Minority Report 2019-20 Talking Finance 5

The long term only results from a combination of the short term. So far the short term actions do not point to a great out turn. The club currently have lots of potential in youngsters losing games week in week out and reducing their future value.

One things for sure is that in the long run we are all dead.

I’m all out of positivity!!

 

And as people have been trying to challenge, there is no guarantee any of the youngsters we’ve signed are going to flourish here and be sold for millions, do you not get this? Never mind the fact that these owners sold far too many of the promotion team in one go and slapped the incomings in total punts then crossed all their fingers and toes that the truly massive gamble will come off?

Christ! We could be in league two in two seasons with this ‘plan’ as it’s panning out and potless with hardly any of these transfers developing up to much!

It’s clearly absolutely bonkers, that’s why we are already 6 points behind safety in early November!

 

I guess given that sporting success or failure is the reason for our club to exists then the criteria to judge the plan which is meant to facilitate success is where we end up at the end of the season. Relegation means it has failed in and of itself.

 

You see this is where I disagree.

In my version of events, we would have been relegated whatever we had done. The difference in our budget as compared to almost every other club in The Championship almost dictated that from the beginning. Others can argue that if we had set on fewer youngster and more seasoned professionals, that we would have been more successful, and its true that we may have won a few more early games. The question is though, would we have won enough for us to avoid relegation. You see the real crux of my argument is that our pay budget would not have been big enough for us to compete over a full season, and if you cannot compete, you cannot stay in the league. Others say that if we had stayed in The Championship for a year, we could have consolidated. We could have gradually got better. I disagree again. Without a competitive budget, it is just a second chance to be relegated.

The plan is a long term plan. Shortly after they took over the club, when we looked destined for relegation, Paul Conway was asked how it would affect their plans. He said it would not affect them because theirs is a long term plan. That is the way I feel this time as well.

 

Let's face it, there is no guarantee of anything!

 

My point is that imho, i am not convinced this board have no long term plan and we only have to look at the Nice model for any evidence of wrong doing. I think they are classically giving us sound bites but no substance behind their promises.
If it proves they have taken a loan to purchase the club and then sold players to offset against said loan, would you be less convinced of their intentions?
I am far from comfortable , with their set up.

 

If the plan fails to keep us up it’s failed. It’s really that simple. If say Luton or Charlton stay up with a similar budget (less in Luton’s case) then we have a comparator to evaluate it against. If all 3 teams get relegated your point will be proven.

 

I do not think that is as simple as that. The last time we were in the Championship, we survived the first season. Does that mean that we had established in the Championship. Obviously not, because we were relegated at the end of the second season. If you want to simplify things to black and white, that is up to you. I can do nothing to stop you. I have no intention of doing likewise.

 

I am sorry, but I do not understand. Can you let me have a reference?

 

I agree with all this except the bit about risk. As I’ve tried to argue before, the financial risk is actually loaded onto the football club. We simply do not know how much risk the individual owners are exposed to.

 

On 27th April 2018, a few days before our relegation GG was quoted in the Chronicle thus: "It wouldn't be a disaster but it would definitely be a failure. The long-term plan for the club would still be there, we would just start from a lower level. I am in contact with the owners on a day-to-day basis. They are really involved and really care. They always try to make sure at least one of them is at a game. They share the fans' disappointment about the way things have gone this season. Relegation wouldn't change their plan long-term or their will to do something good in Barnsley, but it would mean a few changes and a bit more work."

I assume that the owners were aware of and agreed with the statement. Your assertion appears to be that relegation isn't a failure - their view appears different (or did then). He also said that it meant changes and more work. And inevitably it will do again if it happens this time. I just can't accept how there would be any evidence of progress having been made.

Edit: Furthermore, Paul Conway was quoted in the Chron at the time of their purchase of the club as saying: "We want to stabilise the team in the Championship and deepen the squad. Our belief is that, through the commercialisation and internationalisation of the club, everyone will benefit. You will see a growth in resources and revenue increase year after year.”

Relegation won't see an increase in resources and revenue. There's no evidence at all of progress being made with this plan. You've asked for evidence that proposed alternative approaches are any better. I'm providing evidence that based on their own words the current plan is at best behind schedule and at worst is failing.

 

Relegation was not evidence of progress. Neither is promotion. Both are short term outcomes in a long term plan. You have emphasised the failure part of that statement. I would emphasise the long-term part of the same statement. The only thing that could be judged as long term evidence is some permanent improvement. The long term establishment of the club in The Championship would represent long term improvement, but our last two promotions did not represent any sea change in the way that we were doing business. They did not move us away from being a yo-yo club. They were individual successful seasons, followed by poor ones.

 

Ok. A further GG statement after DS' appointment: “It shows our ambition and his ambition too, Daniel comes here on a two-year deal with a clear mission and targets we want to accomplish. There is a long-term project, yes, but there is also very much a short-term ambition to go alongside that and it shows that both parties are in agreement with this.” My assertion is that there was a long term plan AND short term objectives and that the likely relegation is clear evidence part of it is failing. They applied equal emphasis to both rather than one being more important than the other, and I suggest this is further evidence of under-performance. I don't see any evidence at all that we're making long term progress despite the short term failure.

 

Frankly, CEOs say lots of things at different times. Some of it is what they believe, and some of it is what they want others to believe. Most of it is mere fluff and nonsense that decorates the football world, and that attempts to enthuse the fans and bring them on-side. I have long since got to an age when I ignore most publicity and focus on what makes sense to me. Didn't people refer to Mr Mansford in an extremely derogatory manner because of his public statements?

Now I know that you will say that I only chose to believe what suits my case, and if that is the way that you wish to go then I think that we have reached the end of our discussion. There is undoubtedly a short term aspect to any long term plan. However, the primary focus of the strategy is always the long term goal, and any short term successes or failures have to be set into the context of the long term goal.

 

Where does the improvement come from to achieve the long term plan? Where is the evidence of any progress so far?

 

What happens to the long term plan if we run out of money some time soon?

Let's just assume it's true that we only have 5% of our transfer kitty left, so we spend nowt in January, then we get relegated and lots of fans don't renew.

We then sell several players and bring in more, but end up in league 1 for a good few seasons and back to crowds of below 10k.

By that time we'll be buying cheap and selling slightly less cheaply.

 

A future article (already written) looks at our first team coaches since Danny Wilson mark 2. It looks at the players that came to the club during the time of each coach in order to try to establish a pattern. That article makes it clear what a mess it was back then. No structure, no focus and panic buying of players in a misguided attempt to save the club from certain relegation. That season cost Patrick Cryne a fortune and the club had to be refinanced. It was clear from subsequent signings that the season was a watershed, a change of direction and a change of strategy. Of course, changes like that a not achieved at the flick of a switch. Patrick Cryne was still influenced by the voices of others. He still signed a few older player and he still signed loans as well. The plan was still being refined and mistakes were still being made. There was lots of criticism from the fans when Winnall, Hourihane etc were sold. It was argued that contracts should have been longer, that so many contracts should not have been allowed to mature at the same transfer window. Lessons were still being learned. Some of those lesson have been taken on board in the new plan. Contracts are now longer. I hope, as I said in my latest article, that we will try to limit the number of players who leave in any transfer window. But players are even younger now, and I believe that that has been forced upon us because we can no longer compete for the wages and transfer fees of players who are ready for the Championship now. I believe that my analysis of financial statements has proved that.

Of course players will be sold. Barnsley has always sold players. We lose £1m per year on normal trading, and players have to be sold in order to make good on those losses. Buying players for less than we sell them for has always been part of the way that we trade. The fans used to name each new stand and even the floodlights after the player sold to pay for it. None of this is really new, is it. It is just that it is being pursued even more relentlessly. And there are reasons for that. Things are not the same as they were. The Premier League and the riches that it offers have changed football completely, and The Championship has changed just as much as The Premier League. My analysis of Financial Statements attempted to show that. My explanation of the control systems applied to the top 2 leagues (FFP) and the lower 2 leagues (SCMP) attempted to illustrate how high the hurdle is now. If you just want to blame our current owners and not set their actions into context, then once again, I cannot stop you. Everyone will make their own judgments, and I have made mine.

 

What sort of evidence would convince you, I mean, I could waste a lot of time writing down evidence that convinces me, and you could say, nonsense. All that has happened is I have wasted a lot of my time. I mean this series of articles must be at least 40 pages, and I have been answering queries arising from those articles for the last 10 weeks. So what exactly do you want? What would convince you?

 

The plan generates money because we sell the players.