Have we? When did we have a go at that then? I must have missed it!
In this thread expertise is directly related to how closely someone's opinion matches your own.
Or you could align it with the possiblity that anyone who claims expertise, regardless of opinion, ought to be able to come out with a plan that stands up to more than a cursory glance to find its flaws.
Who said anything about all the income? Who said anything about 365 day revenues?
If SISU wanted the 365 income they should not have pissed everyone off and tried properly to do a deal instead of using underhand tactics like forcing our club to Northampton. Wasps negotiated and then paid the going rate after SISU devalued it. Fisher even said he didn't really want the 50% as it wasn't worth it. What rights have SISU got to the 365 revenue when they didn't want to pay for it?
Which is precisely why a new stadium isn't the answer. (I'm not suggesting throwing millions at promotion is either).
The point here is that the so-called expert that the CET have put forward hasn't actually troubled himself to comment on this aspect of the rental deal - the lack of revenue.
Where are you going with this? The point here is that the so-called expert that the CET have put forward hasn't actually troubled himself to comment on this aspect of the rental deal - the lack of revenue. Whether it's the council's fault, SISU's fault, or someone else's fault isn't relevant here but ignoring the problem does rather call into question of how expert the analysis is though, I'd say.
The “I don’t think this club can survive in League One" comment was directly in response to a lack of revenue and turnover.
His point being that, in his opinion, income in a higher league would largely negate the impact of a loss of revenue caused by the existing rental agreement and therefore promotion should be a priority.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
The “I don’t think this club can survive in League One" comment was directly in response to a lack of revenue and turnover.
His point being that, in his opinion, income in a higher league would largely negate the impact of a loss of revenue caused by the existing rental agreement and therefore promotion should be a priority.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
Clearly he isn't either.
Our income in the championship in the last season was one of the worst but attendances were in the top 10
But don't you know that we will forever be a Division 3 club or lower because of the reduced pie money?
The “I don’t think this club can survive in League One" comment was directly in response to a lack of revenue and turnover.
His point being that, in his opinion, income in a higher league would largely negate the impact of a loss of revenue caused by the existing rental agreement and therefore promotion should be a priority.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
The “I don’t think this club can survive in League One" comment was directly in response to a lack of revenue and turnover.
His point being that, in his opinion, income in a higher league would largely negate the impact of a loss of revenue caused by the existing rental agreement and therefore promotion should be a priority.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
Correct you are starting to catch up at last - well done.
And here was me thinking that we needed to put a half decent team together to put bums on seats would bring in more income than trying to sell millions of pies and pints to people that don't go anymore :thinking about:
What an odd article. Basically PL or bust, couldn't that apply to any club outside the PL?
What we do know is that FFP rules limit you to spending 60% of your turnover on wages in league one.
In the championship FFP rules allows you to lose £13m pa (not sure of that include transfers) So from the point of view that our turnover (£10.5m) is one of the lowest 3-4 in the championship it would mean stretching that entire £13m (c£23.5m pa inc turnover)which in all likelihood wouldn't be enough as there are already a large number of clubs with turnovers of £20m+ before they even stretch their losses with the allowable £13m, plus the parachute payment clubs.
What happens in 3-4 seasons and we've wasted £39-52m and we've still not been promoted. There are no guarantees of promotion.
Sounds like boom and bust to me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
So you think a successful football club is built on revenues gained from 23 days a year?
So you think a successful club is built on selling any player that we get a bid on?
The fact is in our final season in the championship our turnover was in the bottom 3-4 in the league despite having attendances higher than 9-10 over teams.
Our turnover was approx £10.8m so above only barnsley, doncaster and peterborough -which league are we all in?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
The “I don’t think this club can survive in League One" comment was directly in response to a lack of revenue and turnover.
His point being that, in his opinion, income in a higher league would largely negate the impact of a loss of revenue caused by the existing rental agreement and therefore promotion should be a priority.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
We have to sell players as we only have 23 days of revenue. We are disadvantaged massively and for that reason will never succeed.
Right we've all seen this particular information loads of times, put our figures in the same format into the above just saying it was about 10.8million doesn't mean anything.
Its interesting that in that graph Peterborough had similar revenue to us, yet when we were after Mackail-Smith and Aaron McLean Barry Fry immediately rebuffed us saying we couldn't afford it.
How come could Peterborough do that but we cant?
The “I don’t think this club can survive in League One" comment was directly in response to a lack of revenue and turnover.
His point being that, in his opinion, income in a higher league would largely negate the impact of a loss of revenue caused by the existing rental agreement and therefore promotion should be a priority.
That's his opinion, not mine - I'm not an expert.
Wasn't this the guy that the council wanted as the administrator?
Yes another Leeds based administrator - yes I remember him sniggering when Haskell was mentioned.
This is the guy then who almost put Bournemouth out of business isn't he? Guilfoyle almost did it at Plymouth.
What next from the CET? Ridsdale on creating a sustainable future and Ryan Giggs in the personal advice column.
Thats rubbish Simon, I heard Alan Poole said you made a great cup of tea
Something doesn't ring true with this bunch of shysters. For an expert to say what he has, it beggars belief that this scum are still trading. Some people say they are using CCFC as a dumping ground for debt. I've always thought that they were nothing but asset strippers, now I'm not so sure!
And here was me thinking that we needed to put a half decent team together to put bums on seats would bring in more income than trying to sell millions of pies and pints to people that don't go anymore :thinking about:
As in you have 100k rent so get your arse in the division above so you get given 5 million minimum in TV money? Also the back of a successful promotion crowds will naturally increase.
Regardless of the wages we'd then have to pay to stay in the division, how do we pay for the team to get us there? Or are you saying, as the expert seems to be, that we just take a punt and hope it all works out.
I'm going to use my favourite (non-Simpsons) quote here. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?