Sheffield Utd that could be us (8 Viewers)

[robbiekeane]

You understand that our footballing budget is determined by the club’s income and not by the owner writing a few blank cheques?

Oh my god. It’s worse than I thought you actually don’t understand.

I thought you were just blindly trying to win an argument but you literally don’t even get it

 

---

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Isn't everything from a budget regardless? As is the same for most clubs?

Not at clubs that have owners writing blank cheques. This is a really bizarre argument when it’s quite clear that SISU’s efforts to invest on the footballing side stopped after Coleman’s 2009/10 season.

Do people really think that Joy injected the funds for our cash signings this year and last?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Oh my god. It’s worse than I thought you actually don’t understand.

I thought you were just blindly trying to win an argument but you literally don’t even get it

I didn’t think there was a bigger dickhead around here than G but no, the prize is yours.

 

[Nick]

Not at clubs that have owners writing blank cheques. This is a really bizarre argument when it’s quite clear that SISU’s efforts to invest on the footballing side stopped after Coleman’s 2009/10 season.

Do people really think that Joy injected the funds for our cash signings this year and last?

Who has said she personally put it in from her own money?

How many league 1 clubs have blank cheques?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Who has said she personally put it in from her own money?

How many league 1 clubs have blank cheques?

What else is implied by saying something like 'SISU have backed Robins in the market'?

 

[robbiekeane]

What else is implied by saying something like 'SISU have backed Robins in the market'?

You keep saying this a lot and you say it’s a really common like but I don’t really remember anyone saying it?

 

[robbiekeane]

I didn’t think there was a bigger dickhead around here than G but no, the prize is yours.

Thanks mate, appreciate that.

Do you understand that if our budget was simply based on the clubs income, then we would have a significantly smaller playing and operating budget that we do at present? Genuine question, do you get that?

 

[Irish Sky Blue]

Thanks mate, appreciate that.

Do you understand that if our budget was simply based on the clubs income, then we would have a significantly smaller playing and operating budget that we do at present? Genuine question, do you get that?

After 11 years in charge it is very clear who has lead us to the situation where we have the budget that we do. If the actions that you take lead to you losing about 75% of your customers (average gate down from 20k to 5k in those 11years) the owners bear no responsibility for that?
I'm not getting involved in discussions like these as they will just go on and on. However, suffice to say that most City fans recognise Sisu for the bunch of shysters that they are. For a whole variety of reasons they are by a considerable margin the worst owners I think we have had in the 52 years that I have followed this club. You are in a very small minority that seem to think that Sisu are okay owners. You are very selective in the points that you look at to 'prove' your point of view.
Contrary to what is frequently stated on here by one poster, I don't think that most fans want someone to simply come in and throw lots of money at the club.
Most sensible fans, which I think are in the majority, want owners who are open, honest, have a plan that they communicate and above all, through the actions that they take demonstrate that they love the club and want the best for it in the same way that the fans do. In other words they are running the club for the benefit of the club and it's community, not in pursuit of financial return for faceless and nameless money people. The decisions that Sisu make are for the benefit of CCFC? Don't make me laugh.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

:emoji_joy:
You are embarrassing yourself mate honestly.

Investment only counts if if it’s above and beyond existing budgets. Even though those budgets are variable and set each year by the owners.

What? So if we have a budget of £10m in year 1 made entirely out of our own revenue then in year 2 we have a budget of £9m but the owners put in £2m of that according to your definition there has been no investment. There's also the grey area of loans - in economist terms that's debt, not investment.

What about if a company buys new technology to improve, but can afford it from its own revenues - are they not 'investing' in the business because they could just as easily pocket the money or give it to shareholders?

I think you're confusing investment with equity, and even then not getting it quite right.

Oh the poor guys not having unlimited spending! Having to work without a budget. Tough gig. You understand that budget is set by the owners and includes an amount put in by them which is required to break even?

This is not going well for you

You do realise that if you require someone to put money into the business to keep it solvent it is, by definition, not 'breaking even'.

 

[robbiekeane]

What? So if we have a budget of £10m in year 1 made entirely out of our own revenue then in year 2 we have a budget of £9m but the owners put in £2m of that according to your definition there has been no investment. There's also the grey area of loans - in economist terms that's debt, not investment.

What about if a company buys new technology to improve, but can afford it from its own revenues - are they not 'investing' in the business because they could just as easily pocket the money or give it to shareholders?

I think you're confusing investment with equity, and even then not getting it quite right.



You do realise that if you require someone to put money into the business to keep it solvent it is, by definition, not 'breaking even'.

Hello there.

do you want to have a quick re read of the post of mine you quoted and:
- you didn’t realise that and therefore we are actually on similar pages or
- you did and I just don’t understand your post

xxx

 

[robbiekeane]

What? So if we have a budget of £10m in year 1 made entirely out of our own revenue then in year 2 we have a budget of £9m but the owners put in £2m of that according to your definition there has been no investment. There's also the grey area of loans - in economist terms that's debt, not investment.

What about if a company buys new technology to improve, but can afford it from its own revenues - are they not 'investing' in the business because they could just as easily pocket the money or give it to shareholders?

I think you're confusing investment with equity, and even then not getting it quite right.



You do realise that if you require someone to put money into the business to keep it solvent it is, by definition, not 'breaking even'.

Wait. You either incorrectly interpreted the post of mine that you quoted as being my own opinion rather that repeating someone else’s that I was disagreeing with, and therefore we are actually of the same opinion...or you’re way cleverer than me and I don’t get it

 

[robbiekeane]

We can play academic Top Trumps if you like but I think you might come out worse...

Also, seen you brag about your education a few times now....don’t really get it? Do you care to share with the group what credentials you have that make you so desperate to blurt then out in an unrelated argument?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Also, seen you brag about your education a few times now....don’t really get it? Do you care to share with the group what credentials you have that make you so desperate to blurt then out in an unrelated argument?

If anything I’ve done the opposite. You come across as extremely condescending and when you go round calling thicko then yeah you stand to be challenged on it.

 

[robbiekeane]

If anything I’ve done the opposite. You come across as extremely condescending and when you go round calling thicko then yeah you stand to be challenged on it.

You repeatedly failed to grasp a very simple concept. You can flaunt whatever degree you want in response but it doesn’t help you there obviously...

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You repeatedly failed to grasp a very simple concept. You can flaunt whatever degree you want in response but it doesn’t help you there obviously...

The concept being that the club’s income dictates what it is allowed to spend on players? Think I got that.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Agree with Brighton Sky Blue here, SISU have not backed Robins. There is no investment side from short term loans to cover cashflow. I'm not complaining about it but agree with him that terms like "backed Robins in the market" imply more than the reality.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

Agree with Brighton Sky Blue here, SISU have not backed Robins. There is no investment side from short term loans to cover cashflow. I'm not complaining about it but agree with him that terms like "backed Robins in the market" imply more than the reality.

In reality they kind of have, they seem to give Robins freedom over sales. They could easily pocket all the money to pay off the debt. They’re not throwing money at him off their own backs - but they’re starting to run the on field stuff properly

 

[fernandopartridge]

In reality they kind of have, they seem to give Robins freedom over sales. They could easily pocket all the money to pay off the debt. They’re not throwing money at him off their own backs - but they’re starting to run the on field stuff properly

They either have or haven't. Allowing the club to maintain its own earnings isn't really doing a favour, especially as part of the 'debt' was written off in 2007 and the rest again in 2013. It only sits there as a protection mechanism.

I'm not a SISU out throther but don't believe they deserve credit for not extracting more money from the club than they have.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

In reality they kind of have, they seem to give Robins freedom over sales. They could easily pocket all the money to pay off the debt. They’re not throwing money at him off their own backs - but they’re starting to run the on field stuff properly

No they are just leaving the day to day to those they pay to do it. Keep in mind that the losses are covered with loans, not grants and Robins himself has made very clear that ticket sales go a fair way to deciding what he has to work with.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

They either have or haven't. Allowing the club to maintain its own earnings isn't really doing a favour, especially as part of the 'debt' was written off in 2007 and the rest again in 2013. It only sits there as a protection mechanism.

I'm not a SISU out throther but don't believe they deserve credit for not extracting more money from the club than they have.

I’m not advocating giving them credit - all I’m saying is they could be a lot tighter ala 10/11 season

 

[robbiekeane]

Agree with Brighton Sky Blue here, SISU have not backed Robins. There is no investment side from short term loans to cover cashflow. I'm not complaining about it but agree with him that terms like "backed Robins in the market" imply more than the reality.

FP...no one is saying that they have “Backed Robins”. But to say they haven’t/aren’t investing money is inaccurate when without them we wouldn’t be solvent because we rely on them to cover losses.

They could easily say we are not putting any money in so we are just slashing the playing budget completely to balance the books. They aren’t. We have a competitive budget for this league

 

[robbiekeane]

The concept being that the club’s income dictates what it is allowed to spend on players? Think I got that.

But it’s not is it? It’s the clubs income PLUS what the owners are willing to plug/cover?

 

[fernandopartridge]

FP...no one is saying that they have “Backed Robins”. But to say they haven’t/aren’t investing money is inaccurate when without them we wouldn’t be solvent because we rely on them to cover losses.

They could easily say we are not putting any money in so we are just slashing the playing budget completely to balance the books. They aren’t. We have a competitive budget for this league

Fair enough

 

[Grendel]

Money through player sales yes?
Let's not kid ourselves that sisu themselves have invented as they havent.

They’ve had to put money in every year to stop cash flow issues. This year will inevitable be a seven figure sum

 

[Grendel]

We are living within our means as much as possible. Would you rather we ended up in £60m in debt like we were almost 20 years ago by spending when we couldn't afford to?

Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk

Yes as we were in the top league

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yes as we were in the top league

Surprised at this as aren't you usually an advocate for sensible spending, not taking on a huge amount of debt and not splashing out on luxuries?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

But it’s not is it? It’s the clubs income PLUS what the owners are willing to plug/cover?

I think the point he's making is that the SCMP only allows clubs to spend within the clubs income. You are not allowed to take any money received from the owners to balance the books into this equation.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

But it’s not is it? It’s the clubs income PLUS what the owners are willing to plug/cover?

Not when it comes to footballing costs-this is why Robins makes as much noise about season ticket sales as he can. More to the point the owners do not plug our operating losses with a gift, it gets tacked on to the debt in the shape of loans and charges from assorted SISU funds. We aren't in the Championship or PL where owners really can just pile in millions