Really? When was that then? When the takeover happened IL stated quite clearly that there would only have been one more signing had it not gone ahead. So, given that we let several players go at the end of the season (including the highest wage earner) and only signed one player thereafter (Hylton), the budget would, quite clearly and demonstrably, have been significantly lower.GodalmingYellow wrote:IL had stated that this year's budget would be the same as last year's, so you can't make assumptions on wages savings.
And frankly, I haven't seen much evidence yet of reckless spending on the playing side. With Kitson's retirement we're ridiculously threadbare (and have yet more wage savings to benefit from).
It's surely quite clear that a successful team has the capacity to put bums on seats - significantly more than were turning up last season. Current season ticket numbers are irrelevant to that argument. They're a reflection of IL's previous mismanagement of on-field affairs. It might take a few weeks or months for the benefits of this investment to materialise, or they may never do so, but it's a risk the new owners consider worth taking. And again, getting a couple of decent coaches in doesn't look wholly reckless from where I'm sitting. Last season we were crying out for that!GodalmingYellow wrote:I think your assumption that the new coaches are not on significantly more than the previous ones is more to suit your argument than a representation of reality. As for more bums on seats, my understanding is that season ticket sales are notably down on last year, which if true not only negates your point, but adds to the unsustainable costs argument.
Darryl Eales and Ian Lenagan are business people with good reputations who either are already or want to be respected as sports club owners. That is not going to happen if they become the first people for decades to wind up a football league club - and because of debts they themselves accrued. If they want to get out in the future and no-one will cover the full extent of the debts to them, I see no reason at all why they wouldn't accept partial repayment as a way of cutting their losses. Better than winding the club up and getting nothing! Why on earth is this 'fantasy land'? It is clearly what Methven and co thought IL would do only a month ago, but it turns out he had a better offer on the table.GodalmingYellow wrote:On the losses of Eales et al, these will be secured on club assets. So as soon as any land deal is done, the club immediately is at risk of the fallout of Eales leaving. If there is no land deal, and Eales leaves, any new owner would have to accept repayment of debts to Eales, which would be huge, as well as debts to Lenagan, which are already huge. No new owner will do that for a club the size of OUFC. So that results in no new owner, which results in club going to the wall, unless Eales and Lenagan, out of their personal generosity and affection, decide to write off millions. There is no club owner in history who has agreed to do that, except one or two with very close family links to their respective clubs, and to assume Eales and Lenagan would do so is a touch too close to fantasy land.
If a stadium deal is done, then of course debts could be secured against that, and that wouldn't be ideal. But I don't see how it's much worse than the situation we were in a month ago (millions in debt and not owning a ground).
This looks like progress to me, but I'm waiting for sensible questions to be properly answered at events like OxVox's Q&A tonight - and a fans' forum would be a good idea too.