Covkid1968#
Well-Known Member
They do . They also like talking about winning the European cup a lot. I go to some games with them... it’s a great club
They do . They also like talking about winning the European cup a lot. I go to some games with them... it’s a great clubNottingham Forest fans hate being called Notts Forest, so no wonder they won't celebrate with you.
What type of money are we taking about Mark?No chance
But they would lose the significant bonuses that they'd get for winning promotion
Isn’t that the entire point of calling them Notts Forest? And Nottingham County are shite as well.Nottingham Forest fans hate being called Notts Forest, so no wonder they won't celebrate with you.
For a start a lot of them will have a wage increase written into their contracts on promotion. Say it's 10%, players would be fuming to lose out on it. PFA would be all over it. Gordon Taylor has already been moaning about players taking a wage cut or deferral.What type of money are we taking about Mark?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Exactly.
He is ranting that bigger clubs sell more iFollow subscriptions and that Accrington have to travel to Pompey and don't get any money from it and all sorts.
He's going about it completely the wrong way and his meltdown on Twitter is beyond embarrassing. But whilst the point he's making is a bit of a cliche, he still has a point. iFollow on its own won't work financially as a sole revenue stream for the smaller clubs once they unfurlough their players.
What he's failing to touch upon is that realistically this issue is likely to extend into next season. Clubs with small fanbases have to be concerned about what the future holds as I genuinely can't see football stadiums being filled until a vaccine is found.
If there is a meeting today Andy Holt will not be in attendance, he has a 'headache'.
Nottingham Forest fans hate being called Notts Forest, so no wonder they won't celebrate with you.
I would argue it is more like West Mids city FC if you want to be pedanticBecause it’s not their fucking name. It’s like calling us West Midlands City FC.
(Why yes I do have Forest fans in my family how can you tell?)
I would argue it is more like West Mids city FC if you want to be pedantic
Because it’s not their fucking name. It’s like calling us West Midlands City FC.
(Why yes I do have Forest fans in my family how can you tell?)
Isn't it like us being called Cov City?
No?
Notts is short for Nottinghamshire. The county not the city.
Notts County is correct Notts Forest is not.
Because it’s not their fucking name. It’s like calling us West Midlands City FC.
(Why yes I do have Forest fans in my family how can you tell?)
That level of pedantic will bring that bloke back arguing that Lincoln is in the midlands or whatever he was on about a while back
That level of pedantic will bring that bloke back arguing that Lincoln is in the midlands or whatever he was on about a while back
Lincoln is in the East Midlands, as is technically where I am now (12 miles from Manchester).
Every club will be in the same boat though, teams like Pompey and Sunderland will probably make more than us from streaming if they all charge for it.
It would be a good time for clubs to think of other revenue streams, more merchandise, selling experience days (Pompey did this a while back). They can then be used when football is back.
Figuratively we're all in the same boat but literally we are almost certainly aren't.
Yes in a way it all correlates as those with significant wage bills will rely on their fanbases to purchase a match pass as much as those with the smaller wage bills. But the fact of the matter is that those clubs with fanbases that don't stretch beyond 2-3 thousand will be in serious trouble - far more than the likes of Pompey or Sunderland as there just won't be anywhere near the same virtual footfall to cover the expenses. Then you have to consider the issue of what position the owners are in to make up the shortfall.
Don't forget owners are going to be severely affected on a personal level as well - their ability to bridge the signifiant losses will be dependent on the state of their external business ventures. But unfortunately those are the facts and can't be helped. As you say clubs have to find inventive ways to bring in additional income - we're very much in adapt or die territory at the moment.
The thing there is that you would think Pompey and Sunderland will have higher wage budgets than Accrington to cover? It would all be relative.
'We find ourselves in a situation where there's no money coming in, but there’s still money going out. It’s a basic rule of economics that your ins have to be more than your outs.' - Andy Pilley - who spent £128 on wages for every £100 Fleetwood received even before CV.That's where my point about owners comes in. Their ability to bridge the gap entirely depends on how the current crisis has affected them personally. Hence why I think you simply can't paint every club with the same brush with your claim that everyone is in the same boat because that's complete speculation.
Also I haven't even included those clubs who spend way beyond their means despite their small fanbase? - E.g. Fleetwood Town. Speaking of, Andy Pilley has given a pretty accurate assessment of the situation and I think much of what he says resonates with my argument in relation to owners. He makes a lot of further interesting points as well though
Fleetwood owner on financial implications of coronavirus and his solutions
Amazing isn't it. We all know football clubs have been financial basket cases for years yet there's now loads of chairmen who are finance experts telling everyone else what should be done.'We find ourselves in a situation where there's no money coming in, but there’s still money going out. It’s a basic rule of economics that your ins have to be more than your outs.' - Andy Pilley - who spent £128 on wages for every £100 Fleetwood received even before CV.
'We find ourselves in a situation where there's no money coming in, but there’s still money going out. It’s a basic rule of economics that your ins have to be more than your outs.' - Andy Pilley - who spent £128 on wages for every £100 Fleetwood received even before CV.
It’s a basic rule of economics that your ins have to be more than your outs.'
It's not even a bad rule of economics as you can deficit spend.'We find ourselves in a situation where there's no money coming in, but there’s still money going out. It’s a basic rule of economics that your ins have to be more than your outs.' - Andy Pilley - who spent £128 on wages for every £100 Fleetwood received even before CV.
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?