As Nancy fans protesting against Conway and co

My 3 points covers this Incompetence and/or investment can possibly achieve success. But less of one means more of the other.
Where was the real investment?

Selling existing assets is NOT investment unless a substantial profit was made on each one. Purchase and sale price does not tell the whole story anyway as the wages bill has to be considered. Again cutting overheads is NOT investment. Also selling better players and replacing them with unproven inexperienced ones is the antithesis of investment... like selling a Mercedes and buying a Dacia in the hope it will somehow turn into a Mercedes!
I cannot understand your defence of the working model of these owners. Again, the investment has not led to real money flowing into the club. converting player assets into cash is NOT investment.

The one thing we can agree on is that I would not want a loan from these owners as they cannot be trusted to use the money wisely. However the principle of invest to succeed holds true. You just need some level of competence from those spending the loan money.

 

Two genuinely informative and articulate posts. Thank you for shedding more light on the AS Nancy situation.

 

Thank you for taking the time to research and post on this.

 

" spending someone else's money. " ???

No I expect the 'OWNERS' to spend their money. If you bought a fleet of cars to run as a taxi business and hit a period where the returns are down due to unforeseen circumstances then as the owner you either spend money to keep the vehicles roadworthy, sell some of them off at a substantial loss or ultimately go bankrupt. You appear to believe that business owners should not have to risk their own money when running a business. That is incredibly naive. You keep stating the argument 'saddling the club with debt is not viable!! However if the club is in deficit year on year owing money to the tax office, rent rates, banks staff wages etc. then that is debt. If the owners do NOT put money in the value of the assets goes down and the debt spirals. Debt is debt. Simple as that. Ultimately it is irrelevant to whom the debt is owed. it is still debt that has to be paid.

AGAIN! ....A SUCCESSFUL business has to be invested in and run competently. AGAIN where is this investment you speak about in a previous post? You are now saying no real money has ever come into the club. Make your mind up! Other clubs around us have managed on a similar budget so on that point you are correct. The owners would be quick enough to take the profits (if there were any) without having risked any of their own money. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs although you seem to be arguing that you can. You can't do anything without money let alone run a professional football club.

 

Progression requires investment, in my view - even if it means the club taking on debt. There seems little point muddling on as we are with a substandard squad and head coach, and with a ground that is neglected and deteriorating. The problem is that we clearly can't expect it from these owners, no matter how much we butter them up.

 

Worth making the distinction between hard and soft loans. The majority of owner loans to their clubs are soft loans, non interest bearing and no fixed date of repayment.

These are very different to punitive interest rate loans with hard repayment terms. Soft loans are seen as a way of introducing capital that may be repaid in good times, hard loans an approach to maximise earnings and increase security on default. Some owners even had the audacity to make repayment based on league position...

 

Putting debt in does not increase the buying price, Company valuations are, in the main, done on a net debt basis.

 

@loko exactly not, the net debt sale price was £5m

 

Apologies if you feel that I was overstating my PoV. I am a little emotional over it seeing the club I have followed and supported (I started in the late 60s) when things were pretty much 'rock bottom' ) being run into the ground.
Nevertheless I was (and still do) finding it exasperating that you seem to think internal juggling of finances without any real hard injection of capital is actually investment. We clearly have different views on what 'investment' is. You also seemed not to acknowledge my point (fact not opinion) that for a struggling company to survive unless some miraculous external factors come into play, additional external investment is key to survival.
Another apt analogy that has been used is 'shuffling deckchairs around on the Titanic. Yes .most people like myself believe a change of policy/leadership funding methodology is needed and , yes, a very small minority believe in an unrealistic scenario of pumping millions in but that is a long way from what the majority, including myself are arguing for.

 

Fair enough but my opinion is if they continue to run the club as they have to date then we will soon not have a club or it will fall out of the league.

 

Great research...thank you.

 

Fair enough. There are a handful of posters on here who, admittedly, do wind me up and make things personal to which I, unfortunately, tend to respond in kind. You are not one of those so apologies again if you feel I went a bit too far and became overbearing. I only wish the owners were as passionate as people on here about BFC.