ohitsaidwalker king power
Well-Known Member
Sorry maybe I'm thick... please explain what sensible business plan actually accepts uneccessary loss over 1,2 3 -5 years when it is totally avoidable?
Sorry if its the umpteenth time +1
I repeat, for the umpteenth time, their argument is never about the short term.
Continually saying 'there's no business case' while refusing to even engage with their business case, but instead offer up another one, is a bit pointless really.
That's the point.
The club is utterly unviable as is.
So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.
Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.
It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.
And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)
That's the point.
The club is utterly unviable as is.
So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.
Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.
It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.
And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)
If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.
Forgive the arrogance.
But I do know what I'm talking about here.
So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.
Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.
Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.
Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...
You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.
As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.
That's the point.
The club is utterly unviable as is.
So it's to attempt to make it viable. The alternative, frankly, is there is no more club regardless, and it might come to that.
Now, you may disagree with the method (fine) you may disagree wityh the affect it has on fans( even more fine) but to deny that there is actually a business case for doing this is utter madness.
It may not be a likeable business case, it may indeed be a business case that's fraught with risk for the people doing it... but there *is* a business case.
And continually quoting the numbers that *could* be had at the Ricoh ignores that completely, as nobody ever claims it's better to move in the short term. So all that does is confirm what's already known, but doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.
(awaits for the messenger to be shot once more)
Forgive the arrogance.
But I do know what I'm talking about here.
So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.
Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.
Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.
Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...
You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.
As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.
Oh yes SISU have done good for us. Thanks for reminding me to get my head out of the sand and giving me a chance of thanking them for what they have done for our club and thank them for what plans they have for us in the future :thinking about:
Forgive the arrogance.
But I do know what I'm talking about here.
So maybe it's not agreement, but lack of knowledge on how such entities operate eh.
Now... such knowledge allowed me to be very, VERY concerned when SISU took us over.
Such knowledge also allows me to understand why they're doing what they're doing.
Of course plenty of morons then are too stupid to understand the difference between relaying a message and being pro certain institutions...
You choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore why, more fool you.
As you never have a hope of engaging with something if you choose to ignore what doesn't fit yopur world view. Empathy does not equal sympathy.
I repeat, for the umpteenth time, their argument is never about the short term.
Continually saying 'there's no business case' while refusing to even engage with their business case, but instead offer up another one, is a bit pointless really.
To be honest, they'd have been better coming clean on relegation about the state is the club, instead of talking "bounce back budgets" they should have been talking sustainability. That way the fans might be on board to a new stadium when proposed.
Oh yes SISU have done good for us. Thanks for reminding me to get my head out of the sand and giving me a chance of thanking them for what they have done for our club and thank them for what plans they have for us in the future :thinking about:
When did I ever say they were good for us?!?
I said (and showed!) how they were very VERY bad for us before they even took over!
of course people stuck their heads in the sand and refused to listen, i didn't know what I was talking about apparently...
Too technical for me to understand- sorry.... and like in my original post I accept I am not an accountant- but simplictically- whilst accepting your point about the long term sustainability of the club i.e must see revenue from other income streams- tell me in simple plain laymans English how short term loss, when avoidable is the correct business decision- let alone a decision which embodies the club to the fan base and the city which bears its name(for now).
So why do you try to find fault elsewhere if you knew that they were going to be so bad Norman?
SISU can be bad.
That doesn't give them an exclusive on cocking up and being inept!
You want to engage an enemy, it's wise to have empathy however.
Otherwise you may as well shout at my cat.
......... and the size of the new stadium in your business plan is ?
Just show I can prove you wrong.
I agree (and I'm not tim fisher before anyone makes the hilarious quip)If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.
Short term Death.....? So SISU(Otium) were kicked out of the Ricoh then is what you are saying?Short term loss is not avoidable if you want the long term gain.
That's kind of the point, there was no option for anything other than death... or a temporary reprieve.
Where they are indeed (as schmeee hints at) downright stupid is to dress everything up in smoke and mirrors, as it alienates their consumer base with statements that it's rather difficult to get your head around, and trust, when no evidence exists to say they are doing what they say they'll be doing.
Why, after all, would that get people onside?
But PR has always been their failing, hasn't it? The moment they came in they were secretive, keep things under wraps... had a desire to control everything by removing the right of any old fan shareholder to attend AGMs and at least ask questions if they wished. They never have reconciled the financial arts with the intangible arts and that's constantly seen them struggling to gain any goodwill.
Add in the fact that I struggle with the idea of football being about making people profit (be it a hedge fund, a property developer... you name it) then it's difficult to have sympathy for them. Investments after all, can go down as well as up. The day we stop talking about football as investment is the day that it returns to the people that matter.
Short term Death.....? So SISU(Otium) were kicked out of the Ricoh then is what you are saying?
Of course there was an option, to swallow their pride... but I fear their agenda is deeper than you are prepared to accept.
If one other person would ever agree with you then perhaps I could start to understand.
Other than that more waffle from the same source.
PS Tim Fisher excluded.
Short term Death.....? So SISU(Otium) were kicked out of the Ricoh then is what you are saying?
Of course there was an option, to swallow their pride, continue to play at the Ricoh whilst their plans for a new stadium with access to all revenue streams matured- if indeed that was/is their true plan.. but I fear their agenda is deeper than you are prepared to accept.
One thing he is saying is that you can as an organisation budget for losses if you for see the asset value will be higher and the end of the period.
I could quote you one company that losts lions for most of 2 decades but now thrives.
west midland safari park.One thing he is saying is that you can as an organisation budget for losses if you for see the asset value will be higher and the end of the period.
I could quote you one company that losts millions for most of 2 decades but now thrives.
But in this case losses are avoidable- do you not agree?
west midland safari park.
The losses may be less but like to still be in debt. Are there any other council owned grounds that offer a worse deal to its main tenant? Despite a lot of bluster from a lot of posters I haven't been shown any.
Well its a big cat
If you think the club is in any way viable as is, then I fear you may be in for a shock.
It wasn't viable when Robinson left, hence the ability for sharks to circle seeing the chance to spunk a bit of quick cash at it in the hope of vast rewards and returns... who cares about the foundations, the infrastructure, as long as we sign a player or two?
Ever since the perfect storm of Arena 2000, Premiership explosion, relegation and ITV Digital implosion, we've been firefighting.
It's amazing we've reached this far, really.
And all the time in the short termist need to survive at all costs, the club gets neglected in the quest for a player, a promotion, a cure to all ills.
So the club survives, but the coma its in doesn't show any sign of lifting.
And so the sharks continue to swim and gather, sharks dressed in suits with promises of cash and promotion.
If you think the club is in any way viable as is, then I fear you may be in for a shock.
It wasn't viable when Robinson left, hence the ability for sharks to circle seeing the chance to spunk a bit of quick cash at it in the hope of vast rewards and returns... who cares about the foundations, the infrastructure, as long as we sign a player or two?
Ever since the perfect storm of Arena 2000, Premiership explosion, relegation and ITV Digital implosion, we've been firefighting.
It's amazing we've reached this far, really.
And all the time in the short termist need to survive at all costs, the club gets neglected in the quest for a player, a promotion, a cure to all ills.
So the club survives, but the coma its in doesn't show any sign of lifting.
And so the sharks continue to swim and gather, sharks dressed in suits with promises of cash and promotion.
The losses may be less but like to still be in debt. Are there any other council owned grounds that offer a worse deal to its main tenant? Despite a lot of bluster from a lot of posters I haven't been shown any.
But they did know this when agreeing to take us over did they not?
But back to my point please... the short term loss IS avoidable, which is fundemantally the point I seek clarification on.
as ever you ignore the question with some vague response, and a redirection.
"The losses may be less... " well thats a start I guess..... so go on tell me how mitigating losses short term is a bad thing? Or do your pockets have holes that you occassionaly repair before promising to buy yourself new trousers?
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?