[Half Full]

moondog, on 04 April 2020 - 11:15 PM, said:

Interesting to learn that the £125m advance from the Premier League to EFL and National League (including North & South) is an advance, which is likely to mean the Trust if the takeover goes through will pick up the tab.

Purely a personal view but it seems a renegotiation of the deal is inevitable should this be the case.

It’s yet another complication. Presumably the Trust will have budgeted for the receipt of money in August as normal. It being paid early will be yet another element in trying to decide how the shutdown related costs are covered in any deal. It’ll test the goodwill and resources of both parties - do the Trust’s backers have the finance and desire to take on the club in the current crisis. Equally does Dave Allen have the finances to carry on underwriting the club given his business interests will be suffering badly. A lot might rest on what other support is available. It won’t really help but I don’t expect any refund on my season ticket!

[dim view]

moondog, on 04 April 2020 - 11:15 PM, said:

Interesting to learn that the £125m advance from the Premier League to EFL and National League (including North & South) is an advance, which is likely to mean the Trust if the takeover goes through will pick up the tab.

Purely a personal view but it seems a renegotiation of the deal is inevitable should this be the case.

Morning Moondog

Brain cells not functioning fully yet. Sorry to be a thicko, but could you expand on this please?

Is your train of thought that Allen might up his price if he thinks the Trust will have more cash in it's purse?

[moondog]

dim view, on 05 April 2020 - 08:44 AM, said:

Morning Moondog

Brain cells not functioning fully yet. Sorry to be a thicko, but could you expand on this please?

Is your train of thought that Allen might up his price if he thinks the Trust will have more cash in it's purse?

Morning DV

No, the opposite as it seems the current owners may benefit from the advance, but I don't know whatever we get would have been due.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

I'd suggest any subsidy will still be a drip in the drought of ongoing losses.

[Half Full]

moondog, on 05 April 2020 - 09:05 AM, said:

Morning DV

No, the opposite as it seems the current owners may benefit from the advance, but I don't know whatever we get would have been due.

Isn’t it part of the Solidarity Payment that filters down from Premier League? Or is that limited to EFL? That’s paid annually in August.

[moondog]

Half Full, on 05 April 2020 - 10:22 AM, said:

Isn’t it part of the Solidarity Payment that filters down from Premier League? Or is that limited to EFL? That’s paid annually in August.

I think you're right

[60s 70s Spireite]

Half Full, on 05 April 2020 - 10:22 AM, said:

Isn’t it part of the Solidarity Payment that filters down from Premier League? Or is that limited to EFL? That’s paid annually in August.

The non league paper describes it as
The Premier League also threw Non-League’s top two tiers a financial lifeline by bringing forward the solidarity payment they normally pay in August as part of a £125 million donation to the English Football League.
Although it’s obviously welcome, its just a sticking plaster, it doesn’t fill the hole created, just slightly delays the problem.

[dtp]

60s 70s Spireite, on 05 April 2020 - 11:07 AM, said:

The non league paper describes it as
The Premier League also threw Non-League’s top two tiers a financial lifeline by bringing forward the solidarity payment they normally pay in August as part of a £125 million donation to the English Football League.
Although it’s obviously welcome, its just a sticking plaster, it doesn’t fill the hole created, just slightly delays the problem.

That's how I see it.

It's just an advance to help with current cash flow problems. However, unless the solidarity payments are increased or topped up at a later date clubs will run out of money later rather than sooner.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

moondog, on 05 April 2020 - 10:41 AM, said:

I think you're right

If the club is even more short of money don’t offer to do sponsored badminton 😂

[moondog]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 05 April 2020 - 05:08 PM, said:

If the club is even more short of money don’t offer to do sponsored badminton 😂

🏸 🤫

[h again]

DIFH, on 04 April 2020 - 01:25 PM, said:

The new business cannot lose 1 million a year, surely the big cost of players deals will be structured accordingly and that's something that might surprise us all.


In
inherited debt such at Shezzas pay-off and the like once gone hopefully will steady the business.

Anyway a lot is down to the fans to get behind the new regime and if we resume playing and it's under the Trust then we have to start attending regularly and use the facilities.

If the Council is involved the club doesn't just have to get rid of the million plus per year loss, it also has to make sufficient profit to pay off the interest on the loan. That's one hell of a big turnaround by any standard. It might be done by a vastly reduced player budget coupled with a rapid rise up the leagues, mutually exclusive scenarios most likely.
It's doable, but who'd lend money on that basis? I hope the Councils come across with the necessary, but for me it just doesn't stack up.
However, since we've got this far,somebody might have produced a magic wand to sort out the problem. We can only hope so.

[moondog]

h again, on 05 April 2020 - 07:45 PM, said:

If the Council is involved the club doesn't just have to get rid of the million plus per year loss, it also has to make sufficient profit to pay off the interest on the loan. That's one hell of a big turnaround by any standard. It might be done by a vastly reduced player budget coupled with a rapid rise up the leagues, mutually exclusive scenarios most likely.
It's doable, but who'd lend money on that basis? I hope the Councils come across with the necessary, but for me it just doesn't stack up.
However, since we've got this far,somebody might have produced a magic wand to sort out the problem. We can only hope so.

There are examples out there showing it can be done for example Sunderland running at a £20m deficit to breaking even within a season. A lot of it covered in the latest fly on the wall Netflix documentary.

[Mr Mercury]

moondog, on 05 April 2020 - 09:34 PM, said:

There are examples out there showing it can be done for example Sunderland running at a £20m deficit to breaking even within a season. A lot of it covered in the latest fly on the wall Netflix documentary.

I think it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense, current situation aside obviously, that given our facilities attendances fan base etc etc that owners running it sensibly would do so at massively reduced loses that this current crew have done my over the last five or six years.

[JonB]

moondog, on 05 April 2020 - 09:34 PM, said:

There are examples out there showing it can be done for example Sunderland running at a £20m deficit to breaking even within a season. A lot of it covered in the latest fly on the wall Netflix documentary.

A lot covered by the fact the previous owner wrote off a load of debt owed to him when he sold it so the new owners basically started debt free.

[moondog]

JonB, on 06 April 2020 - 06:30 AM, said:

A lot covered by the fact the previous owner wrote off a load of debt owed to him when he sold it so the new owners basically started debt free.

Yes, but the issue of the culture of the club not questioning expenditure because the previous owner (Ellis Short) would pick up the tab, still needed to be addressed as did existing contracts.

There are a lot of similarities to us although of course the figures involved are much higher.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

h again, on 05 April 2020 - 07:45 PM, said:

If the Council is involved the club doesn't just have to get rid of the million plus per year loss, it also has to make sufficient profit to pay off the interest on the loan. That's one hell of a big turnaround by any standard. It might be done by a vastly reduced player budget coupled with a rapid rise up the leagues, mutually exclusive scenarios most likely.
It's doable, but who'd lend money on that basis? I hope the Councils come across with the necessary, but for me it just doesn't stack up.
However, since we've got this far,somebody might have produced a magic wand to sort out the problem. We can only hope so.

You seem to suggest the only way is Allen's, to paraphrase a well known show.

But he and/or his henchmen have repeatedly ignored the maxim about the same actions producing the same results. Both on and off the field.

If you have a downer on the Trust or their backers then fine, that's your prerogative. Perhaps you'd even prefer 'the devil we know', I dunno. However this funding will've passed several scrutinising commitees and be based upon a business plan they and their advisors clearly believe credible.

In fact I'd argue the Trust's bid has been handled far more professionally than pretty much anything we've seen at the Proact for quite some time...

[Wooden Spoon]

The Earl of Chesterfield said:

1586190278[/url]' post='1513705']
You seem to suggest the only way is Allen's, to paraphrase a well known show.

But he and/or his henchmen have repeatedly ignored the maxim about the same actions producing the same results. Both on and off the field.

If you have a downer on the Trust or their backers then fine, that's your prerogative. Perhaps you'd even prefer 'the devil we know', I dunno. However this funding will've passed several scrutinising commitees and be based upon a business plan they and their advisors clearly believe credible.

In fact I'd argue the Trust's bid has been handled far more professionally than pretty much anything we've seen at the Proact for quite some time...

moondog said:

1586171102[/url]' post='1513678']
....... the issue of the culture of the club not questioning expenditure because the previous owner (Ellis Short) would pick up the tab, still needed to be addressed as did existing contracts.

There are a lot of similarities to us

Mr Mercury said:

1586123369' post='1513647[size=2]']I think it's blatantly obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense

These 2 posts cover it don’t they.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

DEATH, on 06 April 2020 - 04:55 PM, said:

[size=2]



These 2 posts cover it don’t they.

Someone with a financial background controlling where the money is going and spotting where it shouldn’t be going will be crucial. Even more crucial stopping any unnecessary drain once identified.

[Wooden Spoon]

Ernie Ernie Ernie said:

1586194987[/url]' post='1513708']
Someone with a financial background controlling where the money is going and spotting where it shouldn't be going will be crucial. Even more crucial stopping any unnecessary drain once identified.

Spot on. You’d think someone who’s been successful would have appointed such a person, after A.W. left

[lindave]

moondog, on 05 April 2020 - 09:34 PM, said:

There are examples out there showing it can be done for example Sunderland running at a £20m deficit to breaking even within a season. A lot of it covered in the latest fly on the wall Netflix documentary.

I'm currently watching the Sunderland documentary its really good. Double relegation, toxic support against the owners and numerous managerial changes including 3 in one season. Last year they paid out over 30 million in players wages, however the most shocking fact was that they paid out over 12 million in non playing wages. The owner wasn't interested and refuse to invest any more for 2 seasons and cost them back to back relegation. They got new owners after that and the cost cutting figures were amazing, it was unbelievable how the Club wasted so much money.