| SACK THE BOARD 16:32 - Dec 1 with 53285 views | RAFC1907 |
Absolutely terrible.
No ambition, robbing fans constantly with overpriced entrance fees for watching garbage.
Garbage created by them for not backing the manager with any money, constantly pocketing it and saying we don't have any.
1600 home fans today says it all.
No wonder we will always be little old Rochdale.
Shambles of a football club. |  |
| |  |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:31 - Dec 2 with 3087 views | 442Dale |
| SACK THE BOARD on 17:55 - Dec 2 by ColDale |
ok few bits in the interest of 100% openness before assumptions continue to snowball.
* Since DB's appointment as CEO, every single time I have met him it has been in a Trust capacity (and minuted on the Trust website). Every conversation throughout I've had with him whether that be via email or over the phone has been in a Trust capacity.
* To suggest that I've been complicit or an active participant as part of a group of friends in a plot to get rid of Dunphy is completely false. Apologies if I've misread that.
* As a Trust, we have worked hard to rebuild the relationship with the club since it was arguably at an all time low early in 2018. There have been a great deal of positives to come out of this, and I've always been of the opinion its better to work with someone than to work against them. The nature of the reporting back on the Trust website is (in my opinion) far more transparent and frequent that it has even been, and far superior to any club in the division (including the Trust owned clubs) though I accept my involvement brings a certain amount of bias.
* The Trust's work with the club often involves a lot of difficult conversations. The minutes from the meetings indicate this with the range of questions asked. I accept some haven't always been happy with the answers given but I don't believe there's been a single question that has been shyed away from. I appreciate the reporting back might not reflect the difficult conversations that take place, but the meetings are not an exercise in blowing smoke up each other's backsides. Take the recent discussions about attracting an investor into the club or the endless conversations about the change in pies as an example. If we feel something isn't right, we are happy to tell them so.
* if it is felt (principally by the Trust membership) that the above makes me too friendly with DB, then I will happily walk away tomorrow and never have any involvement again in the Trust. It's not a role undertaken for any personal benefit, and if I'm being honest, it takes up far more hours than it should do (through my own choice let it be said).
I've said before, dealings with DB have come across open and honest throughout. I know this doesn't always fit the narrative but I can only say it how Ive seen it throughout the past 12 months. I understand the concerns people have, and much is done with genuine care and concern for the football club. We live in a post-Bury world and in my mind, this brings a need for a greater transparency than was needed a couple of years ago, and the current climate would be helped if this was taken into account.
Anyway, changing tact much has been said about the finances of the club. Now I am no financial expert by any stretch so its entirely possible that more learned people than myself could rip this to pieces, but I spent much of last weekend going through the published accounts from the club for the five year period up until the Summer of 2018 and comparing figures. (all of these figures are available in the public domain, and no figures later than the Summer of 2018 are available yet)
This was obviously done independent of the club and is not intended as either a finger pointing exercise or as a defence for anyone(though I don't think Keith Hill comes out of it particularly well). It was prompted following the answer to the MUFC question at the recent Trust meeting which I know has caused much concern.
The stand out one for me was the Players' wages over the five year period from 2013-4 to 2017-8 comparing it with gate receipts. Within that time, the differential between gate receipts and wage budget went from £380,000 to close to £1.3 million.
What's perhaps most worrying about this is that the Summer following this, the players' wage budget was increased by 30% at a time when the season tickets were limited at £150, £200, £250. That gap might well have reached a level way in excess of £1.5m when the club publishes its accounts in the Spring time.
I don't know if this increase was par for the course for League One football during this time, and we were simply keeping up with the minimum spend but these increases in wage budget from 2017 onwards did little to improve matters on the field. There were similar increases in the budget for the manager, coaches, youth set up and off the field wages which went from £700,000 to £1.3m in the same five year time period.
The club were keen to point out that the only clubs with smaller attendances than our's in this division (Fleetwood, Accrington, Burton) all had owners who kept those clubs afloat from their own pocket. We've followed a different path of player sales keeping us going and that has worked for us - but the question is how long can this be maintained?
The figures also show during this time period the receipt of just short of £5million worth of transfer fees and sell on clauses, which in my layman's terms means that those five years were subsidised to the tune of a £1m a season. From my estimates on the player sales, sell ons and MUFC game throughout 2019, I don't think we have brought in the £2m to cover both last season and this based on the assumption of £1m subsidy per season. Of course, spending £200,000 on wages in January would be worth its weight in gold if relegation could be avoided.
I don't think there is a stockpiling of money as there's no reason to, and there is certainly no money coming out of the club as the accounts will indicate this. Any tightening of the belt is done to act before things become a problem as certainly that wage bill could not continue at the level it was increasing by. We don't want a repeat of the Le Fondre situation where we sell players to rival clubs to pay the bills. There's much work to be done, and we as a Trust have to accept and act on that, and do our bit to ask the right questions and feed that back to the supporters, and ask again if we're not satisfied with the answers. |
On the financial aspects: if that is the case, why was the decision made to continue with the season tickets at the same pric e this season? Some transparent acknowledgement that they would need to increase for reasons stated would have made things easier to understand.
The fact is the communication is poor at best around the current status and direction of the club and it’s requiring supporters to ask questions via the Trust to get information out. See the answer the chairman gave to his vision going forward. Or the question sent in about possible investors and non-disclosure agreements.
There is NO excuse at a club like Dale not to be totally open about the way we do business, recent events have shown the negativity around people being unsure. Look at Accrington, they put as much as they can in the public domain, most recently a breakdown of money taken at each individual game. It offers no competitive advantage to other clubs to keep the information secret, so a general assessment of our finances should not be a problem - plus we are getting answers around it when people send in questions via the Trust (the United question) If anything the rumours, doubt and vague statements cause far more issues.
So much of this was avoidable. But we know. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:33 - Dec 2 with 3060 views | Rochdale_ger |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:17 - Dec 2 by sweetcorn |
What reality is that?
1) I have no idea if he was pushed. Just get little snippets from people who think they're clever posting 1% of the story and then when asking to elaborate they say they can't divulge.
2) what would really be different if dunphy was currently chairman? He doesn't have a magic money tree, I'd wager a guess we'd probably still have hill and if not we'd still have BBM.
Until someone has the balls to fully disclose what's been going on, instead of jizzing in their boxers by trying to flaunt that they know stuff that other members of this message board don't, I can't fully answer your questions. |
This just about sums up all of the bollocks on these five pages and most of the other shite about protests etc . We’ve been Shite for the past three seasons and when Russ Green was in charge the same Rochdale AFC geeks with too much time on their hands used to slag him rotten. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:37 - Dec 2 with 3024 views | aleanddale |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:48 - Dec 1 by RAFCBLUE |
Of course it's true. The fanbase can see the season ticket price hike coming. It will deter many who have been used to cheap football.
Our CEO has, unfortunately, turned our strategy into one for the consumerists.
The problem with that is the current product is stale; Goldbond is dying and the presentation of the club off the field is one for those with deep pockets.
I'd go as far to say that we are in deep trouble.
Hill will take aspects of this team to Bolton in January and then the Summer.
Matheson will be sold in the Summer.
We apparently have no resources to invest now n the playing squad.
11 months since Chris Dunphy was pushed out and it’s all properly falling apart.
The only consolation is that it is only 3 down. We still may be one of them. |
Perfectly summerised.
A sweeping change required and Quickly. In attitude more than anything else!!
I agree we are in big trouble something is VERY wrong at the moment at Dale.
Over to DB to show his colours and get BBM to get some rockets up HIS players backsides. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:40 - Dec 2 with 3002 views | SuddenLad |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:31 - Dec 2 by 442Dale |
On the financial aspects: if that is the case, why was the decision made to continue with the season tickets at the same pric e this season? Some transparent acknowledgement that they would need to increase for reasons stated would have made things easier to understand.
The fact is the communication is poor at best around the current status and direction of the club and it’s requiring supporters to ask questions via the Trust to get information out. See the answer the chairman gave to his vision going forward. Or the question sent in about possible investors and non-disclosure agreements.
There is NO excuse at a club like Dale not to be totally open about the way we do business, recent events have shown the negativity around people being unsure. Look at Accrington, they put as much as they can in the public domain, most recently a breakdown of money taken at each individual game. It offers no competitive advantage to other clubs to keep the information secret, so a general assessment of our finances should not be a problem - plus we are getting answers around it when people send in questions via the Trust (the United question) If anything the rumours, doubt and vague statements cause far more issues.
So much of this was avoidable. But we know. |
What about all the TV money that was generated ? What about the fees for players transferred out ? Some excellent pay days earned money by progressing into the Cup competitions ? |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:50 - Dec 2 with 2916 views | rochdaleriddler |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:17 - Dec 2 by sweetcorn |
What reality is that?
1) I have no idea if he was pushed. Just get little snippets from people who think they're clever posting 1% of the story and then when asking to elaborate they say they can't divulge.
2) what would really be different if dunphy was currently chairman? He doesn't have a magic money tree, I'd wager a guess we'd probably still have hill and if not we'd still have BBM.
Until someone has the balls to fully disclose what's been going on, instead of jizzing in their boxers by trying to flaunt that they know stuff that other members of this message board don't, I can't fully answer your questions. |
The ‘in the know ‘ but won’t tell brigade must have that warming glow of smugness all year round, it’s making the climate crisis worse |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 19:08 - Dec 2 with 2838 views | pioneer |
| SACK THE BOARD on 17:55 - Dec 2 by ColDale |
ok few bits in the interest of 100% openness before assumptions continue to snowball.
* Since DB's appointment as CEO, every single time I have met him it has been in a Trust capacity (and minuted on the Trust website). Every conversation throughout I've had with him whether that be via email or over the phone has been in a Trust capacity.
* To suggest that I've been complicit or an active participant as part of a group of friends in a plot to get rid of Dunphy is completely false. Apologies if I've misread that.
* As a Trust, we have worked hard to rebuild the relationship with the club since it was arguably at an all time low early in 2018. There have been a great deal of positives to come out of this, and I've always been of the opinion its better to work with someone than to work against them. The nature of the reporting back on the Trust website is (in my opinion) far more transparent and frequent that it has even been, and far superior to any club in the division (including the Trust owned clubs) though I accept my involvement brings a certain amount of bias.
* The Trust's work with the club often involves a lot of difficult conversations. The minutes from the meetings indicate this with the range of questions asked. I accept some haven't always been happy with the answers given but I don't believe there's been a single question that has been shyed away from. I appreciate the reporting back might not reflect the difficult conversations that take place, but the meetings are not an exercise in blowing smoke up each other's backsides. Take the recent discussions about attracting an investor into the club or the endless conversations about the change in pies as an example. If we feel something isn't right, we are happy to tell them so.
* if it is felt (principally by the Trust membership) that the above makes me too friendly with DB, then I will happily walk away tomorrow and never have any involvement again in the Trust. It's not a role undertaken for any personal benefit, and if I'm being honest, it takes up far more hours than it should do (through my own choice let it be said).
I've said before, dealings with DB have come across open and honest throughout. I know this doesn't always fit the narrative but I can only say it how Ive seen it throughout the past 12 months. I understand the concerns people have, and much is done with genuine care and concern for the football club. We live in a post-Bury world and in my mind, this brings a need for a greater transparency than was needed a couple of years ago, and the current climate would be helped if this was taken into account.
Anyway, changing tact much has been said about the finances of the club. Now I am no financial expert by any stretch so its entirely possible that more learned people than myself could rip this to pieces, but I spent much of last weekend going through the published accounts from the club for the five year period up until the Summer of 2018 and comparing figures. (all of these figures are available in the public domain, and no figures later than the Summer of 2018 are available yet)
This was obviously done independent of the club and is not intended as either a finger pointing exercise or as a defence for anyone(though I don't think Keith Hill comes out of it particularly well). It was prompted following the answer to the MUFC question at the recent Trust meeting which I know has caused much concern.
The stand out one for me was the Players' wages over the five year period from 2013-4 to 2017-8 comparing it with gate receipts. Within that time, the differential between gate receipts and wage budget went from £380,000 to close to £1.3 million.
What's perhaps most worrying about this is that the Summer following this, the players' wage budget was increased by 30% at a time when the season tickets were limited at £150, £200, £250. That gap might well have reached a level way in excess of £1.5m when the club publishes its accounts in the Spring time.
I don't know if this increase was par for the course for League One football during this time, and we were simply keeping up with the minimum spend but these increases in wage budget from 2017 onwards did little to improve matters on the field. There were similar increases in the budget for the manager, coaches, youth set up and off the field wages which went from £700,000 to £1.3m in the same five year time period.
The club were keen to point out that the only clubs with smaller attendances than our's in this division (Fleetwood, Accrington, Burton) all had owners who kept those clubs afloat from their own pocket. We've followed a different path of player sales keeping us going and that has worked for us - but the question is how long can this be maintained?
The figures also show during this time period the receipt of just short of £5million worth of transfer fees and sell on clauses, which in my layman's terms means that those five years were subsidised to the tune of a £1m a season. From my estimates on the player sales, sell ons and MUFC game throughout 2019, I don't think we have brought in the £2m to cover both last season and this based on the assumption of £1m subsidy per season. Of course, spending £200,000 on wages in January would be worth its weight in gold if relegation could be avoided.
I don't think there is a stockpiling of money as there's no reason to, and there is certainly no money coming out of the club as the accounts will indicate this. Any tightening of the belt is done to act before things become a problem as certainly that wage bill could not continue at the level it was increasing by. We don't want a repeat of the Le Fondre situation where we sell players to rival clubs to pay the bills. There's much work to be done, and we as a Trust have to accept and act on that, and do our bit to ask the right questions and feed that back to the supporters, and ask again if we're not satisfied with the answers. |
subsidised to the tune of $1m per season? What was subsidised? and by whom?
The income that was usedto pay for the clubs running costs appeared to come from the operation of the clubs business. I hope you are not implying that our current or past board members are subsidising the fans ‘enjoyment’ of supporting their club. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:15 - Dec 2 with 2676 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 18:17 - Dec 2 by sweetcorn |
What reality is that?
1) I have no idea if he was pushed. Just get little snippets from people who think they're clever posting 1% of the story and then when asking to elaborate they say they can't divulge.
2) what would really be different if dunphy was currently chairman? He doesn't have a magic money tree, I'd wager a guess we'd probably still have hill and if not we'd still have BBM.
Until someone has the balls to fully disclose what's been going on, instead of jizzing in their boxers by trying to flaunt that they know stuff that other members of this message board don't, I can't fully answer your questions. |
You want to stop Jizzing out of your neck popcorn! | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:31 - Dec 2 with 2597 views | sweetcorn |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:15 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
You want to stop Jizzing out of your neck popcorn! |
T(sp)azbot is that you? He once called me that, seems intellect isnt the only thing you share with simple tazzy [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 20:31]
|  |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:49 - Dec 2 with 2520 views | TalkingSutty |
| SACK THE BOARD on 19:08 - Dec 2 by pioneer |
subsidised to the tune of $1m per season? What was subsidised? and by whom?
The income that was usedto pay for the clubs running costs appeared to come from the operation of the clubs business. I hope you are not implying that our current or past board members are subsidising the fans ‘enjoyment’ of supporting their club. |
Well spotted and while Col was walking his dog and just dropping in on the CEO ( like you do with your dog) he should have discussed the magic graph and wage figures that he is putting on display to disrespect the outgoing Chairman and Directors, because that’s what it looks like. He very conveniently forgets to mention the fact that during this iconic period for the Club the EFL and Television payments to the Club rocketed, we generated some very big money through player transfers/ add ons, constant money coming through as a result of FA Cup monies and Television games etc and secured the Stadium. He also failed to mention a certain notorious Social event that he attended along with the CEO, in order to paint the picture that his association was only on a professional basis to represent the Trust. Going in to bat for the CEO? He needs to start crediting people with a bit of intelligence.
Obviously if you are generating good money and trying to improve the team then wages will rise so I don’t know what the point of the graph is .Its called having ambition and trying your best for the Supporters. When Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin left the Club it was in good financial health and that is a fact, nobody in the current Boardroom, including the CEO disputed that at the time. It’s still in good financial health and the monies generated since the start of this year far outweigh the payments we have made to the previous manager. |  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:52 - Dec 2 with 2493 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:31 - Dec 2 by sweetcorn |
T(sp)azbot is that you? He once called me that, seems intellect isnt the only thing you share with simple tazzy [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 20:31]
|
From what i know Tazzy was disabled and had learning difficulties. Is that what you do popcorn, make fun out of disabled persons. You can happily make fun of me in person if you like? | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:15 - Dec 2 with 2380 views | sweetcorn |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:52 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
From what i know Tazzy was disabled and had learning difficulties. Is that what you do popcorn, make fun out of disabled persons. You can happily make fun of me in person if you like? |
He’s also a convicted nonce.
I’ll come to the demonstration. When is it again? | |
| Leader of the little gang of immature cretins. |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:22 - Dec 2 with 2341 views | NDGN82 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 17:55 - Dec 2 by ColDale |
ok few bits in the interest of 100% openness before assumptions continue to snowball.
* Since DB's appointment as CEO, every single time I have met him it has been in a Trust capacity (and minuted on the Trust website). Every conversation throughout I've had with him whether that be via email or over the phone has been in a Trust capacity.
* To suggest that I've been complicit or an active participant as part of a group of friends in a plot to get rid of Dunphy is completely false. Apologies if I've misread that.
* As a Trust, we have worked hard to rebuild the relationship with the club since it was arguably at an all time low early in 2018. There have been a great deal of positives to come out of this, and I've always been of the opinion its better to work with someone than to work against them. The nature of the reporting back on the Trust website is (in my opinion) far more transparent and frequent that it has even been, and far superior to any club in the division (including the Trust owned clubs) though I accept my involvement brings a certain amount of bias.
* The Trust's work with the club often involves a lot of difficult conversations. The minutes from the meetings indicate this with the range of questions asked. I accept some haven't always been happy with the answers given but I don't believe there's been a single question that has been shyed away from. I appreciate the reporting back might not reflect the difficult conversations that take place, but the meetings are not an exercise in blowing smoke up each other's backsides. Take the recent discussions about attracting an investor into the club or the endless conversations about the change in pies as an example. If we feel something isn't right, we are happy to tell them so.
* if it is felt (principally by the Trust membership) that the above makes me too friendly with DB, then I will happily walk away tomorrow and never have any involvement again in the Trust. It's not a role undertaken for any personal benefit, and if I'm being honest, it takes up far more hours than it should do (through my own choice let it be said).
I've said before, dealings with DB have come across open and honest throughout. I know this doesn't always fit the narrative but I can only say it how Ive seen it throughout the past 12 months. I understand the concerns people have, and much is done with genuine care and concern for the football club. We live in a post-Bury world and in my mind, this brings a need for a greater transparency than was needed a couple of years ago, and the current climate would be helped if this was taken into account.
Anyway, changing tact much has been said about the finances of the club. Now I am no financial expert by any stretch so its entirely possible that more learned people than myself could rip this to pieces, but I spent much of last weekend going through the published accounts from the club for the five year period up until the Summer of 2018 and comparing figures. (all of these figures are available in the public domain, and no figures later than the Summer of 2018 are available yet)
This was obviously done independent of the club and is not intended as either a finger pointing exercise or as a defence for anyone(though I don't think Keith Hill comes out of it particularly well). It was prompted following the answer to the MUFC question at the recent Trust meeting which I know has caused much concern.
The stand out one for me was the Players' wages over the five year period from 2013-4 to 2017-8 comparing it with gate receipts. Within that time, the differential between gate receipts and wage budget went from £380,000 to close to £1.3 million.
What's perhaps most worrying about this is that the Summer following this, the players' wage budget was increased by 30% at a time when the season tickets were limited at £150, £200, £250. That gap might well have reached a level way in excess of £1.5m when the club publishes its accounts in the Spring time.
I don't know if this increase was par for the course for League One football during this time, and we were simply keeping up with the minimum spend but these increases in wage budget from 2017 onwards did little to improve matters on the field. There were similar increases in the budget for the manager, coaches, youth set up and off the field wages which went from £700,000 to £1.3m in the same five year time period.
The club were keen to point out that the only clubs with smaller attendances than our's in this division (Fleetwood, Accrington, Burton) all had owners who kept those clubs afloat from their own pocket. We've followed a different path of player sales keeping us going and that has worked for us - but the question is how long can this be maintained?
The figures also show during this time period the receipt of just short of £5million worth of transfer fees and sell on clauses, which in my layman's terms means that those five years were subsidised to the tune of a £1m a season. From my estimates on the player sales, sell ons and MUFC game throughout 2019, I don't think we have brought in the £2m to cover both last season and this based on the assumption of £1m subsidy per season. Of course, spending £200,000 on wages in January would be worth its weight in gold if relegation could be avoided.
I don't think there is a stockpiling of money as there's no reason to, and there is certainly no money coming out of the club as the accounts will indicate this. Any tightening of the belt is done to act before things become a problem as certainly that wage bill could not continue at the level it was increasing by. We don't want a repeat of the Le Fondre situation where we sell players to rival clubs to pay the bills. There's much work to be done, and we as a Trust have to accept and act on that, and do our bit to ask the right questions and feed that back to the supporters, and ask again if we're not satisfied with the answers. |
Excellent post and spot on with regards the financials. In a nutshell, overspending by previous board has had an effect on the current state of play and can’t simply be reversed overnight. The club is working it’s arse off to repair the damage but these things take time. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:34 - Dec 2 with 2275 views | Rochdale_ger |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:52 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
From what i know Tazzy was disabled and had learning difficulties. Is that what you do popcorn, make fun out of disabled persons. You can happily make fun of me in person if you like? |
I made an off colour joke about the CEO getting more action then those on here and received a really long winded and boring private message off the new moderator on here telling me I was diluting the debate. You’ll be toast for defending a child groomer. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:45 - Dec 2 with 2216 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:22 - Dec 2 by NDGN82 |
Excellent post and spot on with regards the financials. In a nutshell, overspending by previous board has had an effect on the current state of play and can’t simply be reversed overnight. The club is working it’s arse off to repair the damage but these things take time. |
I have a limited view of the graph, which illustrates player wages in comparison with gate receipts. If that is the case then it really does a disservice to the management of the club during the period so represented.
The board had an impeccable record of delivering a going concern year after year, and the 30% increase in playing budget would surely have been afforded in cashflow rather than just plucked out of the air.
That graph does nothing to justify any argument whatsoever. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:48 - Dec 2 with 2179 views | nordenblue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:22 - Dec 2 by NDGN82 |
Excellent post and spot on with regards the financials. In a nutshell, overspending by previous board has had an effect on the current state of play and can’t simply be reversed overnight. The club is working it’s arse off to repair the damage but these things take time. |
"The club is working it's arse off to repair the damage" of overspending by the "previous board",is this a wind up? You do realise some of the current board were part of the previous regimes "overspending"
If they are currently trying their best to increase the fan base and build bridges I'd hate to see them not trying | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:11 - Dec 2 with 2087 views | AtThePeake |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:34 - Dec 2 by Rochdale_ger |
I made an off colour joke about the CEO getting more action then those on here and received a really long winded and boring private message off the new moderator on here telling me I was diluting the debate. You’ll be toast for defending a child groomer. |
Re-read the PM. That isn't why I messaged you. |  |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:16 - Dec 2 with 2056 views | NDGN82 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:48 - Dec 2 by nordenblue |
"The club is working it's arse off to repair the damage" of overspending by the "previous board",is this a wind up? You do realise some of the current board were part of the previous regimes "overspending"
If they are currently trying their best to increase the fan base and build bridges I'd hate to see them not trying |
Apologies - you are quite right, some of that board is still in place
Unfortunately some mistakes are being make when it comes to cutting costs or trying to raise additional revenues and the knock effect it has on us, the supporters. Hopefully they will learn from these mistakes. The Sunderland mugs spring to mind as being rather embarrassing and a waste of time and effort. From my own personal experience, I do know the CEO is willing to listen to any grievances and try to resolve them for the good of the supporters and the club | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:16 - Dec 2 with 2052 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 20:49 - Dec 2 by TalkingSutty |
Well spotted and while Col was walking his dog and just dropping in on the CEO ( like you do with your dog) he should have discussed the magic graph and wage figures that he is putting on display to disrespect the outgoing Chairman and Directors, because that’s what it looks like. He very conveniently forgets to mention the fact that during this iconic period for the Club the EFL and Television payments to the Club rocketed, we generated some very big money through player transfers/ add ons, constant money coming through as a result of FA Cup monies and Television games etc and secured the Stadium. He also failed to mention a certain notorious Social event that he attended along with the CEO, in order to paint the picture that his association was only on a professional basis to represent the Trust. Going in to bat for the CEO? He needs to start crediting people with a bit of intelligence.
Obviously if you are generating good money and trying to improve the team then wages will rise so I don’t know what the point of the graph is .Its called having ambition and trying your best for the Supporters. When Chris Dunphy and Bill Goodwin left the Club it was in good financial health and that is a fact, nobody in the current Boardroom, including the CEO disputed that at the time. It’s still in good financial health and the monies generated since the start of this year far outweigh the payments we have made to the previous manager. |
Disrespecting the outgoing Chairman and Directors? That’s complete nonsense. You’re a good bloke TS, and a diehard fan, but put a keyboard in front of you and you lose the plot.
Col has taken the time to put together a graph that shows consistent streams of income and expenditure. It is based on facts, not finger in the air figures. It shows a ever widening gap between those streams. It’s not rocket science, I don’t think it’s meant to be. I’d love it if you, or anybody, could show me the figures that bridge that gap. Year on year. Guaranteed income.
It is no secret that the Dale model was to budget to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. That gap, we speculate/plan, was filled by player sales, sell ons or a good cup run. It’s a method that has served us well and I think the vast majority of fans applaud and appreciate the board (some now departed) for working to a model that has delivered relative success. Our income hasn’t grown at the same rate as our expenditure, that includes FL1 ‘prize’ and TV money, so the gap in our budget is getting bigger. It really is that simple. Do I think we’re in financial dire straights? No. Do I think we need bring the wage bill more in line with income? Yes. The key there is ‘more in line” and that’s the tricky part of balancing the books with ambition.
If you’re going to bleat about being credited with intelligence, at least show a basic grasp of what those figures show. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 22:20]
|  | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:23 - Dec 2 with 2014 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:16 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
Disrespecting the outgoing Chairman and Directors? That’s complete nonsense. You’re a good bloke TS, and a diehard fan, but put a keyboard in front of you and you lose the plot.
Col has taken the time to put together a graph that shows consistent streams of income and expenditure. It is based on facts, not finger in the air figures. It shows a ever widening gap between those streams. It’s not rocket science, I don’t think it’s meant to be. I’d love it if you, or anybody, could show me the figures that bridge that gap. Year on year. Guaranteed income.
It is no secret that the Dale model was to budget to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. That gap, we speculate/plan, was filled by player sales, sell ons or a good cup run. It’s a method that has served us well and I think the vast majority of fans applaud and appreciate the board (some now departed) for working to a model that has delivered relative success. Our income hasn’t grown at the same rate as our expenditure, that includes FL1 ‘prize’ and TV money, so the gap in our budget is getting bigger. It really is that simple. Do I think we’re in financial dire straights? No. Do I think we need bring the wage bill more in line with income? Yes. The key there is ‘more in line” and that’s the tricky part of balancing the books with ambition.
If you’re going to bleat about being credited with intelligence, at least show a basic grasp of what those figures show. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 22:20]
|
As I see it the 2 lines in the graph are players wages compared with Gate Receipts.
If that is the case then I'm afraid it misrepresents all income and expenditure. | |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:26 - Dec 2 with 1994 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 21:22 - Dec 2 by NDGN82 |
Excellent post and spot on with regards the financials. In a nutshell, overspending by previous board has had an effect on the current state of play and can’t simply be reversed overnight. The club is working it’s arse off to repair the damage but these things take time. |
I don’t agree that the ‘previous’ board overspent. They speculated more due to an increase in forecasted income. The problem now is we’re having to reduce budget because the forecasted income isn’t at the same level. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:31 - Dec 2 with 1958 views | judd |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:26 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
I don’t agree that the ‘previous’ board overspent. They speculated more due to an increase in forecasted income. The problem now is we’re having to reduce budget because the forecasted income isn’t at the same level. |
In running a business you can forecast all you want but the reality is how you generate income to fund the cashflow any business needs.
For the previously fiscally sound board to toss out 30% increase in expenditure without understanding how it would be funded is both unfathomable given their collective performance and an insult.
That graph needs deleting. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 22:32]
| |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:34 - Dec 2 with 1939 views | SI_Blue |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:16 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
Disrespecting the outgoing Chairman and Directors? That’s complete nonsense. You’re a good bloke TS, and a diehard fan, but put a keyboard in front of you and you lose the plot.
Col has taken the time to put together a graph that shows consistent streams of income and expenditure. It is based on facts, not finger in the air figures. It shows a ever widening gap between those streams. It’s not rocket science, I don’t think it’s meant to be. I’d love it if you, or anybody, could show me the figures that bridge that gap. Year on year. Guaranteed income.
It is no secret that the Dale model was to budget to lose hundreds of thousands of pounds per year. That gap, we speculate/plan, was filled by player sales, sell ons or a good cup run. It’s a method that has served us well and I think the vast majority of fans applaud and appreciate the board (some now departed) for working to a model that has delivered relative success. Our income hasn’t grown at the same rate as our expenditure, that includes FL1 ‘prize’ and TV money, so the gap in our budget is getting bigger. It really is that simple. Do I think we’re in financial dire straights? No. Do I think we need bring the wage bill more in line with income? Yes. The key there is ‘more in line” and that’s the tricky part of balancing the books with ambition.
If you’re going to bleat about being credited with intelligence, at least show a basic grasp of what those figures show. [Post edited 2 Dec 2019 22:20]
|
That graph is all good and well but it only shows two sources of outgoing and incoming. Would it not be best to paint the full picture and see exactly what is incoming from all sources and what is outgoing to all sources?
Then nobody as to paint their own picture | |
| Backs Against The Wall Since 1907 |
| |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:36 - Dec 2 with 1926 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:23 - Dec 2 by judd |
As I see it the 2 lines in the graph are players wages compared with Gate Receipts.
If that is the case then I'm afraid it misrepresents all income and expenditure. |
It’s representing exactly what it says it’s representing; players wages and gate receipts. If it said income vs expenditure then you’d have a point. But it’s not.
FFS Col. Forget whatever you’ve got on, get a line on there for every income stream. Add an additional grand for money saved on freeloading Goldbond agents while you’re at it  | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:40 - Dec 2 with 1896 views | Brierls |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:34 - Dec 2 by SI_Blue |
That graph is all good and well but it only shows two sources of outgoing and incoming. Would it not be best to paint the full picture and see exactly what is incoming from all sources and what is outgoing to all sources?
Then nobody as to paint their own picture |
Ahhhh yes, I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining that. | | | |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:40 - Dec 2 with 1895 views | NDGN82 |
| SACK THE BOARD on 22:26 - Dec 2 by Brierls |
I don’t agree that the ‘previous’ board overspent. They speculated more due to an increase in forecasted income. The problem now is we’re having to reduce budget because the forecasted income isn’t at the same level. |
By overspent, I mean in terms of the contracts offered (including KHs) that had no hope of being sustained. You would need a Scott Hogan sell on fee every year to continue at the level of outgoings.
I do think you have to speculate to accumulate and the Hogan money and the like could have been put to better use when we had it. I.e. by signing young hungry talent that you could sell on at a premium (a la Peterborough) - unfortunately that didn’t happen, but we gave contracts to the likes Done, Andrew and Wilbraham and then decided to play them out of position. Unfortunately our current gaffer is doing exactly the same and he was appointed by the ‘current board’! | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
