Wow

Anything yellow and blue
recordmeister
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1719
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
Location: London

Re: Wow

Post by recordmeister » Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:20 pm

I'm sorry, have I missed something here GY?

For years (decades) we've had severe underinvestment, not on the playing side (the dessert, if you will) but on the coaching side, the fabric of the club (the main course).

We've seen players come and go, with a couple of exceptions (jake wright, Beano) our 'big money' signing have all been a bit of a washout. But here we are investing in back room staff who have proven track record of working at a MUCH higher level and even in the international sphere. What is your issue with this?? For years now we've had back room staff specialising in being defensive. Finally, we might have a group of professionals who can bring experience to all aspects of our game. Who doesn't want that? You're unlikely to have a good pudding if the main course is shit.

Someone said it well: you're damned if you spend and you're damned if you don't. But I'd rather have the money spent on the fabric of the coaching staff than some overrated already wealthy player looking for one last payday.

I'll take the main course, and make my decision on a dessert after that has been judged.

Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2899
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re: Wow

Post by Kernow Yellow » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:21 am

Tricky one this. Of course we want the club to be run sustainably. But that's what Lenagan tried to do and look where that got us - millions in debt and losing money hand over fist. And losing fans (and turnover) Kassam tried it before (with more financial success) and it resulted in swingeing cuts to the general running of the club and eventual relegation to the Conference.

The new owners seem to reckon that investment and a promotion or two are the only realistic way to get the club near to turning a profit. This is of course a big risk but as long as we don't own the ground, then the only people losing money here are the investors (IL and the new guys) - we have no tangible assets to strip to help them recoup the money they're spending.

And if they do eventually get the ground deal which will make it all worthwhile, then that can only help with the finances.

Also, GY assumes that the new recruits will be much more expensive than what they're replacing, but I don't think that's so clear cut. Appleton has been out of the game a while - he probably didn't demand a huge salary to get another stab at management. Kitson has just been removed from the wage bill. As have Constable and others. Shrewd recruitment (which is why Fazackerly and Thomas have been brought in) could yield results without overspending on the playing staff.

The big questions concern Ashton's (and other directors') remuneration, and how the current and future debts will be structured under the new regime. Let's hope the OxVox meeting tonight gets to the bottom of some of those concerns.

Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Wow

Post by Snake » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:43 am

Ahem, from what I can recall of the Orient game it was WPL who were in charge at the time.

To play devil’s advocate, going back before WPL and Firoka we had the spend, spend strategy of Cox and Herd (disaster off the field and doing ok on it) and before that from Maxwell (not sure where the money came from or what sort of debt he passed on, but it was certainly fab on the field).

Kairdiff Exile
Dashing young thing
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Re: Wow

Post by Kairdiff Exile » Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:56 am

Kernow Yellow wrote:The new owners seem to reckon that investment and a promotion or two are the only realistic way to get the club near to turning a profit. This is of course a big risk...
Yes, and that's fine - but it depends on who's taking the risk (which was the point I made in my post on the other thread). If they're spending THEIR money and they don't have any expectation of getting it back if things go belly-up, that's fine - they're businessmen, and business can mean risk. But Ashton's comment about not being here to lose money makes me think that his 'investment' will be in the form of loans which he will expect back (with interest,of course!) whatever happens. So the risk is OUFC's - and guess who'll be the ones left to pick up the pieces if the sttrategy doesn't work? Yup, that'll be us, with bucket-shakes, fundraisers and all the rest of it.

You know this, of course, KY - and you acknowledge it when you say:
Kernow Yellow wrote:The big questions concern Ashton's (and other directors') remuneration, and how the current and future debts will be structured under the new regime. Let's hope the OxVox meeting tonight gets to the bottom of some of those concerns.
I fully agreee. These are the questions which OV need to be asking as a matter of urgency in as clear a manner as possible. And if they don't get an answer, I think we have to assume the worst. Blind optimism or sticking our head in the sand has got us into the shit before; we cannot let it do so again.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:18 pm

recordmeister wrote:I'm sorry, have I missed something here GY?

For years (decades) we've had severe underinvestment, not on the playing side (the dessert, if you will) but on the coaching side, the fabric of the club (the main course).

We've seen players come and go, with a couple of exceptions (jake wright, Beano) our 'big money' signing have all been a bit of a washout. But here we are investing in back room staff who have proven track record of working at a MUCH higher level and even in the international sphere. What is your issue with this?? For years now we've had back room staff specialising in being defensive. Finally, we might have a group of professionals who can bring experience to all aspects of our game. Who doesn't want that? You're unlikely to have a good pudding if the main course is shit.

Someone said it well: you're damned if you spend and you're damned if you don't. But I'd rather have the money spent on the fabric of the coaching staff than some overrated already wealthy player looking for one last payday.

I'll take the main course, and make my decision on a dessert after that has been judged.
Yes you have missed something RM.

I would be happy for the club to sign the best candidate in the world for every position at the club.

There is however a tiny sticking point. How would the club ever pay for it. And therein lies the point you are missing. We have signed some top rated back room staff. How are OUFC paying for it?

The club already makes huge losses. How can the club afford even bigger losses and the debt that losses bring as their sidekick?

No, the answer is not Eales. He is not paying for it. He is just underwriting it and loaning the money to OUFC, which will have to be repaid.

How will OUFC make that repayment? The loan will almost certainly be secured against club assets.

But we have no assets I hear you say. Well we might have if the club are involved in buying the KasStad, followed by a land deal at Water Eaton.

Remind me what happened at Portsmouth and numerous other clubs who tried this model for buying success. Oh yes it went tits up because the director wanted their money back and took the club's land as payment.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:30 pm

Kernow Yellow wrote:Tricky one this. Of course we want the club to be run sustainably. But that's what Lenagan tried to do and look where that got us - millions in debt and losing money hand over fist. And losing fans (and turnover) Kassam tried it before (with more financial success) and it resulted in swingeing cuts to the general running of the club and eventual relegation to the Conference.

The new owners seem to reckon that investment and a promotion or two are the only realistic way to get the club near to turning a profit. This is of course a big risk but as long as we don't own the ground, then the only people losing money here are the investors (IL and the new guys) - we have no tangible assets to strip to help them recoup the money they're spending.

And if they do eventually get the ground deal which will make it all worthwhile, then that can only help with the finances.

Also, GY assumes that the new recruits will be much more expensive than what they're replacing, but I don't think that's so clear cut. Appleton has been out of the game a while - he probably didn't demand a huge salary to get another stab at management. Kitson has just been removed from the wage bill. As have Constable and others. Shrewd recruitment (which is why Fazackerly and Thomas have been brought in) could yield results without overspending on the playing staff.

The big questions concern Ashton's (and other directors') remuneration, and how the current and future debts will be structured under the new regime. Let's hope the OxVox meeting tonight gets to the bottom of some of those concerns.
Unfortunately your assertions regarding the players wages is wrong KY. Eales has already said the wage budget will be increased by £250k, so any savings will go back into the playing budget.

I am sure we would all like to think that coaches of the likes of Appleton and Fazackerly will work for next to nothing, but I just see that as hope accompanied by no sense of reality.

Then as you rightly say, are the directors costs, as well as the loan costs.

If the club was in the Championship, maybe. As it is, the club is floating towards a very deep waterfall, without arm bands, and having failed it's 10m swimming certificate.

Kernow Yellow
Grumpy old git
Posts: 2899
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:16 pm

Re: Wow

Post by Kernow Yellow » Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:53 pm

GodalmingYellow wrote:Eales has already said the wage budget will be increased by £250k, so any savings will go back into the playing budget.

I am sure we would all like to think that coaches of the likes of Appleton and Fazackerly will work for next to nothing, but I just see that as hope accompanied by no sense of reality.

Then as you rightly say, are the directors costs, as well as the loan costs.

If the club was in the Championship, maybe. As it is, the club is floating towards a very deep waterfall, without arm bands, and having failed it's 10m swimming certificate.
Eales said that he would make an extra £250k available for the playing budget, but I understood this to mean on top of what it would have been had they not taken over. And given the players that had left, and the fact that IL was only going to sanction one more signing, we can safely assume that the budget would have been significantly down on last year had no takeover happened. So the £250k could well only be bringing it back up to where it has been for the last few years.

I'm not suggesting that Appleton and Fazackerly are working for next to nothing. But they've both been out of the game for a while and were presumably keen to get a job, which is why they've taken one at a League 2 club. It is an assumption on your part to think that they are on significantly more than Waddock and Melville. I suspect the difference is not as great as you imagine. And certainly nothing that can't be covered by the extra bums on seats each week which are easily achievable if they and Mark Thomas hit the ground running.

Regarding whether DE and MA expect to get their money back, that's kind of irrelevant isn't it? If they don't do a ground deal and don't turn the finances round, they're not going to get their money back. Surely the risk falls on them? They would have little alternative but to cut their losses if they want to get out. No-one is realistically going to pay them back the full amount, and putting us into admin/winding us up isn't going to achieve anything for them. The club has no assets to secure the debt against.

If they want to risk a couple more million over the next couple of years to try and recoup a lot more in the longer term, I don't see it affects the club too much. And besides, as Snake says, a little bit of risk taking can reap rewards and more enjoyable times. The cheques I wrote to FOUL back in the day were a small price to pay for the dozen or so consecutive seasons of top- and second-flight football I watched in my formative years as a Us fan!

Snake
Grumpy old git
Posts: 4376
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Oxfordshire

Re: Wow

Post by Snake » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:37 pm

I should add that the risk undertaken by Maxwell may not have been with his cash, but won't go any further than that otherwise we will end up getting this board closed down!

SmileyMan
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1630
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 5:39 am

Re: Wow

Post by SmileyMan » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:58 pm

I'm reminded of an adage from an old business colleague and mentor, regarding letting accountants run your business: "When it's time to bat, you send out a batsman. When it's time to bowl, you send out a bowler. The scorer stays in the pavillion and adds things up."

neilw
Puberty
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:14 am

Re: Wow

Post by neilw » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:02 pm

At present, an increase in unsecured debt is of no additional risk to OUFC. Not being able to run the business at break even / profit, on an annual basis, is indeed a threat.

Eric Pollard
Brat
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:58 am

Re: Wow

Post by Eric Pollard » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:20 pm

Snake wrote:Ahem, from what I can recall of the Orient game it was WPL who were in charge at the time.

To play devil’s advocate, going back before WPL and Firoka we had the spend, spend strategy of Cox and Herd (disaster off the field and doing ok on it) and before that from Maxwell (not sure where the money came from or what sort of debt he passed on, but it was certainly fab on the field).

There was professional club before Maxwell came on the scene you know ....perhaps you were watching Wrexham in Europe back then? :lol:

Eric Pollard
Brat
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:58 am

Re: Wow

Post by Eric Pollard » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:22 pm

SmileyMan wrote:I'm reminded of an adage from an old business colleague and mentor, regarding letting accountants run your business: "When it's time to bat, you send out a batsman. When it's time to bowl, you send out a bowler. The scorer stays in the pavillion and adds things up."
Many accountants are very successful businessmen though. Talk about a crap adage. :lol:

Eric Pollard
Brat
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:58 am

Re: Wow

Post by Eric Pollard » Tue Jul 22, 2014 2:24 pm

But old GY, does admittedly seems to be of the 'cricket score ' persuasion ;]

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:48 pm

Kernow Yellow wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:Eales has already said the wage budget will be increased by £250k, so any savings will go back into the playing budget.

I am sure we would all like to think that coaches of the likes of Appleton and Fazackerly will work for next to nothing, but I just see that as hope accompanied by no sense of reality.

Then as you rightly say, are the directors costs, as well as the loan costs.

If the club was in the Championship, maybe. As it is, the club is floating towards a very deep waterfall, without arm bands, and having failed it's 10m swimming certificate.
Eales said that he would make an extra £250k available for the playing budget, but I understood this to mean on top of what it would have been had they not taken over. And given the players that had left, and the fact that IL was only going to sanction one more signing, we can safely assume that the budget would have been significantly down on last year had no takeover happened. So the £250k could well only be bringing it back up to where it has been for the last few years.

I'm not suggesting that Appleton and Fazackerly are working for next to nothing. But they've both been out of the game for a while and were presumably keen to get a job, which is why they've taken one at a League 2 club. It is an assumption on your part to think that they are on significantly more than Waddock and Melville. I suspect the difference is not as great as you imagine. And certainly nothing that can't be covered by the extra bums on seats each week which are easily achievable if they and Mark Thomas hit the ground running.

Regarding whether DE and MA expect to get their money back, that's kind of irrelevant isn't it? If they don't do a ground deal and don't turn the finances round, they're not going to get their money back. Surely the risk falls on them? They would have little alternative but to cut their losses if they want to get out. No-one is realistically going to pay them back the full amount, and putting us into admin/winding us up isn't going to achieve anything for them. The club has no assets to secure the debt against.

If they want to risk a couple more million over the next couple of years to try and recoup a lot more in the longer term, I don't see it affects the club too much. And besides, as Snake says, a little bit of risk taking can reap rewards and more enjoyable times. The cheques I wrote to FOUL back in the day were a small price to pay for the dozen or so consecutive seasons of top- and second-flight football I watched in my formative years as a Us fan!
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.

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.

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.

GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Wow

Post by GodalmingYellow » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:52 pm

Eric Pollard wrote:But old GY, does admittedly seems to be of the 'cricket score ' persuasion ;]
Hahaha. I take it you'll be writing out a personal cheque from your personal fortune, to Eales and Lenagan if it all goes tits up then... ;-)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests