How stupid do we think TTA are?

[Crusoe]

Firstly, I'm not saying people shouldn't question the motives or decisions of our owners. After Chris Moore we should all be vigilant, not complacent.

 

Secondly, I'm no shill for TTA. This is a genuine question, not an attack on any poster.

 

That said, why do some seem to think TTA are stupid or inept? Some posts on recent transfers imply that they're totally incompetent negotiators or businessmen. I find that difficult to believe; you don't get to where they are by being naïve, gullible or shy & retiring. We don't know what money we've made (and statements from other fans, friends of friends, or managers aren't reliable - there are reasons to underplay what you've made/spent).

 

Sure, the rumoured fee for Eardley concerns me - but I really struggle to believe that if it's true it's because TTA are rubbish at agreeing fees. Maybe we should be asking why we don't tie good players to contracts sooner, or why they don't want to stay, but focusing on a perceived lack of business acumen might be a distraction from other valid questions.

 

(Edited to clarify my question.)

Edited August 27, 2009 by Crusoe

[garcon]

I think they're alot less stupid than all the fans who think they know better.

 

 

Yes, all.

[Senor_Coconut]

Firstly, I'm not saying people shouldn't question the motives or decisions of our owners. After Chris Moore we should all be vigilant, not complacent.

 

Secondly, I'm no shill for TTA. This is a genuine question, not an attack on any poster.

 

That said, how stupid do we think TTA are? Some posts on recent transfers imply that they're totally incompetent negotiators or businessmen. I find that difficult to believe; you silly don't get to where they are by being naïve, gullible or shy & retiring. We don't know what money we've made (and statements from other fans, friends of friends, or managers aren't reliable - there are reasons to underplay what you've made/spent).

 

Sure, the rumoured fee for Eardley concerns me - but I really struggle to believe that if it's true it's because TTA are rubbish at agreeing fees. Maybe we should be asking why we don't tie good players to contracts sooner, or why they don't want to stay, but focusing on a perceived lack of business acumen might be a distraction from other valid questions.

 

 

Some people are on pathetic little agendas at the moment.

[Lookers_Carl]

Firstly, I'm not saying people shouldn't question the motives or decisions of our owners. After Chris Moore we should all be vigilant, not complacent.

 

Secondly, I'm no shill for TTA. This is a genuine question, not an attack on any poster.

 

That said, how stupid do we think TTA are? Some posts on recent transfers imply that they're totally incompetent negotiators or businessmen. I find that difficult to believe; you silly don't get to where they are by being naïve, gullible or shy & retiring. We don't know what money we've made (and statements from other fans, friends of friends, or managers aren't reliable - there are reasons to underplay what you've made/spent).

 

Sure, the rumoured fee for Eardley concerns me - but I really struggle to believe that if it's true it's because TTA are rubbish at agreeing fees. Maybe we should be asking why we don't tie good players to contracts sooner, or why they don't want to stay, but focusing on a perceived lack of business acumen might be a distraction from other valid questions.

 

The point is with Eardley though he was out of contract at the end of the season, and in all likelyhood wasnt going to sign another one. And again, in all likelyhood, any fee we would have got from a tribunal would have been the same, if not less, than what we got.

 

Chris Taylor on the other hand is a different matter all together. One of the brightest young wingers outside the top two divisions, only 22 years of age, can play on either wing, scored 11 goals from the wing last season, if the rumoured 500k fee is true then that would add a bit more substance to your argument.

[Latics_Fanatic]

Firstly, I'm not saying people shouldn't question the motives or decisions of our owners. After Chris Moore we should all be vigilant, not complacent.

 

Secondly, I'm no shill for TTA. This is a genuine question, not an attack on any poster.

 

That said, how stupid do we think TTA are? Some posts on recent transfers imply that they're totally incompetent negotiators or businessmen. I find that difficult to believe; you silly don't get to where they are by being naïve, gullible or shy & retiring. We don't know what money we've made (and statements from other fans, friends of friends, or managers aren't reliable - there are reasons to underplay what you've made/spent).

 

Sure, the rumoured fee for Eardley concerns me - but I really struggle to believe that if it's true it's because TTA are rubbish at agreeing fees. Maybe we should be asking why we don't tie good players to contracts sooner, or why they don't want to stay, but focusing on a perceived lack of business acumen might be a distraction from other valid questions.

 

Wake Up. TTA saved this club, & we should be nothing but thankful towards them!

 

As for the Eardley fee i've highlighted the main word.

[Crusoe]

How so?

 

(Edit: to Senor.)

Edited August 27, 2009 by Crusoe

[Crusoe]

Fanatic - er, not sure if that was directed at me, but I'm not having a go at them. I'm asking why so many are jumping to the assumption that TTA are inept or trying to run the club into the ground, neither of which I believe are true. (Not that I see them as selfless samaritans either, mind.)

[oafcprozac]

The point is with Eardley though he was out of contract at the end of the season, and in all likelyhood wasnt going to sign another one. And again, in all likelyhood, any fee we would have got from a tribunal would have been the same, if not less, than what we got.

 

Chris Taylor on the other hand is a different matter all together. One of the brightest young wingers outside the top two divisions, only 22 years of age, can play on either wing, scored 11 goals from the wing last season, if the rumoured 500k fee is true then that would add a bit more substance to your argument.

 

Despite his shortcomings, there is something to work with and he can play up-front and full-back. The bidding imo should start at £1m anything less and we've been sold down the river.

 

As for a tribunal with Eardley we could have pointed to the fact he is barely 20 played over 100 league games, scores goals and played for Wales at every level from schoolboy-11 full caps. A tribunal that made us pay over 3100k for the relatively raw and unproven, late-starting Porter surely would have seen us get double what we actually got? They offer £250k we say we want £1.5M we get £600k with add ons that's how tribunals work. TTA have sold us short imo and I won't believe anything else unless the money is reinvested in the team.

Edited August 27, 2009 by oafcprozac

[Crusoe]

I doubt Eardley would have gone to a tribunal. Anyone wanting him could just wait six months then sign him on a pre-contract agreement (subject to development compensation) rather than run the risk of an unfavourable tribunal decision. Think tribunals only work in your favour when the player's solidly under contract.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Crusoe

[Latics_Fanatic]

Fanatic - er, not sure if that was directed at me, but I'm not having a go at them. I'm asking why so many are jumping to the assumption that TTA are inept or trying to run the club into the ground, neither of which I believe are true. (Not that I see them as selfless samaritans either, mind.)

 

Sorry, it was directed at the people slagging them off!

[Crusoe]

Ah, no worries.

[LaticsPete]

Despite his shortcomings, there is something to work with and he can play up-front and full-back. The bidding imo should start at £1m anything less and we've been sold down the river.

 

As for a tribunal with Eardley we could have pointed to the fact he is barely 20 played over 100 league games, scores goals and played for Wales at every level from schoolboy-11 full caps. A tribunal that made us pay over 3100k for the relatively raw and unproven, late-starting Porter surely would have seen us get double what we actually got? They offer £250k we say we want £1.5M we get £600k with add ons that's how tribunals work. TTA have sold us short imo and I won't believe anything else unless the money is reinvested in the team.

 

 

Bidding starts with the bidder. If there's only one club interested then bids will obviously be lower. Wholly unrealistic to demand what bids are.

 

If a potential buying club knows there will be a tribunal it a) may not bid at all or b. submit an even lower bid in the first place!

 

Sold us short. You never say why losses shouldn't be covered. Covering losses can free up money later. The cash doesn't have to be immediately reinvested!

Edited August 27, 2009 by LaticsPete

[OldhamSheridan]

I doubt Eardley would have gone to a tribunal. Anyone wanting him could just wait six months then sign him on a pre-contract agreement (subject to development compensation) rather than run the risk of an unfavourable tribunal decision. Think tribunals only work in your favour when the player's solidly under contract.

 

 

But the development compensation is agreed at tribunal (see numerous reports on Danny Sturridge).

 

There was no cheap way out to get Eardley.

[Lookers_Carl]

I doubt Eardley would have gone to a tribunal. Anyone wanting him could just wait six months then sign him on a pre-contract agreement (subject to development compensation) rather than run the risk of an unfavourable tribunal decision. Think tribunals only work in your favour when the player's solidly under contract.

 

Regardless of a pre contract agreement or not, we would still have been entitled to a fee. And if us and whoever else would not have been able to agree a fee, would have gone to a tribunal

[oafcprozac]

Bidding starts with the bidder. If there's only one club interested then bids will obviously be lower. Wholly unrealistic to demand what bids are.

 

If a potential buying club knows there will be a tribunal it a) may not bid at all or submit an even lower bid in the first place!

 

Sold us short. You never say why losses shouldn't be covered. Covering losses can free up money later. The cash doesn't have to be immediately reinvested!

 

You're missing the key point Pete, no matter what anyone bids we do not have to sell!

 

As for the losses they're being overplayed, simple as adding to the martyr illusion of TTA's. As Ross quite rightly pointed out since taking charge officially in January 2004 there's been significant unearned income into the club.

 

September 2004 - V Spurs on TV £100,000+ (extra gate reciepts too)

November 2004 - V Thurrock TV £100,000+

January 2005 - City Highlights TV ? (Full House gate reciepts too)

January 2005 - Bolton TV (Pretty much a full house)

November 2005 - Chasetown TV (£100,000 )

December 2005 - Brentford TV (100,000)

December 2006 - Kings Lynn TV (100,000)

Play Off Matches Both Televised & extra gate reciepts

Gate money from Everton

Gate money from full houses vs Leeds x 2

£500,000 from Trotman

£150,000 from the Davies sale (kept quiet on the say so of Dick Knight but later let slip)

£300,000 from Eardley sale

 

So if we're losing half a mill a year I reckon from that little lot we've broke even, especially when you add 6 years worth of ST sales, a new kit every 20 minutes and the little corporate hospitality and marketing strategies we have.

Edited August 27, 2009 by oafcprozac

[Crusoe]

Didn't know that the development compensation was set by a tribunal, so fair enough. However I doubt that Sturridge's compensation would give anyone confidence that they'd be similarly generous for us - not entirely convinced we could realistically say we've invested £1.5m of time and effort in him (particularly with Wrexham's role). No idea how City got away with that one.

[wozz_oafc]

You're missing the key point Pete, no matter what anyone bids we do not have to sell!

 

As for the losses they're being overplayed, simple as adding to the martyr illusion of TTA's. As Ross quite rightly pointed out since taking charge officially in January 2004 there's been significant unearned income into the club.

 

September 2004 - V Spurs on TV £100,000+ (extra gate reciepts too)

November 2004 - V Thurrock TV £100,000+

January 2005 - City Highlights TV ? (Full House gate reciepts too)

January 2005 - Bolton TV (Pretty much a full house)

November 2005 - Chasetown TV (£100,000 )

December 2005 - Brentford TV (100,000)

December 2006 - Kings Lynn TV (100,000)

Play Off Matches Both Televised & extra gate reciepts

Gate money from Everton

Gate money from full houses vs Leeds x 2

£500,000 from Trotman

£150,000 from the Davies sale (kept quiet on the say so of Dick Knight but later let slip)

£300,000 from Eardley sale

 

So if we're losing half a mill a year I reckon from that little lot we've broke even, especially when you add 6 years worth of ST sales, a new kit every 20 minutes and the little corporate hospitality and marketing strategies we have.

 

 

Not having a go mate, but can you hand on heart say you know the finances of the club? I am guessing no, so its not helpful when people band all these hyperthetical figures about, its how rumours and scaremongering start.

 

I wish someone from the club would show some transparancy in regards to the clubs finances, dont we have someone on the board of directors which could shed some light?

Edited August 27, 2009 by wozz_oafc

[OldhamSheridan]

You're missing the key point Pete, no matter what anyone bids we do not have to sell!

 

As for the losses they're being overplayed, simple as adding to the martyr illusion of TTA's. As Ross quite rightly pointed out since taking charge officially in January 2004 there's been significant unearned income into the club.

 

September 2004 - V Spurs on TV £100,000+ (extra gate reciepts too)

November 2004 - V Thurrock TV £100,000+

January 2005 - City Highlights TV ? (Full House gate reciepts too)

January 2005 - Bolton TV (Pretty much a full house)

November 2005 - Chasetown TV (£100,000 )

December 2005 - Brentford TV (£100,000)

December 2006 - Kings Lynn TV (£100,000)

Play Off Matches Both Televised & extra gate reciepts

Gate money from Everton

Gate money from full houses vs Leeds x 2

£500,000 from Trotman

£150,000 from the Davies sale (kept quiet on the say so of Dick Knight but later let slip)

£300,000 from Eardley sale

 

So if we're losing half a mill a year I reckon from that little lot we've broke even, especially when you add 6 years worth of ST sales, a new kit every 20 minutes and the little corporate hospitality and marketing strategies we have.

 

Don't forget the taxman will take a substantial part of all of these and Leeds will be included. And to take out cash for signings. I can't think we've got near to breaking even myself.

[slurms mckenzie]

You're missing the key point Pete, no matter what anyone bids we do not have to sell!

 

As for the losses they're being overplayed, simple as adding to the martyr illusion of TTA's. As Ross quite rightly pointed out since taking charge officially in January 2004 there's been significant unearned income into the club.

 

September 2004 - V Spurs on TV £100,000+ (extra gate reciepts too)

November 2004 - V Thurrock TV £100,000+

January 2005 - City Highlights TV ? (Full House gate reciepts too)

January 2005 - Bolton TV (Pretty much a full house)

November 2005 - Chasetown TV (£100,000 )

December 2005 - Brentford TV (100,000)

December 2006 - Kings Lynn TV (100,000)

Play Off Matches Both Televised & extra gate reciepts

Gate money from Everton

Gate money from full houses vs Leeds x 2

£500,000 from Trotman

£150,000 from the Davies sale (kept quiet on the say so of Dick Knight but later let slip)

£300,000 from Eardley sale

 

So if we're losing half a mill a year I reckon from that little lot we've broke even, especially when you add 6 years worth of ST sales, a new kit every 20 minutes and the little corporate hospitality and marketing strategies we have.

 

Add a quarter of a mill from Scott Spencer sale to Everton and more from Daniel Philliskirk.

Edited August 27, 2009 by slurms mckenzie

[EASTLEY]

And the wagebill???

 

Players, infrastructure, etc

 

Oh and Facilities

[opinions4u]

Wake Up. TTA saved this club, & we should be nothing but thankful towards them!

For that, yes.

 

But then I would ask the question "why did they do it?".

 

The answer is "to try and cash in on a property deal at some point".

 

I have no problem with this as long as the football club benefits along the way too.

 

My concern with TTA is that they are not exactly big spenders (e.g. in ground facilities, transfer fees in, car park surface etc). I prefer their financial controls to that of the previous owner, but (he said putting on the Corporal's hat) where is the investment that will get the football club up one league AND keep it there - at the same time generating bigger crowds to sustain things?

 

A new stadium, it could be argued, is part of this. But I'm not yet totally convinced.

 

If, however, they move on leaving the club with a new stadium and committed owners who have the capital to inject .... there's a win/win for all.

Edited August 27, 2009 by opinions4u

[oafcprozac]

Add a quarter of a mill from Scott Spencer sale to Everton.

 

Forgot about that and the Danny Philliskirk sale so if you include those two deals that's going on for another half a million.

[oafcprozac]

For that, yes.

 

But then I would ask the question "why did they do it?".

 

The answer is "to try and cash in on a property deal at some point".

 

I have no problem with this as long as the football club benefits along the way too.

 

My concern with TTA is that they are not exactly big spenders (e.g. in ground facilities, transfer fees in, car park surface etc). I prefer their financial controls to that of the previous owner, but (he said putting on the Corporal's hat) where is the investment that will get the football club up one league AND keep it there - at the same time generating bigger crowds to sustain things?

 

A new stadium, it could be argued, is part of this. But I'm not yet totally convinced.

 

If, however, they move on leaving the club with a new stadium and committed owners who have the capital to inject .... there's a win/win for all.

 

Totally agree, more questions than anwers as to where the hell the club is heading...

[wozz_oafc]

Its all very well adding up revenue, but you have to take away the costs too.

 

What are wages a year? What are policing costs? Hospitality costs? Ground Maintenance? Pitch Maintenance? Stewarding Costs? Medical Costs? etc etc

[ritchie82]

Didn't we end up having to pay around 100k for Porter about 4 years back? That was set be a panel. I am pretty sure they'd have valued Eardley at more than 300k. Would have been nice to play hard ball if, and its a big if, we were not desperate for the money.