I’m not defending them but we have just had a pretty rough ride due to COVID? It’s not all positives on the income front the last two years.
I always thought it was quite accurate ive seen some on there where it doesnt know the fee and just puts ? At the side instead of the fee.
Ive given my support in the past when thing have been tough relegations from championship bottom of league one almost relegated to league 2 untill isiah scored. I cant support the neglect and de valuing of the club these owners are causing.
I think in a debate like this it’s very easy to have opinions on issues but maybe it’s better off sticking to the facts. 1. Barnsley Football Club has combined losses of £4m since the ownership changed to 31 May 2020. Without investment or a change in the approach to running the club this will result in the owners having to put in some of their own money or raise debt. Their model to date has only been self sustaining due to the cash they inherited. As @Redhelen stated this could result in admin if they choose not to invest. 2 They have used £750k of club funds to repay part of the purchase costs. As at 30 November 2020 there was still £2.75m outstanding of the original purchase price and that was under legal dispute. 3 We currently sit 24th in the second tier of English football and have won two games over the course of the season. 4 Last year the club challenged for promotion to the premier league. The owners decided that the playing style was not effective to their business plan. The idea that there are only two ways of running a football club, this way or masses of debt is not correct. As has been said and actually been done, a few tweaks, some experience, reducing the playing squad could work for a club. it really is not either boom or bust. As i’ve said before it is not easy being solvent and running a football club. Everyone makes mistakes.
Thats fine but some of us have to keep going as there is no club without supporters. Unless we sell oakwell play in a ground with no stands and watch the matches on ifollow at home.
i think a better way of phrasing it is can we survive in the championship or climb back into the championship without regular large cash injections of any kind personal ,borrowing or sponsorship And i guess the answer to that is ,it would be incredibly difficult to achieve that goal And that is probably peoples fears we have got used to being contenders and up there fighting and the likelihood is that will all end.
We weren’t comparing to others were we, just discussing our own accounts? I thought that was the point?
Im not sure that they said it was not effective for their business plan but we had no bids for any players while we played that style of play, its different. A club wanting a direction of football players improving technically as footballers isnt a bad thing either. We have lost money even though we were pushing for promotion due to Covid and need to sell players to keep out of debt further.
Thats fine new owners or even a new approach and i would be there. But its total neglect and for the past year they have sent out all the wrong messages. When we had the best season in 21 years the bloke moans about costing the club 500k? Appointing a clueless head coach from Austria who couldnt bring his backroom staff because of brexit and then when we needed a experienced manager we appoint schopp#2 will have cost alot more than 500k.
1) Please tell me which part is factually incorrect. 2) Please tell me what my agenda is, other than wanting a reasonably well run club with an averagely competitive and attractive team. 3) I have never and will never boo the team I have supported for 40 plus years. 4) I will call out inept and wasteful management, as I would in my own workplace.
I always felt like this season would be difficult and I would have taken 16th as a more than adequate season for us. But three things that would see us more than 10 points better off this season: 1) Having a CEO ready to come in on day one of Dane Murphy leaving 2) Better succession planning for the eventuality of losing key personnel that followed Val to West Brom 3) Not wasting a significant proportion of our budget on two Belgians who had Visa issues and have thus far proved to be a tiresome strain on what our squad could have been Fix those three things and this issue around experience and the playing style MIGHT not be so high up the radar for supporters. The blame for all these things, in my mind, lies at the door of Paul Conway.
I cant tell you which bits are factually incorrect because i presume like you I am not involved in the day to day running of the financial side of our football club or know why certain decisions have been made or probably ever will. Im incorrect on the agenda part sorry and didnt say you specifically booed but my comment above just about covers everything else
Sorry, I'm not arguing about the point of a pinhead to deflect from the main point which is that the club could be much more effectively run on its existing resources.
I've no problem with a self sufficiency model...blueprint...call it what you will. Living within our means makes any success even more satisfying. It's milking it to the extent that they aren't willing to make some strategic experienced signings when necessary and changing successful tactics in an attempt to increase interest in our players that I don't like.
Arguing? Point of a pinhead? I assumed COVID would be a pretty big point in discussing how to run a club more effectively on existing resources.
No idea how much we spent on Schmidt, but I think the accounts for 19/20 suggest that we spent 6m in fees. That would be Collins, Andersen, Diaby, Halme, Odour, Solbauer, Ritzmaier, Wilks, Schmidt, Thomas, Chaplin plus any I’ve missed. Not sure it was 6m particularly well spent, with probably only Collins and Andersen with any chance of returning any profit on sale and only Solbauer and Chaplin having any sort of immediate impact when they signed.