20th In The League, and Proud Of It

[havemyhowsonit 0]

He lowest wage does not attract the best footballers.

Exactly the same in the real world with normal jobs.

Same job 1. £20 per hour 2.£10 per hour which one do you choose ?

Quite obvious to me.

Proves a lot about this ''number 10''we missed out on. If true

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Ray"]Ricardo,

I am assuming your accounting knowlege is greater than mine, so could you explain what the following means, it''s taken from the published accounts (note 27)- thanks.

Cash balances

Cash at bank and in hand £11,698,000

Bank Overdraft £0[/quote]"Point 2) The latest accounts show £12m as Cash at Bank and in hand. This was at 30th June last year"I think at that moment in time the club would have recieved quite a large amount from season ticket renewals but this was BEFORE splashing out £25m on transfers. As Purple pointed out earlier "the accounts are only a snapshot of the position on one day".

[Beefy is a legend 224]

quote user="Ray"Ricardo,

I am assuming your accounting knowlege is greater than mine, so could you explain what the following means, it''s taken from the published accounts (note 27)- thanks.

Cash balances

Cash at bank and in hand £11,698,000

Bank Overdraft £0/quote

If that is taken from June what relevance does it have now? For all we know, that money has already been spent.

[Ray 111]

Thanks for your reply Beefy, I reply as follows;

Point 1: We have already spent, because the noose is no longer round our necks.

I agree, but could we allocate more?

Point 2: You are making considerable assumptions about what money we have available as of this time. In any case, the transfer window is closed so what point are you trying to make?

Yes making assumptions but then so are all of us I should imagine. The point is a general one, essentially to encourage debate, which it appears to have done. The loan window is open though.

Point 3: The Club has not sold any players against its wishes. What the fans think may be different, but the Club were happy for Holt to leave, and by all accounts he seems to have been offloaded at the right time.

In your post you used the words, against our wishes, I took from that that you included the fans, somewhat erroneously as it now appears,

Point 4: Agreed

Well that''s good innit. I think that in essence we are all pretty much in agreement with the direction we want the club to go in, we just prefer diffrent routes.

Point 5: I''d be interested in the statistics as we are both looking at this through the prism of our own narrow outlook. However, without a doubt our academy boys have it better than most.

So would I, I am only going on the number of meals I appear to be cooking this year compared to last, how scientific am I, although my lads have also said this year there have been fixtures they travelled to on the day that last season they would have travelled to the day before.

Point 6: You have a right to criticise of course. However...

As said elsewhere, I didn''t criticise, merely raised an issue that I was "somewhat concerned about", other than that I''m not sure what your However... Means.

Point 7; When the current board came together we were in League One and fighting off creditors. We are now in the PL and debt free. Even if we go down, they''ve achieved an enormous amount in comparison to all those before them, certainly in the last 20 years.

Agree, but you are only as good as your last performance, to nick a cliche, and I would see our overall performance over the last five years as successful, however, relegation would have to seen as a failure compared to our last three years performances, one a promotion to the PL and two in the PL.

What I don''t like Ray, is that these sort of posts have become more frequent as we''ve been perceived to struggle on the pitch this season. I don''t think that''s fair. As I''ve said before, unrealistic expectations lead to these kind of views - that ''all is not well'' on the pitch to off the pitch. By any measure in the last 20 years, off the pitch we are in the best shape we''ve been.

I agree, it''s not fair, it''s neutral and only has the meaning the individual chooses to give it. However, at no stage have I criticised or said all is not well off the pitch. In general I think the Board have done a very good job.

[Ray 111]

I am assuming your accounting knowlege is greater than mine, so could you explain what the following means, it''s taken from the published accounts (note 27)- thanks.

Cash balances

Cash at bank and in hand £11,698,000

Bank Overdraft £0/quote

If that is taken from June what relevance does it have now? For all we know, that money has already been spent.

Could have doubled too Beefy!

[Beefy is a legend 224]

quote user="Ray"I am assuming your accounting knowlege is greater than mine, so could you explain what the following means, it''s taken from the published accounts (note 27)- thanks.

Cash balances

Cash at bank and in hand £11,698,000

Bank Overdraft £0/quote

If that is taken from June what relevance does it have now? For all we know, that money has already been spent.

Could have doubled too Beefy!/quote

That''s the point though isn''t it Ray? You are the one making assumptions in suggesting that the board might have spent more. You don''t have any evidence to suggest that they have funds available to do so. You are making assumptions, not me. I''m pointing out the assumptions that you have made, that may not be correct, in making your case.

[Ray 111]

You are correct Beefy, I am making assumptions, but then so is everyone, to quote you "For all we know the money has already been spent." So you are guessing as much as I am.

Although according to the CEO we were close to a signing in January which fell through, so from that I am assuming the/some funds were available, which does give my case some weight, doesn''t it?

Anyway I''ve enjoyed this post, at least it''s been one of the more civil ones.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I would say we certainly have some money. We have money coming in throughout the season from PL revenue and Cup revenue. The Old Trafford game was an unexpected windfall. We will then get more prize money depending on where we finish in the league. We have the money coming in from the ST renewals.

But what we also have is the boards word that all available money will go to football.

[Juggy 0]

"Exactly, it wouldn''t plummet as some are suggesting"

Well that certainly what I was saying. £100m to £40m is a bigger drop than £75m to £20m.

"but let''s ensure we don''t get relegated by spending a few million on bolstering up the team"

I presume you are being rhetorical and are fully aware that the transfer window has closed and we can''t actually sign anybody until the end of the season?

[Juggy 0]

Cash at bank is meaningless.

We don''t pay players wages up front, they get paid monthly.

So you need cash in the bank to cover payroll, every month of the year.

If we had a cash balance of £0 then that would be insolvency. Rangers are going to run out of cash this season.

I''d rather we didn''t, I don''t think blankets being passed around would cover our wage bill somehow, we aren''t in the 70''s.

[Ray 111]

Lr Juge,

You said the following;

I presume you are being rhetorical and are fully aware that the transfer window has closed and we can''t actually sign anybody until the end of the season?

Well you presume wrong on assumpion 1, I was not being rhetorical, there is more tham one way to bolster up a team and you presume correctly on assumption 2 as yes I am aware the transfer window is closed.

To cover your second post, cash at bank is far from meaningless, although I agree, the amount may be and pay day is 25th of the month so as at 30th June wages will have just been paid, but I fully understand the Balance Sheet is a snap shot in time.

Our CEO stated we were close to making a signing in the window which fell though, so from that I assumed money was/is available.

[Beefy is a legend 224]

quote user="Ray"You are correct Beefy, I am making assumptions, but then so is everyone, to quote you "For all we know the money has already been spent." So you are guessing as much as I am.

Although according to the CEO we were close to a signing in January which fell through, so from that I am assuming the/some funds were available, which does give my case some weight, doesn''t it?

Anyway I''ve enjoyed this post, at least it''s been one of the more civil ones.

I''ve not assumed anything Ray. What I''ve said is that we don''t know whether that money is still there or not. And if course even if some or all if it is. It may already be accounted for in wages etc.

The desk that fell through was a loan desk according to McNally but what that suggests to me is that the Club were trying to sign more players, which is what you suggested that they should do in the first place!

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Ray"]Ricardo,

I am assuming your accounting knowlege is greater than mine, so could you explain what the following means, it''s taken from the published accounts (note 27)- thanks.

Cash balances

Cash at bank and in hand £11,698,000

Bank Overdraft £0[/quote]There was no pot of a spare £12 million. Had you been at the AGM or Supporters Forum you would have had this all explained to you. The accounts are merely a snapshot in time.As I previously stated the Club needed an arrangement with the bank to fund a shortfall later in the year.There is no £12 million pot of gold to spend.

[whoareyou? 0]

I may be wrong but i think there was also a £3million plus tax bill to pay towards the end of last year. I don''t have the accounts in front of me to check.

[Wiz 0]

Nothing against our two majority shareholders but it seems obvious to me that we need new wealthy owners now .

[Ray 111]

OK Beefy,

I''m the only one around here making assumptions or using guesswork, I''ll go with that.

Yes, the club were ''trying'' to sign more players, now we don''t know why they didn''t come, but my point is, if we were prepared to release more funds, would this have made a difference? Who knows and yes any answer to that question, requires most of us to make an assumption or two.

But do or do not. there is no try.

Yes, what I suggested in the first place is that we did sign more or improved players, but they didn''t did they and this sort of makes my point, is the focus on the financial side of the club taking the focus away from the footballing side?

Just my musings!

[T 190]

There was 49m current liabilities at June, 25m negative current working capital and 20m of transfer fee commitments post balance sheet so hardly suggests any surplus cash and there never has been in all the years fans have called for additional money to spent. Also unlikely that anyone would lend money to club in current credit environment

[Satoshi Nakamoto 0]

I prefer that the club lives within it''s means rather than risk ruin by spending money it doesn''t have.I''d also rather see money spent on the academy and developing youth players or buying in and improving players from the lower leagues rather than pay full price for the finished article.Not that this is a terribly revolutionary viewpoint, just common sense.There are already at least two proto leagues within the existing premiership, one of which contests the title and European places, and the other contests survival.  Which one of these you are in is largely down to how much money you have, and this distorts the competition.Ultimately I believe that the league will have to tackle the lack of genuine competition in the premiership by either:1.  Removing the distortion by introducing hard limits on:- players individual earnings- size of squad- total football budget2.  Living with the distortion through some kind of reorganisation, such as splitting the premiership in two or having a European league for the top tier clubs.I would prefer option 1, but since there is probably more money to be made via option 2, I think that is what will happen in the end.

[Syteanric 1]

here''s a question for those who think we should be somewhat more adventurous in our means...

when the bottom falls out for the rich foreign owners and they take all their money and go home, who would you rather be.. Man city.. or Norwich?

If the backers pull out of Man city they have players they cannot afford to pay, club debtors banging on the door and a stadium in a city were land is at a premium....

"it will never happen to them..." won''t it? if players dont get paid they dont stick around.... if the debtors cant get what they are owed the administrators come in... if theres a bill to be paid they stadium gets sold...

Portsmouth should be a warning to ANY team looking to a "quick fix". the bottom will fall out one day.. either for Sky TV, or for the clubs bankrolled by foreign owners... look at the current big and 6 and take your pick on the first to get relegated or even wind up?

Those that laugh last....

[ZLF 271]

My understanding is that we will certainly remain in the bottom 5 budget wise with only palace expected to be below us given heavy investment at both hull and cardiff.

 

without a sugar daddy its always going to be a tough balancing act;  more squad investment when we avoid relegation this spring as needed;  as it is the strongest 11 is good enough to avoid relegation;  fingers crossed they stay fit now