thread to talk

about investment in players instead of trying to highjack this one. I did read it the thread begins with this question. "How come a tean like Portsmouth with gates of 18 to 22k, can afford

Englands number one  keeper James,  Kanu,  Crouch, Defoe and all the

other high wage earners  and Norwich with an average of 24k plus, get

more and more in debt each season" I think my suggestions that it might have something to do with huge returns on player investment are perfectly relevant. In just one year Portsmouth have made over £22,000,000 PROFIT on the sale of just two players, with this type of profit on top of normal club revenues is it unrealistic to suggest that this might be one reason why "a tean like Portsmouth with gates of 18 to 22k, can afford

Englands number one  keeper James,  Kanu,  Crouch, Defoe and all the

other high wage earners  and Norwich with an average of 24k plus, get

more and more in debt each season."I don''t believe we have had to borrow a dozen players to get through the season, Roeder has decided to do it as a strategy.Maybe as an alternative to taking on 6-8 permanent free signings because we sure as hell couldn''t afford to buy another six or eight half decent players in the summer.

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]  Perhaps you didn''t actually read the first post in the thread which is

about attendances and how we should be doing better because we have 24K

in each week [:|] , maybe you should have started a thread to talk

about investment in players instead of trying to highjack this one. I did read it the thread begins with this question. "How come a tean like Portsmouth with gates of 18 to 22k, can afford

Englands number one  keeper James,  Kanu,  Crouch, Defoe and all the

other high wage earners  and Norwich with an average of 24k plus, get

more and more in debt each season" I think my suggestions that it might have something to do with huge returns on player investment are perfectly relevant. In just one year Portsmouth have made over £22,000,000 PROFIT on the sale of just two players, with this type of profit on top of normal club revenues is it unrealistic to suggest that this might be one reason why "a tean like Portsmouth with gates of 18 to 22k, can afford

Englands number one  keeper James,  Kanu,  Crouch, Defoe and all the

other high wage earners  and Norwich with an average of 24k plus, get

more and more in debt each season."I don''t believe we have had to borrow a dozen players to get through the season, Roeder has decided to do it as a strategy.Maybe as an alternative to taking on 6-8 permanent free signings because we sure as hell couldn''t afford to buy another six or eight half decent players in the summer.[/quote]Doesn''t this mean they are incredibly highly geared though? Just the sort of thing likely to lead to bankruptcy in the present financial climate?In principle it''s just like buying a house or a piece of art; the returns on a high-value item MAY be far greater in both actual & percentage terms, burt the associated risk is also far higher. If the market collapses & you haven''t got the wherewithal to finance the ongoing payments ...... you''re stuffed.Norwich are operating in a market where everybody (just about) can afford  to buy, so the competition is fierce & the eventual  mark-up is likely to be lowIt''s difficult, & frustrating, but much, much less risky.

[peartreeproductions 0]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]

I don''t believe we have had to borrow a dozen players to get through the season, Roeder has decided to do it as a strategy.
Maybe as an alternative to taking on 6-8 permanent free signings because we sure as hell couldn''t afford to buy another six or eight half decent players in the summer.

[/quote]

Then why do you suppose that we spent bugger all in the summer and now have no money.  This hasnt happened overnight.  On top of this Delia & MWJ have had to stump up the £2m shortfall for the Turners.  I would suggest there are enough indicators that he did have to loan players.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="peartreeproductions"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]

I don''t believe we have had to borrow a dozen players to get through the season, Roeder has decided to do it as a strategy.
Maybe as an alternative to taking on 6-8 permanent free signings because we sure as hell couldn''t afford to buy another six or eight half decent players in the summer.

[/quote]

Then why do you suppose that we spent bugger all in the summer and now have no money.  This hasnt happened overnight.  On top of this Delia & MWJ have had to stump up the £2m shortfall for the Turners.  I would suggest there are enough indicators that he did have to loan players.

[/quote]

He didn''t have to loan so many players because Sibierski, Lupoli, Kennedy, Lita would have been on high wages. Not many championship clubs could have afforded them.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="Badger"][quote user="The Prisoner"]By investing in players Pompey have just been able to sell one single player for £20,000,000, should keep the wolf from the door for a month or two huh?

Diarra signed for Pompey on 17th Jan 2008 for approx £5.5m.

We spent roughly £5.5m on a piece of land.
[/quote]

Which piece of land?
[/quote]

How many have we got?
[/quote]

The ground and the training ground?
[/quote]

aaaah.

I refer to the building land purchased as an investment to the detriment of our squad.
[/quote]

Which piece of land is this and when was it purchased?
[/quote]

Are you being facetious, or do you really not know about the millions our board spent on the Kerrison Rd. and ex-LSE land plus access roads and associated costs?

[Blofield Canary 11]

This myth about having to get in loan players to make up a team is absolute crap. We had to get in loan players when Roeder shipped out so many of the existing players and then realised it was a team game of 11 players. It was clearly done to improve the team without paying out transfer money but has been a total failure due to the poor quality of most of the players brought in.

Do you honestly think we would have been significanly worse off had we stuck with the squad we had?

Shackel and Spillane would be more than adequate

Drury is a better defender than Bertrand

Semmy a better defender than Omosuzi

Martin / Renton / Cureton / Huckerby - would they have scored any less than Sibi /Lita / Lupoli / Russell

Koroma, Archibald-Henson - better than ???????

Money we could have saved if not wasted on loan players would have financed the purchase of the one player we really do need, a big striker.

[ROBFLECK 132]

The money in football has cooled my interest in the game in general.

I''ve got so much respect for Hull City, Luton town, etc... Because they''re doing so well considering their position, newly promoted, lowest budget and just avoided administration.