Even if I did, I wouldn't be able to allege such things in a libellous post on here. But no. I think they would use the network of clubs if it made sense for both clubs though.
I don't think so. Saying "I wonder if Deafening Silence killed that man?" is ok, but saying "Deafening Silence killed that man!" states an erroneous fact, as it was in actuality, a woman.
That's not a measure anymore. Our wages and revenue costs are in excess of our income. The only way to break even is to generate profit on sales. If we continue to generate losses on most of our player acquisitions (largely post Cryne) then we are in very deep brown stuff. Or look at it another way. Cryne delivered a significant war chest to the new owners on the sale of BFC. That has largely been spent on transfer fees. If those transfer fees not only don’t mostly generate return, but even contribute to heightened losses, then what’s the point in this ridiculously zealous attritional operating model?
I"m sorry, I genuinely thought we were discussing Freiser & his contribution to the club not the whole profit policy of our wonderful owners
There won’t be a club if we keep spaffing money up the wall on transfers that cost us fees but return little or nothing, financially and on the pitch.
Are you suggesting that we should make money on every player we sign ? because that is impossible in my view .
Im saying our operating model is ludicrous and every player who is signed for a fee, that we then go on to make a loss on, is damaging. We likely need to generate £2-4m surplus per year to break even. Every crystallised loss means we have to generate additional profit to stand still.
Problem is if we use some basic figures: Sign a player for £250k, pay £5k a week & keep for 2 years that comes to £780k(not including bonuses etc). Based on every player being successful We need to sell 2-4 players a season to break even.
Could the net gain of a player include their contribution to a play off run? That brings in revenue? Im not sure it’s as black and white as described but I do get your sentiment.
Surely though even if you pay a fee for a player & eventually he leaves on a free it does not mean we have not had a return on the player , if he has performed on the pitch & contributed to a successful season or two then he may well have paid for himself, not all our revenue is from transfers , by developing a decent team then our revenue streams increase through extra tv coverage & bigger gates etc , my own thoughts are that we should have invested at the end of last season & kicked on from the play offs with a view to going for promotion this season & we all know what financial riches await if that goal is achieved but unfortunately our owners did not see that as an option & for me there lies the problem.
it was obvious ,everyone clears their freezer space at Christmas ..............................................................................................I thankyou
We don’t have the revenue to do what you suggested though. Our best player left for free. We’ve been making a loss year on year under these owners and they are more intent on taking money out that putting any in. And if as at the moment seems likely, we are plying our trade a league lower next year, that’s certainly not going to generate additional revenue from non player sale sources.
Dont worry i imagine January will see us make some profits on players styles and helik likely to bring us the most.
I think Poya will want to put his own stamp on things. Providing he gets the players he wants like Struber and Val did at the beginning I can't see him being too bothered about losing players he has no attachment to. Players I'll also add that aren't winning games and he has no loyalty to. He's here to change things and get the team winning. As much as we like some of the players mentioned they're failing. It needs freshening up. It's probably too late but I hope it isn't.