Rage Online

&quotBaboo&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:Burgess gone helps as you say. Hutchinson is a big earner and small contributor. Robinson likewise. Gilly likewise. Even if we could ship them out on subsidised wages it would help.

Getting Robinson in was a big error. His record was hardly earth shattering. As for Hutchinson, I think he has the ability to be a big contributor. But if he is on big money for this level then getting him in was also a mistake. Too many mistakes from Jim? Brevitt, Johnson .......
The advantage we should have through our financial strength (wage cap aside) has been thrown away.

Exactly Baboo.

Yes the stadium purchase would be expensive but the alternative is ever increasing debt with no way out of it other than the events of the late 90's revisiting us and this time around there might not be such a palatable outcome.

There are plenty of opportunities to increase the turnover and profitablity of the conference centre and stadium under new and common ownership with the football club.

Saving costs on the playing budget isn't a real option to cut the losses. This has already been slashed from £1.2 million to £900k this season. We already have a smaller percentage of our turnover available for players than any other BSP club. Any further cuts would dramatically impact the chances of promotion back to the FL.

How does our squad size compare with other teams?

Do we have the same size squad as the &quotpoorer&quot teams in the division (i.e. Higher paid players) or do we have quite a large squad relative to other teams?

Veteran managers tend to prefer veteran players. Veteran players tend also to be more expensive....

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:How does our squad size compare with other teams?

Do we have the same size squad as the &quotpoorer&quot teams in the division (i.e. Higher paid players) or do we have quite a large squad relative to other teams?

We have a squad of 21 (22 if Standing signs) which includes 3 ex youth team players on 3 month contracts. I haven't checked against other teams but it doesn't sound very large to me.

Yes there are opportunities to spend money on players more wisely but this isn't going to impact the overall profitability of the club. It is inconceivable that we would not spend up to the limit of the salary cap of £900k. Total expenditure this season is projected to be £2.8 million so tinkering with the playing budget isn't going to make much of an impact on overall profitability. The answer has to be in increasing revenues.

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:Veteran managers tend to prefer veteran players. Veteran players tend also to be more expensive....

To be fair Jim seems to have gone the other way now - most the players brought in after November last season and this season are of a younger age.

I'm very worried about the financial situation at the club we needed the new stadium to generate money to subsidise the playing side - as we're seeing without any income from it we are going down the same road as before.

I also worry that the club thought pre season friendlys would generate that much - that equates to about another 10,000 people over all the games, as we couldn't sell out the play off second leg whoever budgeted for this is a idiot.

&quotMally&quot wrote:Yes the stadium purchase would be expensive but the alternative is ever increasing debt with no way out of it other than the events of the late 90's revisiting us and this time around there might not be such a palatable outcome.

There are plenty of opportunities to increase the turnover and profitablity of the conference centre and stadium under new and common ownership with the football club.

Saving costs on the playing budget isn't a real option to cut the losses. This has already been slashed from £1.2 million to £900k this season. We already have a smaller percentage of our turnover available for players than any other BSP club. Any further cuts would dramatically impact the chances of promotion back to the FL.

That is precisdely the thought process we have to get away from.

There are alternatives.

Stadium purchase at &gt £10m = suicidal

That our wage cap is proportionately lower to turnover than other clubs is meaningless to the issue of achieving breaking even.

Spending more does not = promotion.

Spending wisely || improved turnover || hard work = promotion || break even. And yes this equation would be easier by buying the stadium at an affordable price.

&quotrecordmeister&quot wrote:How does our squad size compare with other teams?

Do we have the same size squad as the &quotpoorer&quot teams in the division (i.e. Higher paid players) or do we have quite a large squad relative to other teams?

As we have a squad of just 19, the answer is hopefully self explanatory.

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:Veteran managers tend to prefer veteran players. Veteran players tend also to be more expensive....

To be fair Jim seems to have gone the other way now - most the players brought in after November last season and this season are of a younger age.

I'm very worried about the financial situation at the club we needed the new stadium to generate money to subsidise the playing side - as we're seeing without any income from it we are going down the same road as before.

I also worry that the club thought pre season friendlys would generate that much - that equates to about another 10,000 people over all the games, as we couldn't sell out the play off second leg whoever budgeted for this is a idiot.

The problem with budgets is that people who write them often massage the numbers to achieve an end result, ignoring what is realistic.

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:Veteran managers tend to prefer veteran players. Veteran players tend also to be more expensive....

I think that's a poor argument.

EG Sir Alex Ferguson and 'Colin' Warnock are veteran managers. And they like using young lads don't they?

ps I guess you all know why Mr Warnock is known as 'Colin'?

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotty cobb&quot wrote:

&quotPeña Oxford United&quot wrote:Veteran managers tend to prefer veteran players. Veteran players tend also to be more expensive....

To be fair Jim seems to have gone the other way now - most the players brought in after November last season and this season are of a younger age.

I'm very worried about the financial situation at the club we needed the new stadium to generate money to subsidise the playing side - as we're seeing without any income from it we are going down the same road as before.

I also worry that the club thought pre season friendlys would generate that much - that equates to about another 10,000 people over all the games, as we couldn't sell out the play off second leg whoever budgeted for this is a idiot.

The problem with budgets is that people who write them often massage the numbers to achieve an end result, ignoring what is realistic.

Disagree. Budgets are generally useful. Dopey thinking by someone re anticipated pre season revenues though. The more important number is season ticket revenue. That has held up much better than anyone expected.

&quotResurrection Ox&quot wrote: Dopey thinking by someone re anticipated pre season revenues though.

So does that mean you asked why the projection was so wide of the mark at the meeting with the club? If so what was the answer and who was the dopey thinker?

&quotResurrection Ox&quot wrote:

&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:

&quotty cobb&quot wrote: To be fair Jim seems to have gone the other way now - most the players brought in after November last season and this season are of a younger age.

I'm very worried about the financial situation at the club we needed the new stadium to generate money to subsidise the playing side - as we're seeing without any income from it we are going down the same road as before.

I also worry that the club thought pre season friendlys would generate that much - that equates to about another 10,000 people over all the games, as we couldn't sell out the play off second leg whoever budgeted for this is a idiot.

The problem with budgets is that people who write them often massage the numbers to achieve an end result, ignoring what is realistic.

Disagree. Budgets are generally useful. Dopey thinking by someone re anticipated pre season revenues though. The more important number is season ticket revenue. That has held up much better than anyone expected.

I didn't say budgets weren't useful. Like most things, they are useful if done properly. They are completely pointless where an end result is pre-determined and the detail is set to fit the desired end result.

Agree on the ST sales, the level of which I am genuinely surprised about.

&quotI didn't say budgets weren't useful. Like most things, they are useful if done properly. They are completely pointless where an end result is pre-determined and the detail is set to fit the desired end result.&quot .................

Isn't a budget a financial plan of how to get to where you realistically want to be? Otherwise what purpose does it serve?

&quotMally&quot wrote:

&quotResurrection Ox&quot wrote: Dopey thinking by someone re anticipated pre season revenues though.

So does that mean you asked why the projection was so wide of the mark at the meeting with the club? If so what was the answer and who was the dopey thinker?

I think that at the time of the April 07 presentation it was anticipated that we wouild get another pre season money spinner a la MUFC through JS's contacts.

Which fell through when it was realised that MUFC et al were going to spend the month of July flogging shirts in the Far East. Quelle surprise.

As a consequence we have had 4 - count em - home pre season friendlies.

Not that smart.