Waggott Reveals Club Ambition (6 Viewers)

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Now we've established that SISU did in fact over spend on players, we can agree then that Andy Thorn had adequate financial support and spending was not the reason why the club was relegated from the Championship in 2012

I’m not going to enter that whole, tired debate again; but the transfer-in, transfer-out relationship as referenced on Wikipedia shows the over-expenditure and bad decision making primarily spanned from 2007 to 2011. And that in the season in question - the 2001-12 - playing squad was was cut back ruthlessly:

Players in: 4: Chris Dunn, Joe Murphy, Cody McDonald, Hermann Hreiðarsson

Players out: 14: Conor Grogan, Luke Adams, Michael Quirke, Michael McIndoe, Connor Gudger, Marlon King, Keiren Westwood, Stephen O'Halloran, Isaac Osbourne, Alistair Worby, Aron Gunnarsson, Lee Carsley, Ben Turner, Lukas Jutkiewicz (of which 7 or 8 would be considered significant deductions from the quality of the playing staff)

Even Fisher admitted the playing squad, and specifically the decisions with regards the playing staff going into the 2011-12 season were wrong, when he retrospectively stated: "It's clear that mistakes have been made - and that is why we find ourselves in this position,” said Fisher. “We must not repeat those mistakes. Supporters will reasonably ask whether the squad was ever strong enough after players left in the summer and whether enough was done to redress the balance within the squad. Of course that's a very good point to raise and that, along with other impacting factors, will be reviewed”.

So, let’s leave it there, eh?

Grendel · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I’m not going to enter that whole, tired debate again; but the transfer-in, transfer-out relationship as referenced on Wikipedia shows the over-expenditure and bad decision making primarily spanned from 2007 to 2011. And that in the season in question - the 2001-12 - playing squad was was cut back ruthlessly:

Players in: 4: Chris Dunn, Joe Murphy, Cody McDonald, Hermann Hreiðarsson

Players out: 14: Conor Grogan, Luke Adams, Michael Quirke, Michael McIndoe, Connor Gudger, Marlon King, Keiren Westwood, Stephen O'Halloran, Isaac Osbourne, Alistair Worby, Aron Gunnarsson, Lee Carsley, Ben Turner, Lukas Jutkiewicz (of which 7 or 8 would be considered significant deductions from the quality of the playing staff)

Even Fisher admitted the playing squad, and specifically the decisions with regards the playing staff going into the 2011-12 season were wrong, when he retrospectively stated: "It's clear that mistakes have been made - and that is why we find ourselves in this position,” said Fisher. “We must not repeat those mistakes. Supporters will reasonably ask whether the squad was ever strong enough after players left in the summer and whether enough was done to redress the balance within the squad. Of course that's a very good point to raise and that, along with other impacting factors, will be reviewed”.

So, let’s leave it there, eh?

So when the club actually embarked on a policy of not overspending you would have rather they continued to overspend?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

Grendel said:
So when the club actually embarked on a policy of not overspending you would have rather they continued to overspend?

No; and don't try and misrepresent me again. I'll type it again for the second time today; just as I clearly explained at the time. The club needed to be clear and candid with regards our financial position. Not the 'we are debt free' crap we'd been fed - which actually meant something quite, quite different.

I'd rather they told us what the business model needed to be, and the reasons for that being the case. Exactly as is being done now, strangely enough. If we'd have been relegated, trying our best with regards bringing through kids and within a sustainable financial structure; then many more of the fans would have stood alongside the owners than have done so via the route they have now taken

Hobo · Mar 17, 2014

Grendel said:
So when the club actually embarked on a policy of not overspending you would have rather they continued to overspend?

Budget controls and aligning expenditure with income is one thing. But as you yourself have illustrated, your own company has invested millions not expecting to see a return on it for years....you don't want to make false economies ie throw the baby out and keep the dirty bath water.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I’m not going to enter that whole, tired debate again; but the transfer-in, transfer-out relationship as referenced on Wikipedia shows the over-expenditure and bad decision making primarily spanned from 2007 to 2011. And that in the season in question - the 2001-12 - playing squad was was cut back ruthlessly:

Players in: 4: Chris Dunn, Joe Murphy, Cody McDonald, Hermann Hreiðarsson

Players out: 14: Conor Grogan, Luke Adams, Michael Quirke, Michael McIndoe, Connor Gudger, Marlon King, Keiren Westwood, Stephen O'Halloran, Isaac Osbourne, Alistair Worby, Aron Gunnarsson, Lee Carsley, Ben Turner, Lukas Jutkiewicz (of which 7 or 8 would be considered significant deductions from the quality of the playing staff)

Even Fisher admitted the playing squad, and specifically the decisions with regards the playing staff going into the 2011-12 season were wrong, when he retrospectively stated: "It's clear that mistakes have been made - and that is why we find ourselves in this position,” said Fisher. “We must not repeat those mistakes. Supporters will reasonably ask whether the squad was ever strong enough after players left in the summer and whether enough was done to redress the balance within the squad. Of course that's a very good point to raise and that, along with other impacting factors, will be reviewed”.

So, let’s leave it there, eh?

But things changed when Sisu got rid of Ranson, a turning point in which the financing dried up, and the Sisu game plan changed.

Financing was cut significantly I agree with that, but what the Club did have budget wise was adequate.

It was clear that the reason we got relegated was not because of financial restrictions but because we had a manager in charge who had no background in any managerial job, was useless motivating his players and tactically non-existent.

Spionkop · Mar 17, 2014

Most fans would agree selling your main striker (Juke) as you battled relegation was not a good move. Symptomatic of Sisu sadly.
Bigi and Thomas as our central midfield, what were they 17? Yeah Sisu, all built up for a big push. Right.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Financing was cut significantly I agree with that, but what the Club did have budget wise was adequate.

It was clear that the reason we got relegated was not because of financial restrictions but because we had a manager in charge who had no background in any managerial job, was useless motivating his players and tactically non-existent.

That's where we disagree. My view was that's the financing was not adequate, and that to expect a rookie manager to pull rabbits from hats with so little support was to expect the impossible.

To blame it solely on Thorn - for me - is like to pin the Arena situation solely on the council.

That stated, again, I'm not going to post any more on this issue as it's been covered off many, many, many times before

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Spionkop said:
Most fans would agree selling your main striker (Juke) as you battled relegation was not a good move. Symptomatic of Sisu sadly.
Bigi and Thomas as our central midfield, what were they 17? Yeah Sisu, all built up for a big push. Right.

I would say that one of the Clubs biggest error's in history to be honest, there was no excusing that.

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
That's where we disagree. My view was that's the financing was not adequate, and that to expect a rookie manager to pull rabbits from hats with so little support was to expect the impossible.

To blame it solely on Thorn - for me - is like to pin the Arena situation solely on the council.

That stated, again, I'm not going to post any more on this issue as it's been covered off many, many, many times before

You have said it in your post yourself MMM "rookie manager". In the situation we found ourselves in we needed a manager who had the stomach for the fight, not a unproven "rookie manager" who only had the stomach for the bar. It was a poor decision to employ Andy Thorn as manager and henceforth why were relegated.

The fault should for relegation should be placed on the head of the Club for employing the oath, but how Andy Thorn ever got the role was beyond me.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

There's some paradoxical thinking to your last few posts Rob. On one hand stating that selling Juke was 'one of the Clubs biggest error's in history to be honest', whilst at the same time; laying the blame solely at Thorn's door.

That stated, I'm not participating any more. Fingers in ears.....

fernandopartridge · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I’m not going to enter that whole, tired debate again; but the transfer-in, transfer-out relationship as referenced on Wikipedia shows the over-expenditure and bad decision making primarily spanned from 2007 to 2011. And that in the season in question - the 2001-12 - playing squad was was cut back ruthlessly:

Players in: 4: Chris Dunn, Joe Murphy, Cody McDonald, Hermann Hreiðarsson

Players out: 14: Conor Grogan, Luke Adams, Michael Quirke, Michael McIndoe, Connor Gudger, Marlon King, Keiren Westwood, Stephen O'Halloran, Isaac Osbourne, Alistair Worby, Aron Gunnarsson, Lee Carsley, Ben Turner, Lukas Jutkiewicz (of which 7 or 8 would be considered significant deductions from the quality of the playing staff)

Even Fisher admitted the playing squad, and specifically the decisions with regards the playing staff going into the 2011-12 season were wrong, when he retrospectively stated: "It's clear that mistakes have been made - and that is why we find ourselves in this position,” said Fisher. “We must not repeat those mistakes. Supporters will reasonably ask whether the squad was ever strong enough after players left in the summer and whether enough was done to redress the balance within the squad. Of course that's a very good point to raise and that, along with other impacting factors, will be reviewed”.

So, let’s leave it there, eh?

The stat that completely knocks all of that out of the water is 107% of turnover spent on players' wages. The end.

fernandopartridge · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
That's where we disagree. My view was that's the financing was not adequate, and that to expect a rookie manager to pull rabbits from hats with so little support was to expect the impossible.

To blame it solely on Thorn - for me - is like to pin the Arena situation solely on the council.

That stated, again, I'm not going to post any more on this issue as it's been covered off many, many, many times before

So you'd prefer CCFC's debt to Arvo to be even larger than it is?

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
There's some paradoxical thinking to your last few posts Rob. On one hand stating that selling Juke was 'one of the Clubs biggest error's in history to be honest', whilst at the same time; laying the blame solely at Thorn's door.

That stated, I'm not participating any more. Fingers in ears.....

I think you need to read my post again MMM the reason we got relegated was Andy Thorn, that was the reason end of story, my point regarding Juke was that it condemned what to most of us was already visible, it wasn't the reason we got relegated because IMO I reckon we would have gone down anyhow and I have highlighted why thanks to Andy Thorn.

Andy Thorn was the reason we went down, the fault of this lies with the Club who employed him, Juke was just the greese on the wheels that made them turn faster, not the outlay for relegation.

Moff · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
laying the blame solely at Thorn's door.

Its easy to do, I mean he was f***ing useless

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
The stat that completely knocks all of that out of the water is 107% of turnover spent on players' wages. The end.

Yes. A wage roll compromised of contracts given out by SISU. Do you know, in that relegation year, there was not one player on a contract not given out by SISU.

They cut back. Too quickly. We shipped any players we could or had to; yet still had to carry the swollen, SISU-gifted contracts to the like of Bell, Eastwood, McSheffrey and Wood.

So, what little salary we had was absorbed by a few players who weren't performing, leaving nothing for the balance of the playing squad. The fact that even your mate Fisher admits as such in the quote I kindly left for you kind of destroys your argument from within

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
So you'd prefer CCFC's debt to Arvo to be even larger than it is?

Well feck me, I'm not going to type my position for the third time this morning :facepalm:

lordsummerisle · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Yes. A wage roll compromised of contracts given out by SISU. Do you know, in that relegation year, there was not one player on a contract not given out by SISU.

After four years wouldn't you expect that to be the case?

Unless you expected to see us still having Gerry Daly on the books somewhere?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

lordsummerisle said:
After four years wouldn't you expect that to be the case?

Unless you expected to see us still having Gerry Daly on the books somewhere?

I think he'd probably have got a game!

Bit strange when people like FP come on here, constantly and singularly berating CCC/ACL for their role in the rent and the Arena saga, and then - to prove another point - throw in facts like we were operating at 107% of turnover on wages, four years after SISU were at the helm; with evey player sitting under a conntract given by SISU!!

But at the same time, don't attribute any blame in this whole sorry sage on escalating costs due to poor financial responsibility by our current owners :facepalm:

I don't know how you're going to get him out of this one. You'd better start thinking quick....

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I think he'd probably have got a game!

Bit strange when people like FP come on here, constantly and singularly berating CCC/ACL for their role in the rent and the Arena saga, and then - to prove another point - throw in facts like we were operating at 107% of turnover on wages, four years after SISU were at the helm; with evey player sitting under a conntract given by SISU!!

But at the same time, don't attribute any blame in this whole sorry sage on escalating costs due to poor financial responsibility by our current owners :facepalm:

I don't know how you're going to get him out of this one. You'd better start thinking quick....

Can I just say that technically you're wrong and that a player is given a contract by the Club whether that is funded by the Club's revenue streams or money invested in by the owners is up for debate, but when a player signs a contract is given to him on behalf of the Club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Can I just say that technically you're wrong and that a player is given a contract by the Club whether that is funded by the Club's revenue streams or money invested in by the owners is up for debate, but when a player signs a contract is given to him on behalf of the Club.

You what?

fernandopartridge · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I think he'd probably have got a game!

Bit strange when people like FP come on here, constantly and singularly berating CCC/ACL for their role in the rent and the Arena saga, and then - to prove another point - throw in facts like we were operating at 107% of turnover on wages, four years after SISU were at the helm; with evey player sitting under a conntract given by SISU!!

But at the same time, don't attribute any blame in this whole sorry sage on escalating costs due to poor financial responsibility by our current owners :facepalm:

I don't know how you're going to get him out of this one. You'd better start thinking quick....

Two wrongs don't make a right:

Did SISU make dreadful decisions on managerial appointments and spending generally? Yes

Did ACL charge the club a rent that was too high? Yes

Do these two facts cancel each other out? No

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Bit strange when people like FP come on here, constantly and singularly berating CCC/ACL for their role in the rent and the Arena saga, and then - to prove another point - throw in facts like we were operating at 107% of turnover on wages, four years after SISU were at the helm; with evey player sitting under a conntract given by SISU!!

RoboCCFC90 said:
Can I just say that technically you're wrong and that a player is given a contract by the Club whether that is funded by the Club's revenue streams or money invested in by the owners is up for debate, but when a player signs a contract is given to him on behalf of the Club.

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
Pardon me? (Sounds better than - You what?*)

What I am trying to say to you MMM is that you said "with every player sitting under a contract given by Sisu" Sisu aren't technically involved in the day to day running of the Club, but besides that any offer a contract given to any player is given to him by "the Club" under the terms of his contract, so saying that Sisu gave certain players a contract is technically incorrect, I'd just rather if you were going to question the thesis of other posters you should at least do it with the correct facts.

Your thanks is appreciated.

* I am trying to be kind and point you where you're going wrong, no need to get shirty like that.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
What I am trying to say to you MMM is that you said "with every player sitting under a contract given by Sisu" Sisu aren't technically involved in the day to day running of the Club, but besides that any offer a contract given to any player is given to him by "the Club" under the terms of his contract, so saying that Sisu gave certain players a contract is technically incorrect, I'd just rather if you were going to question the thesis of other posters you should at least do it with the correct facts.

Your thanks is appreciated.

* I am trying to be kind and point you where you're going wrong, no need to get shirty like that.

I'm not being shirty; it's just that you are peddling with semantics. I stated players who had been 'given a contract by SISU'.

I am aware of their relationship with the club, so perhaps what I should have typed is 'given a contract by an appointed SISU officer/CEO/director running the club on a day to day basis'. In October 2012, Fisher told us how 'hands on' Joy Seppala is, and that he 'speaks to her every day'. Joy is CEO of SISU Capital - ultimate owners of the football club - isn't she?

So, it's a SISU appointed official, working on behalf of SISU, with the SISU CEO apparently being 'hands on', and talking to said official running the club on behalf of SISU daily.

It's being a bit pedantic, therefore, isn't it - to try and draw a definition between the above, and a simplified version that simply says a contract 'given a contract by SISU'?!?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Two wrongs don't make a right:

Did SISU make dreadful decisions on managerial appointments and spending generally? Yes

Did ACL charge the club a rent that was too high? Yes

Do these two facts cancel each other out? No

What was turnover in the 2011 to 12 year? £10.8m?

Staff costs were what - £9.91m and the rent was circa. £1.3m? No?

Therefore, I make staff costs almost 92% of turnover, and rent 12% of turnover; yet in almost every post I’ve seen you offer – all of the focus has been on the ‘unreasonable’ 12%, with no attention to the lack of financial control, and personal costs in broad terms within context of the turnover level.

Why is that?

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
I'm not being shirty; it's just that you are peddling with semantics. I stated players who had been 'given a contract by SISU'.

I am aware of their relationship with the club, so perhaps what I should have typed is 'given a contract by an appointed SISU officer/CEO/director running the club on a day to day basis'. In October 2012, Fisher told us how 'hands on' Joy Seppala is, and that he 'speaks to her every day'. Joy is CEO of SISU Capital - ultimate owners of the football club - isn't she?

So, it's a SISU appointed official, working on behalf of SISU, with the SISU CEO apparently being 'hands on', and talking to said official running the club on behalf of SISU daily.

It's being a bit pedantic, therefore, isn't it - to try and draw a definition between the above, and a simplified version that simply says a contract 'given a contract by SISU'?!?

Right that you may be aware of, but when a contract is offered to the player, the name of the party that has offered this contract is "The Club" as it is in all of the laws that the FA/FL sets, now for arguments sake, yes the Club was owned by Sisu Capital, now it is Otium, however "The Club" is the bearer of this contract, so going off on one saying Sisu offered x, y and z is technically incorrect.

Plus as we also know that Tim Fisher is Managing Director of the Club and is employed by the Club not Sisu, so although he may speak to Joy every day and have contact with Sisu, it's not relevant to say that Sisu gave anyone a contract, as I stated "the Club" gives players contract, this is the relevance of the Golden Share.

Understand?

The Gentleman · Mar 17, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Right that you may be aware of, but when a contract is offered to the player, the name of the party that has offered this contract is "The Club" as it is in all of the laws that the FA/FL sets, now for arguments sake, yes the Club was owned by Sisu Capital, now it is Otium, however "The Club" is the bearer of this contract, so going off on one saying Sisu offered x, y and z is technically incorrect.

Plus as we also know that Tim Fisher is Managing Director of the Club and is employed by the Club not Sisu, so although he may speak to Joy every day and have contact with Sisu, it's not relevant to say that Sisu gave anyone a contract, as I stated "the Club" gives players contract, this is the relevance of the Golden Share.

Understand?

Jesus wept Robo, how many split ends have you got with all that splitting hairs? Are you really using this as a basis for backing up your argument?

RoboCCFC90 · Mar 17, 2014

The Gentleman said:
Jesus wept Robo, how many split ends have you got with all that splitting hairs? Are you really using this as a basis for backing up your argument?

I don't have an argument with MMM, however I was merely stating to MMM that should he question the opinions of other posters he should at least do so with the facts and not guesses.

That's alright though I'll let you two continue to make things up to suit yourself, it's not important.

As you were.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
Right that you may be aware of, but when a contract is offered to the player, the name of the party that has offered this contract is "The Club" as it is in all of the laws that the FA/FL sets, now for arguments sake, yes the Club was owned by Sisu Capital, now it is Otium, however "The Club" is the bearer of this contract, so going off on one saying Sisu offered x, y and z is technically incorrect.

Plus as we also know that Tim Fisher is Managing Director of the Club and is employed by the Club not Sisu, so although he may speak to Joy every day and have contact with Sisu, it's not relevant to say that Sisu gave anyone a contract, as I stated "the Club" gives players contract, this is the relevance of the Golden Share.

Understand?

Again, for the second I understand that. But for the purposes of semantics to try to emphasise what is - in effect - an invisible line rather than face up to the bigger picture of poor financial control is a line of debate that's very, very fragile at best

fernandopartridge · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
What was turnover in the 2011 to 12 year? £10.8m?

Staff costs were what - £9.91m and the rent was circa. £1.3m? No?

Therefore, I make staff costs almost 92% of turnover, and rent 12% of turnover; yet in almost every post I’ve seen you offer – all of the focus has been on the ‘unreasonable’ 12%, with no attention to the lack of financial control, and personal costs in broad terms within context of the turnover level.

Why is that?

Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

Actually to add - spending 12% of turnover on rent was poor financial control from SISU yes, what happened when they tried to control this by renegotiating the rent?

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

RoboCCFC90 said:
I don't have an argument with MMM, however I was merely stating to MMM that should he question the opinions of other posters he should at least do so with the facts and not guesses.

That's alright though I'll let you two continue to make things up to suit yourself, it's not important.

As you were.

I'm not making things up; I am talking about things in 'in effect' terms. It's like refusing to acknowledge anything about Tim Fisher unless we all type Timothy Donald Fisher upon every occasion

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

Actually to add - spending 12% of turnover on rent was poor financial control from SISU yes, what happened when they tried to control this by renegotiating the rent?

A question answered with a question, eh? If I didn't know better, I'd swear that was typed by the hand of Grenduffy himself.....

Incredible that you'll happily target the 12% again, and not have an appropriate level of concern over the costs that were almost 8 times as large

shmmeee · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

Actually to add - spending 12% of turnover on rent was poor financial control from SISU yes, what happened when they tried to control this by renegotiating the rent?

Things went well. They got the reduction they asked for.

What happened when they decided it wasn't rent that's the problem but not being gifted the unencumbered freehold? What happened when they decided it was better to move the club 35 miles from its customers in an attempt to save £450k/season?

How's that going?

covspain · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
Are you deliberately ignoring the point?

Actually to add - spending 12% of turnover on rent was poor financial control from SISU yes, what happened when they tried to control this by renegotiating the rent?

The landlord offered a 67% reduction

fernandopartridge · Mar 17, 2014

Mary_Mungo_Midge said:
A question answered with a question, eh? If I didn't know better, I'd swear that was typed by the hand of Grenduffy himself.....

A question answered with a question then responded to with another question.

Mary_Mungo_Midge · Mar 17, 2014

fernandopartridge said:
A question answered with a question then responded to with another question.

It's okay. My work here is done. Personnel costs 92% of turnover, and rent 12% of turnover; and you only have eyes for one. You had a chance to show balance, and blew it. Well done. I'll get some lunch now...

Waggott Reveals Club Ambition (6 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency