Minority Report 2019-20 Talking Finance 4

Whether you like it or not, they sold Nice for more than they paid for it. The logic is that they improved the club in the interim. They will eventually do that at Barnsley, and I truly hope that they will get more for the club than they paid for it because that will mean that they have improved the club. They are here to make money by improving the business, and that means they must run the business better. They did it at Nice and there is your evidence.

 

I do not agree. See above.

 

But they aren’t running business Barnsley fc better are they? It’s the worst start in decades with no communication to the supporters to boot and more and more supporters losing interest.
It’s all very well talking long term as you keep saying but we are two years on, the team is weaker than when they took over, it appears to me that the owners are just crossing their fingers very tightly at this point and praying their huge championship gamble, (as that is what this appears, not a sensible plan in any way, shape or form) pays off and we miraculously stay up this season with this inexperienced thrown together at the last minute side.

 

You are creating swathes of text based on invalid assumptions that have no real logic to them.

Just because you have written thousands of characters. It doesn't add rigour to your standpoint or remove the inherent bias to validate what these owners are doing.

 

That's not logic at all.

They are here to make money. They were opportunistic to take advantage of a club with a dying owner. They underpaid for an asset. They are trying to acquire the ground (allegedly). That then makes a more valuable asset. It does not make their tenure successful.

If your views are masked so much by assumptions that are so seriously flawed, then true debate isn't going to happen is it?

 

I tell you what, if you stop repeating what you have already said, I will stop repeating long term plan judged by short term outcomes, OK.

 

It does not mean that you are right either.

 

Could we generate better revenue streams. Yes.
Could we say no to would be suitors for our players. Yes.
Could we look at some players older than 24. Yes.
Could we bring in loans. Yes
Could we be better at renegotiating contracts. Yes
Could we utilise free transfers better. Yes
Does any of this mean we suddenly have to run at even a modest loss putting at risk self sufficiency. No

 

If Barnsley FC buys the ground, the owners will have had to increase their share capital by the same amount. They would get more for the club if they sold it, but they would have put more in.

 

At the risk of being labeled an Indian - How?

 

Do we know the terms of the council agreement? Do we know what level would acquire their portion of the ground? Are there any safeguards in the agreement? Is there a preset price (index linked or not)?

We don't know any of that information and therefore it is impossible to say that what the owners could buy the ground for, would only increase the sale value of the club by the same amount.

They acquired the club under championship club value because of its distressed nature. This is what opportunist investors do. It doesn't mean they have the interest of what they buy in mind, just the additional margin they can leverage when it comes to disposal.

 

Oh come on now, you're being obtuse.

 

How much did they pay for the club? How much should they have paid? Same questions about the ground. Why would they only want a 50% share of the ground?

 

Am I. How?

 

So you don't know how we can bring in a loan player? For example?

 

The owners had a five year plan, so will be half way through it at the end of this season.

 

An investor pays the least they can get away with. Just like a club wanting your player wants to pay the least they can get them for.

They also said they had an agreement in the first 6 months to acquire the Cryne interest in the ground. They haven't confirmed this happened. They haven't confirmed a great deal really have they? Conway also said they were talking to the council and that they wanted in on the action, when discussing the development of the glassworks and the town centre redevelopment.

It would be useful if they gave us some accurate updated information, but the owners seem to have placed a communications embargo on their good selves.

 

ok.

 

"What I do know is that there are clubs who have signed players on free transfers, utilised loans, sold less of their core players and managed to generate more money from outgoing sales".
This with bells on it!
I also liked your idea, on the large turn over of staff...ie not keeping Jackson etc.It seems so "smash and grab" and not the kind of long term planning i was expecting from these guys.
I think RR explained we need to make around £1 million per season to be profitable, so with respect, i think we should be questioning why, they have this enthusiasm to take the first offer, all the time. When other clubs are just so much better in this area (getting the players worth). I believe loans to be a key area to help develop our young players, that vertually every x pro and football people endorse. It cannot be deemed in the clubs interest to be releasing 4 to 5 key players every season.
They are aound 40% into their tenure and if im being honest, i do not see any long term plan in evidence. Then again they refuse to speak to us on key issues, unless we get the "bite size" lip service.
The Nice model, frightens me to death.

 

No. I think the transfer window is closed for loans as well as for permanent transfers.