Minority Report 2019-20 Talking Finance 5

So if we're relegated this year, and say we tanked next year in league 1, all or most of our players signed this summer (if not sold already) would be entering the last year of their contracts. Signed as Championship players, languishing in league 1.

Aside from two consecutive years of income loss for being in league 1 (circa £12-14m)… how are those players who haven't been sold and haven't pulled up any trees going to suddenly generate in excess of £12-£14m of transfer fees to make a profit? You could suggest revenues fall by another £1m-£1.5m from reduced season tickets and merchandising. It could also come to pass that players just don't want to join us through choice, let alone finance. 6,000 fans in an odd stadium layout with stands closed and cordoned off. Poor atmosphere. Maybe an unlikeable manager just waiting to be sacked.

Its not uncommon for an agent to insist on reciprocal contact clauses. So if a player has to take a wage reduction on relegation (that may not be their direct fault), there may either be a clause meaning they can be sold, or a fee level at which they can be sold at. You can see the restraint of trade if a club refuse to sell you and they drop your wages by some preset percentage level. This also warrants risk and likelihood of failing to attain market rate upon player disposal.

Of course this scenario may not happen. But as we've all said, none of us have a crystal ball and don't know what will happen. The ideology may suddenly prove successful. It may be catastrophic.

But it is a valid possible scenario.

I also think the season we got relegated last is a useful one to consider. We made a very modest loss, less than £200k. We had future premiership players in McBurnie and Barnes (granted only for half a season each) and despite a huge amount of players all being thrown together in a hugely unbalanced squad... we weren't that far from survival.

I think the questions should be, what wage inflation has occurred in the last 2 years to make that model unaffordable? As well as fees for loans and paying some or all of the wage, there are clubs who just want players in the shop window or to get match fitness, and as with Matty James, don't ask for a fee and massively subsidise their wages. As is pointed out, a loan can be a season long one now and the owning club cant have right of recall without consent of the loaning club.

I agree that a plan should always be honed. And it can be shaped and changed and altered in whatever way will allow it to be more successful. Just going younger and younger and retaining a squad of 32 would be an ideology.

If they sign some players around the age of 25 instead of 21 and younger, that would help considerably, just in terms of life skills and confidence as an individual, let alone their playing styles, qualities and understanding of the game and their roles in it.

January will be a large suggestion of whether the owners are for turning, or if hubris and ideological fundamentalism are of more importance to them.

 

So it's that simple? Sorry I disagree. The lower down the league we go, the club's economy will shrink. What will be the point of ownership to investors?

 

Your articles have set out a lengthy justification of the owners' stance. They will be pleased with you. But there appears to be a very strong chance that we are about to be relegated for the second time in three seasons. The playing squad is not improved appreciably. If dropping down a league enables some of them to shine next season, you know and I know that they will be sold. I will personally be surprised if Woodrow is still with us after January. The longer contracts are a red herring because the owners will not insist on them being honoured if the right price is forthcoming. I therefore maintain that no progress has been made since the new owners came in. And unless something changes, there is no reason presently to believe that the long term plan (stability in the Championship) is likely to be achieved. It is not a case of what evidence do I want. I believe none exists.

 

The evidence that would convince me would be reading, on here and on social media in general, that people were enjoying going to Oakwell again.

 

If we get relegated this season. Then relegated again next season. Then relegated into non league the season after but make a profit will the plan be a success or failure?

 

This is the thing, it's ok saying 'we'll just keep selling players to keep the club turning over', but that's hardly a new thing. It's what we've always done, we accept that, but there has to be something worth watching on the pitch.

 

We'll still sell our best players. Harrogate town and Altrincham will be circling.

 

OK, I am calling a halt to this now. It is all just going round and round in circles and I am exhausted. Let's just wait and see what happens shall we.

 

Just 2 final questions.

What does the plan, or you, define as being successful in 5 years time? And in 10 years time?

I won't respond, or debate, I'm just genuinely interested to consider what success would look like in 5 years from year zero of new ownership and 10 years.

 

I’d say that’s the only marker truly worth scoring the plan against.

 

Every time.

 

This is an interesting view, @Red Rain . Here's one for you - so, I accept that you believe this is a long term plan and we can't use short term results to gauge success or failure. So, accepting that - when will you be able to make a judgement as to whether it has been a success or a failure? And further to that - let's say in three years time, when this board have been in charge for five years - I ask you to evaluate the success of their tenure - against what criteria would you judge that?

 

I’d say the actions of these owners suggest they are only interested in the ‘short term’ gain, otherwise why sell a third of the spine of a promotion winning side to rival clubs for average championship sums who have gelled as a unit and, cept for Davies are still under contract, and replace with unproven punts before a ball is kicked at a higher level?
There’s no slow building progress to be seen in any way shape or form to me

 

I think to quote RR in one of his reports...the club need only sell a player for £1 million every season to remain solvent.
We go waaaaaay beyond that and with too many players. That is another failing of their plan.

 

I agree, Styles has been back at the club nearly a year - complete waste of his time and our money. Miller will be the same.

 

It seems like the plan was to plug the gap in PCs personal cash injections with a more efficient running of the club by maximising the potential returns on players and not spending money on loans. This has hit the skids because the owners have underestimated the relative value certain loans and experienced players can bring and help the younger players. If it’s true that we turned down the opportunity to take Matty James on loan then I’m afraid that’s a level of short sightedness and ****-eyed thinking which is staggering.

 

You're right, as I suggested last night I think you

I do think you are selective in what you focus on and give credibility to. Our owners and CEO publically state that relegation is failure but you don't believe they meant it!

One final question. You don't believe that an adjustment to the loan to get a couple if experienced players in (at the expense of 3 younger players) would be sensible? Even if it helped to get hundreds, possibly thousands of disenchanted fans back on board?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ought-moneyball-to-a-sleepy-english-town/amp/

Here's an article about the owners.

What attracted them to the town, how they were going to make us well known in Asia, how Lee was going to be working with the fan base.

So how's all that panning out then?

 

I thank you my friend....a tissue of more lies.

 

Thing is we all plough ahead and forget about all this Vince, so its important we remember what was said and their PROMISES.
The Nice story scares me....the loan etc etc.