Post by bexleyboy on Aug 23, 2023 15:56:06 GMT
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.
So who paid the 12 mill and who paying the day to day bills and covering the losses .. that’s called injecting cash keeping the club going on a day to day basis so ( what going to call you a fan ) people like you can talk bollocks .. let’s not forget the money on players already spent .. don’t let facts get in the way ..
