How else to entice their investors to put money in? It’s a financial product. Any investment will be from a similar financial product and have similar trade offs.
How else to entice their investors to put money in? It’s a financial product. Any investment will be from a similar financial product and have similar trade offs.Stop charging the interest to start with.
Stick to the running threads you are clueless, and clearly a SISU sympathiserThis rant/thread has came off the back of a defeat, where it can easily be argued that we dominated and many people wouldn't have questioned if we had won by a couple of goals.
Massive overreaction (colour me shocked)
Thread would never have happened if we had won (or even drew) yesterday. Read through the threads on this site. Very few expected anything out of the game, and that was before Godden was unfortunately ill.
Clowns
Maybe with a sarcastic comment in your case?
Bravo.
The point is simple
SISU (a business / hedge fund) set a playing budget for transfers and wages.
They seem to give the management team an amount of autonomy with what they do with that budget.
Let’s look at this hypothetical (but not totally fanciful scenario):
CCFC Mgt Team: “SISU, we need a few more quid to cover the striker role. We’ve sent out Walker to free up wages like you said to get cover at LWB. Now MG has a dodgy appendix. Won’t be 100% for about 10 games.”
SISU: “OK, let’s look at this. What did you spend the summer budget on?, who did you sign as marquee striker”
CCFC: “Well there was Bright…”
SISU: “Yeah, didn’t work out that - still it was worth a punt - could have turned out differently. SISU is Scandi for “brave” don’t you know. We take risks where there is potential for profit. Who was your other striker marquee signing. The one on big wages?”
CCFC: “Waghorn”
SISU: “What’s he worth now? How old is he?can’t we shift him on to another club to pay his wages? Will he develop there and become more valuable? That’s what we do. Buy players we can shift on, right?”
CCFC: “he’s 32. No, sorry, no one will sign him or pay £10k per week for some reason”.
SISU: “Right….. “
CCFC: “but some people on the Sky Blue forum think that’s a good idea and he’s a genius signing”
SISU: “for f***s sake. 200k on agents fees, 10k per week for 2 years for someone who doesn’t play. With tax that’s 1.5m. That’s the type of signing that got us in to this mess at the outset. It’s the type of stupid thing that Derby would do - look at them now. Where did you sign him from?”
CCFC: “err…”
Are we back at the stage of wanting any owners to spend more than we get in?
If so how should this be funded?
If by loan is it ok to ever pay it back?
How much investment do we think we need? Clear to me a finisher is required but probably also some pace at the back and more consistency in midfield
This rant/thread has came off the back of a defeat, where it can easily be argued that we dominated and many people wouldn't have questioned if we had won by a couple of goals.
Massive overreaction (colour me shocked)
Thread would never have happened if we had won (or even drew) yesterday. Read through the threads on this site. Very few expected anything out of the game, and that was before Godden was unfortunately ill.
Clowns
Do you think signing Waghorn was sensible?Laughable
Do you think signing Waghorn was sensible?
I’m not on about hindsight.
Is signing 31 year olds in long contracts for big money sensible?
Would any sane owner think that this shows shrewd money management?
Cracks me up that people on here think that they are somehow “white knights” for defending stupidity. Waghorn was a daft signing. Not his fault, he’s just not a sensible use of budget.
Are we back at the stage of wanting any owners to spend more than we get in?
If so how should this be funded?
If by loan is it ok to ever pay it back?
How much investment do we think we need? Clear to me a finisher is required but probably also some pace at the back and more consistency in midfield
He was a major, major upgrade on our previous 9 and is an experienced Championship striker.Do you think signing Waghorn was sensible?
I’m not on about hindsight.
Is signing 31 year olds in long contracts for big money sensible?
Would any sane owner think that this shows shrewd money management?
We need an AM desperatelyAs I said yesterday, 2 Championship standard players per position.
GK: Nope
LB: Yes
CB: If we played a back 4, yes, but with a 5, nope and even so, they’re dangerously slow.
RB: Yes
CM: Nope-nothing beyond Hamer and Sheaf
AM: The weakest part of the pitch for me.
ST: If one up front is the new plan then yes, though I don’t think Robins really wants that at home.
A couple of promising younger players from within are then ok to bulk out the numbers. If you’re asking right now, I’d say it needs 2 or 3 players in midfield most urgently. This doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg
Cracks me up that people on here think that they are somehow “white knights” for defending stupidity. Waghorn was a daft signing. Not his fault, he’s just not a sensible use of budget.
Really simple:Without knowing who else was available at what price how can you really assess whether it was a shrewd signing?
And even if it wasn't, and I keep repeating this, no-one gets every signing right, no one.
On the whole Robins recruitment has been decent.
Ok. When fully fit, how much can we sell him for?Waghorn when fully fit hasn’t looked a daft signing at all. Though then again, your record on judging players speaks for itself
Really simple:
By looking at their birth certificate. Then look at the club’s de facto mission statement.
Which is IMO something along the lines of “don’t spaff money away on players who won’t be worth a bean in a year. It’s f——n stoopid”.
Buying virtually any player over 27 isn’t the way that we have been told CCFC wants to operate. Loans to drag us out of a problem (Matty James) is a different scoop of beans.
There you go.
Do you think signing Waghorn was sensible?
I’m not on about hindsight.
Is signing 31 year olds in long contracts for big money sensible?
Would any sane owner think that this shows shrewd money management?
Which is why it was reported that Robins was desperate to sign James last summer.Really simple:
By looking at their birth certificate. Then look at the club’s de facto mission statement.
Which is IMO something along the lines of “don’t spaff money away on players who won’t be worth a bean in a year. It’s f——n stoopid”.
Buying virtually any player over 27 isn’t the way that we have been told CCFC wants to operate. Loans to drag us out of a problem (Matty James) is a different scoop of beans.
There you go.
Yeah and amazingly some are actually making excuses for it now.In the last set of accounts there was interest charges of £2.3m. Regardless of whether that cash physically left the club, it is still a cost that is incurred. For all those talking about how we need to operate within our means, if that £2.3m were redistributed to the playing budget we could have an extra £45k per week in wages available. That would make a colossal difference for someone like us.
Ok. When fully fit, how much can we sell him for?
In the last set of accounts there was interest charges of £2.3m. Regardless of whether that cash physically left the club, it is still a cost that is incurred. For all those talking about how we need to operate within our means, if that £2.3m were redistributed to the playing budget we could have an extra £45k per week in wages available. That would make a colossal difference for someone like us.
Except there wasn't the cash available to pay the interest which is why it is rolled up as increased debt each year. If the cash wasn't there to pay it how do you transfer anything to the player budget to pay 45k pw in physical actual payments?
Gyok fits the model as said previously.The signing that cost the biggest outlay was Gyokeres, Waghorn as a free transfer and a clear upgrade on Biamou/Baka makes sense.
Why I’m dismissing what you say comes down not to that but the idea that SISU care who we sign, the arguments you’re making are like they view this from a fan’s perspective. They have done no such thing for the best part of a decade. They allocate a fixed amount every season and regardless of who was signed within that they will not top it up and will keep helping themselves.
They don’t care what league we’re in as they will extract money regardless
Except there wasn't the cash available to pay the interest which is why it is rolled up as increased debt each year. If the cash wasn't there to pay it how do you transfer anything to the player budget to pay 45k pw in physical actual payments?
Except there wasn't the cash available to pay the interest which is why it is rolled up as increased debt each year. If the cash wasn't there to pay it how do you transfer anything to the player budget to pay 45k pw in physical actual payments?
In which case they should realise they've taken us as far as they can and sell up.
They're not getting their interest payments and the club is as high as its likely to go.
Are we back at the stage of wanting any owners to spend more than we get in?
If so how should this be funded?
If by loan is it ok to ever pay it back?
How much investment do we think we need? Clear to me a finisher is required but probably also some pace at the back and more consistency in midfield
The argument is it’s not paid backIn the last set of accounts there was interest charges of £2.3m. Regardless of whether that cash physically left the club, it is still a cost that is incurred. For all those talking about how we need to operate within our means, if that £2.3m were redistributed to the playing budget we could have an extra £45k per week in wages available. That would make a colossal difference for someone like us.
Gyok fits the model as said previously.
Waghorn doesn’t.
Baka was signed from Walsall. Luton signed Adebayo last year from Walsall. Hindsight aside, a 23 year old from the Midlands fits the model. Not a 31 year old.
Well I’d expect that given the last accounting period was when we were in exile and getting an average of 5k fans per week whilst paying a quite hefty rent, that would have had a considerable impact on our cash flow position in that year. Funnily enough, £1m sat at the bank as of the end of that period so in theory there was cash to pay half of the interest liability.
Understanding or looking for alternatives rather than anyone making excuses for meYeah and amazingly some are actually making excuses for it now.
The argument is it’s not paid back
Cracks me up that people on here think that they are somehow “white knights” for defending stupidity. Waghorn was a daft signing. Not his fault, he’s just not a sensible use of budget.
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?