Alan Dugdales Moustache
Well-Known Member
It won't be anywhere near that. Free Amazon prime for the whole season and a 4k flatscreen telly thrown in .
Last edited:
So, who said SISU wouldn’t back Robins? (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter MalcSB
- Start date
Adge
Well-Known Member
Are you going to travel away anytime this season?
Adge
Well-Known Member
Will be interesting to see if the status quo is maintained the season after this if we remain at St Andrews all season long. I think that the budget will then be cut accordingly.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Theres no Status Quo without Rick Parfitt.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Almost certainly not.
skyblue025
Well-Known Member
Signings look positive so far. As per normal they will be a mixed bag but hopefully there will be more gold than shite.
As for SISU backing Robins and covering the shortfall it will just be more debt added to what we already owe them, they aren't just going to gift it.
As for SISU backing Robins and covering the shortfall it will just be more debt added to what we already owe them, they aren't just going to gift it.
ccfc1234
Well-Known Member
Spoken like a true sceptic. SISU have done wrong but have also been backed against a wall in many respects.
I would love to read the sort of comment you would have made had we signed no one. The expression of dammed if u do and dammed if you don't spring to mind when I read this type of negative bilge.
Your comment as per they will be a mixed bag?? Really based on what or is that a lazy and presumptuous slur on some of our signings.
Last edited:
skyblue025
Well-Known Member
Maybe you missed the first line???
Signings are always a mixed bag. For every Bright, Hiwula and Thomas there is a Brown and Ogogo. Somewhere in the middle are Chaplin Mason and Bakayoko.
Having let 8-10 players go we were always going to sign a similar amount of we wouldn't of had a squad.
That is correct, also I would say five of the ones who have left Sterling, Bright, Thomas, Davis and if he goes Willis were arguably our best and most consistent players takes a bit of doing to replace them all with better players but let’s give them all a fair chance.
Adge
Well-Known Member
itsabuzzard
Well-Known Member
I'm a gardener but I've never heard of a veiny palm tree, and I can't find it in any of my books. Do you have a photo?
Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
Not sure why your mmmming. My money will go to support my team, not someone else’s. I went to Donny last season but I don’t particularly enjoy being randomly placed in a stadium with noisy drunken coked up kids.
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
I am so sorry that I wasn’t clear. I was suggesting that the man deserves our support financially to enable him to continue to build a team to compete at the best level possible. I. E go to home games rather than, as many suggest, abstaining and only going away. Doing both is obviously the best but I would say only away is the worst - in my opinion.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Just curious but who has actually said that SISU are backing Robins? Is it not possible that Robins is still spending the Maddison windfall and he’s actually just spending money that CCFC has created itself?
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Yeah m8. He could’ve won a scratch-off an-all
Do you think? Possibly more likely than SISU investing in the team so you could be on to something.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If that was the case even on much higher income last season why did they have to provide further loans to support the business?
rob9872
Well-Known Member
SISU publicly stated that despite the move to SA, Robins would have the same budget and I think that's fair. I know they have a track record of not keeping their word, but I imagine they're expecting a windfall from Wilson at some point and I still fully expect Bayliss to be sold either now or in January. I also assume Robins had to have certain assurances for him to stay and if we can get his targets as we seem to, then I see no reason for him to jump ship. He obviously trusts his scouting network to as he was quoted as guaranteeing we'd have a better squad this season than last - exciting times hopefully!
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Although I agree with you 100% it still doesn’t mean that SISU are investing in the team which seems to the assumption from the thread title. It’s a small point I know but SISU letting Robins spend the money generated by the club itself wether that be sponsorship, prize money, merchandise sales, ticket sales or indeed monies received from transfers is not the same as SISU backing the Robins, they’re merely not pulling the rug from under his feet.
On the subject of Wilson I see that apparently West Ham are supposed to be lining up a £35M offer for him.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The Maddison payments are not public knowledge as far as I know but you seem to be assuming that the Maddison windfall came in one hit. You also seem to have details of yet unpublished accounts. Or presume too.
Gibbo
Well-Known Member
I actually think that notwithstanding the Ricoh issue SISU have finally worked out how to run a medium sized football team on a day to day basis. It has taken them long enough. The costs are in proportion to their investment and they have finally found a manager they trust. I doubt if the day to day financials of City are that different to most clubs in L1 and a darned sight better than many.
But there are two big caveats. The risk and reward of funding a Championship teams is a much bigger kettle of fish. It costs £30-40m a year for the prospect of playing in the Prem or alternatively attracting a buyer - a gamble that does not look to be the SISU style. Secondly thus far apart from 6 months of Mowbray, Robins is the only manager they have found who has been able to provide affordable stability and success. A manager who is both competent and prepared to put up with our rickety position is a rare animal
But there are two big caveats. The risk and reward of funding a Championship teams is a much bigger kettle of fish. It costs £30-40m a year for the prospect of playing in the Prem or alternatively attracting a buyer - a gamble that does not look to be the SISU style. Secondly thus far apart from 6 months of Mowbray, Robins is the only manager they have found who has been able to provide affordable stability and success. A manager who is both competent and prepared to put up with our rickety position is a rare animal
MalcSB
Well-Known Member
They could have used any transfer income to offset debt. If they haven’t done that then they have chosen to invest in the team.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Now that they have the club running day to day in a much better fashion than when they took over if we could get promotion to the Championship we'd be an attractive takeover prospect. Of course that would require the ground issue to be resolved which doesn't seem likely anytime soon.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
My concern is any funding gap is anticipating just this scenario and / or further trickle down from Maddison. It wouldn't be unheard of for there to be a bridging loan given atm to fund the gap, which would need to be paid off, with interest.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Personally I don’t think that’s cause for concern. Shouldn’t be classed as investment though and certainly nothing that doesn’t happen at any club.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If (and tbf it's an if that's just idle speculation so far) it would show the amazing inefficiency and detrimental effect that's been the consequence of moving away from the Ricoh with only a half-arsed 'plan' in place.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No I’m assuming that the payment levels are no different this year to last year and every season the club has had to still have funding as since we received payments for him.
The club also has little cash flow to support salaries. Season ticket revenue until last week was non existent and now is at 20% at best of last season
The revenue will be far less this season than last - it’s not possible me to not have external funding to keep the club going
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
So you’re talking about short term bridging loans then to bridge gaps in cash flow which are paid back with interest rather than investment. Then making the assumption that this has happened this season even though you clearly haven’t seen unpublished accounts and actually have no idea how any monies from Maddison’s transfer and add on’s (ie payment based on number of appearances, payments based on international call ups etc etc) are payed out. Just like I said then. Thanks for clearing it up.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s inconceivable - the funding gap is huge as the revenue received will be massively down - but the wage bill I would guess must be very similar
Also I doubt we are only paying £100,000 to rent the pitch
The subsidy must be eye watering which begs the questions why and for how long?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Not unreasonable questions.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Sigh
No I’m talking about the fact our normal revenues from matches are down by 70 - 80% which will be several millions and we were not cash flow neutral with them
It’s hard to have any rational discussion with you as you act like a petulant child when someone says something that you don’t like.
You may think the millions we are short from last season and the cost of pitch rental increases are funded by an England cap for s player as sold to Norwich who now plays for another club
You may be correct - I doubt it
Grendel
Well-Known Member
If you look at the last published accounts we made a £1.6m loss after player sales (Thomas I assume).
In league 2 match day income was around £2.5 million with additional income more than double that (I assume that’s transfer payments from prior sales mostly I e “the Maddison money”)
Before transfer fees we lost £2.5m in operating profit / loss
I’d assume league 2 wages were less than we are paying now and our match revenue will be down hugely - I doubt this will be a third of what we had even then. I doubt also we will generate a million in player sales
The bridging loan was only half paid off and it’s inconceivable that we will not have had to have more loans since
Can’t see how the Maddison revenue from extra ads ons can possibly bridge these gaps alone
In league 2 match day income was around £2.5 million with additional income more than double that (I assume that’s transfer payments from prior sales mostly I e “the Maddison money”)
Before transfer fees we lost £2.5m in operating profit / loss
I’d assume league 2 wages were less than we are paying now and our match revenue will be down hugely - I doubt this will be a third of what we had even then. I doubt also we will generate a million in player sales
The bridging loan was only half paid off and it’s inconceivable that we will not have had to have more loans since
Can’t see how the Maddison revenue from extra ads ons can possibly bridge these gaps alone