Adams Out!

Anything yellow and blue
Brahma Bull
Puberty
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:15 am
Location: Slumdon

Re: Adams Out!

Post by Brahma Bull »

Kairdiff Exile wrote: Sustainability! My biggest worry with the current board is that they are spending way more than our attendances can justify, so far without any results, and that eventually the whole thing will implode. Lenagan over-spent too, of course, but he was learning from his mistakes (hence the emphasis on youth development, which I fear will now be lost because we're instead spunking money every month on four new loanees instead). Even if Appleton turned things round on the pitch, I doubt we can sustain more than a few years on our current expenditure.

Sustainability has to be the Number 1 priority - without it, we don't have a club. So although the things you list are welcome, we have to remember they come with a hefty price tag. We lost £1.3m(?) in the year up to the takeover - how much do you think we'll have lost in the year since then?
Ironically, we've seen Sam Long, Callum O'Dowda, Josh Ruffells and James Roberts all significant squad players/first team players over the last six months. Throw in Max Crocombe, our International GK, who has done exceptionally well at Nuneaton and a few debuts for the likes of Josh Ashby and Aiden Hawtin (Sam Humphries not quite made the grade yet) and you see that MAAP reverted to those lads, who were here before him, to help him stable things up. Maybe i am over-stretching the point but these "Lenagan Lads" were here long before Appleton rode into town.

To add some balance, Ashby and Hawtin made their debuts under Appleton but the rest have been bloodied under Wilder, Lewis and Waddock. So with that in mind, what was the point in bringing in over 25 other players (some were good signings mind) when we had a core of players then (see above) and who have hung around since whilst the likes of Balmy and Co got shipped in and then out again?
Old Abingdonian
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 10:05 am
Location: Blakeney, Gloucs

Re: Adams Out!

Post by Old Abingdonian »

Matt D wrote:the problem with appleton this season as far as i'm concerned is the failure to deliver results in line with the expenditure on players
I think we are all agreed on this, but I'm not sure I quite see how we have spent so much. So is it that we contracted good players for the right money, who then did not play as well as they should have done - or that we contracted ordinary players for good money? Or a bit of both?

Because, if I'm right, replacing loanee A with loanee B (whilst it may not build the team very well) doesn't necessarily cost any more.
Matt D
Middle-Aged Spread
Posts: 1436
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:45 pm
Location: Stayed at the Manor.

Re: Adams Out!

Post by Matt D »

Old Abingdonian wrote:I think we are all agreed on this, but I'm not sure I quite see how we have spent so much. So is it that we contracted good players for the right money, who then did not play as well as they should have done - or that we contracted ordinary players for good money? Or a bit of both?

Because, if I'm right, replacing loanee A with loanee B (whilst it may not build the team very well) doesn't necessarily cost any more.
good questions OA, but I don't follow players at other clubs to the degree some others do, and largely can only judge our players from what i see on the pitch in a yellow shirt. whether they were always likely to disappoint, or we've done something to make them become a disappointing player, I don't know. perhaps others could comment.

where the expenditure comes from - well, eales and appleton have both said (particularly ahead of January) that they were willing to pay higher wages to get players into the club now, and I would think that's what happened. certainly with macdonald (who I agree seems a good example of when that policy delivers value). so that's probably a lot of the extra expenditure. but we seem to have brought in players (on loan/permanent/out-of-contract/etc.) which didn't always look necessary (how has our squad size now compared to previous seasons?). I would think some of the loanees we have and have had who have been sought by others we've paid more for than we might otherwise. and I think player churn always comes with costs.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Adams Out!

Post by GodalmingYellow »

Werthers Original wrote:
The club is pretty well run I would say. Decent youth set up, high level women's set up, club initiatives to attract new fans, children's activities, loads of community schemes, coaching courses, investment in the first team squad, investment in coaching set up, scouting network, use of sports science and match analysis, much more interaction with sponsors and local business, trials of new ideas on matchdays, 50/50 raffle. What more do you expect?
Very interesting - so you reckon that the right guy should be able to get us to roughly where we are now on a £600K budget?
I'm struggling to understand how you equate my reply with the statement you want to attribute to me and argue about.

OUFC being run on a player budget off £600k is clearly not the argument. The argument is if someone can get Accy to operate better than us with just £600k for players, then that is a deathly blow to any argument in support of Appleton who has fundamentally failed on 3 times that amount.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Adams Out!

Post by GodalmingYellow »

Kairdiff Exile wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:The club is pretty well run I would say. Decent youth set up, high level women's set up, club initiatives to attract new fans, children's activities, loads of community schemes, coaching courses, investment in the first team squad, investment in coaching set up, scouting network, use of sports science and match analysis, much more interaction with sponsors and local business, trials of new ideas on matchdays, 50/50 raffle. What more do you expect?
Sustainability! My biggest worry with the current board is that they are spending way more than our attendances can justify, so far without any results, and that eventually the whole thing will implode. Lenagan over-spent too, of course, but he was learning from his mistakes (hence the emphasis on youth development, which I fear will now be lost because we're instead spunking money every month on four new loanees instead). Even if Appleton turned things round on the pitch, I doubt we can sustain more than a few years on our current expenditure.

Sustainability has to be the Number 1 priority - without it, we don't have a club. So although the things you list are welcome, we have to remember they come with a hefty price tag. We lost £1.3m(?) in the year up to the takeover - how much do you think we'll have lost in the year since then?
I'm entirely with you on sustainability. I've spouted it on here for years.

However, I would say that if Eales wishes to spunk his own cash on OUFC without consequence for OUFC (and by publicly stating he will write off any debts since he took over, he is effectively saying that) then I for one am not going to complain if that also means all of the positive aspects I have already highlighted.

If Eales says he will not seek recovery of the debts he creates, then we have no option but to accept it at face value.

There are many ways to create a sustainable football club. Eales has chosen the option of spending to create a club that people will want to support to a saleable club at Championship level, probably with some form of land deal to sweeten the pill of losses. Very risky, and plenty of clubs have failed, but it is Eales' money.

What we have to be careful of is spending that is ongoing that the club could not avoid if Eales left, as that is what could kill the club, which is why I prefer the sustainability model of living within means.

To answer your final question, I full expect losses for the year ended 30 June 2015 to be in excess of £2m and possibly nudging £2.5m.
Kairdiff Exile
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Re: Adams Out!

Post by Kairdiff Exile »

GodalmingYellow wrote:I'm entirely with you on sustainability. I've spouted it on here for years.

However, I would say that if Eales wishes to spunk his own cash on OUFC without consequence for OUFC (and by publicly stating he will write off any debts since he took over, he is effectively saying that) then I for one am not going to complain if that also means all of the positive aspects I have already highlighted.
Fair enough, but I simply don't believe him when he says he'd write off the debt. Maybe that's cynical, or maybe it's a case of once bitten, twice shy. Either way, I am seriously worried about where we might be after a few more years of Eales' and Ashton's spending.
GodalmingYellow
Senile
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am

Re: Adams Out!

Post by GodalmingYellow »

Kairdiff Exile wrote:
GodalmingYellow wrote:I'm entirely with you on sustainability. I've spouted it on here for years.

However, I would say that if Eales wishes to spunk his own cash on OUFC without consequence for OUFC (and by publicly stating he will write off any debts since he took over, he is effectively saying that) then I for one am not going to complain if that also means all of the positive aspects I have already highlighted.
Fair enough, but I simply don't believe him when he says he'd write off the debt. Maybe that's cynical, or maybe it's a case of once bitten, twice shy. Either way, I am seriously worried about where we might be after a few more years of Eales' and Ashton's spending.
What is the alternative to accepting Eales' word? In reality there is little anyone could do to prevent his approach to club ownership, and even if there were, the result would be being left with a large pile of poo and a paucity of shovels, and therefore probably no football club. I don't think there is much choice at this point but to accept his word.
Kairdiff Exile
Mid-life Crisis
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 3:59 pm

Re: Adams Out!

Post by Kairdiff Exile »

GodalmingYellow wrote:What is the alternative to accepting Eales' word? In reality there is little anyone could do to prevent his approach to club ownership, and even if there were, the result would be being left with a large pile of poo and a paucity of shovels, and therefore probably no football club. I don't think there is much choice at this point but to accept his word.
Apologies for the belated reply - it is a good question, and I wanted to ponder my response for a bit!

I have several concerns about taking Eales at his word, not least of which is that it implies uncritically accepting that every pound he spends is spent wisely. Rather than spunking cash on loanees and dubious sports science stuff (including the "DNA" project), I would rather any owner put cash into things which are tangible and sustainable - like a new ground OWNED BY THE CLUB and youth development. I know that Eales & Co are doing some of that too, but if he is genuinely spending his own money without any risk to the club, I'd still prefer that fans argued for it to be spent on the long term rather than the short term. Apart from anything else, when the money inevitably dries out (even if Eales doesn't want it back), we then have something to show for it and can reap some benefits for years to come - whereas if we are tied to expensive contracts for big-money signings, we're tied to long-term financial risk. As Brahma Bull and I pointed out earlier on this thread, Lenagan got that concept, and many of the promising youngsters coming through now are the direct result of his emphasis on youth.

The other point I'd make is that we took Ka$$am at his word when he promied that he'd never sell the club without the ground. Regardless of whether Woodstock Partners Ltd could have afforded to buy both, Ka$$am broke that pledge and in my view was given far too easy a ride by the fans for doing so. We should have been chaining ourselves to the revolving doors of his London hotels and making life much more difficult for him - but instead, we cravenly accepted it. A few years on, and here we are still in a ground we don't own, getting little/no money from non-matchday income, with no bargaining chip over the council(s) for a better ground elsewhere, and having to share with a wugby team who consistently bugger up our pitch. We accepted Ka$$am's word unquestioningly and it royally shafted our long-term viability; we must not do the same with Eales.

None of which is to say I want Eales & Co out - I just want the fans (including OxVox) to lobby for sensible, targeted spending on long-term projects which benefit the club (youth academy, a ground of our own), and less splashing of cash on unnecessary things which put us in long-term danger (expensive unplayable loanees, "DNA" projects and Michael Appleton).
Post Reply