Things i didn't know but do now

[Furious George]

Absolutely not, but....

despite all the good things that are supposedly happening behind the scenes at the club 18 MONTHS LATER we are in a league below and are still being fed the same lines that the garden is rosy, nothing to see here, move along, move along. The CEO is responsible for the running of the business is he not? So he's not exactly going to come out and say this PLC is a complete 'dead horse' is he?

It sounds like there were positive things to come out of the meeting but from my view in the cheap seats it has done nothing for me other than add to the endless spin coming from the top for the last 18 months. Actions speak louder than words in meetings and if the club thinks its got another 18 months with nothing of substance added to the cake mix then we really are down the sh1tter.

Replace 18 months with 8 years and I completely agree.

[Freshfish]

I guess with NP there we've all forgoten and forgiven the 'legal action' too....* imagines entire board giving thumbs up sign *

[Wednesday-Wonderland]

I've read the topic and the points that have got me thinking the most are:

1. Grandad stumped NP by asking about where our revenue is going. The bloke being paid £200k p/a to run the business should have an answer to that question, no?

2. I tend to stay out out the bills drama, but I remember him saying our wage bill would be £3m, £3.5m as an absolute max.

So a) He was billy bullshitting.

b) He was right, but the sale of Grant and/or Tudgay for a total of £2m has already been agreed and that increases the budget to £5m.

c) Other.

[Furious George]

I've read the topic and the points that have got me thinking the most are:

1. Grandad stumped NP by asking about where our revenue is going. The bloke being paid £200k p/a to run the business should have an answer to that question, no?

2. I tend to stay out out the bills drama, but I remember him saying our wage bill would be £3m, £3.5m as an absolute max.

So a) He was billy bullshitting.

b) He was right, but the sale of Grant and/or Tudgay for a total of £2m has already been agreed and that increases the budget to £5m.

c) Other.

C) completely plucked out of thin air to appease the fans?

[ReadingOwl]

Probably because it isn't true (in my opinion).

If it is true it doesn't bode well for AI's contacts and scouting abilities. Are you telling me there was no striker available in the market, for possibly say a short term contract of 10K a week, that would not have wanted to come Hillsborough to get in what, at the time, was a winnable dogfight?

Beggars belief, if true.

What players is AI going to end up with now we are a division lower?

[cactus]

I've read the topic and the points that have got me thinking the most are:

1. Grandad stumped NP by asking about where our revenue is going. The bloke being paid £200k p/a to run the business should have an answer to that question, no?

2. I tend to stay out out the bills drama, but I remember him saying our wage bill would be £3m, £3.5m as an absolute max.

So a) He was billy bullshitting.

b) He was right, but the sale of Grant and/or Tudgay for a total of £2m has already been agreed and that increases the budget to £5m.

c) Other.

I fail to see the relevance of this question, If I asked the financial director of my company (similar turnover to SWFC) to state every expenditure from last years accounts I wouldn't expect him to do it from memory.

I couldn't even give you details of my own personal expenditure without looking at my bank statements.

[eDDie]

I think Nick was put in an unenviable position last night, being asked to comment on footballing matters and to effectively shoulder the mistakes of the past both on and off the pitch.

I don't think it helped that John and Peter were seen as being 'apologists' for the club and the Board, although their main point was valid - that the investment was agreed by all parties to be effectively a done deal, and the fact that the major backer pulled out could not have been foreseen (any more than DJ Campbell's performance at Blackpool could have been).

However, Dave Coupe and others were absolutely right when they said that irrespective of how firm the investment offer was, the only valid reason there could be for not signing a striker on loan is the complete absence of funds to do so. NP stated clearly that funds were there, but AI chose not to/could not arrange to spend those funds. Now this to me is the only really contentious issue of the night - because if true, it reflects TERRIBLY on Alan Irvine, and if false, it shows clearly that the talk of openness and transparency from the Board, and engaging truthfully with the fans are nothing short of weasel words.

Personally, I think last night showed one thing - that we as a club and as supporters have been naiive.

NAIIVE that LS and NP did not take action to halt the club's slide, believing that the investment would take care of that.

NAIIVE that the club allowed Cloud 9 to dictate to us how and when to make changes to the management of the team.

NAIIVE that Wednesdayite and its directors bought in so wholly to the vision that LS had and did not seriously question the decisions being made above

but also

NAIIVE that some fans think that our business operations are in some way profligate and that more money COULD be spent on the on-field product (the exception being the funds that NP claims were available to AI for a striker)

NAIIVE that some of us truly believed that what LS was aiming for was attainable (I include myself in this)

I like Nick Parker and I regard him as being a proper businessman with a proper business head. That may make him err towards doing the sort of corporate things a corporate CEO does (covering for his paymasters, painting a rosier picture of the professionalism of the directors than in fact is the case etc), but his job is actually a very simple one and one that he clearly has his eye right on - maintaining us as a cash-neutral business and squeezing every penny out of the ops of the club to give the most cash to AI to spend on the pitch. As long as that remains the guiding credo of the club, any investment that comes in over and above that can only benefit us.

[Spookone]

After reading this and digested it - my head is spinning, which I guess is what certain parties want.

Soooo much misinformation, it would be quite funny if it wasn't so sad

[eDDie]

I fail to see the relevance of this question, If I asked the financial director of my company (similar turnover to SWFC) to state every expenditure from last years accounts I wouldn't expect him to do it from memory.

I couldn't even give you details of my own personal expenditure without looking at my bank statements.

Totally agree with the above. It was a fair question, but to expect a full breakdown off the top of his head would be ridiculous.

If anyone can show that his assertion that we have a much lower off-field expenditure than our rivals in the East Midlands and Yorkshire is incorrect, then I think you might have a point - but I don't regard £10m day-to-day cost per year as being out of the ballpark at all.

[Furious George]

I fail to see the relevance of this question, If I asked the financial director of my company (similar turnover to SWFC) to state every expenditure from last years accounts I wouldn't expect him to do it from memory.

I couldn't even give you details of my own personal expenditure without looking at my bank statements.

Maybe so.

So when do you expect we will have an answer to the question?

[ReadingOwl]

NP stated clearly that funds were there, but AI chose not to/could not arrange to spend those funds. Now this to me is the only really contentious issue of the night - because if true, it reflects TERRIBLY on Alan Irvine.

My point exactly. This cannot be credible can it?

God help us if it is.

[33]

[eDDie]

I spent the whole night licking my lips and making eyes at you behind your back and I didn't even get a kiss goodbye

[cactus]

Maybe so.

So when do you expect we will have an answer to the question?

I would expect the main expense categories to be in last years accounts (not read them so don't know), but why would you want a detailed breakdown of what our electricity bill etc etc are?

[Furious George]

I would expect the main expense categories to be in last years accounts (not read them so don't know), but why would you want a detailed breakdown of what our electricity bill etc etc are?

I think it was Grandad who made the point yesterday that our turnover does not match up with our known expenses by quite a margin.

[cactus]

I think it was Grandad who made the point yesterday that our turnover does not match up with our known expenses by quite a margin.

Surely that would have been shown up in the accounts?

Didn't Paul Holmes of Wednesdayite do a summary on here?

[daveyboy66]

My point exactly. This cannot be credible can it?

God help us if it is.

Alan Irvine said himself in Jan that he had been on to a number of players but none of them wanted to take adrop in money and that the clubs wren't prepared to subsidise their wages enough to do a deal....if we hadn't got the money to pay the wages without the clubs subsidsing the players wage what could AI do??

[M Royds]

Lucky that the last chairman wasn't paid a salary then, so we actually saved money

See you Jimmy,

No past Chairman of SWFC has taken a salary. I also believe no other Chairman of League Clubs take a Salary.

[Furious George]

Surely that would have been shown up in the accounts?

Didn't Paul Holmes of Wednesdayite do a summary on here?

I've no idea, hence my ponderings and Grandads question.

Dave: NP said we did have the money to sign a striker though, we just couldn't attract one *cough* bullshit *cough*

[ReadingOwl]

Alan Irvine said himself in Jan that he had been on to a number of players but none of them wanted to take adrop in money and that the clubs wren't prepared to subsidise their wages enough to do a deal....if we hadn't got the money to pay the wages without the clubs subsidsing the players wage what could AI do??

If that is the case then, money wasn't available to AI really was it?

Thus, the suggestion that it was shouldn't have been made.

What has been implied is that money was available but he couldn't get anyone/nobody would come.

Clearly we don't know what the budget was for said loan player, but it must have been a realistic amount, otherwise why was it made public?

I am not trying to 'dance on pins' but it doesn't seem credible that no one was available, to me.

If he really didn't have the budget then it shouldn't have been said.