Really the irony about the discussion is that all of the P&L numbers were released in the programme last September. But we have new owners now and perhaps more perspective or do we? .
Having been published in Voice of The Valley in August (with the caveat about the fourth quarter being based on budget). :-) The operating loss was £10k out from the final figure.
Some choose to shoot the messenger but the reality is that CAFC losses are reducing. The average age of the squad is getting younger every window. And that this is being executed by a brand new set of people in change.
But the substantive change (ignoring the TV etc revenue differential between League One and the Championship) is the cost of the playing staff. Everything else is noise or one-off payments, which by definition are volatile from year to year.
This is unsurprising and inevitable, but the only way to change the picture is to slash squad costs further. FFP, externally funded academy investment, loans and networks may contribute to this, but the question is whether you can take out enough cost to break even without losing the TV revenue above. I don't see how it is possible.
The accounts for the year to 30 Jun 2011 clearly show that £3m of shares were issued by Baton during that year. This was the only equity injection during the Jimenez/Slater period.
Thanks. Probably goes back to Murray in 2010 then.
The accounts for the year to 30 Jun 2011 clearly show that £3m of shares were issued by Baton during that year. This was the only equity injection during the Jimenez/Slater period.
Thanks. Probably goes back to Murray in 2010 then.
Ah good point - of course the takeover only occurred mid-season so the equity may not have been injected by the Jimenez crew. I'll try to edit my prior comments accordingly.
Really the irony about the discussion is that all of the P&L numbers were released in the programme last September. But we have new owners now and perhaps more perspective or do we? .
Having been published in Voice of The Valley in August (with the caveat about the fourth quarter being based on budget). :-) The operating loss was £10k out from the final figure.
Some choose to shoot the messenger but the reality is that CAFC losses are reducing. The average age of the squad is getting younger every window. And that this is being executed by a brand new set of people in change.
But the substantive change (ignoring the TV etc revenue differential between League One and the Championship) is the cost of the playing staff. Everything else is noise or one-off payments, which by definition are volatile from year to year.
This is unsurprising and inevitable, but the only way to change the picture is to slash squad costs further. FFP, externally funded academy investment, loans and networks may contribute to this, but the question is whether you can take out enough cost to break even without losing the TV revenue above. I don't see how it is possible.
The club published the numbers 5 months earlier than the previous cycle. This may in part have been down to Votv publishing the "sales brochure" and or they might have raced through the audit in order to assist the sales process - well run football clubs publish early whereas poorly run entities publish late. As you know I would propose that gains might be made across the board - slashing the playing budget can have the reverse effect on the whole operation. I would be interested to know of your estimate of the uplift in crowds over the next two seasons if performance and results can be delivered. Ps the Trust forecast for operating loss made last March was materially accurate - it was the player sales which were under estimated - try not to confuse the two
Prague, As the owner of the network he has to take a network view. Also he will be looking to make a profit not just break even accross the whole company. Remember that not all of the network is owned by Staprix. Upjest and I assume St Truden are outside.
Presumably Standard is making a profit at the moment which is funding the network expansion. If we ever make it to the prem we can't expect all of that income gained to be invested in CAFC, it will be used in other areas of the network or to expand the network, just like Standards profits are being used on us presently.
Medium term I expect he will want all business unts to at least break even when in the second division, making a profit when in the top division.
Well that is an interesting point you are raising there. Are you certain that Ujpest and Sant- Truiden are not owned by Staprix?. I certainly acknowledge that he "sold" Sant -T. to his wife, to ensure compliance with Belgian league regulations, and that his son "heads up" Ujpest. However if they are not owned by Staprix, I wonder how that affects the ability to use these two clubs- businesses- as part of the network. One point that has been raised is that if the individual clubs are consolidated in financial terms under Staprix, then he can legitimately optimise tax. e.g. if Ujpest is profitable, as I believe, and it is part of Staprix, tax charges on Ujpest can be offset against losses made at CAFC.
I might be able to look into Ujpest ownership. If Hungary has followed the Czech example, their commercial register will be free to access online (albeit in Hungarian, the most infernal language in Europe)
Prague, As the owner of the network he has to take a network view. Also he will be looking to make a profit not just break even accross the whole company. Remember that not all of the network is owned by Staprix. Upjest and I assume St Truden are outside.
Presumably Standard is making a profit at the moment which is funding the network expansion. If we ever make it to the prem we can't expect all of that income gained to be invested in CAFC, it will be used in other areas of the network or to expand the network, just like Standards profits are being used on us presently.
Medium term I expect he will want all business unts to at least break even when in the second division, making a profit when in the top division.
Well that is an interesting point you are raising there. Are you certain that Ujpest and Sant- Truiden are not owned by Staprix?. I certainly acknowledge that he "sold" Sant -T. to his wife, to ensure compliance with Belgian league regulations, and that his son "heads up" Ujpest. However if they are not owned by Staprix, I wonder how that affects the ability to use these two clubs- businesses- as part of the network. One point that has been raised is that if the individual clubs are consolidated in financial terms under Staprix, then he can legitimately optimise tax. e.g. if Ujpest is profitable, as I believe, and it is part of Staprix, tax charges on Ujpest can be offset against losses made at CAFC.
I might be able to look into Ujpest ownership. If Hungary has followed the Czech example, their commercial register will be free to access online (albeit in Hungarian, the most infernal language in Europe)
What do you think? Or anybody else.
i would be very suprised, in fact astounded, if RD was not in de facto control of all clubs within his stable.
the family ownership of the 2 clubs discussed is just to bypass domestic ownership legislation. for all intents and purposes, they will be run in practice by RD.
your tax points are quite correct on a UK basis. dont know the intricacies of Belgian or Hungarian tax law but imagine the points are still valid in those EU states.
one issue could be whether tax group company "transactions" between the Staprix clubs owned by in name by RD and the 2 Staprix clubs not owned in name by RD would cause those 2 clubs to actually fall foul of the original ownership rules themselves.
also does the belgian ownership legislation look beyond the immediate named owner to any corporate parent that may ultimately really own that named owner`s interest? if it doesnt, then its a pretty pointless piece of legislation!
also does the belgian ownership legislation look beyond the immediate named owner to any corporate parent that may ultimately really own that named owner`s interest? if it doesnt, then its a pretty pointless piece of legislation!
I'm guessing that it is not actually "legislation" but a regulation of the Belgian FA, which will be enforced rather like our "fit and proper person" tests...
also does the belgian ownership legislation look beyond the immediate named owner to any corporate parent that may ultimately really own that named owner`s interest? if it doesnt, then its a pretty pointless piece of legislation!
I'm guessing that it is not actually "legislation" but a regulation of the Belgian FA, which will be enforced rather like our "fit and proper person" tests...
pedant
your guess would be right then im guessing ... not really enforced at all.
inevitably the network is a zero sum game because no more than one club can be in the CL/UEFA Cup, the more clubs are networked this way, the more the issue will arise, the more likely the rules of multi ownership will change to be pan European and not just national - in my view
I can't find where I read it but I think Staprix owns 4 clubs
Interesting that RD is not the only person building a network. Vincent Tan owns a club in FC Sarajevo and Man City part own New york Fc and Melbourne Heart FC
Eventually ENIC bought a bigger and bigger slice of Spurs and chose to divest from Rangers and other clubs around Europe - I think because they couldn't all be in the UEFA cup but perhaps a simple strategic choice? Udinese, Watford and Granada owned by the Pozzo family merit some investigation - not least because of hatchet jobs by our friend Martin Samuels in the Daily Mail - can't post the link but google will find for you.
That was a tough read for someone that only gives a monkeys if I can feed the kids, go to football occassionally and have a few beers at the weekend! So in summary, are we fooked or is it looking rosier even if just for the short term?
It would be interesting to know how tge Roland purchases hsve been structured. Fir instance polish Pete may be a net £700k but it maybe made up of deferred payments and appearances / goals
It would indeed. I understand that in fact the entire amount quoted has already been transferred, and that even more may be due based on performances; which is why the whole deal around this player gets me agitated.
However it is also possible that he effectively has been bought not by CAFC, but by Staprix. It seems to me that this possibility is one of the implications of a network. That's why I think the most important and legitimate questions to put to RD are around how e network is expected to function, both financially and operationally.
Thanks for clarifying and yes clarification of how the Staprix pot works would be useful, I doubt we'll get it but as Henry says that should not stop us asking. Personally I'm happy for this debate to be taken up with RD KM in the close season.
Just a quick initial query for those who have read these accounts in depth - I might be able to answer for myself but I'm sure there are people here in the know.
I would imagine that the playing staff wages accounted for around £10m of that £12m. Now I read somewhere - was it VOTV or elsewhere? - that the year in question Powell had a playing budget of £7.7m subsequently reduced for this season to £5.5m.
Does the gap, i.e. ca. £2.3m, represent bonuses, signing on fees etc. that would not be expected to form part of the manager's budget?
You make up numbers, believe things from blogs that suit your argument and fail to see the difference in what RD is reported to have said to the Burnley Chair and what he has said elsewhere. Airman and Covered End had demolished your financial guesses again and again to which you only responses are "Can we take this off line?" or "I meant to include those figures".
Henry, I thought it best leave this for a little while but I think your allegations should not be left without a response: "you make up numbers... financial guesses" I think what you are referring to is normally known as a forecast! This will always be based on the last actual numbers reported / filed and then some educated guesswork around the direction of travel. CAFC is relatively easy to forecast to the nearest million because many of the numbers do not move and are in the public domain - all of the revenue is set out very clearly. The costs are equally simple to predict because they are either fixed or we are very aware of the movements. Do I know the salaries of every player leaving and joining last summer? No, but I am able to predict the aggregate shift give or take 500K "take this offline" is a standard way to invite someone to resolve a dispute without bickering in public - I happen to use that phrase at least once a week in the workplace and it is appreciated by the adults I work with - no one cares who actually has the right answer but as a group people simply want to ensure that the overall result / design / proposal / forecast will stand up to external scrutiny. "demolished your financial guesses again and again" to the best of my knowledge no one has disproved either individual revenue / cost predictions nor the overall losses. There has been a discussion about the validity of my transfer income forecast but the simple fact that it cannot be accurately forecast for the future does not discount it from being estimated. It is a key cash inflow which has helped CAFC over the years. The fact that we are three quarters of the way through the season and last seasons accounts have stated the post 30th June sales at 570K only reduces the risk of innacuracy. I do not know the precise numbers which Kermorgant and Stephens went for but my estimate (not guess!) is £1M. Airman Brown's actually posted:
"The reason for the focus on operating loss, as much as anything, is the volatility of transfer income, which you alluded to earlier. Including transfers doesn't help us understand the medium-term health of the business, but of course the money matters."
which strikes me as a rational comment. I would contend that CAFC is traditionally a selling club, transfer revenue is indeed volatile but we have a massive shift to youth in the squad which suggests an upward trend going forwards. If I were to forecast next seasons transfer revenue that would be reckless although I do hope that we can get back to the time where we were able to sell players for £5M because that makes a real difference. The fact that many of the U18 title winning squad are coming into the first team and not the U21s suggests to me that there will be a big sale but impossible to predict the timing nor the amount.
And finally we all know that the losses will be lower this season because of the clear out last summer, the rise in ST prices and the cup run together with player sales.
I agree with you that there is headroom within FFP for equity investment if RD were to go down that route (there was under TJ too), but we are not in my view "well-positioned" since we compete with clubs that have much more money to spend, legitimately, via parachute payments or bigger revenues, as well as those prepared to cheat or challenge the rules. I think you overestimate - and not uncoincidentally the club overestimates - it's ability to drive up commercial revenue in the short term.
We agree there is headroom IF the owner wishes to avail of it. And Airman feels my projections for the future are optimistic. I have to admit that I have come over to the view that the best way to improve the commercial and attendances is to improve the playing side - anything else is really noise. How much attendances might rise should we push for the top six is a complete guess. I would contend that we are well positioned because of the fifteen (?) players going out of contract and that CAFC has the wealthiest owner it has ever had. The question in my mind is whether the club has the credibility and skills in-house to retain the best players and acquire the right positions and players to build on what we have - six of the regular first team are on long term deals which is about double where we were a few months ago. All we can do is hope that most of the others are signed up too for this team is demonstrating upper mid-table form.
Perhaps this reducing loss does not sit well with a narrative of doom and gloom. Or perhaps you agree with me that failing to keep Fuller damaged our prospects and the sale price of the club so was clearly a false economy. The point is that it has been disclosed that there is a relegation clause in the deal and therefore it is logical to infer that the sale price was reduced due to our league position in December. Perhaps you or someone else will put together a line by line critique rather than trying to win an argument by attacking both my integrity and my credibility. You have form Henry and virtually every time I look at this board I see you bickering with someone or other. The accounts will be released perhaps later this year and we will all see the actual numbers. The losses might be £3.5M +/- £1M and that is nearly half the losses of the previous season. The FFP result will be close to nil meaning that budgets could expand by £6M next season if the owner and management so wished but the indications so far suggest that this is not where we are heading. I am not sure why you object to either me or the Supporters' Trust forecasting the financial results - I actually think it adds to the understanding and dialogue and personally the numbers still stand up even if the aggregate error was £1M. The work of Swiss Ramble which was publicised earlier today clearly shows where CAFC is in terms of revenue, costs and losses compared to the rest of the division. Some fans are simply not interested in this side which is fair enough but the level of spending and revenue for next season is vital to the future success of CAFC just as the choice of manager and the retention and acquisition of players to replace those going. CAFC is not reducing losses to comply with FFP so what was the motivation of the previous owners to slash the playing budget? Actually, forget that for it is far more important to understand what is the rationale behind Duchatelet's strategy? Perhaps when we have survived relegation the club will have a chance to explain the vision in a bit more detail - I can wait because there is a lot of football to be played - until we know for sure what division we are in next season it seems fairly pointless to look at what 2014/15 holds?
So I am trying to respond to your post in an adult way. If I were bieng childish I would hurl insults like "Troll" or " cockwomble" but I think that would lower the tone and simply not be appropriate. It would undermine my position rather than enhance it and I am confident enough of the points I have listed above that I do not feel the need to abuse you (nor any other poster on this forum)
You were asked to stop these personal attacks but have carried them on.
Not going to respond to the lies, nonsense and very selective quotes from Airman who has demolished your flimsy "points" at every stage above in respect to Admin.
Some choose to shoot the messenger but the reality is that CAFC losses are reducing. The average age of the squad is getting younger every window. And that this is being executed by a brand new set of people in change.
But the substantive change (ignoring the TV etc revenue differential between League One and the Championship) is the cost of the playing staff. Everything else is noise or one-off payments, which by definition are volatile from year to year.
This is unsurprising and inevitable, but the only way to change the picture is to slash squad costs further. FFP, externally funded academy investment, loans and networks may contribute to this, but the question is whether you can take out enough cost to break even without losing the TV revenue above. I don't see how it is possible.
I agree that the playing budget could be cut but we have seen the results of that this season - refusal to pay out large contracts to 30 something strikers with injury issues sounds like a nice idea but the club needs goals from midfield and forwards. I have come round to your view that the most effective way to improve crowd and commercial revenues is to improve the squad, playing performance and results and would ask for guidance on what is a realistic estimate of the uplift. Improving league position not only raises crowds but it adds to the business value of the club for it is by definition closer to the play-offs for the Premier League and the player resale value in some cases goes up. A virtuous circle if you will. And every year what appears to be one of the best academies in the division is producing talent for the first team. Pursuing breakeven looks self defeating as it increases the risk of relegation so I agree that it does not look possible nor worthwhile. This month we have to beat the likes of Yeovil and Barnsley to stay up as a direct result of cost cutting last summer. Exciting perhaps but a nonsense when one looks at the fact that CAFC is only a couple of million in sales and costs away from clubs which are really competing, clubs like Burnley, Ipswich and Derby.
Who said accounting was boring? I have absolutely no understanding of the friction which seems to be in play about a set of figures at best representing headline trading numbers against which people are making a range of assumptions, educated assessments and projections.
I found each contribution interesting, informative or offering "food for thought". Having spent far too much of life, for my mental health, "carding" corporate balance sheets the devil is always in the detail. To enter into a "pissing contest" on such high level numbers when in reality to make any meaningful analysis requires significantly greater detail, for me, detracts from the real focus we may all need going forward.
In truth, following the events of January 2014, any projection of our future trading structure even based on last years trading profile maybe an assumption too far. Though I fully understand the questions people may have, their expectations in respect of some short term answers seems to be very unrealistic.
I had drafted a paper on "Balancing the Books" but with broader industry figures now available I need to revisit it, with a view to how the club can financially attain a "competitive status" in the face of the breadth of the evident collective financial distortion of the division.
The headlines have to be we continue to spend significantly more money than we receive and someone had/ has a £32mn hole to fill. With the legacy of historic ownership structures I can imagine there is a deal of financial "house cleaning" to be done. I would certainly recommend it.
At the same time the underlying trading performance, though understandable under the previous stewardship, is disappointing on many levels. Just revitalising the business will be a challenge, add in the "project" and there is much to be done to put the club on a sound basis with a sustainable future.
The one comfort I think any of us can take is the new owner certainly has the resources to effect a real change in our fortunes. The downside, for many, is with change comes risk but if the recent published trading figures tell us anything there is a bigger risk in doing nothing.
Comments
This is unsurprising and inevitable, but the only way to change the picture is to slash squad costs further. FFP, externally funded academy investment, loans and networks may contribute to this, but the question is whether you can take out enough cost to break even without losing the TV revenue above. I don't see how it is possible.
As you know I would propose that gains might be made across the board - slashing the playing budget can have the reverse effect on the whole operation.
I would be interested to know of your estimate of the uplift in crowds over the next two seasons if performance and results can be delivered.
Ps the Trust forecast for operating loss made last March was materially accurate - it was the player sales which were under estimated - try not to confuse the two
I might be able to look into Ujpest ownership. If Hungary has followed the Czech example, their commercial register will be free to access online (albeit in Hungarian, the most infernal language in Europe)
What do you think? Or anybody else.
the family ownership of the 2 clubs discussed is just to bypass domestic ownership legislation. for all intents and purposes, they will be run in practice by RD.
your tax points are quite correct on a UK basis. dont know the intricacies of Belgian or Hungarian tax law but imagine the points are still valid in those EU states.
one issue could be whether tax group company "transactions" between the Staprix clubs owned by in name by RD and the 2 Staprix clubs not owned in name by RD would cause those 2 clubs to actually fall foul of the original ownership rules themselves.
also does the belgian ownership legislation look beyond the immediate named owner to any corporate parent that may ultimately really own that named owner`s interest? if it doesnt, then its a pretty pointless piece of legislation!
also does the belgian ownership legislation look beyond the immediate named owner to any corporate parent that may ultimately really own that named owner`s interest? if it doesnt, then its a pretty pointless piece of legislation!
I'm guessing that it is not actually "legislation" but a regulation of the Belgian FA, which will be enforced rather like our "fit and proper person" tests...
your guess would be right then im guessing ... not really enforced at all.
Interesting that RD is not the only person building a network. Vincent Tan owns a club in FC Sarajevo and Man City part own New york Fc and Melbourne Heart FC
http://mandasoft.com/1/38854/Staprix_NV__acquired_Charlton_Athletic_Football_Co_Ltd
Udinese, Watford and Granada owned by the Pozzo family merit some investigation - not least because of hatchet jobs by our friend Martin Samuels in the Daily Mail - can't post the link but google will find for you.
But I tell you what, I'd pay that to not have dyslexia.
So in summary, are we fooked or is it looking rosier even if just for the short term?
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=2&hl=en&nv=1&prev=/search?q=staprix&start=50&sa=N&espv=210&es_sm=122&biw=1920&bih=1075&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=de&u=http://m.otz.de/web/mobil/sport/detail/-/specific/Investor-nennt-Gruende-warum-er-beim-FC-Carl-Zeiss-einsteigen-will-2034481452&usg=ALkJrhj1vabpaFyS5dgngqwcvFYdDX1ydQ
Note how RD mentions how much is being invested and is specific on the time period (5 or 6 years) needed to reach the 2nd division.
Also that one of the benefits will be Liege players not ready for their team gaining experience in Jena.
So what's sauce for the goose.........
I would imagine that the playing staff wages accounted for around £10m of that £12m. Now I read somewhere - was it VOTV or elsewhere? - that the year in question Powell had a playing budget of £7.7m subsequently reduced for this season to £5.5m.
Does the gap, i.e. ca. £2.3m, represent bonuses, signing on fees etc. that would not be expected to form part of the manager's budget?
"you make up numbers... financial guesses" I think what you are referring to is normally known as a forecast! This will always be based on the last actual numbers reported / filed and then some educated guesswork around the direction of travel. CAFC is relatively easy to forecast to the nearest million because many of the numbers do not move and are in the public domain - all of the revenue is set out very clearly. The costs are equally simple to predict because they are either fixed or we are very aware of the movements. Do I know the salaries of every player leaving and joining last summer? No, but I am able to predict the aggregate shift give or take 500K
"take this offline" is a standard way to invite someone to resolve a dispute without bickering in public - I happen to use that phrase at least once a week in the workplace and it is appreciated by the adults I work with - no one cares who actually has the right answer but as a group people simply want to ensure that the overall result / design / proposal / forecast will stand up to external scrutiny.
"demolished your financial guesses again and again" to the best of my knowledge no one has disproved either individual revenue / cost predictions nor the overall losses. There has been a discussion about the validity of my transfer income forecast but the simple fact that it cannot be accurately forecast for the future does not discount it from being estimated. It is a key cash inflow which has helped CAFC over the years. The fact that we are three quarters of the way through the season and last seasons accounts have stated the post 30th June sales at 570K only reduces the risk of innacuracy. I do not know the precise numbers which Kermorgant and Stephens went for but my estimate (not guess!) is £1M. Airman Brown's actually posted: which strikes me as a rational comment. I would contend that CAFC is traditionally a selling club, transfer revenue is indeed volatile but we have a massive shift to youth in the squad which suggests an upward trend going forwards. If I were to forecast next seasons transfer revenue that would be reckless although I do hope that we can get back to the time where we were able to sell players for £5M because that makes a real difference. The fact that many of the U18 title winning squad are coming into the first team and not the U21s suggests to me that there will be a big sale but impossible to predict the timing nor the amount.
And finally we all know that the losses will be lower this season because of the clear out last summer, the rise in ST prices and the cup run together with player sales. We agree there is headroom IF the owner wishes to avail of it. And Airman feels my projections for the future are optimistic. I have to admit that I have come over to the view that the best way to improve the commercial and attendances is to improve the playing side - anything else is really noise. How much attendances might rise should we push for the top six is a complete guess. I would contend that we are well positioned because of the fifteen (?) players going out of contract and that CAFC has the wealthiest owner it has ever had. The question in my mind is whether the club has the credibility and skills in-house to retain the best players and acquire the right positions and players to build on what we have - six of the regular first team are on long term deals which is about double where we were a few months ago. All we can do is hope that most of the others are signed up too for this team is demonstrating upper mid-table form.
Perhaps this reducing loss does not sit well with a narrative of doom and gloom. Or perhaps you agree with me that failing to keep Fuller damaged our prospects and the sale price of the club so was clearly a false economy. The point is that it has been disclosed that there is a relegation clause in the deal and therefore it is logical to infer that the sale price was reduced due to our league position in December.
Perhaps you or someone else will put together a line by line critique rather than trying to win an argument by attacking both my integrity and my credibility. You have form Henry and virtually every time I look at this board I see you bickering with someone or other.
The accounts will be released perhaps later this year and we will all see the actual numbers. The losses might be £3.5M +/- £1M and that is nearly half the losses of the previous season. The FFP result will be close to nil meaning that budgets could expand by £6M next season if the owner and management so wished but the indications so far suggest that this is not where we are heading.
I am not sure why you object to either me or the Supporters' Trust forecasting the financial results - I actually think it adds to the understanding and dialogue and personally the numbers still stand up even if the aggregate error was £1M. The work of Swiss Ramble which was publicised earlier today clearly shows where CAFC is in terms of revenue, costs and losses compared to the rest of the division. Some fans are simply not interested in this side which is fair enough but the level of spending and revenue for next season is vital to the future success of CAFC just as the choice of manager and the retention and acquisition of players to replace those going. CAFC is not reducing losses to comply with FFP so what was the motivation of the previous owners to slash the playing budget? Actually, forget that for it is far more important to understand what is the rationale behind Duchatelet's strategy? Perhaps when we have survived relegation the club will have a chance to explain the vision in a bit more detail - I can wait because there is a lot of football to be played - until we know for sure what division we are in next season it seems fairly pointless to look at what 2014/15 holds?
So I am trying to respond to your post in an adult way. If I were bieng childish I would hurl insults like "Troll" or " cockwomble" but I think that would lower the tone and simply not be appropriate. It would undermine my position rather than enhance it and I am confident enough of the points I have listed above that I do not feel the need to abuse you (nor any other poster on this forum)
You were asked to stop these personal attacks but have carried them on.
Not going to respond to the lies, nonsense and very selective quotes from Airman who has demolished your flimsy "points" at every stage above in respect to Admin.
End of.
Improving league position not only raises crowds but it adds to the business value of the club for it is by definition closer to the play-offs for the Premier League and the player resale value in some cases goes up. A virtuous circle if you will. And every year what appears to be one of the best academies in the division is producing talent for the first team.
Pursuing breakeven looks self defeating as it increases the risk of relegation so I agree that it does not look possible nor worthwhile. This month we have to beat the likes of Yeovil and Barnsley to stay up as a direct result of cost cutting last summer. Exciting perhaps but a nonsense when one looks at the fact that CAFC is only a couple of million in sales and costs away from clubs which are really competing, clubs like Burnley, Ipswich and Derby.
I found each contribution interesting, informative or offering "food for thought". Having spent far too much of life, for my mental health, "carding" corporate balance sheets the devil is always in the detail. To enter into a "pissing contest" on such high level numbers when in reality to make any meaningful analysis requires significantly greater detail, for me, detracts from the real focus we may all need going forward.
In truth, following the events of January 2014, any projection of our future trading structure even based on last years trading profile maybe an assumption too far. Though I fully understand the questions people may have, their expectations in respect of some short term answers seems to be very unrealistic.
I had drafted a paper on "Balancing the Books" but with broader industry figures now available I need to revisit it, with a view to how the club can financially attain a "competitive status" in the face of the breadth of the evident collective financial distortion of the division.
The headlines have to be we continue to spend significantly more money than we receive and someone had/ has a £32mn hole to fill. With the legacy of historic ownership structures I can imagine there is a deal of financial "house cleaning" to be done. I would certainly recommend it.
At the same time the underlying trading performance, though understandable under the previous stewardship, is disappointing on many levels. Just revitalising the business will be a challenge, add in the "project" and there is much to be done to put the club on a sound basis with a sustainable future.
The one comfort I think any of us can take is the new owner certainly has the resources to effect a real change in our fortunes. The downside, for many, is with change comes risk but if the recent published trading figures tell us anything there is a bigger risk in doing nothing.