Managed decline

Thats my take really. I think they prefer to be in Lg1, which sounds mad when you consider the TV money in the champ but in Lg1 its easier to carry out their 'player farm' model as more game time can be given whilst paying less wages and we ultimatley only charge same price if we sell. We never replace with similar quality either when we sell.
This season its been far more noticeable. Good players have and even more will leave but were replacing them with way cheaper models and as a result have far less quality. But the more worrying thing is im not too sure the board are too concerned about league position and winning that many games, they cant be, looking at some of the players on show last night, its just a player trading company.
Ive been going for over 30 years and last night walking up the hill I was starting to get a little fed up of the rinse and repeat every season.

 

Have they got real wealth?. Isn't it Neerav's 'family' with the wealth.
I feel like we are just the toy train set his dad lets him have..
I don't want anyone to spend spend spend. But you can't keep having a 'slash and burn' business policiey. And still expect results to challenge for top two. If you're here long term then act like it. Put money in now to rebuild and take it back out later in better times, when championship stability is achieved.

 

I agree but I don't see where the Cryne's fit in. What if JAQ and Neerav say they want to inject £20 million? The Crynes have to stump up 20 per cent of that. They haven't got the cash to do it. Hence them being here holding the club back.

 

Plus the level we shop at, L1 is the max level of most.. with the odd exception. Or they a least need a couple of seasons to get em up to champ level..
I fear a good season at board level is just not putting any money in..
We may aswell be non-league, that's how we're run.

 

I didn't mean the Crynes I was on about whether/if Neerav has his own wealth

 

Personally, I don't see our recent few seasons as a steady decline, just another part of the bumpy road we've been on since the year dot. I don't rule out a relegation to League 2 (which looked odds on in December 2015) or another go at promotion (as happened 5 months later). If all these young lads learn fast and play to their undoubted potential then all will be well.

COYR.

 

To be honest in some ways managed decline seems to have been the general post admin vibe to me. The sense of solidity. The sense of being a community based club flickers back into life occasionally but mostly seems absent.

 

I don't know why we keep having this debate and the sooner we come to terms with the fact that the object of the club is to make money on players, the sooner our hurt and frustration will be over. The trouble is, when the penny finally drops there'll be no need to grasp at the straw of promotion and unfortunately,,,no need to support a club that could be seen by some people as taking the p155!

 

Not sure I agree. This is the first time I can ever remember us signing players on 4 year deals. Looking at our team, Cole has been here 3 years, Kane 4, Styles 5/6, Williams 5/6, Kitching 3 too. We're constantly looking long term and signing lads not for now but for next year.

The issue has been off the field - 3 different boards in the last 5(?) years. 6 gaffers. Sort that & we're good imho.

 

I don't think the change happened with admin, that just cemented it, the real change was promotion to the PL. Before that there was stability, after promotion we tried to spend our way to staying in the PL and then, after relegation, to try to get back. Ultimately that led to admin. As great as it was to get there, the result was what we have now, the definition of the yo-yo club in constant crisis.

I'll probably get no end of stick for this heresy.

 

You're hugley simplifying, and ultimately excluding, ITV Digital & Natwest's role in our admin there mate.

I don't think we as a club have changed that much over the last three decades. The game & business around it has. Whether we've kept up is the key question.

 

Yes you are right but we did fall for the bright lights and spent beyond our means because of it.

 

I have to agree......the original philosophy was to buy potential, sell for a profit and then use the funds to 'upgrade' the playing staff, which to me seems sensible for a Club like ours......it is the last bit that is not happening....we are replacing the players we have developed and made profit on with potential. Having deviated away from the 'punt' strategy when we brought Duff in, we have reverted to Plan A and regardless of whether Collins is a good coach or not, the tools he is being given will result in him not being given the time, as expectations have risen. We exceeded them last year but we won't get promoted with this squad, which looks like it may weaken further before the transfer deadline.....that is just being realistic given the approach, not being negative. It isn't an over reaction to our first defeat either. We weren't great in the first game until we got 2 nil up and should have lost at Bristol Rovers

 

I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's true. NatWest gives us the overdraft our assets deserved (I think that's right) and Admin doesn't happen. We were ultimately done by a cash flow problem which could've been alleviated with some - relatively small - help from the bank.

It wasn't great but it wasn't the boom/bust narrative you're saying. Or that's certainly how ppl v close to the situation described it to me.

 

At the end of season 2022 the club had far more debt than the amount owing when the club went in to admin.

 

That's true, I'm guessing even adjusted for inflation. But football is a boom industry now and banks/institutions want in. They didn't after ITV Digi went pop. It's right as a fact but the context is hugely different.

One of the big differences between pre and post admin - people who 'own' the club making a few quid. Imagine now a John Dennis running us on the side of another successful business for nothing other than love.

The club was transformed from 1990 to 2000 and has ultimately stagnated since.

 

I think the amount called in by the bank was of the order of £100,000 which is chickenfeed. The club were losing money at the time but not to the extent that the loan repayments couldn't be made. Very poor decision by the bank, one they wouldn't have made for massively bigger debts held by the likes of Derby or them from S6.

 

Yep. And ultimately they were losing money because a significant chunk of forecasted revenue never materialised, not mismanagement. Spackman & Steve Parkin were **** still like IMHO obvs.

 

The big difference is that the debts of Derby/Wednesday these day are in soft loans to owners.

Banks do not want default regardless of sector. Any bank debt will either be secured or guaranteed by directors. Total falsehood to suggests banks are now financing unsustainable debt in football.

it’s predominantly owners pumping cash in in the hope of success/fame. At the very top table VC/PE money has come in but this is very much top end Premier league. The exception being Ipswich who are now ostensibly owned by a US public pension fund’s PE desk.

 

That’s my recollection too.