CLUB FINANCES - let's be 'avin', the Truth!!!

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

[quote user="Reg Presley"]Some points:
1. Comparing the squad value now with 1996 is unfair:
a) The Bosman ruling was only just coming into effect
b) we weren''t subject to the same rules regarding youth as we are now - messrs Eadie, Bellamy and Cureton would not have been able to be taken into our Academy had today''s rules then applied

2. Anyone who thinks that Ashton etc weren''t forced sales has not been paying attention. A week or so before Ashton went the club was forced to borrow the money to pay Carl Robinson''s wages.

3. The South Stand and Infill were entirely financed by borrowing.

4. Did we need to replace the South Stand? No one has ever challenged the club on this - but judging by some of the stands that get safety certificates I must admit to a degree of scepticism. And did we need to replace it to the standard we did? And is the infill necessary at all?

The general financial climate has moved against us, but the Chase / Wynn-Jones prioritising of property development ahead of football and in particular the ludicrous expectations of the money that can be made have dragged this club down. Actions speak louder than weasel words The insistence that any new investor must plough moneys into the coffers of existing shareholders rather than into the football budget demonstrates clearly where the priorities lie. Interesting that Mr Di Stefano was criticised by the current regime for wanting to buy shares from an existing shareholder (Jimmy Jones) rather than investing directly into the club. Seems there is only one destination for new money that "ticks all the boxes".
[/quote]

Some excellent points Reg.

I would also make the point that the ''fire'' sales which Doncaster referes to were the £1.6m & £1m sales of Newsome & Ward. These sales represented profits totalling around £1.3m. Newsome had suffered a bad knee injury from which he was never to recover, and so both deals were good business. I would also add that medium sized clud''s such as ours both suffer & benefit from the bosman ruling.

Excellent points, but I feel that Fram''s opener is difficult to question, as it sums the position up superbly.

Not enough ''fans'' question the financial situation at the club, and why it is so ''dire'' - as confirmed by Smith at the AGM.

I would imagine that the ''Turner''s'' identified huge problems when undertaking their review of finances & this resulted in a considerable difference of opinion with other members of the board. This may have been part of the reason for their departure.