Engage with us

[Belfast Owl 2]

I'd rather we kept quiet and not blabbed what we can spend.

 

Just let the club work on it. whether the results will be positive who knows.

 

The Blades blabbed their hand in court and clbus will hold them to ransom.

 

[lanzaroteowl]

 

Is it just me

 

Or is this just sound business sense?

 

We have not broken FFP

 

Though we had a good push for promotion by going as close to the edge as was wise

 

Now we have to go again with the squad this money bought

 

Minus some of the deadwood we have picked up over the period

 

Next season we will have freed up some money again to have another splurge if needed

 

Can't see what's all the bed wetting is about?

[Blatter]

14 minutes ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

I'd rather we kept quiet and not blabbed what we can spend.

 

Just let the club work on it. whether the results will be positive who knows.

 

The Blades blabbed their hand in court and clbus will hold them to ransom.

 

Exactly. Pretty obvious Chansiri has learned some hard lessons and that the reality of working within P&S has dawned.

I expect a much more ruthless way of doing business in the transfer market since the appointment of our CEO.

Think more will leave but remember there will be opportunities in the loan market ‘til the end of August.

 

Don’t really care about THEM at S2 but clear to see from his own comments that Wilder is finding transfer business much harder to complete at Championship level where he’s never worked  before.

[Yellowbelly]

By getting rid of the fringe players first it gives us more wiggle room to add to the squad towards the end of the window. TBH our first 11 is nearly there, one or two loanees would complete it nicely but we may have to be patient on that front. Let's face it, transfer windows for Wednesday are not known for their excitement are they?

[daveyboy66]

11 hours ago, gurujuan said:

While I’m not against trimming the squad, it’s something we’ve needed to do for a while, why weren’t these drastic actions foreseen? Every day there’s another story in the local press, about us needing to get still more players out if we are to comply with FFP regulations Was this not foreseen? It damn well should have been, but there was no mention of any of this at any of the press conferences 

It wasn’t that long ago that The Star was linking us with a move for that lad at Peterborough Although I never believed that to be realistic, supporters were still speculating about bringing in the likes of Venancio, plus some top quality loans 

Can we do that? Not Venancio, that ship has sailed, but is there money available for team strengthening? Is the picture as gloomy as the press have painted? 

More self entitled crap from the master of disaster I'm quite sure that His has things in hand and knows what is needed without resorting to input from the experts on here

[gurujuan]

24 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

More self entitled crap from the master of disaster I'm quite sure that His has things in hand and knows what is needed without resorting to input from the experts on here

How can you be so sure, it was his reckless recruitment that got us into this mess in the first place? Unless you were one of those clamouring for all those dodgy signings

[room0035]

1 hour ago, Xxxxxxxxcxcc said:

Yes I think it's important that we circulate to all that we are over a barrel just waiting to be goosed by clubs wanting to strip our playing assets.

Don't worry we have 11 players out of contract the end of this season including Joao, Lee, Westwood, Bannan, Hooper all they need to do it wait a year and get them for nothing. As we as a club like to let our assets get to within 12 months of the end of their contracts.

 

If we have no money to sign new players at least make sure you keep hold of what you have, sign them up on the same terms they are on.

 

If they DC has learnt anything from the last 12 months with the whole GH fiasco then it would be to not let your club assets get into the last 12 months of contracts unless you want to lose them for nothing.

[room0035]

2 hours ago, LoadABallacks said:

Don’t think it’s a case of we have no money, more the rules don’t allow us to spend more in their current state, right or wrongly. 

 

Chansiri has openly said he doesn’t like the FFP and would spend more if he could. 

But chairman are allowed to put in £5m a season without it being question DC only put in £1m, so if he wanted too he could put another £4m in a season, that £80,000 a week in wages that would surely pay for 2 or 3 loan players and a few loan fees.

 

So if he can put it in and he keeps saying he would if he could, why does he continue to not.

[Sham67]

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

How can you be so sure, it was his reckless recruitment that got us into this mess in the first place? Unless you were one of those clamouring for all those dodgy signings

 

Yet more re-writing of history.  Some of you are obviously employed by the ministry of Newspeak.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

But chairman are allowed to put in £5m a season without it being question DC only put in £1m, so if he wanted too he could put another £4m in a season, that £80,000 a week in wages that would surely pay for 2 or 3 loan players and a few loan fees.

 

So if he can put it in and he keeps saying he would if he could, why does he continue to not.

Maybe hes had a warning from the league regarding FFP and his excessive sponsorship of the ground,shirts,taxis and kit maker

[torres]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

But chairman are allowed to put in £5m a season without it being question DC only put in £1m, so if he wanted too he could put another £4m in a season, that £80,000 a week in wages that would surely pay for 2 or 3 loan players and a few loan fees.

 

So if he can put it in and he keeps saying he would if he could, why does he continue to not.

 

Very good point.

 

 

[room0035]

10 minutes ago, PARKOWL said:

Maybe hes had a warning from the league regarding FFP and his excessive sponsorship of the ground,shirts,taxis and kit maker

Nah other teams in our league have stadium sponsored by by their own chairman in order to put a few million quid into the clubs. But we don't but we do have a chairman that has his name on the shirts, the adverting boards and the seats.

 

If this was any other football team £2-3m for this much advertising would not be viewed excessive.

[bigdan2003]

21 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Nah other teams in our league have stadium sponsored by by their own chairman in order to put a few million quid into the clubs. But we don't but we do have a chairman that has his name on the shirts, the adverting boards and the seats.

 

If this was any other football team £2-3m for this much advertising would not be viewed excessive.

 

I don't know what the "fair market value" rules are and what determines them. 

But looking at Leicester their owner King Power paid £4m for shirt sponsorship for the season 2017/2018 - and this is in the PL.  For the previous season it was £1m and it was £1m for their first season in the PL. 

 

Other sponsorship deals in the PL:

Huddersfield - 1.5m

Brighton - 1.5m

Burnley - 2.5m

Watford - 3m (1m for 2016/2017)

Boro (2016/2017) -1m

Norwich (2015/2016) - 1m

Bournmouth (2015/2016) - 750k

 

So...Chansiri's sponsorship of 1.2 million is perhaps deemed "fair market value", since similar clubs of our size in the PL aren't getting the type of sums you expect SWFC to be getting.

 

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2016/07/31/premier-league-shirt-deals-rise-to-record-226-5m-high-310701/#

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bigdan2003]

Club can't win though - they make statements and engage with fans already. And and they get slaughtered for it from a section of the fan base.

 

The fans forums etc - folk on here scoff at it. "just a bunch of happy clappers go"

 

Previous statements have been analysed and critiqued to a point where people just read between the lines and make sh*t up.  People WANT to be offended. 

 

I don't know what a statement about FFP will do - other than mobilise the pitchfork brigade. We already know we're sailing close to FFP, so now it's damage limitation mode. Decrease the wages and playing staff without losing our best players, strengthen where possible. A formal statement from the club would only raise and give our rivals an advantage imo. 

 

 

[Quist]

3 hours ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

I'd rather we kept quiet and not blabbed what we can spend.

 

Just let the club work on it. whether the results will be positive who knows.

 

The Blades blabbed their hand in court and clbus will hold them to ransom.

 

That is sensible approach. Since Jos arrival we are doing correct things. Remember Bullen whilst in temporary charge saying DC had asked him what players they wanted in to club. Think dose of reality has happened since.

[room0035]

21 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

 

I don't know what the "fair market value" rules are and what determines them. 

But looking at Leicester their owner King Power paid £4m for shirt sponsorship for the season 2017/2018 - and this is in the PL.  For the previous season it was £1m and it was £1m for their first season in the PL. 

 

Other sponsorship deals in the PL:

Huddersfield - 1.5m

Brighton - 1.5m

Burnley - 2.5m

Watford - 3m (1m for 2016/2017)

Boro (2016/2017) -1m

Norwich (2015/2016) - 1m

Bournmouth (2015/2016) - 750k

 

So...Chansiri's sponsorship of 1.2 million is perhaps deemed "fair market value", since similar clubs of our size in the PL aren't getting the type of sums you expect SWFC to be getting.

 

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2016/07/31/premier-league-shirt-deals-rise-to-record-226-5m-high-310701/#

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last season when Huddersfield and Brighton went up there was an article about how much teams got paid for shirt sponsorship (see below)

 

Huddersfield and Brighton got about £1.5m and Newcastle £6m though their deal was signed while a premiership team. This was not the figure for stadium sponsorship or advertising sponsorship.  So presumably this could be a few million more depend how much teams are able to maximise revenue. 

 

The point is DC keep using FFP as an excuse but when asked why he doesn't put more money in he uses FFP again as the excuse but clearly there is room to put more in so why does he.

 

https://www.totalsportek.com/football/premier-league-shirt-sponsorship-deals/

[bigdan2003]

44 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Last season when Huddersfield and Brighton went up there was an article about how much teams got paid for shirt sponsorship (see below)

 

Huddersfield and Brighton got about £1.5m and Newcastle £6m though their deal was signed while a premiership team. This was not the figure for stadium sponsorship or advertising sponsorship.  So presumably this could be a few million more depend how much teams are able to maximise revenue. 

 

The point is DC keep using FFP as an excuse but when asked why he doesn't put more money in he uses FFP again as the excuse but clearly there is room to put more in so why does he.

 

https://www.totalsportek.com/football/premier-league-shirt-sponsorship-deals/

 

A similar study was done for stadium sponsorship:

Watford - 0.8M
WBA - 0.9

Hudersfield - 0.3m

 

What I find a little disingenuous from you is that your remarks make it sound like he's only investing 1 million quid. He's literally covering our losses currently.

 

Perhaps he has every intention of spending the extra 4 million that FFP might allow ( i don't know if that's true or not), but as a priority trimming the current wage bill first. 

 

Swiss Ramble‏ @SwissRamble Mar 5

Although #SWFC managed to (slightly) increase their cash balance in the last three years, this is only because Chansiri continue to pour money into the club, including £23.5m last season alone: loan £20.0m, share capital £2.3m and sponsorship income £1.2m.

 

Swiss Ramble‏ @SwissRamble Mar 5

Since Chansiri bought #SWFC from Milan Mandaric in Feb ‘15 (for a reported £37.5m), he has provided £63m of funding (loans £38m + shares £25m). £17m paid off old loans, while £24m covered operating losses. £13m was spent on players (net), compared to just £1m in previous 6 years.

 

Swiss Ramble‏ @SwissRamble Mar 5

#SWFC auditors noted material uncertainty about club’s ability to continue as going concern, though Chansiri confirmed financial support for at least next 12 months. Basically, club will be OK if he keeps putting in cash, but will almost certainly have to sell players for FFP.

 

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/970584781300862976

 

 

 

[room0035]

26 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

 

A similar study was done for stadium sponsorship:

Watford - 0.8M
WBA - 0.9

Hudersfield - 0.3m

 

What I find a little disingenuous from you is that your remarks make it sound like he's only investing 1 million quid. He's literally covering our losses currently.

 

Perhaps he has every intention of spending the extra 4 million that FFP might allow ( i don't know if that's true or not), but as a priority trimming the current wage bill first. 

 

Swiss Ramble‏ @SwissRamble Mar 5

Although #SWFC managed to (slightly) increase their cash balance in the last three years, this is only because Chansiri continue to pour money into the club, including £23.5m last season alone: loan £20.0m, share capital £2.3m and sponsorship income £1.2m.

 

Swiss Ramble‏ @SwissRamble Mar 5

Since Chansiri bought #SWFC from Milan Mandaric in Feb ‘15 (for a reported £37.5m), he has provided £63m of funding (loans £38m + shares £25m). £17m paid off old loans, while £24m covered operating losses. £13m was spent on players (net), compared to just £1m in previous 6 years.

 

Swiss Ramble‏ @SwissRamble Mar 5

#SWFC auditors noted material uncertainty about club’s ability to continue as going concern, though Chansiri confirmed financial support for at least next 12 months. Basically, club will be OK if he keeps putting in cash, but will almost certainly have to sell players for FFP.

 

https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/970584781300862976

 

 

 

He is covering the losses but this money is being recorded in the account so when or if he sells the club he will get this money back or it will be factored into any money that he gets for the club. As stated above showing the the accounts as loan and as you no loans eventually get paid back.

 

He is saving us interest we would be paying if we were using a bank for finance instead and unlike previous chairman we had he is not charging us any fees or interest for the money 

[oldishowl]

24 minutes ago, room0035 said:

He is covering the losses but this money is being recorded in the account so when or if he sells the club he will get this money back or it will be factored into any money that he gets for the club. As stated above showing the the accounts as loan and as you no loans eventually get paid back.

 

He is saving us interest we would be paying if we were using a bank for finance instead and unlike previous chairman we had he is not charging us any fees or interest for the money 

 

No they don’t have to be paid back.

If Chansiri wants to write them off sometime in the future he can. 

It’s up to him, but it would be pretty bad practice not to even record them.

[Sonny]

26 minutes ago, room0035 said:

He is covering the losses but this money is being recorded in the account so when or if he sells the club he will get this money back or it will be factored into any money that he gets for the club. As stated above showing the the accounts as loan and as you no loans eventually get paid back.

 

He is saving us interest we would be paying if we were using a bank for finance instead and unlike previous chairman we had he is not charging us any fees or interest for the money 

 

Not necessarily. When he decides to sell he’ll get what someone is prepared to pay. Every year he ploughs ~£20m in it becomes less likely that he’ll get everything back as the value of the club compared to assets/similar clubs will be so out of sync.