Won’t or can’t?

[se7sm]

This is so early in the season but the writing seems to be on the wall already, we simply have got a budget and IMO not that much to blow the league away 8000 season tickets sold on a lie . My grandson was going Oxford with his mates but after that shit at this stage said he’s not going waste of time . Yeah you can say support the team but it’s crap .As my old dad said you only get what you pay for and we are paying not a lot .this is all starting to look like we all been mugged off .

[norfolkrobin]

I'll be the first to apologise for doubt IF we have a storming end of the window,but if AN is right about Cosgrove and Dabo,then we'd be daft to think we'll be anymore than also-rans.

[essexaddick]

Aug 20, 2023 13:18:01 GMT norfolkrobin said:

I'll be the first to apologise for doubt IF we have a storming end of the window,but if AN is right about Cosgrove and Dabo,then we'd be daft to think we'll be anymore than also-rans.

Fans duped once again. Glad I kept my money in my pocket. Once bitten as they say. Not again

[surridgecobbler5]

Aug 20, 2023 12:51:59 GMT se7sm said:

This is so early in the season but the writing seems to be on the wall already, we simply have got a budget and IMO not that much to blow the league away 8000 season tickets sold on a lie . My grandson was going Oxford with his mates but after that shit at this stage said he’s not going waste of time . Yeah you can say support the team but it’s crap .As my old dad said you only get what you pay for and we are paying not a lot .this is all starting to look like we all been mugged off .

Reading the Sunderland Board on the ;Charlton takeover Thread.....

Seems Methven's MO there is being repeated... Claims of 'Billionaire Investors' and no spending !

[observer]

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and invite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

[aaronaldo]

Authority from whom?

Is Dick asking if SE7 need authority within or is he talking about some sort of EFL approval?

[Mundell]

Aug 22, 2023 13:11:02 GMT observer said:

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and invite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

It’s really not clear what the question is and it’s not possible to check because it seems the Forum on which it’s posted is members only, i.e. you need a login to view, though I’m not sure why. 

Anyway, perhaps some facts might help, 

1. The club loses money and is therefore dependent on ongoing owner/investor funding in order to continue to operate. Almost all football club owners provide such funding via loans and almost certainly SE7/GFP will do this too since there are some good reasons for using this form of financing. Many fans appear confused by this, seeming to believe that loans don’t represent “real money”. They’re wrong obviously. Money still moves from the owner’s/investor’s bank account to the club’s. 

2. There has been much discussion about the SCMP, Leagues One and Two’s version of FFP, and yet more confusion and misunderstanding. The SCMP limits spending on wages to 60% of turnover, but where turnover includes equity contributions and donations which means, in effect, that the SCMP doesn’t limit spending on wages per se. For the avoidance of any doubt, during Sandgaard’s period of ownership the club complied with the SCMP without recourse to equity injections or donations. 

3. There has been some speculation about whether spending on wages by SE7 will be limited by the SCMP (as is the case for almost all other clubs in League One) or whether, instead, SE7 will ‘game’ the system by injecting equity. In truth, we don’t know, but most posters on ITTV have concluded that there is unlikely to be any equity ‘top up’ and hence that expenditure on wages is likely to be constrained by the SCMP and hence the club’s underlying turnover. 

4. Operating within the SCMP did not prevent Sandgaard a) providing a top six, or better, wage bill, or b) losing a lot of money because operating losses have been, and will continue to be, significant. It is not clear why fans should expect any owner to incur greater losses than hitherto when the funding already provided should have led to a place in the playoffs and a chance of promotion. 

5. We don’t know what kind of budgets have been agreed between the investors and the club’s new management team. However, based on Charlie Methven’s rhetoric and what we’ve seen so far most of us on this forum have concluded that the targeted wage bill won’t increase and might even be reduced, while still remaining very competitive. 

6. The important point here is not how much money Sandgaard spent. That wasn’t the problem. The problem was an entirely dysfunctional recruitment process. The promise of the Methven led consortium is that they’ll apply much more professional management, not that they’ll spend more money. It might take time for this to bear fruit, but it’s the major departure from the chaos wrought by Sandgaard. 

7. I don’t understand what is meant by ‘authority’. My assumption is that the investor group has agreed a budget and that the management team is empowered to spend it. I’d be amazed if Friedman and Brener are involved in approving individual player contracts. If the management team want more money (i.e. want to increase losses) then not unreasonably that would almost certainly need to be approved. The EFL will be monitoring the club (as it does routinely) and will expect it to deliver on its plans. Again, I can’t see the EFL approving day to day expenditures, but the club may want to ensure that it remains compliant with the SCMP and with any other commitments it has made. 

Hope that helps. 

[observer]

Aug 22, 2023 13:11:02 GMT observer said:

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and invite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

I have had my knuckles rapped for re-posting the above (DP was not the originator of the post) so we'll just leave it at that.

[weststandfruitloop]

Can we also bang into people's heads that SCMP only relates to wages. We can spend what we want on transfer fees - there's no cap on that. Ironically this makes free agents more expensive that bought players in term of the wage cap (as the bidding war for them is entirely over wages offered not a purchase fee).

[Mundell]

Aug 22, 2023 15:54:58 GMT weststandfruitloop said:

Can we also bang into people's heads that SCMP only relates to wages. We can spend what we want on transfer fees - there's no cap on that. Ironically this makes free agents more expensive that bought players in term of the wage cap (as the bidding war for them is entirely over wages offered not a purchase fee).

Absolutely right. In addition, expenditure on infrastructure, the management team, including technical director, director of performance, head coach, all coaching staff, the academy et al, are all excluded. The club can comply with the SCMP while spending heavily on developing and running the football side of the house and running significant operating losses. 

[Mundell]

observer Hilarious! Too late! I already responded. If you’re brave enough and your knuckles sufficiently recovered, would you mind asking why it isn’t possible to visit the forum without becoming a member and logging in? ITTV and CL both welcome visitors. How else do you get new members? 

[reamsofverse]

Aug 22, 2023 13:11:02 GMT observer said:

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and i6nvite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

All you have to go back with is I am not answerable to the seven members they have on there. They are banned from here for a reason and I have not interest in engaging with people who have an agenda. One or two of them have claimed throughout that they message CM on linked in etc so why not ask him themselves. I could ring him now and ask the question but they are the last people in the world I would share the answer with.

[reamsofverse]

Aug 22, 2023 16:10:39 GMT Mundell said:

observer Hilarious! Too late! I already responded. If you’re brave enough and your knuckles sufficiently recovered, would you mind asking why it isn’t possible to visit the forum without becoming a member and logging in? ITTV and CL both welcome visitors. How else do you get new members? 

Place is a laughing stock Chris. Been going 8 months and has half a dozen regular posters who are all anti SE7 and myself. The club have been alerted to the vitriol, personal abuse and libel posted on there regarded CM. It's why they went to log in only mode but not before countless screenshots were lifted from there by several people.

[reamsofverse]

Aug 22, 2023 15:47:19 GMT observer said:

Aug 22, 2023 13:11:02 GMT observer said:

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and invite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

I have had my knuckles rapped for re-posting the above (DP was not the originator of the post) so we'll just leave it at that.

Up to you observer who you post with but be careful who you mix with as they are being watched and im not scaremongering. That foxy chap had to be warned on here for the same thing. The Sunderland stuff is libellous.

[reamsofverse]

Aug 22, 2023 15:47:19 GMT observer said:

Aug 22, 2023 13:11:02 GMT observer said:

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and invite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

I have had my knuckles rapped for re-posting the above (DP was not the originator of the post) so we'll just leave it at that.

Knuckles rapped by who? Has it come from the short arse from Brazil who has gone over there for a bit of foreplay with the lady boys in Sao Paulo?

Snow white and the seven snowflakes mate. Don't know why you bother with them, hateful bunch of people. Like I said though they'll have their come uppance doon enough. You don't want to be a part of it observer.

[observer]

Aug 22, 2023 16:10:39 GMT Mundell said:

observer Hilarious! Too late! I already responded. If you’re brave enough and your knuckles sufficiently recovered, would you mind asking why it isn’t possible to visit the forum without becoming a member and logging in? ITTV and CL both welcome visitors. How else do you get new members? 

I have asked the question but it's not a subject open to discussion.

[observer]

Aug 22, 2023 16:51:16 GMT reamsofverse said:

Aug 22, 2023 15:47:19 GMT observer said:

I have had my knuckles rapped for re-posting the above (DP was not the originator of the post) so we'll just leave it at that.

Up to you observer who you post with but be careful who you mix with as they are being watched and im not scaremongering. That foxy chap had to be warned on here for the same thing. The Sunderland stuff is libellous.

I post there in the same way as I do here. Infrequently and only if I have something useful to contribute or a question to ask.

[observer]

Aug 22, 2023 16:59:28 GMT reamsofverse said:

Aug 22, 2023 15:47:19 GMT observer said:

I have had my knuckles rapped for re-posting the above (DP was not the originator of the post) so we'll just leave it at that.

Knuckles rapped by who? Has it come from the short arse from Brazil who has gone over there for a bit of foreplay with the lady boys in Sao Paulo?

Snow white and the seven snowflakes mate. Don't know why you bother with them, hateful bunch of people. Like I said though they'll have their come uppance doon enough. You don't want to be a part of it observer.

I like to read everything that's said about the club and get differing opinions from different sources. I don't engage in any of the personal stuff and that's why I feel able to dip in to several discussion groups.

[squareball]

Aug 22, 2023 15:42:13 GMT Mundell said:

Aug 22, 2023 13:11:02 GMT observer said:

This was posted on DP's forum yesterday with a request that anyone being a member of both forums post it here and invite reamsofverse to comment on the specific question raised.

I have offered to do so and here is the post in its entirety:

Quote
So it’s bollox then. It’s very simple…..are the owners going to inject cash donations into the club, in which case we can sign the players we need, or aren’t they, in which case we can’t ?

I’m still researching the claim that they have to get prior authority to do so (but I haven’t found anything yet that says that they do), but if it is true, then when did they first seek that authority. They have had oversight of the club for about eight months or so and would have been fully aware of the situation when they finally took over last month. There is no reason they couldn’t have requested that authority (if it is really even needed) on the day they took over.

If they still haven’t done that then they are clearly not going to, which means, as I’ve been saying for those 8 months, the wealth of the owners is totally irrelevant, beyond the fact that they can pass the EFL tests.

In other words we are no better off than under Sandgaard and possibly even worse off (as our league position currently indicates).

Can one of ITWV’s observers please feed this back to Reams and ask his opinion of the FFP rules implications as they relate to GFP/SE7.

Thanks in advance.
Unquote

If Reams would like to offer a comment I will refer it back. I am doing this for the purpose of improving the information and viewpoint exchange without having any history of personal conflict and I hope it will be seen this way.

It’s really not clear what the question is and it’s not possible to check because it seems the Forum on which it’s posted is members only, i.e. you need a login to view, though I’m not sure why. 

Anyway, perhaps some facts might help, 

1. The club loses money and is therefore dependent on ongoing owner/investor funding in order to continue to operate. Almost all football club owners provide such funding via loans and almost certainly SE7/GFP will do this too since there are some good reasons for using this form of financing. Many fans appear confused by this, seeming to believe that loans don’t represent “real money”. They’re wrong obviously. Money still moves from the owner’s/investor’s bank account to the club’s. 

2. There has been much discussion about the SCMP, Leagues One and Two’s version of FFP, and yet more confusion and misunderstanding. The SCMP limits spending on wages to 60% of turnover, but where turnover includes equity contributions and donations which means, in effect, that the SCMP doesn’t limit spending on wages per se. For the avoidance of any doubt, during Sandgaard’s period of ownership the club complied with the SCMP without recourse to equity injections or donations. 

3. There has been some speculation about whether spending on wages by SE7 will be limited by the SCMP (as is the case for almost all other clubs in League One) or whether, instead, SE7 will ‘game’ the system by injecting equity. In truth, we don’t know, but most posters on ITTV have concluded that there is unlikely to be any equity ‘top up’ and hence that expenditure on wages is likely to be constrained by the SCMP and hence the club’s underlying turnover. 

4. Operating within the SCMP did not prevent Sandgaard a) providing a top six, or better, wage bill, or b) losing a lot of money because operating losses have been, and will continue to be, significant. It is not clear why fans should expect any owner to incur greater losses than hitherto when the funding already provided should have led to a place in the playoffs and a chance of promotion. 

5. We don’t know what kind of budgets have been agreed between the investors and the club’s new management team. However, based on Charlie Methven’s rhetoric and what we’ve seen so far most of us on this forum have concluded that the targeted wage bill won’t increase and might even be reduced, while still remaining very competitive. 

6. The important point here is not how much money Sandgaard spent. That wasn’t the problem. The problem was an entirely dysfunctional recruitment process. The promise of the Methven led consortium is that they’ll apply much more professional management, not that they’ll spend more money. It might take time for this to bear fruit, but it’s the major departure from the chaos wrought by Sandgaard. 

7. I don’t understand what is meant by ‘authority’. My assumption is that the investor group has agreed a budget and that the management team is empowered to spend it. I’d be amazed if Friedman and Brener are involved in approving individual player contracts. If the management team want more money (i.e. want to increase losses) then not unreasonably that would almost certainly need to be approved. The EFL will be monitoring the club (as it does routinely) and will expect it to deliver on its plans. Again, I can’t see the EFL approving day to day expenditures, but the club may want to ensure that it remains compliant with the SCMP and with any other commitments it has made. 

Hope that helps. 

The answer he’s looking for is no. They won’t be injecting any cash.

[squareball]

Aug 22, 2023 16:59:28 GMT reamsofverse said:

Aug 22, 2023 15:47:19 GMT observer said:

I have had my knuckles rapped for re-posting the above (DP was not the originator of the post) so we'll just leave it at that.

Knuckles rapped by who? Has it come from the short arse from Brazil who has gone over there for a bit of foreplay with the lady boys in Sao Paulo?

Snow white and the seven snowflakes mate. Don't know why you bother with them, hateful bunch of people. Like I said though they'll have their come uppance doon enough. You don't want to be a part of it observer.

Reading this post I’m still in agreement with your assertion that we must have the most abusive and unreasonable fans known to man.

[Mundell]

Aug 22, 2023 19:52:15 GMT squareball said:

Aug 22, 2023 15:42:13 GMT Mundell said:

It’s really not clear what the question is and it’s not possible to check because it seems the Forum on which it’s posted is members only, i.e. you need a login to view, though I’m not sure why. 

Anyway, perhaps some facts might help, 

1. The club loses money and is therefore dependent on ongoing owner/investor funding in order to continue to operate. Almost all football club owners provide such funding via loans and almost certainly SE7/GFP will do this too since there are some good reasons for using this form of financing. Many fans appear confused by this, seeming to believe that loans don’t represent “real money”. They’re wrong obviously. Money still moves from the owner’s/investor’s bank account to the club’s. 

2. There has been much discussion about the SCMP, Leagues One and Two’s version of FFP, and yet more confusion and misunderstanding. The SCMP limits spending on wages to 60% of turnover, but where turnover includes equity contributions and donations which means, in effect, that the SCMP doesn’t limit spending on wages per se. For the avoidance of any doubt, during Sandgaard’s period of ownership the club complied with the SCMP without recourse to equity injections or donations. 

3. There has been some speculation about whether spending on wages by SE7 will be limited by the SCMP (as is the case for almost all other clubs in League One) or whether, instead, SE7 will ‘game’ the system by injecting equity. In truth, we don’t know, but most posters on ITTV have concluded that there is unlikely to be any equity ‘top up’ and hence that expenditure on wages is likely to be constrained by the SCMP and hence the club’s underlying turnover. 

4. Operating within the SCMP did not prevent Sandgaard a) providing a top six, or better, wage bill, or b) losing a lot of money because operating losses have been, and will continue to be, significant. It is not clear why fans should expect any owner to incur greater losses than hitherto when the funding already provided should have led to a place in the playoffs and a chance of promotion. 

5. We don’t know what kind of budgets have been agreed between the investors and the club’s new management team. However, based on Charlie Methven’s rhetoric and what we’ve seen so far most of us on this forum have concluded that the targeted wage bill won’t increase and might even be reduced, while still remaining very competitive. 

6. The important point here is not how much money Sandgaard spent. That wasn’t the problem. The problem was an entirely dysfunctional recruitment process. The promise of the Methven led consortium is that they’ll apply much more professional management, not that they’ll spend more money. It might take time for this to bear fruit, but it’s the major departure from the chaos wrought by Sandgaard. 

7. I don’t understand what is meant by ‘authority’. My assumption is that the investor group has agreed a budget and that the management team is empowered to spend it. I’d be amazed if Friedman and Brener are involved in approving individual player contracts. If the management team want more money (i.e. want to increase losses) then not unreasonably that would almost certainly need to be approved. The EFL will be monitoring the club (as it does routinely) and will expect it to deliver on its plans. Again, I can’t see the EFL approving day to day expenditures, but the club may want to ensure that it remains compliant with the SCMP and with any other commitments it has made. 

Hope that helps. 

The answer he’s looking for is no. They won’t be injecting any cash.

If the question he’s asking is whether the new owners will be injecting any cash, then the answer is Yes. How else will operating losses be funded? I’m led to believe that the tooth fairy is no longer in the business of funding loss making football clubs. 

[weststandfruitloop]

Yeah, I think there's a confusion between 'injecting' cash which basically means just giving it to the club (essentially burning it or spunking it up the wall or whatever your preferred euphemism is) and putting money into the club (via director's loans) simply to keep the lights on.

Our new owners have spent a reported 12m to buy the club and are putting in another (not reportedly but quite clearly actually based on the accounts for recent years) 150k a week just to keep us solvent. If anyone else was prepared to do that they, rather than this lot, would be our owners.

These folks are putting in around £2m per quarter (three months) just to keep us going - maybe the brainiacs elsewhere could give them a break re not instantly spending millions on players yeah? x

[squareball]

Aug 22, 2023 20:38:24 GMT Mundell said:

Aug 22, 2023 19:52:15 GMT squareball said:

The answer he’s looking for is no. They won’t be injecting any cash.

If the question he’s asking is whether the new owners will be injecting any cash, then the answer is Yes. How else will operating losses be funded? I’m led to believe that the tooth fairy is no longer in the business of funding loss making football clubs. 

It’s in relation to cash injection for player acquisition. You know that.
Thanks for the short reply, a breadth of fresh air .

[earlpurple]

I think the 'strategy' is to find ways to raise revenue, because the more revenue, the higher the budget. The board can cover the 'deficit' but the "fair play" rules of League One mean we must cover 60% with turnover.

[Mundell]

Aug 22, 2023 21:18:50 GMT squareball said:

Aug 22, 2023 20:38:24 GMT Mundell said:

If the question he’s asking is whether the new owners will be injecting any cash, then the answer is Yes. How else will operating losses be funded? I’m led to believe that the tooth fairy is no longer in the business of funding loss making football clubs. 

It’s in relation to cash injection for player acquisition. You know that.
Thanks for the short reply, a breadth of fresh air .

Touché!! Good reply. 

[weststandfruitloop]

Aug 22, 2023 21:32:49 GMT earlpurple said:

I think the 'strategy' is to find ways to raise revenue, because the more revenue, the higher the budget. The board can cover the 'deficit' but the "fair play" rules of League One mean we must cover 60% with turnover.

Yeah but (a) the owners can give (not loan) the club however much money they like* and it counts as turnover, 60% of which can be spent on wages for pro players aged over 20 and (b) there's no rules/cap re transfer fees, they can literally spend whatever they want* there, and (c) it's unlikely our salary bill is at even 75% of the cap at present.

*Of course they shouldn't piss their own money up the wall like that, but they can (with no FFP repurcussions).

[reamsofverse]

Aug 22, 2023 19:58:12 GMT squareball said:

Aug 22, 2023 16:59:28 GMT reamsofverse said:

Knuckles rapped by who? Has it come from the short arse from Brazil who has gone over there for a bit of foreplay with the lady boys in Sao Paulo?

Snow white and the seven snowflakes mate. Don't know why you bother with them, hateful bunch of people. Like I said though they'll have their come uppance doon enough. You don't want to be a part of it observer.

Reading this post I’m still in agreement with your assertion that we must have the most abusive and unreasonable fans known to man.

Fella just go and find another forum.

You are beyond boring now. So predictable too.

[reamsofverse]

Aug 22, 2023 21:18:50 GMT squareball said:

Aug 22, 2023 20:38:24 GMT Mundell said:

If the question he’s asking is whether the new owners will be injecting any cash, then the answer is Yes. How else will operating losses be funded? I’m led to believe that the tooth fairy is no longer in the business of funding loss making football clubs. 

It’s in relation to cash injection for player acquisition. You know that.
Thanks for the short reply, a breadth of fresh air .

So in other words you are looking for an answer to suit your rhetoric.

Like I said £1m spent so far. It's an injection of sorts but not enough. 10 days to add to it.

[revilo]

Can we give Reams a break? Last time I looked Reams is not the owner so how about we let the owners do the talking with their actions. There are still 9 days left of the transfer window. I will join everyone in getting on their back if we've not added more quality but holding Reams responsible for their every move is crazy.

[manikin]

Aug 23, 2023 7:06:19 GMT revilo said:

Can we give Reams a break? Last time I looked Reams is not the owner so how about we let the owners do the talking with their actions. There are still 9 days left of the transfer window. I will join everyone in getting on their back if we've not added more quality but holding Reams responsible for their every move is crazy.

Totally agree, I'm sure we all appreciate the efforts Reams has gone too to  try and keep us up to speed. Only a few days to go and we will have a better picture. Whatever that maybe, I still feel we are in safer hands as a club, however disappointed we maybe over the transfer window.