I went to the meeting tonight

Like I said, I wouldn't have answered that way, but I didn't think it was a con

 

One of a handful there who over the last few years I've come to class as the hub of the club. There's one or two bald men in the office who I think are the comms department and they're everywhere like her. There's Matthew in the shop who seems to have been there forever and a more polite lad you couldn't find. And the shouty woman. I don't know her name but think she is secretary, she's been there a long time also. But Beth is like a Norman Rimmington. I just hope the club appreciate her and others as much as fans do.

 

Sexist!

 

Who's the shouty woman?
Is Matthew the same Matthew who was working there about 15 years ago?

 

Sorry. Jill or person. not to offend males.

 

Dark brown hair, think he's ticket manager. And he will have been there that long, yes. Needs a testimonial!
I don't know the woman's name but she works in the office and another who has been there for years. You wouldn't want to upset her.

 

That's him. I haven't been in the clubshop for years but surprised he's still there. He'd be out quicker for murder.

The only woman I can think of is Sharon? Former clubshop manager

 

Not sure about the shouty woman. Think it's the same Matt you refer to. i get the impression the club value Beth. She as you say works her socks off . Nothing is too much trouble . But don't email her on a Sunday after she's been on the wine. As I've found to my cost. . And to be fair I have nothing but praise for the staff who I have had dealings with in the shop. ticketing etc. Some of the stuff they have to deal with. When I've been in, people complaining re ticket priority for example. Would test the patience of a saint

 

I bet the ones we sold weren’t on more than what we brought in. They’ll have been on roughly the same, if not less (remember that the players we sold signed their contracts 2/3 years ago, when they were league 1/2 players), but we brought in 12 and let go of 8, so there will have been extra money there.

 

Moore, Pinnock, Lindsay, Jackson and Potts all signed when we were a Championship club weren't they? And Davies must have had a few contract extensions since first signing.

I don't know if the wage bill will have increased or not to be honest.

 

I think Moore will have been on a fair wage, he was an in-demand Championship player scoring frequently on loan. I don't believe a player from Partick, Forest Green, Blackpool or Boro's reserves will have been on much. I'd wager the likes of Diaby, Andersen, Wilks and so on will be on more comparatively.

Appreciate your feedback by the way. All information helps debate.

 

Isn't there a wider point in this that historically Patrick Cryne was bankrolling us, and the only time we've ever come close to breaking even is when we've received big transfer income. So could we be in a similar scenario now, that transfer income may be being used to offset operational losses?

 

You’re right, but I can’t see us paying out a load for them, not knowing how they’d turn out. Plus, the players we signed this season were signed to a championship club too.

I don’t know, of course, but I’d be shocked if Diaby, Andersen, Radlinger are on less than Pinnock, Lindsay, Jackson, Potts.

Davies will have been on a fair whack though, as will Moore. I have no idea, I was just pointing out that it’s not obvious that the wage bill has gone down, as someone suggested.

 

.

 

That wasn't what was said, unless by losses you're referring to those incurred by paying player wages.

I think the dispute is that many of us believed that if we, for example, sold £10 million worth of players then we'd spend £10 million on new players. I did anyway, I shouldn't really speak for others.

What I took from what was said in the meeting is that if we sell £10 million worth of players, that will be used on transfer fees and wages for the full duration of the contracts of the players brought in.
So, if you sign two players at £2.5 million each, both on 5 year deals at £10 grand a week, that's your £10 million gone.

Difficult to argue that the money from sales isn't being reinvested in the squad, but at the same time, that's not what I, maybe naively, thought the original statement was claiming.

 

Agreed in that I don't think it's clear one way or another and a case could be made either way.

Dane implied that it had gone up, but I don't believe he said that categorically and the discussion was one comparing what we'd sold with what we'd signed rather than everyone who left the club (I think, I recorded it, I'll have a listen)

And it was ball park figures (or no figures at all really, the whole discussion was based on a percentage of how much had been reinvested rather than giving a monetary value).

 

PS I also think that discussion that has arisen as to whether or not wages of the new players is higher or lower than those who left is actually redundant.

If, as claimed, all money from sales is reinvested into the squad then you would simply add the saving made from the remaining value of a sold player's contract to the transfer fee received and that would be what is available to reinvest. This wasn't specifically discussed, but it would have to work that way to give credence to the claim.

Considering the model that was outlined, do I believe that 95% of the money made from transfers has been reinvested in the squad? Yes, I do. I just didn't realise that was the model.

However, I don't believe it will be possible to make good on this claim.

While player sales are reinvested in the squad, income from ticket sales, sponsorship, TV money, etc etc is used on operational costs of running a football club. As Beth alluded to, this list is almost never ending and some of bills received astonishing.
While we're in the Championship, I would imagine, although it wasn't stated either way, that income would exceed expenditure in terms of operational costs.
However, should we be relegated, I very much doubt that would be the case. Rent, staff wages, electricity bills etc are no cheaper in league 1 than the championship. Other than maybe police costs due to fewer away fans, I doubt there are any savings to be made. But income from TV money and ticket sales takes an enormous hit. £Millions. £6 million is the oft quoted figure although I believe the funding gap is widening rather than narrowing.

There are savings to be made on player wages as contracts will have relegation clauses within them. But if this is used to offset the shortfall in income from other areas then, due to the model adopted, income from player sales is no longer all being reinvested in the squad. It's being used to pay the water rates or whatever. Similar situation should a player be sold and any of that money is used for anything but player wages or transfer fees.

Most clubs need to sell some players just to survive. It's always been thus. As such, I don't see how the claim can ever stand up. It is doomed to failure and always was. The only way to save it would be to use the money of the owners to offset running costs, which they have given no indication they're prepared to do (they have no obligation BTW) or to take the club into debt, which I really hope they don't.

 

It begs the question then

if we are to believe what they say

then why on earth are they here?

it certainly is not for the love of the ‘city of Barnsley’

 

The harsh reality of it is something that Grandfathertyke said to me quite a few years ago. Our natural centre of gravity now lies in the third tier. Success lies in the occasional foray into the second tier with inevitable relegation to follow within a season or two thereafter. The actions and policies of the owners and the Weberian writings of Red Rain convince me that we are stuck in this cycle while ever we operate as we currently do. Any other way involves risk, and as a football club under the present stewardship and as a fanbase we are risk averse. Those like me who would like to see the club take the chance of investing to improve (for all the attendant risks) need to find another interest.

 

And not to make money either.