There were some complaining that we'd sold Bradshaw, yes. And then plenty complaining that we'd been sold a dud in Woodrow when he was injured. That worked out well in the end. Plenty were unhappy that we sold Potts, despite him never getting much love for most of his spell here which even he referred to in his parting statement on social media. But Brown filled his shoes and then some. So that worked out well in the end too. Most of the squad was retained, improved upon maybe. We got promoted in record style. And Red Rain has even explained from a financial POV why the club probably had to sell one or two players last season. We saw extended contracts for McGeehan, Brown, Williams, Mowatt, Woodrow. Something quite refreshing. And based on what we were told, some players wouldn't extend or sign new deals. Some chose to leave or look for a move. And yes, the club were in their rights not to accept any bids for the three who were sold. But they did. A loss to the squad? Undoubtedly. Have we recruited better players? In the keeping department I would say so. Up front? Not from my POV. And I'm not sure you can replace a player of Pinnock's ability with a 21-year-old overseas defender of limited experience or three. I didn't rate Lindsay. So he'll be cracking on Saturday, naturally. Made my points over and over again that I'd have liked a few proven Championship players added to the young group. It didn't happen. So on the face of it, I look at the summer window as disappointing to me, and results likewise. But I'm sorry that I don't quite see all this as bleakly as many of you clearly do. I'm not seeing things that have me wanting 'them' out of 'our' club. I genuinely think this group can only get better in time and if that is quickly enough to see us safe this season, that's a huge success. Because none of us know for a fact if we're going down. Just like none of us know if the retainment of the three summer sales would have made a difference. I point to experience being needed in a few areas, and I and others kept referring to Luton and Charlton doing it this summer. No idea how the latter are managing to do so well because every time I've seen them this season including against us they've been average. Let's see how they get on for the next three quarters of the season. And Luton? They're dropping like a stone. Also to be remembered we had a squad chock full of experience when we went down under Danny Wilson. There was nothing getting built then. Which was a common complaint on this bulletin board. The amount of loans, the old players, the lack of a plan. So I'm afraid that whilst it's not seen as a popular view on here, I actually can see a clear plan at work and I'm excited by it. It's massively brave, I'll give it that caveat. But we're one of the smallest clubs at the level so we have to do something unique, especially when it's clear that as a club we will only live within our means. Not getting into the Stendel stuff again as it's pointless. I can see why he'd be under pressure, I was surprised though to see him sacked at that point, and that statement and lack of communication since is quite staggering. I think that final point is the biggest issue. And the easiest to fix.
Some interesting points and I’ve not read the 141 replies lol. I’ve a few points/queries: 1) Vat is included in ticket sales - so 20% needs taking off that figure. 2) Spare land on Grove St - would be more than £2m to purchase and develop. It was purchased and site cleared ready to sell in for profit. Bit of a ransom strip in some ways. 3) You don’t appear to mention what type of current lease the Club has of Oakwell. Whether it’s a full repair and maintain lease or not and who insures it. The accounts should show this I imagine. As with any building getting older, the upkeep costs of Oakwell will be high. If Oakwell Holdings are still to maintain the ground, and pay to insure it, I can’t see the £150k rent from BFC doing much else. Some years the Oakwell Holdings must lose money? If the club purchased the ground for £6m, you can bet they’d also have additional costs of circa £150k minimum to pay for insurance and maintenance anyway. Like you say, it makes no commercial sense for the Club to buy the ground unless it’s selling out each game - even then, it would be cheaper to offer to pay the landlord the £10m to build a new stand. A tenant doesn’t have to own the facilities to invest in them if the landlord agrees. It’d be cheaper for the club to make a one off payment of £10m to the holding company to build a new stand than buy it too.
Using that analogy about complaining about a fully grown tree is all well and good, but you wouldn't chop off every branch hoping that you can still grow fruit would you. You might want to add some fertiliser/mulch to help it grow and increase its yield. Ie experience
I like Red Rain's writings in general. Despite the occasional wanderings towards condescension I feel he comes across as basically an amiable chap, and certainly has some knowledge of the technicalities of accountancy and business administration, particularly in relation to football. The problem I have with these articles is that they imply that there is only one way to run a football club, and that any deviation must result in financial disaster. They could be written by our present Board - or their senior officers. In the real world there are self-evidently many ways to go about the running of a club. And there are models where even clubs who appear no bigger in size than our own have achieved some stability in the Championship or occasionally even higher. Most business involves risk. It seems to me that without it, businesses seldom grow much. Do I know the answer here? No - 80% of my working life was spent in the public sector. As a fan, I'm not really much concerned with the finances of our club. I'd sooner watch it go out in a blaze of glory, striving for something a little better than watch it being run according to some austerity principle of financial prudence. Watching players being sold relatively soon after you have seen them develop and improve is demoralising for fans. It is difficult to feel loyalty or buy-in to such a mindset. And we have now seen two brilliant (but not perfect) young coaches disheartened and ultimately offloaded by the owners dismantling what they have spent time trying to build. It's a personal preference, but I feel the present way of operating is a load of rubbish. And I stress I don't demand some reckless caution-to-the-wind bid for the Premier League. Just for us to play in the Championship where the standard of football is much higher. These owners appeared to offer us more, but to me they look a long way away from delivering.
I also like to think of myself as an amiable chap. The starting point of these articles is a set of assumptions. It is an attempt to explain why things are as they are. It is not an argument that if new owners took over, and they wanted to spend their own money like water and were prepared to subsidise the losses of the football club, that they could not do so. Of course they could. Of course there is a different way to run a football club, and many in the Championship have shown us that way. However, my starting point was the current owners who have said that they are not going to do that, who have said that they want the club to be self financing. It is an attempt to show people who are interested how they are running the club in order to try to achieve that. If you change the assumptions, and you have the finance and the will to spend it, you can do anything you like. What are the chances of us attracting new owners like that?
Its my last comment on this thread, as clearly some minds are so closed that there is no other way beyond spending millions on high volume risky transfers where the player is too young to be effective in the short term, if at all, and the available statistical data in a meaningful environment is incomplete or nominal because of the pure lack of first team football. We spent circa £2m on Wilks who could go to jail and Schmidt who isn't considered for the first team squad because he "isn't ready". Thiam has sadly to be looked at as a failure and is likely to leave for very little or nothing, crystallising a loss of £350k to £1m.. seeing as people aren't aware of his actual cost. We could have kept Jackson instead of signing say Andersen (a fee of what £300k, maybe £500k?), would wages have been similar, I suspect they have even been less. So in just a handful of decisions, we've saved say £3m quid. Then we have 3 less players on the books and their wages. So.… is it feasible, without spending a single penny more, maybe even spending less than we've currently committed to, to bring in maybe 3 players, on free transfers, or loans, or a combination... that utilise all of the wage budget, and some of that £3m saved from wasted transfers? Of course its feasible. Is it feasible we utilise our existing budget in a different way, of course it is. To say its not possible is completely untrue and disingenuous. We've paid fees for Jordan Green, for George Miller, for Patrick Schmidt. We've paid fees for 4 centre halves. We paid a fee for Thiam. There are many others. With the tiniest tweak we could look at players with more experience that are better than here and now, but potentially not as good as some (not all) of the players we have on the profit conveyor belt. And we could do it in budget. The owners choose to do what they do. It is therefore a position of ideology. Lets be fair, until this season, we haven't signed players as young and inexperienced as what we have this summer window. Our owners are choosing this route as they believe it is the best way to generate profit, not because it is in the best interests of the club or the calibre of the first team squad. It is absolutely NOT, the only way to operate while remaining solvent.
Until his sad passing confirmed I was wrong, I genuinely used to suspect that Red Rain was Patrick Cryne, mainly due to his common sense, 'real world' view of the goings on at the club. With regard to the Talking Finance posts, many have highlighted the use of assumed figures, which is true. However, a common complaint, regards the club, is the wall of silence and lack of information shared with the fans and public, so assumed figures are all Red Rain has to work with. Just one major thing that worries me is the whole 'buy young and cheap, develop and sell for a profit' policy. The development will come from the Head Coach down, and as it stands, we don't have a Head Coach. I know the heads of respective age groups are still in place, doing their jobs, but with no recognised HC in place, does the whole system not begin to stutter a bit...?
A few years back I went to a Q&A at Oakwell. Prior to the new board. Can't remember which manager it was....... but I do recall him saying that if you get 50% of your incoming transfers to work out and be a success you're doing well. That's seen as the games agreed rate...... true or not I'd never given it much thought before. So my point is that over the last 3~5 years (prior to last summer) we basically hammered that 50% and struck gold. Mawson, Connor, Watkins, Winnall, Pinnock, Lindsay, Bradshaw, Potts, Moore and a few others.(ps I'd love to know exactly how much combined we chinged in for them all) Added to that the class young uns thro our academy Stones, Bree, Holgate. The spreadsheet was on fire. Now the question is ........ or are....... (a) Did we purely drop lucky? (b) Has the spreadsheet been altered in its target market? (c) Are the 'diamonds' not out there or not as readily available? (d) Are clubs asking too much money as they know we're wongered up? (e) We've dropped well below the 50% and it's just the luck of the draw? (f) Too many overseas players who might take longer to setlle and bed in language and social~culture wise? (G) or is it perhaps a combination of them all coupled with a change of ownership and been in a higher division??? Text 0800 10 20 30 with your answer. I'm not coz I've no credit and no clue . ........ Or answer!
I agree, we've seen it before - we have a squad of players who are surplus to requirements - 5-6 players who are all much of a muchness - wouldn't it be better to buy 2 better quality players on 10k a week then have 6 players on 3k a week? You are risking less cover if the get injured of course, but I'd rather us take that chance then have 50 shades of grey in the squad.
Haha. Fair enough I suppose. But I retain the point is fair also. I'm not judging a long term and proper self-sustainable plan/model three months into its second season. It was about staying up this season. That looks one heck of a task at this point but if we manage it, the plan has worked again.
The Wage market is highly efficient - it can be used to predict your finishing position to within a high statistical probability - the transfer market less so.
Given Moore has scored one goal (a penalty) since he left Barnsley, I'm not sure what evidence we have that not selling him would have improved our current league position.
I agree - loans have been an incredibly mixed bag, but when they are good, they are a cheap way to outperform your budget, you do however run the risk of losing them at the most inopportune moment if you rely on them - see Drinkwater for example.