Frankly Mr Shankly Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Why would anybody with big ideas look at investing in a club that seems so content to stay at lower division level that it builds a stadium that has a lower division capacity from the off? Especially when you consider how fewer potentially big investors there are likely to be in the more financially-straitened future that seems to be coming? Why wouldn't they look at a club that seems to have more ambtion than simply staying out of the fourth division? Businessmen look at the investment opportunity. The outlay on a new stadium from scratch is taken away, and all they have to do is invest on the playing side, then make improvements to the stadium to fit more as or when the need arises. Do you honestly think the Arabs that strode into Notts County did it just because they had a 20,000 seat stadium? People invest for all different reasons but Latics need to show they're not haemorraging money every week. Investors like solvent, debt-free companies to take over. They're the ones that'll come with the vision and the ambition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Oh no, you'll set him off now. Let's just be quiet and accept a future alongside Bury, rochdale and Macclesfield. Because that's what we're going to get, without a shadow of doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Let's just be quiet and accept a future alongside Bury, rochdale and Macclesfield. Because that's what we're going to get, without a shadow of doubt. Alongside them and their brand new stadia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Let's just be quiet and accept a future alongside Bury, rochdale and Macclesfield. Because that's what we're going to get, without a shadow of doubt. No alternative though is presenting itself at this point in time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Quite possibly... Made its time to just accept the reality of the situation... Survival is more important than ambition when push comes to shove. Surely survival without ambition brings crisis in the long run anyway? What is there to sustain the interest of even many of a club's hardcore fanbase when there is no realistic hope of anything better? There are scores of little clubs with small fanbases kicking around the lower reaches of the FL and in non-league. Few of them are immune to perioidic financial crises. Some of them wither away as they cut and cut budgets in order to simply survive. If people think the public of Oldham are apathetic now, what do they think is going to prove attractive about a club permanently hanging around the middle of the fourth division or even this one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertie_Dugger Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Let's just be quiet and accept a future alongside Bury, rochdale and Macclesfield. Because that's what we're going to get, without a shadow of doubt. But only in your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmarko Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Latest June 2009 figures. £52 million !!! Losing £8.4m per month. Good comparision! Source: Guardian. Bolton Wanderers Accounts for the year to 30 June 2008 Ownership 95% owned by Edwin Davies, via Fildraw Private Trust, believed to be in the Isle of Man, a tax haven Turnover £59.1m (up from £51m last year: 16% increase) Gate and match-day £6.8m Hotel £8.7m TV and broadcasting £34.2m Corporate hospitality £2.4m Merchandising £1.2m Sponsorship and advertising £3.5m Other football income £2.3m Wage bill £39m (up from 30.7m in 2007, a 27% increase) Wages as proportion of turnover 66% Loss before tax £8.4m Debts £52m Interest payable £3m Whoa, steady on there!! £52M debt does not mean they are losing that much, that is just how much they owe banks etc. Just as we owe for houses, cars etc, doesn't mean we are insolvent. The losses were £8.4M for that particular year, and that could be due to an exceptional outlay or whatever. There is nothing in there to say they are losing money. In fact, the fact that Wages as proportion of turnover is only 66% is relatively healthy. What to me is more interesting to me is that out of Turnover of near £60M, only less than £7M comes from Gate Matchday Receipts, unless that doesn't include Season Tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 No idea.... are they still in massive debt? I don't know. The point is they got their glory years back. They got the Sky millions. Debt or not, I'd back them to survive long-term before I'd back Latics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Surely survival without ambition brings crisis in the long run anyway? What is there to sustain the interest of even many of a club's hardcore fanbase when there is no realistic hope of anything better? Yup very true... But we have a offer on the table right now, which if you accept at face value, will allow the club to move from a position of financial doom to one of security for the coming years. The question is if we take that offer or do we say no to that offer. While both options have issues attached, we still need to decide what to do. What do you think we should as a group of supporters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 What is there to sustain the interest of even many of a club's hardcore fanbase when there is no realistic hope of anything better? Our fanbase has levelled off, we dropped a few thousand when we dropped into the division but I believe our crowds have actually slightly increased on average since 1998... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Actually, yes..... "Chairman Phil Gartside has questioned whether Bolton would even be in existence without major shareholder Eddie Davies, following the club record signing of Johan Elmander." Gartside hails lifesaver Davies Millionaire Fan buys control of Bolton .... yadder yadder He might be a major investor, but he isn't a Jack Walker-style sugar daddy, is he? He probably wouldn't have invested if the club hadn't done significant groundwork and got themselves into a worthwhile position in the first place. Financially, Bolton were nowhere when they began their climb. They were getting an average 7000 or so in a ground that was falling down about their ears, part of which had been sold off to a supermarket. Well spotted downender They were £40m in debt after Burnden Park, in 2003. I'll do a bit of reserachto find what it is now. So Corp. We'd never get that debt line in the current Great Depression. Are you comparing us to a club that has had a £40m debt. ARe you Gordon Brown in disguise?! What are you dribbling about? A club insider says Latics now have 72 hours over the weekend to find either a business consortium or a wealthy benefactor to help rescue the club. And there's a deadline looming on Friday, July 11, when unpaid wages need to be met, or the players can walk. A number of Latics stars including Fitz Hall and Les Pogliacomi are reported to be set to leave on a free transfer should their wages not be met. Latics are losing around £25,000 a week. By then, though, Moore had decided his football venture was over. In March, he announced in the match programme that the club's spending, mostly on the wages of the players signed in his time, exceeded the club's income by £50,000 a week. He had been footing the shortfall, his loans had swollen to £4m, and while he was resigned to losing that, he was not prepared to support the club and lose any more. Yet the fire sales and cost-cutting have not made a significant enough difference to Oldham's finances. The wage bill, according to Jon Newell, of PKF, the club's administrator, is around £210,000 per month, £2.5m a year, expected to swallow up all the club's income. The Inland Revenue are owed £400,000; they finally lost patience and issued a winding up petition, which led the club to seek the protection of administration. fair enough. It was losses per week and not per month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 and shame on scunthorpe settling for lower league mediocrity in their 9k capacity stadium, and blackpool with their 9.5k two sided stadium (expansion is irrelevant remember) oh wait a minute..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Whoa, steady on there!! £52M debt does not mean they are losing that much, that is just how much they owe banks etc. Just as we owe for houses, cars etc, doesn't mean we are insolvent. The losses were £8.4M for that particular year, and that could be due to an exceptional outlay or whatever. There is nothing in there to say they are losing money. In fact, the fact that Wages as proportion of turnover is only 66% is relatively healthy. What to me is more interesting to me is that out of Turnover of near £60M, only less than £7M comes from Gate Matchday Receipts, unless that doesn't include Season Tickets. I know they are solvent, but being as it was £40 mafter they built the Reebok in 2003, they have increased it by £12m since then. So to keep up with the Jones' TM we'd have to get an outlay of £40-50m. It is Corp comparing us to Bolton, not me. It would be suicidal in this era to try and compete with that. I disagree with your assesment of 66% wages though. For a large football club it might be the norm, but for an normal business TOTAL costs of 66% is more the norm. The ineresting one for me is the Hotel at £9m, the only non football revenue stream. As it says at the bottom, if Bolton get relegated.... Edit jsut for calrity i did a typo and put £8.4m per month, ehen I meant year int he Bolton accounts. Edited August 11, 2009 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I recall that from the notes of the meting Leesds £9m wages, us £1.7m, Bolton £39m wage bill. Which is almost exactly the TV revenue. Their debt repayment but virtually buy out team twice over. Again, the point is that they had a go. When it comes to survival they will still be an infinitely more attractive proposition than a club that plays (assuming it even comes off) in a small stadium, designed for lower division crowds (a capacity smaller than crowds we still occasionally attract despite the horrors of th past 15 years), the total sum of whose ambition seems to be to survive in the third-tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lookers_Carl Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 As it says at the bottom, if Bolton get relegated.... Which they very nearly did...... And could very easily do within the next five years. Or even worse scenario If Bolton get relegated, and do not win promotion on their first two seasons back in the championship (hence lose their parachute payments) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Considering the clear financial crisis over the top of us it should not be crazy to suggest that leaving to your means (even if that is another ten years low down) could pay dividends as we are promoted due to lack of teams left running Have you been for a few pints or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) What are you dribbling about? It's quite simple. You stated we should try and emulate Bolton. Bolton were £40m in debt in 2003, and are now over £50m in debt. I donlt think that is a good plan. Gordon Brown has spent trillions trying to get us out of a hole( of his making) buy spending aboe his means to get us out of trouble. You seemt o be advocating spending beyond our means to get us out of this level. It's very easy to spend other people's money. The similarities are uncanny. Edited August 11, 2009 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Have you been for a few pints or something? Was having a bit of joke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Businessmen look at the investment opportunity. The outlay on a new stadium from scratch is taken away, and all they have to do is invest on the playing side, then make improvements to the stadium to fit more as or when the need arises. Do you honestly think the Arabs that strode into Notts County did it just because they had a 20,000 seat stadium? People invest for all different reasons but Latics need to show they're not haemorraging money every week. Investors like solvent, debt-free companies to take over. They're the ones that'll come with the vision and the ambition. I don't know why those particular Arabs went for Notts County. I never had NC down as a debt-free sclub. City, meanwhile, were a financial horror show when ADUG stepped in. Most clubs that get taken over by rich owners are not finacially viable at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny punkster Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 The risk of TTA selling the club and hoping some new investment comes rolling in. i'd expect that would all be about selling it to the right people. people who see it as a football club with potential and not as a quick business venture ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Alongside them and their brand new stadia? You've got me there. At least we'll be playing the Mickey Mouse clubs in a new stadium. Edited August 11, 2009 by Corporal_Jones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wozz_oafc Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Again, the point is that they had a go. When it comes to survival they will still be an infinitely more attractive proposition than a club that plays (assuming it even comes off) in a small stadium, designed for lower division crowds (a capacity smaller than crowds we still occasionally attract despite the horrors of th past 15 years), the total sum of whose ambition seems to be to survive in the third-tier. I think by occaisonally you actually mean twice!! One of those games was free vs Grimsby. I doubt the same numbers would have turned up at full price, so actually in normal citcumstances we are building a stadium which capacity is about 1000 seats less than a crowd we have attracted once in 15 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corporal_Jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Yup very true... But we have a offer on the table right now, which if you accept at face value, will allow the club to move from a position of financial doom to one of security for the coming years. The question is if we take that offer or do we say no to that offer. While both options have issues attached, we still need to decide what to do. What do you think we should as a group of supporters. Who has suggested we say no to anything? What's being questioned, at least by me, is the clear lack of ambition inherent in the proposal. I think by occaisonally you actually mean twice!! One of those games was free vs Grimsby. I doubt the same numbers would have turned up at full price, so actually in normal citcumstances we are building a stadium which capacity is about 1000 seats less than a crowd we have attracted once in 15 years. We've had over 12000 a lot more than twice over the past fifteen years, as others have recently proved by posting up the attendances for games concerned. But only in your mind. £100 to a charity of your choice, and vice-versa, if we are not still in this division or below in five years time, new stadium or not? Edit to add: as long as we don't veer wildly off the road on which we presently seem set, that is, and TTA don't accept a surprise bid from a Ukrainian mafia boss or some such. Our fanbase has levelled off, we dropped a few thousand when we dropped into the division but I believe our crowds have actually slightly increased on average since 1998... But if there's nothing on offer except permanent lower-division football it won't stay levelled off. In any case, this season will prove whether it has really levelled off or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FyldeBlue Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Well done for presenting that report, it is honest, very interesting and very informative with most of the unanswered queries about the project being dealt with. It is yet more positive work and structured comments again being spoiled by the constant NEGATIVE remarks by some of the more REGULAR posters who appear to be intent on destroying everything decent and good about the club. When the main culprit of these ongoing very negative comments actually does something to find a way of making at least one POSITIVE remark on OWTB I personally will recommend him for the the position of Sergeant ! Well done SW and thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchie82 Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 (edited) Edited August 11, 2009 by ritchie82 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.