They appear to be investment managers. Something like the people who manage my pension fund, in that they invest other people’s money; they do the investment but it’s not their money. With the warning that the value of your investment can go down as well as up. That’s how I read the situation anyway.
Fair enough if that’s the case , but imo they still have responsibility for that investment and need to be responsible to attract investment in the first place . Personally I think the Cryne Family will have done due diligence and sought reassurances before signing over . I’m concerned that they have made mistakes and hopefully they will rectify and choose the right path . I’m not concerned as to the future survival of this club at this stage and take heart they are not borrowing money as yet or as far as I’m aware and putting our future in jeopardy. It’s my opinion and I think I’m in a minority but I don’t think they are in it for the quick buck I think they have made mistakes and I’ll reserve judgement untill I see how they conduct in future.
They may or may not be in it to make a quick buck. But they definitely do not appear willing to entertain personal risk. It is at least reasonable to suspect that they are simply here to make money from player sales, and that all the risk is loaded onto the football club. Myriad purchase of young players, funded by sales of existing players, involves little risk for them. Even the much vaunted longer contracts is probably simply a device to maximise the selling price, given that Moore was sold regardless of the fact that he had plenty of time left on his contract. In some ways, the risk of us becoming a Bury is actually greater with this strategy, if it implodes, than a modest investment in fewer players of greater quality and experience.
That’s not what people are saying. You’re either deliberately misinterpreting people’s arguments so that you can reiterate your own position, or your basic comprehension of the written word is incredibly poor. You’re arguing against what you think people have put, not what they’ve actually put.
That the board haven’t maximised incoming transfer funds where possible. That they’ve employed a scattergun approach recruitment. That it would actually have been more financially prudent to sign less players of higher quality on better wages and that it was feasible to do this without spending any more in totality than the owners actually have done.
Exactly mate, i don't understand the logic in referring back to their own posts even if they're delightfully humorous (for example my midget jokes in Red Taffs - asking for a friend thread)
S Seem to recall, someone on here said they was on holiday with some footballers and said there was an ex BFC player who made no secret of moving every couple of years to maximise his earning potential. Not saying Moore was that person, but if you look he never stays anywhere long.
In my very humble opinion I think the board would want to use this strategy further up the food chain than they occupy now and that is my view untill i see different . I know as I said I’m in the minority and others have different views which I respect and I’m not out to try and change their minds . I’m as disappointed with last relegation and very possibly another on the cards this year but in the very least the disappointing performances . Up to this point I’m reassured that we are not spending at the comparable rate as Forest or Derby and others , these clubs will be reprieved if they do go bust because others will see that theirs money to be made and will pull all the tricks to keep them on some basis trading as Bolton did. The victims usually the cleaners ,etc will suffer but the wheels of buisness will go on if there’s potential money to be made . I don’t think our club could survive this though and like Bury and others would be left to rot . Also I do not see any other decent investors with the club at heart on the horizon other than a fans conglomerate .
Don’t think this is quite correct, if it was like that it would be an investment by say Prudential (just for example), not individuals. That’s not to say those individuals have not borrowed money or raised capital somehow to purchase.
I respect your opinion, and I genuine my hope that you are right and I am wrong. Only time will tell.
Having players under a longer contract generally in business would add value to the resale price of a business and more attractive. Appreciate with football there’s a slight variant in quality of players on books etc. It’s a bit like a company with a proper structure and stability is worth more than one without(even if turnover and profit were same).
The Crynes may well have sought reassurances but at the end of the day, money talks. They were desperate to sell before Patrick died and were struggling to find a buyer before this consortium came along. Even though quite a number of clubs turned this consortium down questioning their motives etc. (Hull were one) they still got the sale through. Since then we've seen OGC Nice desperate to finally get shut of them and Partick Thistle turn down their advances so I'd question whether they were the right fit for us. The problem we had was that not another soul had shown any interest.
If you have wealthy clients as investors, who are looking for returns that the likes of Prudential could only dream of, it works differently. Still, I may well be wrong. Hope so.
But my point is that the risk involved in longer contracts is loaded onto the football club. Where the rewards end up (if there are any) is a different matter.
I agree, but it would be one company name not half a dozen directors. That may be where BFC Investments in Hong Kong come in, in which way we would both be right.
I don't see how this comment/opinion is any different to what they've told us since day one and repeated on many occasion? Forget how unsuccessful/successful we view our transfer dealings, but they've been pretty up front and honest about not investing their own money, getting players on longer contracts to maximise the selling price, and that Moore was sold because he told us he wouldn't stay. I've no issue with any of that. I do think we can find a reason to vent frustration at signing too many average or not ready players and not being flexible with the strategy to bring in one or two more experienced (not old) pros. I'd also be keen to hear them explain why we seemed to move from an U25 approach to everyone being U23.
Agreed, was just pointing out there is a business reason for longer contracts that I’ve not seen anyone point out yet.
Not convinced the owners of Hull turned them down for that reason TBH, given there track record but I do believe the Chairman at Boro is on record as saying he wouldn’t sell to them. I also believe they tried to buy Brentford from the Russian who owned them before the current owner. Gibson comes across as one of the more morally adept Chairmen in football, if I was a Barnsley reporter I would be trying to talk to him.
You have no issue with selling Moore because he told us he wouldn't stay!!!?? I have. But then I don't believe it anyway.
