Dale Stephens

[oafcprozac]

of course we're making losses - if SC wasn't here we wouldn't be.

We'd be bust.

 

And I genuinely don't understand what this black hole you're talking about is. You seem to imply that SC is siphoning money from the club. If I've got that wrong , sorry.

 

Don't put words in my mouth Pete

[oafcprozac]

SC does not fund the club.

 

Corney's nothing more than an administrator, in fact an administrator would likely distribute funds more evenly and look to maximise revenue…what we have at BP is 'laissez faire'

Edited August 29, 2012 by oafcprozac

[oafcprozac]

of course we're making losses - if SC wasn't here we wouldn't be.

We'd be bust.

 

And I genuinely don't understand what this black hole you're talking about is. You seem to imply that SC is siphoning money from the club. If I've got that wrong , sorry.

 

We're bust anyway Pete, we're supposedly not profit making but if we've cut our cloth accordingly year on year, how can we still be loss-making?

[LaticsPete]

Don't put words in my mouth Pete

 

Which is why i said "if I've got that wrong, I'm sorry" !

 

So you're not saying that SC is siphoning money but it's going (as would income from Stephens' sell-on) into a "black hole " . Which is what?

[oafcprozac]

No, what I am saying is that it will probably be used to cover the 'losses', or to the 'black hole' as it were. What I am questioning and have done for quite some time is the source of these perceived losses…..

Edited August 29, 2012 by oafcprozac

[LaticsPete]

No, what I am saying is that it will probably be used to cover the 'losses', or to the 'black hole' as it were. What I am questioning and have done for quite some time is the source of these perceived losses…..

 

Clearer! Ta.

And some of these "losses" may be repayment to Blitz and Gazal of their loans to the club?

[oafcprozac]

Possibly but they are listed on the balance sheet as Planning Costs/losses whichever way you want to interpret

[Oh Heck C-Beck]

I was always under the impression that the club continually makes a loss so a lot of extra money just goes into the servicing this?

[HarryBosch]

Believe what you want mate, I don't follow the party line with Corney. His days of being the club's saviour are long gone. All we hear about are losses, what about income that hasn't been budgeted for, what happens to that?

 

When was the last time we had a proper balance sheet published? Why were planning costs attributed to the club when the development was under a separate company? All we get from the club are smoke and mirrors. Bit by bit Blitz and Gazal's losses are being clawed back by writing them off against the club, thus the ladder being pulled up. Despite 17 players being released we can only afford a squad that is lighter than the one Ritchie inherited in 1998.

 

 

are you saying that the club is actually making money?

[UpTheLatics]

What were the attendance figures when Corney arrived?

 

They've halved since then. Attendances for a League One club are the heartbeat, it's oxygen, and so if you surpress the oxygen levels of anything what happens? It weakens.

 

You keep saying 'losses' and 'blackhole' yet didn't like when someone asked you what you really meant. If people are owed money via loan repayments we can't simply continue to spend. We all know how that ends.

 

I don't quite get your drift here, prozac. What is it you're actually saying about Corney?

Edited August 29, 2012 by UpTheLatics

[laticsrblue]

SC does not fund the club.

 

So how do we pay £50K for a player, pay the staff and players, pay the running costs of the buildings etc on say 2.5K season tickets and 500 paying supporters every other week. Is there a fairy godmother somewhere?

Edited August 29, 2012 by laticsrblue

[oafcprozac]

I don't believe the club is losing as much money as Corney would have us believe.

 

I think it's better left there, personally I don't believe a word Saviour Simon says, as the goalposts move with irritating regularity, if you want to trust him and give him your unwavering support then so be it.

Edited August 29, 2012 by oafcprozac

[oafcprozac]

So how do we pay £50K for a player, pay the staff and players, pay the running costs of the buildings etc on say 2.5K season tickets and 500 paying supporters every other week. Is there a fairy godmother somewhere?

 

+ reducing the playing budget by a 1/3 in squad size

We still get some TV Money

Grants from the FL

Sponsorship

Matchday Income

Commercial Income

 

And on top of that we received one off windfalls from the Man City friendly and TV Appearance v Sheff Wed.

 

The situation is not as dire as Mr Corney would have us all believe

 

How much did the club save over the summer with the volunteer ground maintainees?

Edited August 29, 2012 by oafcprozac

[UpTheLatics]

But you don't think he's siphoning money - or at least taking his cut beyond his annual salary?

 

So this "blackhole" isn't a blackhole at all because money is going somewhere and it'll have a nifty backdoor somewhere. I'm curious now, prozac. I'll listen to anything as long as it makes some sense.

 

Where's the money going?

[RobOAFC]

Didn't a couple of people from on here look at the club accounts a couple of years back? How about asking Corney if he's willing to do something like that again if you reckon there's summat more underlying with money?

[leeslover]

Bit by bit Blitz and Gazal's losses are being clawed back by writing them off against the club, thus the ladder being pulled up.

This is the bit I can't agree with. They may, or may not, be using some income to reduce the ongoing scale of their losses, I have no knowledge either way. I have no doubt however that they continue to lose money year on year well in excess of the odd Stephens sale or cup tie, which every club gets now and again. They are increasing their losses and cannot have been using the club as a cash cow over the years unless they found gold or oil under the Lookers (thereby starting a new rumour...)

[oafcprozac]

Not using the club as a cash cow, but recouping their loans through offsetting them as losses?

[oafcprozac]

Stephens interested Everton last pre-season...

[leeslover]

Not using the club as a cash cow, but recouping their loans through offsetting them as losses?

I'm not an accountant, but I think that whilst they could pass other loans onto the club's debt, it would only make it even less possible to ever hope of a recovery of the losses they already have, they would be lending themselves money. Doing this with a view to letting the company with the debt go pop is I think not always looked kindly on by the authorities. It can only work so long as the club remains in business, which they can only do by putting money in with one hand that they had taken out with another.

[dannyboy55555]

Isn't the main question that should be posed from this story why on earth did we only get £300k (or whatever) for Stephens last season. Time and time again this clubs prize assets leave for peanuts (Lee, Taylor) due to their contracts running down or just plain refusal to drive a hard bargain. The only way this club will have a chance to succeed is to invest in good young players, build them up then sell them off. Look at Peterborough for example, MacAnthony is a bit of a wide boy but he has basic principles in place that have led to success.

 

Stephens isn't £1m better than he was a year ago.

[leeslover]

Isn't the main question that should be posed from this story why on earth did we only get £300k (or whatever) for Stephens last season. Time and time again this clubs prize assets leave for peanuts (Lee, Taylor) due to their contracts running down or just plain refusal to drive a hard bargain. The only way this club will have a chance to succeed is to invest in good young players, build them up then sell them off. Look at Peterborough for example, MacAnthony is a bit of a wide boy but he has basic principles in place that have led to success.

 

Stephens isn't £1m better than he was a year ago.

And Philiskirk, and Trotman, and Eaves, and Spencer

[dannyboy55555]

Fair point but few and far between (£1.5m the lot?)

[UpTheLatics]

Those players hardly made it to the promised land. The Trotman fee was astonishing.

 

With regards to Stephens, we sold him for £375k plus 10% of any future fee. Now, 20% obviously went to Bury. And according to that report a fee of £1.5m has been rejected. So if Villa do continue their interest we're looking at a figure of at least £150k.

 

That's £525k, which is brilliant business. He was good, but not that good.

 

Obviously, when a club does come looking at our players we WANT to sell as long as the price is going to benefit us.

[Crusoe]

Wasn't Stephens out of contract at the end of the season we sold him? Or have I misremembered?

[leeslover]

Fair point but few and far between (£1.5m the lot?)

From memory and rumour, maybe £1.1? But not worth a bucket of rotten fish since (maybe Eaves to prove otherwise). Cash in the bank, and a sell on if they come good, and they are more likely to come good at a bigger club than with us (again maybe, would Stephens have been picked up for the Prem from us?). We've held onto a few Next Big Things, and apparently are doing right now, it's a gamble to turn the money down as much as to take it.