No the timelines for that narrative don’t work, we have been losing 500k / week for a long time, that’s not a new thing
Ye, fair enough, it wasn't meant as a direct comparison and I should have worded it better. More of an example that paying debt off and having the club self sufficient isn't necessarily a good thing.. as the crowd number at the end showed. Managed decline to make an asset sellable might be a good owner from a business perspective, but from a supporters viewpoint, it was ****. As someone with no inside knowledge, from the outside, it looks like Acun has been putting chips on twenty numbers in roulette (with players and managers) and hoping/relying on getting lucky... It's been a few rounds too many now and the house wants it's money back... Mismanagement.
The problem with spending within your means in football is if you try and do it month to month, or even season to season, in the long run you’ll end up going backwards. Smart football club owners will be sensible with cash but know when to break the bank a bit on a promising player, securing a long term contract, establishing a scouting network or investing in club infrastructure that will pay off in the future. Acun and latter day Allams have been at the opposite extremes of this. We’ve only really had one owner that got anywhere near this in decades.
You break the bank on a player after a good sale and progress that way, but primarily clubs could spend within their means. We signed Alzate on a free and will sell him for 3-4m, that then should let us reinvest in a few players, and so on.
Yes, agreed. My point was we’ve had owners who haven’t been prepared to do that over 2,3,4 seasons etc (probably because they wouldn’t be there to see the benefit) and so didn’t renew ‘expensive’ contracts and let them leave on the cheap. Obviously there should always be a limit to spending but doing things on the cheap in football to make sure your balance is healthy consistently will only see you go backwards. You’ve got to take risks every so often and hope they come off.
I wouldn’t call it minimal compared to shareholder loans at some other clubs. It’s about 5% which is lower than most personal loans but higher than a lot of shareholder loans from football club owners.
Tbh it's not overall losses per se they monitor. It's compliance The only reason 500k loss a week is a problem is the question of affordability. Losing money up to ffp limits isn't a problem in itself.
What owner invested in club infastructure and scouting? If you’re meaning Adam Pearson he certainly didn’t The Allams did.
I did mean him but that’s why I put ‘anywhere near’ as he didn’t tick all of the above boxes. The Allams should take credit for the investment in the academy however relatively speaking they had significantly more money coming into the club than Adam Pearson did during his tenure,so difficult to compare really.
I don’t disagree, however the club moved forward a lot during his time, not just on the pitch but also off it. He obviously didn’t pay for the stadium but was here and worked as part of it to get it off the ground etc. Im not saying Adam Pearson was the perfect owner as there is a lot he didn’t do and possibly could have but in terms of taking the club forward from before his time to after he’s ahead of everyone else. He also had a significantly lower base to start with than anyone else.
Getting relegated means there is less money, not more. It would be an absolute disaster for the club as things stand.
Allam was worth £400 million - he had the money to manage fluctuations in spending- Pearson and Acun don't- it's easy to spend money when you have it - to some extent teams like City are dependent on how lucky they are when someone buys the club and how much they can afford - to some extent it's wrong to criticise Acun for having cash flow problems- if he doesn't invest, we get relegated, if he does we end up in debt - maybe some of our players haven't been great purchases but at least he's given it a go and we are certainly in a better place than having the likes of Wilkes and Maddison - maybe I'm glass half full, I don't see us being relegated next season -although I dont see us being promoted either
What if you'd worked at a company for many many years, loved it in fact Jim, through thick and lots of thin. Then a new owner took over, of said hypothetical company, who cut corners, looked for short cuts, delayed paying invoices, robbed Peter to pay Paul as it where? Would it be more ethical to just walk away and let them bring down this hypothetical local bastion of the community or would it be more ethical to blow said whistle to bring it all to light? Asking for a friend.
I've got two dogs a Red Setter and a working Cocker. I love my dogs, I feed them, they sleep in my house, they sleep on our bed for that matter. What i really like is two Tigers but I can't afford a ****ing zoo to keep them in, or zoo keepers to look after them or a cow each per week to feed the strippy ****ers. So I haven't bought any Tigers. If you can't afford to run The ****ing Tigers don't buy the ****ing club (Not aimed at you Charon we don't need any more blood fueds on here )
