Jump to content
gbear05

SWFC & Sustainability

Recommended Posts

My intention here is to highlight my concerns in the hope to get our great club back on track, not to add to the negativity;

 

Whether you agree with the profit and sustainability rules or not, they are there to stop clubs gambling on promotion and then getting into financial trouble if that doesn’t happen.

 

Yet with Club 1867, Chansiri is yet again gambling with our future, with a scheme showing no respect for the fans (I posted elsewhere that it feels more like a scam than an offer to me).

 

Imagine if all Championship clubs offered a similar 1867 scheme?

 

24 clubs basing their future finances on the presumption that they will get 1 of 3 promotion spots avaialble.

 

Chansiri; it isn’t sustainable. It is a gamble. You did this before, it didn’t work and look where we are now.

 

I am sure most fans would much rather we started the-building with a focus on youth players, building a club and squad that won’t ‘be in a lot of trouble if we don’t get promotion’.

 

This is a passionate plea for Chansiri to stop being so naieve, learn from the past and to show more respect for the fans; by this I mean, no more ‘offers’ which aren’t actually good value and no more of those ridiculous surveys we saw in the summer.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not exactly an underexplored topic.

 

The point doesn't seem to be that this 1867 scheme per se is a gamble. If we were to be promoted, the absence of ST revenues would be minor.in the great scheme of things. 

 

The risk comes from the  - apprarent - absence of a realistic strategy for generating revenues and managing costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough imaginary people holding a conversation.

 

2/5. Must try harder.

:duntmatter:

 

Seriously though, you raise some legitimate concerns.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chansiri wants promotion to the premier league 

 

he’s hampered by these rules 

 

so he needs to generate extra income

 

peraonally id sell and try and get the recruitment right but he wants to keep his better players and add to them

 

will we get an embargo, yes 

further penalties, probably 

 

Our clubs not in danger of going extinct like last time it’s just in danger of being able to be active in the transfer market 

 

non of us really know what’s in stall or what Chansiri has up his sleave we can all just assume for now and non of us have any power to stop it 

 

the chairman isn’t changing anytime soon

 

for good or bad and how annoying it maybe I think we’ve just got to buckle up and see what comes with a massive slice of hope that the chairman has a master plan 

 

Bruce coming in has to have some bones to it, I can’t believe he’s coming in to just be hit with a nearbon immediate embargo 

 

but then this is Wednesday 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure that money raised by the 1867 scheme would benefit the club as far as P and S is concerned.

 

Money paid in advance for goods or services to be provided later are shown in the accounts as a liability and are not shown as a positive factor until the service or goods are provided. As P and S generally follows normal accounting rules I don't see how that benefits the club in avoiding  a transfer embargo.

 

Unless DC plans to show the money as a gift to the club which is a bit of a stretch or a gain from gambling ( the club would need a gambling licence) I just don't understand how this is going to work. I would have thought the clubs accountants would have been all over this the first time it was mentioned.

 

It may be that my understanding of accountancy is a bit lacking, I'm a businessman not an accountant.

 

Please note I'm not in any way suggesting DC is trying to do any thing under hand, I don't think he is like that.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, prowl said:

I'm not even sure that money raised by the 1867 scheme would benefit the club as far as P and S is concerned.

 

Money paid in advance for goods or services to be provided later are shown in the accounts as a liability and are not shown as a positive factor until the service or goods are provided. As P and S generally follows normal accounting rules I don't see how that benefits the club in avoiding  a transfer embargo.

 

Unless DC plans to show the money as a gift to the club which is a bit of a stretch or a gain from gambling ( the club would need a gambling licence) I just don't understand how this is going to work. I would have thought the clubs accountants would have been all over this the first time it was mentioned.

 

It may be that my understanding of accountancy is a bit lacking, I'm a businessman not an accountant.

 

Please note I'm not in any way suggesting DC is trying to do any thing under hand, I don't think he is like that.   

 

Isnt the idea that officially the 1867 Club is £500 (or whatever) to buy a book and the free season ticket is an incentive to keep it within P&S rules.

The same way the first one was to buy a plaque for your seat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for all those that bought into the three year season ticket a few years back I’m assuming that money has now been spent so how does that or how has that effected our revenue the past few years 

 

what I’m trying to ask is we had pre paid tickets in year 1 for year 1,2,3 and this all got spent in year one surely year 2, 3 have had a huge shortfall 

 

and if this shortfall is due over the next few years how much danger are we really in

 

have we already spent our future revenue? 

 

Im not sure how it works seems good if you know it gets you over the line but disasterous and wreckless if it doesn’t.

 

whatscthe contingency plan I’d so? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, gbear05 said:

My intention here is to highlight my concerns in the hope to get our great club back on track, not to add to the negativity;

 

Whether you agree with the profit and sustainability rules or not, they are there to stop clubs gambling on promotion and then getting into financial trouble if that doesn’t happen.

 

Yet with Club 1867, Chansiri is yet again gambling with our future, with a scheme showing no respect for the fans (I posted elsewhere that it feels more like a scam than an offer to me).

 

Imagine if all Championship clubs offered a similar 1867 scheme?

 

24 clubs basing their future finances on the presumption that they will get 1 of 3 promotion spots avaialble.

 

Chansiri; it isn’t sustainable. It is a gamble. You did this before, it didn’t work and look where we are now.

 

I am sure most fans would much rather we started the-building with a focus on youth players, building a club and squad that won’t ‘be in a lot of trouble if we don’t get promotion’.

 

This is a passionate plea for Chansiri to stop being so naieve, learn from the past and to show more respect for the fans; by this I mean, no more ‘offers’ which aren’t actually good value and no more of those ridiculous surveys we saw in the summer.

he came here to win promotion, any team not building towards promotion is looking at 'survival' at best, and the dingles and toytown can tell you what happens when that goes wrong.

what's to say that the time taken to 'build that side, focussing on youth' (and not gaining promotion) will not cost too much in the long term to him? 

it's very much like gambling, take £500 to the casino and drip feed it onto the roulette table at a fiver a chuck, or splash out on 5x £100 bets, IF one of the £100ers comes in BANG! your in the money, whilst if a £5 bet goes in, it's an earner. so is it with dc and promotion, my guess is he isn't here for 'the long run', so he hasn't the time to build a squad (which will cost in fee's and wages whilst being built, and hopefully challenging for promotion).

don't get me wrong here, i'm playing 'devil's advocate' and trying to see it from HIS point of view. what you are advocating is what I wanted from the very start when gray was in charge.

in answer to that he could well point out it so nearly came off, even with us buying unneeded players for positions that didn't need covering, whilst ignoring positions we were 'light' on' winger, c/b, ball winner, pacy forward, etc. and with a coach/manager with just the one idea,  WE DAMN NEAR MADE IT.

I think it may well be in the oriental's psyche to gamble, and gamble BIG from what I've seen in casinos, so it's his money, and his gamble, I, and no doubt you would have been a tad more cautious, but would that approach have been more successful?, only perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, gbear05 said:

My intention here is to highlight my concerns in the hope to get our great club back on track, not to add to the negativity;

 

Whether you agree with the profit and sustainability rules or not, they are there to stop clubs gambling on promotion and then getting into financial trouble if that doesn’t happen.

 

Yet with Club 1867, Chansiri is yet again gambling with our future, with a scheme showing no respect for the fans (I posted elsewhere that it feels more like a scam than an offer to me).

 

Imagine if all Championship clubs offered a similar 1867 scheme?

 

24 clubs basing their future finances on the presumption that they will get 1 of 3 promotion spots avaialble.

 

Chansiri; it isn’t sustainable. It is a gamble. You did this before, it didn’t work and look where we are now.

 

I am sure most fans would much rather we started the-building with a focus on youth players, building a club and squad that won’t ‘be in a lot of trouble if we don’t get promotion’.

 

This is a passionate plea for Chansiri to stop being so naieve, learn from the past and to show more respect for the fans; by this I mean, no more ‘offers’ which aren’t actually good value and no more of those ridiculous surveys we saw in the summer.

 

well we tried this. but most fans didnt obviously want it else they wouldnt have hounded the manager out and cried for the returns of Hutchinson, westwood, jones and boyd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gbear05 said:

My intention here is to highlight my concerns in the hope to get our great club back on track, not to add to the negativity;

 

Whether you agree with the profit and sustainability rules or not, they are there to stop clubs gambling on promotion and then getting into financial trouble if that doesn’t happen.

 

Yet with Club 1867, Chansiri is yet again gambling with our future, with a scheme showing no respect for the fans (I posted elsewhere that it feels more like a scam than an offer to me).

 

Imagine if all Championship clubs offered a similar 1867 scheme?

 

24 clubs basing their future finances on the presumption that they will get 1 of 3 promotion spots avaialble.

 

Chansiri; it isn’t sustainable. It is a gamble. You did this before, it didn’t work and look where we are now.

 

I am sure most fans would much rather we started the-building with a focus on youth players, building a club and squad that won’t ‘be in a lot of trouble if we don’t get promotion’.

 

This is a passionate plea for Chansiri to stop being so naieve, learn from the past and to show more respect for the fans; by this I mean, no more ‘offers’ which aren’t actually good value and no more of those ridiculous surveys we saw in the summer.

I think the falling on deaf ears syndrom is appropriate here 

 

Screenshot_20190126-140209.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mind that Wednesday pushed boat out a bit but should have been a calculated gamble.

After loss to Huddersfield in play offs seen very little evidence of a back up plan.

That when running a football club is basically incompetance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

Isnt the idea that officially the 1867 Club is £500 (or whatever) to buy a book and the free season ticket is an incentive to keep it within P&S rules.

The same way the first one was to buy a plaque for your seat.

I doubt the authorities would be daft enough to fall for that. The club is promising a season ticket in the Premiership as an incentive. That creates a liability which should be noted in the accounts.

 

If this was accepted it would drive a coach and horses through the regulation and make P & S meaningless.

 

As I say I'm not an accountant, I'd appreciate anyone on here who is having a look at it and giving their view. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fpowl said:

Question for all those that bought into the three year season ticket a few years back I’m assuming that money has now been spent so how does that or how has that effected our revenue the past few years 

 

what I’m trying to ask is we had pre paid tickets in year 1 for year 1,2,3 and this all got spent in year one surely year 2, 3 have had a huge shortfall 

 

and if this shortfall is due over the next few years how much danger are we really in

 

have we already spent our future revenue? 

 

Im not sure how it works seems good if you know it gets you over the line but disasterous and wreckless if it doesn’t.

 

whatscthe contingency plan I’d so? 

3 year season tickets are a good thing in one way because they mean you know you have signed up some customers for the next 3 years (I'm using customers from a business perspective rather than a football one). That means you have some level of guaranteed repeat custom.

 

It doesn't do much from a finance perspective. If the 3 year season ticket is say £1500 very broadly you can take the money and put it in the bank but from an accounts point of view you can only take £500 into this years figures, the other £1000 is in effect a liability to your customers so on the one hand you have cash of £1000 and on the other you have a liability of £1000, in effect the 2 things cancel each other out. The next year you can take another £500 and reduce your liabilities to the other £500 and so on until all the money is gone and the customer has had what he initially paid for.

 

If the club took all the money and splurged it in the first year they would need to reduce the cash to reflect the money spent but they can't get rid of that liability to provide the service they have contracted to supply so the liability would still be in the accounts Less money on the one hand and the liability on the other means they would show a loss. Not good as far as P & S is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this bed wetting just because we can't sign anyone. So what if we can't sign anyone.

Jeeees... What ever happened to managers and coaches making do with what they have and actually trying to make them better, you know ... Do their job.

All you ever hear about is sign him, new signings, more bodies into the club,it's never ending.  If we signed 300 players on a Monday, I guarantee on Tuesdays football heaven you would have either presenters or callers saying summat about " getting new faces in"

 

Sky even have a fricking show dedicated to ruddy transfers.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Bulgaria
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My emphasis here is on sustainability. We seem to be pitching the club at the opposite of sustainability.

 

How would people feel if all 24 clubs were operating the same scheme as us? We would all be expecting the Football League to do something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the rules are changed there seems to be a lot of anger about the two tier nature of the sustainability rules.

The EFL is in need of a complete overhaul the quicker the better

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dnhc said:

he came here to win promotion

 

 

 

tenor (1).gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Morepork said:

 

 

tenor (1).gif

OH! YES HE DID, he may have told us differently, but WE KNOW HE DID.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...