Football Club finances

[Corporal_Jones]

Honestly, it's about as credible as people who claim to see some dramatic end of the modern economic system from a likely marginal increase in the price of oil.

 

 

 

The thing is, though, that we're not seeing marginal increases in the price of oil. What we have seen recently, for instance, is the soaring of the price of oil to $147 a barrel (summer 2008), which seems to have been the trigger for the economic crash of that autumn, as the reflected increase in the cost of running their cars caused enough of the debt-burdened US populace to default on their mortgages, thus precipitating the banking crisis. The price of oil, in large part due to the resulting plummeting of economic activity, then rapidly fell back to around $30 a barrel. Since then it's climbed back up to over $85, and nobody seems to know if it will go on rising to a level sufficient to trigger another crisis.

 

I'm not saying that this necessarily signifies that peak oil has already been reached, but when it is reached, one of the signs is that there begins the so-called 'bumpy plateau' of wild fluctuations in the oil price bringing increased economic instability.

 

Peak oil does not, as many think, mean that we are running out of oil, by the way. It means that we have reached the stage where the half that was easiest to get at has already been extracted and it becomes increasingly less cost effective to extract the rest. Neither is it a viewpoint that belongs to one political ideology. Many of those warning of it have been leading figures in the oil industry. Some are former US Republicans. It needn't arouse the hostilty of ultra-left extremists like yourself.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Corporal_Jones

[leeslover]

Linky

 

It is true that people of all political persuasions have a poor understanding of price theory. As it happens I was reading something about peak oil just the other day in the Christmas present Mr Tulsehill got me, Freakenomics. The link above of I think the original article that the chapter in the book is based on, you may find it interesting if not entirely to your taste.

[Corporal_Jones]

Linky

 

It is true that people of all political persuasions have a poor understanding of price theory. As it happens I was reading something about peak oil just the other day in the Christmas present Mr Tulsehill got me, Freakenomics. The link above of I think the original article that the chapter in the book is based on, you may find it interesting if not entirely to your taste.

 

 

 

So you link to one of a whole host of self-styled debunkers given space, surprise surprise in one of the world's biggest corporate voices. The only difference between these and the so-called doomsday prophets is that they are more numerous, usually better funded and more dedicated. It would be easy enough to find a debunker of the debunkers. That's the nature of the world we now live in. Thoise who subscribe to the idea of peak oil, by the way, do not necessarily subscribe to any 'doomsday scenario.'

 

There is no failsafe 'price theory' providing the answer to all our ills. It is those who subscribe to such notions who failed completely to see coming the crash of last autumn and the connections between it and the voodoo economics they'd been pushing for decades, and were left in the undignified position of having to go begging to the state they'd long tried to elbow out of the economic frame to bail us all out of the mess they'd created.

 

Least of all is any such theory capable of overriding the laws of thermodynamics and the entropy produced by industrial civilization.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Corporal_Jones

[Corporal_Jones]

Actually, I've just noticed the date of that article. 2005. Oh dear.

 

You only have to read the authors supposed debunking of the economics of peak oil to see that what he's claiming can't happen is precisely what did happen only three years later, as the rise in oil prices (yes, and to triple figures: $147 a barrel) triggered the demolition of the whole house of cards the world economy had been allowed to become.

 

'Market economics' cannot invent substitutes for the planet's resources, only turn them into energy and goods (the production of which require...energy. ) Once they're gone they're gone. You can invent an electric car, but it still requires seven barrels of oil to produce each tyre and God knows how many to manufacture the rest.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Corporal_Jones

[leeslover]

So you link to one of a whole host of self-styled debunkers given space, surprise surprise in one of the world's biggest corporate voices. The only difference between these and the so-called doomsday prophets is that they are more numerous, usually better funded and more dedicated. It would be easy enough to find a debunker of the debunkers. That's the nature of the world we now live in. Thoise who subscribe to the idea of peak oil, by the way, do not necessarily subscribe to any 'doomsday scenario.'

 

There is no failsafe 'price theory' providing the answer to all our ills. It is those who subscribe to such notions who failed completely to see coming the crash of last autumn and the connections between it and the voodoo economics they'd been pushing for decades, and were left in the undignified position of having to go begging to the state they'd long tried to elbow out of the economic frame to bail us all out of the mess they'd created.

 

Least of all is any such theory capable of overriding the laws of thermodynamics and the entropy produced by industrial civilization.

I think you misread, it was the (mainstream conservative) NYT that carried the original article advocating the peak oil theory and forecasting doom. Economic theory does not offer any solutions to oil scarcity, it just shows that it’s more likely to lead to subtle changes of behaviour at the margins than any dramatic changes in the world economy. Hubbert of course was a geologist so may not have understood this correctly when he was envisaging a world where the easiest oil has been drilled.

[Corporal_Jones]

I think you misread, it was the (mainstream conservative) NYT that carried the original article advocating the peak oil theory and forecasting doom. Economic theory does not offer any solutions to oil scarcity, it just shows that it’s more likely to lead to subtle changes of behaviour at the margins than any dramatic changes in the world economy. Hubbert of course was a geologist so may not have understood this correctly when he was envisaging a world where the easiest oil has been drilled.

 

 

 

 

Granted I did misread it. However, it is the mainstream (neo-liberal in reality, not conservative) press that does most to create the illusion that nothing untoward is going on when it comes to energy. It doesn't stop them occasionally giving space to alternative voices as long as they and their corporate backers can ensure they remain politically marginalised.

 

Given the record of economists lately, I'd rather listen to a geologist, especially when history has proved him correct. Even the US government and oil industry (which tried to silence Hubbert) acknowledge that Hubbert called it right when he predicted the peak in US oil production would come in 1970.

 

And, as I say, the author you link to was wrong. Despite being $10 a barrel in 2005, it had risen to $147 a barrel three short years later, and the events that followed were dramatic. And as I said, now it's back up to around $85. Those seem like wild price fluctuations to me.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Corporal_Jones

[leeslover]

Those seem like wild price fluctuations to me.

They are, which gives you a good clue that they aren't predomanently to do with the longer term issues which peak oil seeks to identify. The volatility in the oil (and wider energy) markets is to do with fears that the US are going to nuke Iran, Russia is going Stalinist, the Saudis are going to collapse etc etc. What role Western interests have in all of this stuff is a fair subject for debate but to say the price levels have jumped up and down because we are gradually running out of the stuff makes no sense.

[Corporal_Jones]

They are, which gives you a good clue that they aren't predomanently to do with the longer term issues which peak oil seeks to identify. The volatility in the oil (and wider energy) markets is to do with fears that the US are going to nuke Iran, Russia is going Stalinist, the Saudis are going to collapse etc etc. What role Western interests have in all of this stuff is a fair subject for debate but to say the price levels have jumped up and down because we are gradually running out of the stuff makes no sense.

 

 

 

As I said, peak oil doesn't mean that we're running out of it. The world will probably never run out of oil. Peak oil means that the oil that's easiest to get at, and therefore the most cost effective, has been extracted. It will be much harder, and therefore more expensive, to extract what remains. The pattern is already set. In the heyday of oil, around $100 of energy derived from every dollar invested in extraction. Now it's somewhere around a tenth of that. If, as seems to be the case from the results so far of desperate attempts to find them, no new oil fields on the same scale as those already reaching or past peak production, are discovered, it increasingly means that it will have to be extracted from Canadian tar sands and suchlike, which means a vastly greater investment. As the energy required to get oil out of the ground converges with the energy to be drawn from it, the whole activity ceases to make sense. That's when extraction looks like grinding to a halt, leaving much of what remains in the ground forever.

 

And all this comes, let us not forget, at the point when new economic powerhouses (China, Russia, Brazil, India, Indonesia etc) are appearing on the scene, requiring an equal, if not greater amount of oil (and other natural resources) than the existing ones. It simply doesn't add up, especially when you remember that alternatives, whether 'green' or not, require oil for both manufacture and maintenance.

 

 

[garcon]

[Corporal_Jones]

And it's also worth remembering the multi-trillion hole in the world's finances left by last year's debacle, if anybody thinks there's going to be a seamless move into some kind of combination of alternative and nuclear energy.

[singe]

So you link to one of a whole host of self-styled debunkers given space, surprise surprise in one of the world's biggest corporate voices. The only difference between these and the so-called doomsday prophets is that they are more numerous, usually better funded and more dedicated. It would be easy enough to find a debunker of the debunkers. That's the nature of the world we now live in. Thoise who subscribe to the idea of peak oil, by the way, do not necessarily subscribe to any 'doomsday scenario.'

 

There is no failsafe 'price theory' providing the answer to all our ills. It is those who subscribe to such notions who failed completely to see coming the crash of last autumn and the connections between it and the voodoo economics they'd been pushing for decades, and were left in the undignified position of having to go begging to the state they'd long tried to elbow out of the economic frame to bail us all out of the mess they'd created.

 

Least of all is any such theory capable of overriding the laws of thermodynamics and the entropy produced by industrial civilization.

That's a nice turn of phrase, I liek it and how, er, ironic......

[BlueJazzer]

Who the hell are these two people?! And why aren't they running our club?! This has feck all to do with Tics and yet it's the most interesting thing I've read on here for ages! I'm getting a brew, I'm in for the long haul!

 

P.s. Think I've only understood about 10% of it but still....

[Dave_Og]

So you link to one of a whole host of self-styled debunkers given space, surprise surprise in one of the world's biggest corporate voices. The only difference between these and the so-called doomsday prophets is that they are more numerous, usually better funded and more dedicated. It would be easy enough to find a debunker of the debunkers. That's the nature of the world we now live in. Thoise who subscribe to the idea of peak oil, by the way, do not necessarily subscribe to any 'doomsday scenario.'

 

There is no failsafe 'price theory' providing the answer to all our ills. It is those who subscribe to such notions who failed completely to see coming the crash of last autumn and the connections between it and the voodoo economics they'd been pushing for decades, and were left in the undignified position of having to go begging to the state they'd long tried to elbow out of the economic frame to bail us all out of the mess they'd created.

 

Least of all is any such theory capable of overriding the laws of thermodynamics and the entropy produced by industrial civilization.

Anyone who seriously thought about it and failed to see the crash coming is, IMHO, an idiot whose views should be disregarded in peprpetuity.

[bensonio]

Back on topic...

 

The idea is to have a capacity of only 12000? Or perhaps, some seem to think, 10000. (How long before it leaks out that it's to be even less than that?)

 

Nearly all the stadiums with such small capacities are in the lower divisions. It seems clear enough to me, on the basis of the proposed capacity, that this is where the club expects to be spending most, if not all, of its future.

 

Why won't it work? Take a look at the curent level of interest in the town after nearly thirteen years in the third-tier. And that's leaving aside the controversy over the location.

 

"Nearly all"

Doesnt mean we can't be the exception to the rule does it?

 

Success breeds success. SO obvously the new stadium offers our only real chance at it, cause we're not going anywhere at BP are we?

 

The new stadium will have cinemas, bowling, etc which brings in revenue, which will go into the club (wages etc)

add on top of that gate income to go to wages.

 

In the future when TTA walk, an investor such as Sullivan, would more likely invest in us as we have no major debts to pay off that have been taken against our ground etc.

 

As for the stadium, you have to walk before you run so why build a massive seater stadium when its not going to get filled? All you'll get is clutches of fans and empty seats needing stewarding. Start at an attainable size and over time, some success brings people back and we can then expand the stadium. (I think we'll get 12000 and end up 16/18000)

 

I like to be an optimist 'cause misery loves company, some people wont be happy until everyones miserable, but then they realise they're not meant to be happy so will find something else to be miserable about.

[oafc0000]

In the future when TTA walk, an investor such as Sullivan, would more likely invest in us as we have no major debts to pay off that have been taken against our ground etc.

 

What about the millions owed to TTA ? Do you not consider £3 million major (if reports are true)

[singe]

As I said, peak oil doesn't mean that we're running out of it. The world will probably never run out of oil. Peak oil means that the oil that's easiest to get at, and therefore the most cost effective, has been extracted. It will be much harder, and therefore more expensive, to extract what remains. The pattern is already set. In the heyday of oil, around $100 of energy derived from every dollar invested in extraction. Now it's somewhere around a tenth of that. If, as seems to be the case from the results so far of desperate attempts to find them, no new oil fields on the same scale as those already reaching or past peak production, are discovered, it increasingly means that it will have to be extracted from Canadian tar sands and suchlike, which means a vastly greater investment. As the energy required to get oil out of the ground converges with the energy to be drawn from it, the whole activity ceases to make sense. That's when extraction looks like grinding to a halt, leaving much of what remains in the ground forever.

 

And all this comes, let us not forget, at the point when new economic powerhouses (China, Russia, Brazil, India, Indonesia etc) are appearing on the scene, requiring an equal, if not greater amount of oil (and other natural resources) than the existing ones. It simply doesn't add up, especially when you remember that alternatives, whether 'green' or not, require oil for both manufacture and maintenance.

CAn I ask you both your opinion. I have a theory about the new economies such as China being corrailed into not making the mistakes of the past.

I think they will go a long with it for a while, but reach a point where their own self intesrest, but also legitimate but more expensive costs of expansion will clash with those of the Western interests. I feel at least one, if not a joining up if them, will then start to hit back and just go for the (still) easier option of oil expansion.

Of course, this will have s pin off of those fighting such agendas, but create some sort of NeoCon or equivakent on the left move and start a backlash by the US against those interests possibly culminating in new Iranstyle situations.

[thelaticsfan]

must be a good debate on here, i got to the first sentence of each post got confused and moved on to the next post! showing me this debate is either a very intelligent one or a very confusing stupid one! either way my response is - dont tickle elephants, they can be nasty bastards!

[outoftheblue]

You can invent an electric car, but it still requires seven barrels of oil to produce each tyre and God knows how many to manufacture the rest.

After observing this thread (And learning one or two things!), here's a post that stood out.

This is generally the point that is missed when the subject of whether the earth's resources are sustainable.

The rubber on the tyres alone take between 3 and 9 percent of their weight in oil to produce (Depending on whether it is a Natural, Polybutadiene or Styrene based polymer), this oil in turn has taken oil to extract it, oil to refine it, oil to deliver it, oil to power the Banbury mixers that produce the rubber compound, and oil to get the production operatives to work and back (This is before all the processes needed between engineering the tyre, delivering it, and fixing it on the car.

We can develop as many alternative fuels such as Hydrogen etc as we want, but we will still need the process oils to build the vehicles they are powering, and to produce the fuel itself.

Mineral and organic oils are of course naturally replaced, but only over thousands of years, and certainly not at the rate we are mining it. Synthetic oils are an answer, but still rely on natural oils to produce them.

 

The thing is, there are still huge quantities of oil remaining untapped, it's just that it is becoming a little less accessible, and we can only expect prices to rise. So we look at alternatives.

Ethanol is fairly easy to produce, and the cane from which it derives can be quickly replaced. In 25 years time, when we have considered the benefits, Brazil will have that market completely covered, and will possibly be one of the worlds leading markets in fuels. Now is the time to jump aboard that particular ship and ensure we are back in a position where we own a good portion of shares in the next generation of fuels, rather than following America round like a faithful hound sniffing at every opportunity to dip a paw into some Arabian's oil reserve, and paying extortionate amounts to do so.

 

Our Country's future is dependant on fuel. We need to gamble on which alternative will be best, and pump everything into it, to make sure we are in a strong position when the :censored: hits the fan regarding natural fuels.

Strangely enough, we need to do the same at Latics regarding strengthening our side to the point where we are a comfortable Championship side when the football economy crumbles, and the big Premier clubs who have relied on their power tumble, while the small clubs who failed to invest fade away.

Getting into the Championship is an absolute must.

[singe]

After observing this thread (And learning one or two things!), here's a post that stood out.

This is generally the point that is missed when the subject of whether the earth's resources are sustainable.

The rubber on the tyres alone take between 3 and 9 percent of their weight in oil to produce (Depending on whether it is a Natural, Polybutadiene or Styrene based polymer), this oil in turn has taken oil to extract it, oil to refine it, oil to deliver it, oil to power the Banbury mixers that produce the rubber compound, and oil to get the production operatives to work and back (This is before all the processes needed between engineering the tyre, delivering it, and fixing it on the car.

We can develop as many alternative fuels such as Hydrogen etc as we want, but we will still need the process oils to build the vehicles they are powering, and to produce the fuel itself.

Mineral and organic oils are of course naturally replaced, but only over thousands of years, and certainly not at the rate we are mining it. Synthetic oils are an answer, but still rely on natural oils to produce them.

 

The thing is, there are still huge quantities of oil remaining untapped, it's just that it is becoming a little less accessible, and we can only expect prices to rise. So we look at alternatives.

Ethanol is fairly easy to produce, and the cane from which it derives can be quickly replaced. In 25 years time, when we have considered the benefits, Brazil will have that market completely covered, and will possibly be one of the worlds leading markets in fuels. Now is the time to jump aboard that particular ship and ensure we are back in a position where we own a good portion of shares in the next generation of fuels, rather than following America round like a faithful hound sniffing at every opportunity to dip a paw into some Arabian's oil reserve, and paying extortionate amounts to do so.

Our Country's future is dependant on fuel. We need to gamble on which alternative will be best, and pump everything into it, to make sure we are in a strong position when the :censored: hits the fan regarding natural fuels.

Strangely enough, we need to do the same at Latics regarding strengthening our side to the point where we are a comfortable Championship side when the football economy crumbles, and the big Premier clubs who have relied on their power tumble, while the small clubs who failed to invest fade away.

Getting into the Championship is an absolute must.

Another great post in this discussion.

The section highlighted stood out.

Brazil have nailed their flg to the mast, The French have with Nuclear Power-and high cost price elading to energy saving. We must to.

We have to a certain extent with wind power, but the damn thing sare so unsightly and need to be in areas of beauty. Adn wave is difficult to maintain.

Some tough decisions have to be made, maybe all party ones and just make it work.

It has another analogy with LAtics, but we have had a great debate in this thread so am keen not to open that door again.

[steveoafc]

must be a good debate on here, i got to the first sentence of each post got confused and moved on to the next post! showing me this debate is either a very intelligent one or a very confusing stupid one! either way my response is - dont tickle elephants, they can be nasty bastards!

Yes they can be quite irascible.

[Stitch_KTF]

We have to a certain extent with wind power, but the damn thing sare so unsightly and need to be in areas of beauty.

 

I don't think they are unsightly at all. Infact I quite like them, mostly due to what they represent. Maybe that's just the hippy in me....

 

Doesn't the solution to energy problems lie in harnessing bio-thermal energy?

[leeslover]

I’d say the last thing we need is for governments to go gallivanting around the world trying to secure ethanol or any other fuel source the way we have done with oil over the last 80 or so years, just buy the bloody stuff on the market like you have to anyway. The Brazilians can’t sell their fuel to Amazonian tribesmen any more than the Arabs can sell oil to the camels. As for the best way forward, well I have no idea, but if a government of any flavour makes the decision on what basket to put the eggs in it’s more likely than not to get it wrong, private companies will respond to the changing prices arising from increased scarcity of natural resources (if they become more scarce) in a variety of ways. I am hopeful that at some stage there will be a quantum leap such as cold fusion or vastly improved nuclear technology that will make these concerns redundant, not that we can count on it of course.

[leeslover]

I don't think they are unsightly at all. Infact I quite like them, mostly due to what they represent. Maybe that's just the hippy in me....

 

Doesn't the solution to energy problems lie in harnessing bio-thermal energy?

I also think they are quite attractive, even as a big fan of hills and the outdoors. They are not a complete answer though, you need to keep coal stations on standby at inefficient levels of burning to meet the demand when the wind drops.

 

The bio-thermal thing is interesting, certainly it is an option for domestic heating and energy, I don’t know if it could work on an industrial level. I get a bit Corpish about it TBH, I can’t help but feel that chilling thousands of deep shafts down into the Earth’s core might have an unexpected effect down the line, but maybe it’s just my paranoia

[singe]

I don't think they are unsightly at all. Infact I quite like them, mostly due to what they represent. Maybe that's just the hippy in me....

 

Doesn't the solution to energy problems lie in harnessing bio-thermal energy?

I like the theory of wind farms, it's just they are big ugly things.

Imagine putting them in such area, it is not right, but there must be another way.

 

 

I liek this photo though!

[singe]

I’d say the last thing we need is for governments to go gallivanting around the world trying to secure ethanol or any other fuel source the way we have done with oil over the last 80 or so years, just buy the bloody stuff on the market like you have to anyway. The Brazilians can’t sell their fuel to Amazonian tribesmen any more than the Arabs can sell oil to the camels. As for the best way forward, well I have no idea, but if a government of any flavour makes the decision on what basket to put the eggs in it’s more likely than not to get it wrong, private companies will respond to the changing prices arising from increased scarcity of natural resources (if they become more scarce) in a variety of ways. I am hopeful that at some stage there will be a quantum leap such as cold fusion or vastly improved nuclear technology that will make these concerns redundant, not that we can count on it of course.

But doesn't buying from the market put us at the mercy of the market, and it's vagries.

Vis-avis full circle with the oil price.

You are problably right about eggs in one basket, a mixture is the right answer.

But i think that we need to be insulated from something that others produce as much as possible and becoeme more self sufficient.

 

I do think though, it is the cross party support plan that is needed, and and maybe invest in cold fusion, or similar.

Edited January 14, 2010 by singe