TodwickOwl Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 People slating this - need to realise Bruce wouldn't have come nowhere near us if this wasn't agreed or in plan at the start of last year. This must've been the safety net to allow Bruce to come and spend. I don't see an issue with it, Chansiri will have bought us out - he owns the club anyway, if we get out of FFP then so be it Or do we want to be loitering around mid table again next year or...?? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jomaco Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, WC1Owl said: The slight worry for me is that for it to count as a genuine transaction I assume that the EFL requires some assurance that the leaseback relationship will be on a commercial arms length basis. And of course, we can only do it once. It's doubling down on spending to get promoted with all of those risks - but the very real question is, what's the alternative? maybe not though, it's all about preventing clubs going under in the end of day, or "profit and sustainability" so if we can have 40M available then I guess that's what we have just have to hope bruce knows what he's doing, certainly couldn't have a better bloke on paper Edited May 17, 2019 by jomaco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, WC1Owl said: The slight worry for me is that for it to count as a genuine transaction I assume that the EFL requires some assurance that the leaseback relationship will be on a commercial arms length basis. And of course, we can only do it once. It's doubling down on spending to get promoted with all of those risks - but the very real question is, what's the alternative? Indeed. Through our own daft spending and these stupid p and s rules, we have been boxed into a corner. My hope is we actually learn from our past mistakes. No more spending daft transfer fees on strikers we dont need and needlessly stockpiling players for the sake of it. Thankfully, I think Bruce will be far more pragmatic and savvy in the transfer market than Carlos was. Now watch is go and spend 10 million on Charlie Austin and sign Christopher Samba on a five year deal 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultan_Pepper Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Just now, wednesdaywizard said: So this is how we can afford Charlie Austin! Kerching. If we end up spending more than we bring in this summer I'll be disappointed. We (DC really) must learn that we have to have player turnover. it keeps the squad fresh and drives us forward. Hopefully the couple of free signings we've been linked too are positive signs of Bruce doing the deals and we'll finally see some players sold for a good fee this summer to allow us to trade properly. If we have to sell the stadium in order to buy us time to sort out the clubs approach and finances then fine, but it can't just be a stop gap to carry on splashing cash on unnecessary signings like Rhodes and co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Just now, Sultan_Pepper said: If we end up spending more than we bring in this summer I'll be disappointed. We (DC really) must learn that we have to have player turnover. it keeps the squad fresh and drives us forward. Hopefully the couple of free signings we've been linked too are positive signs of Bruce doing the deals and we'll finally see some players sold for a good fee this summer to allow us to trade properly. If we have to sell the stadium in order to buy us time to sort out the clubs approach and finances then fine, but it can't just be a stop gap to carry on splashing cash on unnecessary signings like Rhodes and co. This!!!!! Be pretty f00ked off if we sell the ground and carry on in a similar fashion to what we did in those first two seasons, particularly thr second. poo as it, Bin Laden Fc have shown what can be done with sensible, well thought out recruitment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) In practice, the EFL shouldn’t be too miffed on the principle of this. Even if the loophole smarts for them. In simple terms let’s assume 20m losses for 3 seasons just gone. That’s pre add backs and a worst case. 60m against a permitted 39m. We’ve barely signed any players for 2 seasons effectively embargoed and unable to sell last 18 months due to injuries. We have felt the force of the rules in a way already. Sell stadium for 20m. Takes us to 40m (likely under 39m with add backs) Moving forward Reduced wage bill by 10m. A 20m loss from the play off semi season will drop off the edge next time around. Operate from revised wage bill moving forward remaining within rules. may be too simple but that seems the general gist to me. Edited May 17, 2019 by Bluesteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldishowl Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Sultan_Pepper said: If we end up spending more than we bring in this summer I'll be disappointed. We (DC really) must learn that we have to have player turnover. it keeps the squad fresh and drives us forward. Hopefully the couple of free signings we've been linked too are positive signs of Bruce doing the deals and we'll finally see some players sold for a good fee this summer to allow us to trade properly. If we have to sell the stadium in order to buy us time to sort out the clubs approach and finances then fine, but it can't just be a stop gap to carry on splashing cash on unnecessary signings like Rhodes and co. This is the issue for me. Chansiri had a shot at spending his way to the Premier League. He was naive and ill advised and it has cost him a lot money. The “sale” of the ground should draw a close to that approach and put us in a position where the club can be run in a sensible way financially. We have lost some high earners already, may sell some players and others will be going at the end of this season. Bruce has already said he doesn’t need mega buck spending to make a challenge at the top of the league. As a a fan I would be happy with an approach where a decent manager is using his nouse to get in some good hard working less expensive players who we can get behind . What i don’t want is the selling of the ground allowing us to repeat the mistakes of the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIGHERSTATE Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) deleted Edited May 17, 2019 by HIGHERSTATE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The only way is S6 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 3 hours ago, room0035 said: The club is being run and losing £10-20m a year, we are breaching financial rules because the man in charge cannot run a bath without advisors let alone a football club. Now instead of finding alternative income be that selling players, advertising income, sponsorship NO none of this instead he is possible going to make the club homeless to cover up for another season or two that he does not have a clue what he is doing. We need to take a long hard look at the likes of Coventry, Portsmouth, Bolton and other where stupid plan to cover up the fundamental issues being DC does not know how to run a football club without the fans paying for it - selling the ground to a third party can only end badly. Can anyone remember last December when the fans question the fact he didn't have a clue what he was doing, he threw his toys out of the pram and was selling the club. What happens next time the fans question his running of the club - he locks them out of the ground or worse sell the ground from under us. Profit and Sustainability (means the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level).. Tell me what is sustainable about making yourself homeless so you can spend on the credit cards for a few more season. I pray the EFL clamp down on this straight away As predicted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitcat Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 Chansiri should gift the ground back to the club, then sell it again. Even riiiiiccchhherrrr! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 29 minutes ago, Stoop said: Let the spendageddon commence Hate to say this is an arrangement to pay off the old credit card bill not a new credit card with new unused limit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
room0035 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 1 hour ago, casbahowl said: This must seriously be a parody account! No one can be this consistently boring/stupid/irrelevant without trying! Whoever you really are at least have the common decency to post under your real persona whilst making your slanderous and libellous attacks on the Chairman! How the mods have let you get away with it for so long under the guise of stupidity is literally beyond belief! ????????? what are you on about everything I have posted is details available if you choose to ignore them your choice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffjohnsonmyhero Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 The issue with me is the parachute payment ,We should be allowed to spend the same money as a club coming down ,Or scrap FFP and parachute payment . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daleblue Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Plonk said: Really can’t see the comparison with Coventry. Don’t think they ever owned the ground did they? Stop fretting it’s a paper excercise to get round ffp that’s all. Those clubs winging about it are probably ones that don’t own their grounds or have already done this. We’re on our way back! 2 hours ago, Bluesteel said: Ricoh owned by the council Sold Highfield Road, then rented Ricoh from the Council, Council offered them the right to buy Coventry City declined, Wasps Rugby club purchased the Ricoh, and are now in discussion with Coventry City (Sisu) to enable them to rent. Edited May 17, 2019 by daleblue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Claw Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 more than one way to skin a cat....................laughs profusely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigrbuk Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 If I were in DC's position, I'd allow "SWFC" a buy back clause into the contract should they ever reach the premier league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernOwl24 Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 58 minutes ago, TodwickOwl said: People slating this - need to realise Bruce wouldn't have come nowhere near us if this wasn't agreed or in plan at the start of last year. This must've been the safety net to allow Bruce to come and spend. I don't see an issue with it, Chansiri will have bought us out - he owns the club anyway, if we get out of FFP then so be it Or do we want to be loitering around mid table again next year or...?? Exactly this. Bruce has been known to spend money and would have not taken a job with zero budget and FFP restrictions as it would make him look like a poor manager at a failing club. It was obvious we would have zero FFP restrictions the moment we signed Bruce and not another nobody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrysgame Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 6 hours ago, NeonLeon said: In the grand scheme of things Chansiri owns the ground, he is ‘the club’. And the only way the sale of the ground helps FFP is if he affectively buys it off himself. I don’t think there’s much to be worrying about realistically. Quite right, he owns it anyway he is Sheffield Wednesday Ltd. Seems to make sense. So no ffp problems now, we get cash all the risk on who ever has bought the ground. One of the "friends" DC refers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 2 hours ago, room0035 said: No because DC uses the rules as his excuse why he cannot put anymore than £1.2m in a season to the club. So what makes you think those same rules are going to allow us to value the club 5 times more than it was valued in the last filed accounts. He would be better off trying to find oil under Hillsborough stadium. Its obvious you don't like the chairman but this line is just not true, he says the the rules wouldn't allow him to allocate more than £1.2m of the money he had put in to sponsorship for the year those accounts referred to. He is currently putting in £2m+ in cash every month to pay the bills, everything we are taking about here is purely a paper exercise by the accountants to work around the P&S rules and bares little relation to cash in the bank. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted May 17, 2019 Share Posted May 17, 2019 3 hours ago, Plonk said: Really can’t see the comparison with Coventry. Don’t think they ever owned the ground did they? Stop fretting it’s a paper excercise to get round ffp that’s all. Those clubs winging about it are probably ones that don’t own their grounds or have already done this. We’re on our way back! they did until about 2001 until they had to sell it when there finances got bad, they had to then rent and have been since im not sure why not owning a capital asset isn't a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now