I sought of hold my hands up and say I was wrong about them at the minute. However, the big what if is when will they get fed up with bridging the gap with injections? The Cryne's aren't a bottomless pit like some of the other investors. Things have to be voted through and then the money is pumped in equally by the share holders. I would think that there will be another re-shuffle with the Cryne's desperate to sell their shares because they haven't got the clout Chien, Parekh and JAQ have. That isn't a negative slant against the club. It's just what I've gleaned from this thread mate.
Let's see what Gally's full report later says. I'm interested to hear how he gauged the mood and resolve of the board. The big question mark/ opportunity for me is Neerav Parekh. I believe his family have a lot of money. He also says he's turned from an investor into a fan. IF, and that's a big IF, that is the case then we have to cross our fingers that he could be the next Patrick Cryne in that he's willing to modestly keep the wheels turning. Finding someone to do that has proved very difficult in our history and finding someone to do more than that has been impossible. This is why I hate people throwing the new Board into the same basket as Lee and Conway. Until proven otherwise there's just a chance Parekh sees us as a labour of love rather than a cash cow. Anyway, £3 million plus will do for starters.
We've certainly generated a few million from player sales this summer? As for them asking fans to fork out more, maybe instead they could take £100 a week off every senior player who earns more than £5k a week over 12 months? That should raise quite a bit of money. Easy to point the finger at the man and woman on the street, but these professionals are paid handsomely (I don't buy the 'it's a short career and £5k a week for the poor lambs from the age of 20 will only go so far b0llocks' - they are grown men after all, and upwards of 5k a week is a lot of money). They also get offered accommodation from academy age, to live alongside a conscientious family who has agreed to do their cooking and give them a bed - the same age that most lads and lasses that age are preparing to take out a 9k a year loan, and pay extortionate fees for student accomodation and hot meals. During a cost of living nightmare, I think it's unfair to say fans should pay more, particularly when so many were hit hard by covid too and are still suffering the effects. The prices that the club charge are very reasonable, but I don't think this is the issue here. I think our transfer dealings and the deadwood that has come through the door (and exited) for players who not only are bought for a fee but earn vast sums of money on top (Ritzmaier, Iseka, Oulare anyone?) needs to be looked at and lessons learned. We also buy promising young players (Sibbick, Oduor, Halme) and hardly use them. The conveyor built has obviously jammed. *I'm far from a moaner and have praised the club more than most recently, but I don't like the idea of shining a spotlight on fans that are already struggling, rather than the supposed business people who are meant to run our club successfully, along with privileged players who make a living off of it.
I'm certainly not looking a gift horse in the mouth. Not by a long chalk. That's why I'm happy to have reneged on my earlier posts about the board. It might be given our financial plight that we need a sugar Daddy (Parekh) to steer the club out of this. The main reason being that the natural revenue streams won't generate enough capital as @Redarmy87 has stated the natural conveyor the club relied upon has stalled.
To compete in the Championship using our model it's starting to look like we need to develop or find a John Stones every two or three years. That's highly unlikely. Although I detest what Conway w as up to and how he ruined the club with ground shares, Oulare, Schopp etc there is a case for saying we were on the slippery slope financially anyway. The cash we had in hand when we last went down then back up had been spent. If we'd stayed up we would undoubtedly have got better fees for Morris, Helik etc but, Barnsley being Barnsley we'd have had to have sold them. i don't know what the future holds. Continue to try to generate reasonable profits from player development while having a modestly generous benefactor seems the only option unless we really start to think outside the box.
If memory serves me right they said that in the Summer that they need to inject cash to help the cash flow.
Yikes! Make Risdale sound like a genius when it comes to financial prudence and stewardship of Bransley FC by comparison. EDIT: Just seen post #43 which expresses a similaar view.
I think one way or another the only way forward is if eventually Parekh owns the club outright. I reckon then we might see a club ran like Aston Villa or Wolves. Hopefully back in the Premier League at some point. Yes ethically it isn't the way forward but I'm not paying the bills and just want the club to move forward. People say "what if the sugar Daddy get's bored?" Or "easy to spend someone else's money". However, I see that as short sighted. If the injection of funds gets the club moving forward and back into the Championship challenging for promotion to the Premier League eventually succeeding. I don't think the "honest way" works for clubs our size. Yes Parekh might get bored but if the clubs profile has risen there will be someone of similar ilk waiting to step in. That won't happen in League 1. If he sticks to his guns and injects cash I can see it taking a couple of years but the club actually moving forward. It will hurt the naysayers but I don't care.
Brings us back to the chicken & egg scenario, I raised other week. Do the club invest more into the infrastructure to make us more commercially stable and able to generate more revenue for the team either directly or through third parties or direct monies towards the playing side? The sensible business answer is the former for long term self sustainability but most on here would rather see money straight into the playing side in a never ending cycle.
It's the product on the pitch doing well that adds that extra revenue. You're right it is chicken and egg but if the product is failing on the pitch there aren't as many people buying flat breads.
Alan Sugar who single-handedly did more to create the TV revenue monster that exists today and is a blight on majority of clubs and then went on to be vocal about money players and agents want!!
Disagree TBH. Revenue from the team performance is very short term. Improving the infrastructure and commerciality to enable revenue streams all year round for the club will generate far more than the odd extra beer or slice of bread from crowds flocking to see a good team
PS - I didn't intend to come across as being arsey mate, apologies if I did, it's just that I think the one million per month losses is entirely the wrong interpretation. We have been financially mismanaged imho, not by the current board but by their predecessors, and we need cash now, but it's nowhere near as bad as ongoing one million per month losses.
When the first big deal was being done it was a toss up between Sky and ITV. He was tipped off what ITV offer and they were preferred and in turn advised SKY to blow it out of water. Which they did.
Have a look at Ashton gate. Granted Im not suggesting throwing £100m but it shows how other revenues can be raised. In turn Lincoln City are moving stadiums the reasons given why are they are limited to what they can do there for other revenue streams due to all the housing around them. Again they have explained to the fans it is to enable them to generate income 12 months of the year from the area to help finance the club.
More detail is needed to accurately say how much we are losing per month but it can't be a surprise that it's a significant sum given that our 2020/21 accounts show us making a £4.2m loss even after £3.4m profits on player trading and £2.8m furlough income. Since then we have trimmed quite a number of the higher earners from the playing staff but have also lost £6-7m per annum income from Championship status. We have lost shirt sponsorship income and have seen a number of other costs, energy etc rise at the margin. We have probably got close-ish to replicating the £3.4m profits on player trading (fee received versus amortised book value at point of sale) and the amortisation charge on our remaining players should be much lower than the £2.9m in 2020/21 given that we now have less players who cost any or significant fees. I can't see that we are currently losing £1m a month and the equity cash injections don't seem to indicate that level of loss (the £1m was in May/June and related to last financial year's liabilities and £3.2m is covering a 6-7 month period) but it wouldn't surprise me at all if we are losing £500k a month (maybe significantly North of that). Either way the situation is very serious and against that background I find it encouraging that the new Board (let's not forget that the only shareholder on the Board now who was on it last season is Neerav and he was in a minority against the 4 Conway/Lee nominees) are putting in the necessary cash to keep us afloat. This is clearly not a sustainable situation and imho the cost base will have to be reduced. Duff has worked wonders so far but I don't think we can bank on promotion as the solution. I also don't think that the model of player sales is the way out going forward - the Greed League clubs where the money is are more and more monopolising the talent pool of younger players and almost exclusively going abroad for established signings. On a positive note for our owners - the dollar/pound exchange rate under Liz Thrush means that £3.2m today is a lot less for them than it was not so long ago!
The ground issue definitely needs sorting. That's the major issue holding the club back in my view. The separation of the ground from the club was a massive error that hamstrung this consortium and will no doubt put off future suitors.
