TaiwanGas
Paul Bannon
Tom Ramasuts Left Foot.
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 1,353
|
Post by TaiwanGas on Jan 5, 2022 15:07:13 GMT
Well, Vaughan, it’s the first time I am in complete agreement with your post.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 5, 2022 16:38:23 GMT
I have great respect for your opinion John but in this specific part of the case must disagree with you. Debate about whether the PC and SC are a bunch of old farts trying to undermine the owner or whether they are Gasheads with genuine concerns about the way the club is being run is absolutely fine. The taunting of knowall about the PC membership amuses many of us and I accept that the feeling of antipathy which you and others have towards the old guard may well be justified. But a claim that two former directors accused the club owner of child grooming is not, IMO, something that should be aired on a public forum which is why I tried to persuade ITB to withdraw the claim in May last year. When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. The inference that Masters and Hamer must be guilty because they have not rebutted ITB's allegations has no foundation at all. Look at it this way. We are told that Wael was subject to heinous accusations. Whether he was or was not subject to those accusation it is a matter of fact that he maintained a dignified silence. Does this mean the alleged accusations were true ?
Or does the dignified silence mean that he was not subject to any heinous accusations and therefore had nothing to rebut ?
I feel uncomfortable even thinking about this subject and would much prefer we get back to tearing into each other over differing opinions about the PC and the SC but most of all about the FC. If you had been accused of soemthing in relation to child safeguarding, would you broadcast it, innocent or not? Of course not, because either way the mud sticks. Even if you have all the legal armoury to robustly prove yourself innocent and then sue the individuals concerned your reputation runs the risk of being tarnished forever. You would want to kleep it silent, and yet, it still found its way in to executive boxes and gaschat, and not by me I hasten to add. Funny how this whole situation also coincided with Masters being banned from the West Stand and the removal of Hamer shortly after, isnt it? I agree that if Wael was the subject of heinous accusations his best course of action was to keep a dignified silence and allow an investigation to take place which is what he did. You have made heinous accusations about Masters and Hamer and they have also kept a dignified silence so it is absurd to suggest this is a sign they are guilty of anything. One thing to come out of this thread is an acknowledgement that Masters & Hamer were working with Hani to bring in new owners and conclude a stadium deal at the Fruit Market. After the family disagreement about this and Hani agreeing to Wael taking over the club it is no surprise that Wael would want to dispose of Masters and Hamer. Especially in view of the fact that the plan was for the current board to be retained "except if your name is Al-Qadi" as you pointed out in your sequence of events. That would certainly have rankled with Wael, and some would understand his feelings, but we also have to remember that after February 2016 there was nobody on the board named Higgs. Anyway, I see you have changed tack on a later post, which I think is for the best, so I'll try to come back with a constructive response.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 5, 2022 17:18:40 GMT
The wow was meant, quite literally, on the whole thing but also in how this whole thing came about. I feel like i do not know the club at all now John and i feel more disconnected now than ever. The thing i DO understand is a reticence to say anything as i have been burned for saying certain things and by doing relatively little digging but if people are going to dig at those such as knowall et al for not revealing or answering then i think it works both ways but, again, i do not do any digging now, i literally cant be bothered , such is that disconnection. I admire that you still have interest given how things worked out for you. this whole thread is deeply worrying and sad. I have no more to say on it apart from its a new low. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Just flabbergasted by everything and why a brather would work behind another’s back, is the main one. Sad times indeed. I admire your tenacity in wanting to be involved, i really do as i dont recognise the club as the one i started to support from a very young age You keep saying you feel disconnected now Jools, but you never, articulately or not, say why you do? What is it you miss? The bumbling along with no real direction commercially or otherwise? The twerton days where we had nothing but punched above our weight on tuppence halfpenny, being given money for transfers by the manager? The Higgs era where we relied on a cup run to break even and there was no real interest in realising the commercial potential of the club, simply because our commercial manager lacked the experience to drive this area of the club forward? Whatever halcyon days you look back on, football as an industry has changed from the Dunford and Higgs era. The changes we have gone through in the last 4 years should have been done and implented around 15-20 years ago and had we done it with a bit more creative vision and a bigger budget, we may have been on a much better footing now and not having to radpidly wholesale change everything. I dont think you, swiss or others that continually double down on the current ownership realise how behind the curve we were and to a point, still are. To make our club better and for it to improve we have to embrace change rather than oppose it especially when there is a long term benefit for doing so. I think, rather mistakenly, people assumed a new stadium was the answer to all our prayers to solve all of the field issues, when in fact our issues ran much deeper than that, which have been identified and rectified over the past 4 or 5 years. As articulate as Swiss is, he very much sits on the side of the fence where nothing that the Alqadi's could do will ever be correct, will ever be good enough or in the correct way. It begs the question why he isnt sat on a board of a premier league or EFL club himself earning a very fair wedge himself such is the knowledge and ideas he has? I dont mean that disparagingly either because some of things he says do make a degree of alternative sense, albeit not knowing the full facts of a situation as to why the club has made the decisions they have. However there comes a point where not everything the ownership does is negative and yet there is a negative spin on almost everything. This is the problem the old SC had, the current PC has and individuals like you and Swiss continue to promote. That is why all of the noise on this thread needs to be put into the open. To see exactly what the gripes are, why people act the way they do, why they cant explain simple things like membership numbers or the structure or what they actually do for the club. If none of that is positive then it becomes a drain on the FC rather than something that promotes it. So why are we now running at treble or more the debt ? If this was Higgs implementing the changes he would be getting such aggro and you know it. I just do not feel the camaraderie anymore and the feeling of being a part of something, its emotion rather than figures. I know football has changed but it’s been an awful 5 years which has been done to death so i will not drone on. Swiss has given alternative ideas, got banned from gaschat for daring to write of them. To me, Irene is the perfect tune for us as it will ever only be in our dreams and i now feel the pandemic has shown me other ways of doing other things and i dont then have my weekend messed up on a result, i will always have rovers in my blood and will return once I feel safe enough to do so, my reasons are obvious. Others can take their chances and, if i was a healthy man then i would too as i miss 2 people in particular and only get to see them if we have a home game. It’s no longer a close to medium cost and to watch tier 4 level. If i could stand for 90-120 minutes then the north terrace isn’t so bad but a Match day is at least 50 if i am careful. We have had so much money wasted and by many guardians. I wouldn't want to be an owner, its not a game to make money but for the wealthy as i see it. Modern football and sky ruined it for me and the majority.
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 5, 2022 17:52:23 GMT
The wow was meant, quite literally, on the whole thing but also in how this whole thing came about. I feel like i do not know the club at all now John and i feel more disconnected now than ever. The thing i DO understand is a reticence to say anything as i have been burned for saying certain things and by doing relatively little digging but if people are going to dig at those such as knowall et al for not revealing or answering then i think it works both ways but, again, i do not do any digging now, i literally cant be bothered , such is that disconnection. I admire that you still have interest given how things worked out for you. this whole thread is deeply worrying and sad. I have no more to say on it apart from its a new low. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Just flabbergasted by everything and why a brather would work behind another’s back, is the main one. Sad times indeed. I admire your tenacity in wanting to be involved, i really do as i dont recognise the club as the one i started to support from a very young age You keep saying you feel disconnected now Jools, but you never, articulately or not, say why you do? What is it you miss? The bumbling along with no real direction commercially or otherwise? The twerton days where we had nothing but punched above our weight on tuppence halfpenny, being given money for transfers by the manager? The Higgs era where we relied on a cup run to break even and there was no real interest in realising the commercial potential of the club, simply because our commercial manager lacked the experience to drive this area of the club forward? Whatever halcyon days you look back on, football as an industry has changed from the Dunford and Higgs era. The changes we have gone through in the last 4 years should have been done and implented around 15-20 years ago and had we done it with a bit more creative vision and a bigger budget, we may have been on a much better footing now and not having to radpidly wholesale change everything. I dont think you, swiss or others that continually double down on the current ownership realise how behind the curve we were and to a point, still are. To make our club better and for it to improve we have to embrace change rather than oppose it especially when there is a long term benefit for doing so. I think, rather mistakenly, people assumed a new stadium was the answer to all our prayers to solve all of the field issues, when in fact our issues ran much deeper than that, which have been identified and rectified over the past 4 or 5 years. As articulate as Swiss is, he very much sits on the side of the fence where nothing that the Alqadi's could do will ever be correct, will ever be good enough or in the correct way. It begs the question why he isnt sat on a board of a premier league or EFL club himself earning a very fair wedge himself such is the knowledge and ideas he has? I dont mean that disparagingly either because some of things he says do make a degree of alternative sense, albeit not knowing the full facts of a situation as to why the club has made the decisions they have. However there comes a point where not everything the ownership does is negative and yet there is a negative spin on almost everything. This is the problem the old SC had, the current PC has and individuals like you and Swiss continue to promote. That is why all of the noise on this thread needs to be put into the open. To see exactly what the gripes are, why people act the way they do, why they cant explain simple things like membership numbers or the structure or what they actually do for the club. If none of that is positive then it becomes a drain on the FC rather than something that promotes it. You may be justified when accusing the PC and SC of being resistant to change but that hardly applies to me. For over fifteen I've been posting on the forums about the need for change and I can remember Ed Ware telling me in the Dunford/Craig era that Geoff had asked him if "swissgas" was me because they knew my wife was from Switzerland. The impression then was that my criticism was not particularly welcome but there was no aggressive reaction because they understood my motives were genuine. Although too late to have any involvement in the 2006 Rovers Agenda for Change had I been active then would have supported it albeit with constructive criticism if and when appropriate. So to say that I am targeting Wael is untrue, because I've been heavily critical of previous regimes, but there is some merit in your claim that I believe almost everything the Al-Qadi regime has done has had a negative effect on Rovers. Of course not all is bad but in my view the good things are very few and far between with the main ones being the lack of any doubt that wages are being paid, the lack of any doubt that HMRC are being paid, the cosmetic ground improvements and the much better social media presence which increases the club's attractiveness to young people. The Community Trust is also a great asset but that is a separate business which has it's own management and generates it's own funding. You say you are being brutally honest so I have been too rather than back off and try to pretend that my criticism is not as harsh as it is. I honestly think a lot of Gasheads are willing to back Wael unreservedly because they like him rather than because they actually consider what he says and does and think it is right for Rovers. To me that is the wrong way to go about things and whether in football, business or any walk of life the best decisions are made based on objectivity rather than emotion. How have the changes we have gone through over the last six years or the issues we identified and rectified during that time made Rovers better ? We can have different opinions on everything but we cannot hide away from the fact that in the areas which matter the club has not got better it has gone backwards during the Al-Qadi era. To say this and explain why I believe it has happened and to offer some suggestions as to how the direction of travel may be reversed makes me deeply unpopular with many forum members. It's not something I particularly want but put up with because I believe my contributions may help provoke thought and discussion which will benefit Rovers. If the club was on the up and we could see that football wise, finance wise and stadium wise Rovers were moving forward then my criticism would be unwarranted. But we are not in that position so, as you say yourself, something has to change.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jan 5, 2022 20:25:52 GMT
When we heard the accusation that Masters and Hamer had drafted, proofed and finalised a letter I'm sure we all assumed it referred to the so called letter of concern and that this letter contained the accusation of child grooming. But when I asked ITB if this was the case he acknowledged that the letter he had seen only mentioned safeguarding issues. And when I then asked him where the heinous accusations about the owner were to be found he said he wouldn't publish anything. So we seem to be back where we were when Gasincider and knowall used to infuriate forum members by gleefully claiming that they knew something we didn't but they couldn't tell us how they knew it except that it was going to be very very good / very very bad for the football club. The difference is, IMO, unsubstantiated accusations about the finances and management of the club are far more palatable than unsubstantiated accusations which relate to child grooming. ITB is not revealing everything just as they didn't so I fail to understand why he is not being judged using the same standards as Gasincider and knowall were. If you had been accused of soemthing in relation to child safeguarding, would you broadcast it, innocent or not? Of course not, because either way the mud sticks. Even if you have all the legal armoury to robustly prove yourself innocent and then sue the individuals concerned your reputation runs the risk of being tarnished forever. You would want to kleep it silent, and yet, it still found its way in to executive boxes and gaschat, and not by me I hasten to add. Funny how this whole situation also coincided with Masters being banned from the West Stand and the removal of Hamer shortly after, isnt it? ITB Can you clarify something please? swissgas raises the point that the crimes which you claim were the basis of the attack and riled you so much are not the same as those in the safeguarding letter. Is that correct? If not, then when and how were the issues raised that were referred to the police disclosed. Are not the issues raised with the safeguarding officers the same as those raised with the police?
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jan 5, 2022 20:32:01 GMT
So to say that I am targeting Wael is untrue, because I've been heavily critical of previous regimes, but there is some merit in your claim that I believe almost everything the Al-Qadi regime has done has had a negative effect on Rovers. Of course not all is bad but in my view the good things are very few and far between with the main ones being the lack of any doubt that wages are being paid, the lack of any doubt that HMRC are being paid, the cosmetic ground improvements and the much better social media presence which increases the club's attractiveness to young people. The Community Trust is also a great asset but that is a separate business which has it's own management and generates it's own funding. You say you are being brutally honest so I have been too rather than back off and try to pretend that my criticism is not as harsh as it is. I honestly think a lot of Gasheads are willing to back Wael unreservedly because they like him rather than because they actually consider what he says and does and think it is right for Rovers. To me that is the wrong way to go about things and whether in football, business or any walk of life the best decisions are made based on objectivity rather than emotion. How have the changes we have gone through over the last six years or the issues we identified and rectified during that time made Rovers better ? We can have different opinions on everything but we cannot hide away from the fact that in the areas which matter the club has not got better it has gone backwards during the Al-Qadi era. To say this and explain why I believe it has happened and to offer some suggestions as to how the direction of travel may be reversed makes me deeply unpopular with many forum members. It's not something I particularly want but put up with because I believe my contributions may help provoke thought and discussion which will benefit Rovers. If the club was on the up and we could see that football wise, finance wise and stadium wise Rovers were moving forward then my criticism would be unwarranted. But we are not in that position so, as you say yourself, something has to change. Swiss Out of interest. Do you honestly believe that the previous regimes would have been able to afford to have funded the losses caused to the club by the pandemic in the last 2 years? That is setting aside any that were being made prior to the pandemic? Also you mention Ed Ware. It was hinted by some hit and run merchants that there was a consortium looking at bidding for the club to which Ed Ware was a party. It's difficult to separate fact from fiction with some of the posts today! As you appear to have some connection to EW, [apologies if not] do you think that was reality or mischief making?
|
|
|
Post by swissgas on Jan 6, 2022 1:21:44 GMT
So to say that I am targeting Wael is untrue, because I've been heavily critical of previous regimes, but there is some merit in your claim that I believe almost everything the Al-Qadi regime has done has had a negative effect on Rovers. Of course not all is bad but in my view the good things are very few and far between with the main ones being the lack of any doubt that wages are being paid, the lack of any doubt that HMRC are being paid, the cosmetic ground improvements and the much better social media presence which increases the club's attractiveness to young people. The Community Trust is also a great asset but that is a separate business which has it's own management and generates it's own funding. You say you are being brutally honest so I have been too rather than back off and try to pretend that my criticism is not as harsh as it is. I honestly think a lot of Gasheads are willing to back Wael unreservedly because they like him rather than because they actually consider what he says and does and think it is right for Rovers. To me that is the wrong way to go about things and whether in football, business or any walk of life the best decisions are made based on objectivity rather than emotion. How have the changes we have gone through over the last six years or the issues we identified and rectified during that time made Rovers better ? We can have different opinions on everything but we cannot hide away from the fact that in the areas which matter the club has not got better it has gone backwards during the Al-Qadi era. To say this and explain why I believe it has happened and to offer some suggestions as to how the direction of travel may be reversed makes me deeply unpopular with many forum members. It's not something I particularly want but put up with because I believe my contributions may help provoke thought and discussion which will benefit Rovers. If the club was on the up and we could see that football wise, finance wise and stadium wise Rovers were moving forward then my criticism would be unwarranted. But we are not in that position so, as you say yourself, something has to change. Swiss Out of interest. Do you honestly believe that the previous regimes would have been able to afford to have funded the losses caused to the club by the pandemic in the last 2 years? That is setting aside any that were being made prior to the pandemic? Also you mention Ed Ware. It was hinted by some hit and run merchants that there was a consortium looking at bidding for the club to which Ed Ware was a party. It's difficult to separate fact from fiction with some of the posts today! As you appear to have some connection to EW, [apologies if not] do you think that was reality or mischief making? I haven't been in touch with Ed for many years Cheshire. The quick answer to your question is to say the previous regime wouldn't have been able to fund the extra losses caused by the pandemic, which we are told amounted to £ 3 million, but they wouldn't have needed to because under their stewardship the extra losses caused by the pandemic would have been nowhere near £ 3 million. The long answer is where most people get bored and turn off or think I'm just having a go at the club. You know that one of the secrets of business success is keeping overheads low but over the past five years overheads at Rovers have spiraled out of control and in 2020 were about £ 9 million. So in "normal" times for us, when income is £6 million and overheads are £ 9 million, the loss is £3 million. But with the pandemic reducing income to say £3 million while overheads remain at about £ 9 million then the loss is increased to £6 million and this is where the additional £ 3 million loss would come from. In the years prior to Dwane Sports takeover Rovers annual losses averaged about £ 1 million and our overheads were about £ 5 million. So if the pandemic had hit under the previous regime then the figures would be income of £ 3 million and overheads of £ 5 million leading to a loss of £ 2 million. That is £ 1 million more than in normal times and something which could have been coped with. I know it can appear to be tedious but if Gasheads really want to understand why Rovers underperform then we need to look at the business model and in particular the lack of financial control which has led to the excessive level of overheads. We should also be questioning how the finances are going to be managed and overheads kept in check now that the two accountants on the staff, Martyn Starnes and Ben Rendle, have been allowed to leave. Some fans will say "ah, but if we reduced our overheads and made cuts we should soon be back in the National League". That theory doesn't stand up when clubs like Shrewsbury and AFC Wimbledon can operate in League 1 with overheads of about £6 million by managing their businesses properly. And in any event carrying overheads of £ 9 million pa hasn't prevented our slide down the leagues so reverting to a common sense business approach is unlikely to make things worse.
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 4,384
|
Post by oldie on Jan 6, 2022 1:28:42 GMT
Swiss Out of interest. Do you honestly believe that the previous regimes would have been able to afford to have funded the losses caused to the club by the pandemic in the last 2 years? That is setting aside any that were being made prior to the pandemic? Also you mention Ed Ware. It was hinted by some hit and run merchants that there was a consortium looking at bidding for the club to which Ed Ware was a party. It's difficult to separate fact from fiction with some of the posts today! As you appear to have some connection to EW, [apologies if not] do you think that was reality or mischief making? I haven't been in touch with Ed for many years Cheshire. The quick answer to your question is to say the previous regime wouldn't have been able to fund the extra losses caused by the pandemic, which we are told amounted to £ 3 million, but they wouldn't have needed to because under their stewardship the extra losses caused by the pandemic would have been nowhere near £ 3 million. The long answer is where most people get bored and turn off or think I'm just having a go at the club. You know that one of the secrets of business success is keeping overheads low but over the past five years overheads at Rovers have spiraled out of control and in 2020 were about £ 9 million. So in "normal" times for us, when income is £6 million and overheads are £ 9 million, the loss is £3 million. But with the pandemic reducing income to say £3 million while overheads remain at about £ 9 million then the loss is increased to £6 million and this is where the additional £ 3 million loss would come from. In the years prior to Dwane Sports takeover Rovers annual losses averaged about £ 1 million and our overheads were about £ 5 million. So if the pandemic had hit under the previous regime then the figures would be income of £ 3 million and overheads of £ 5 million leading to a loss of £ 2 million. That is £ 1 million more than in normal times and something which could have been coped with. I know it can appear to be tedious but if Gasheads really want to understand why Rovers underperform then we need to look at the business model and in particular the lack of financial control which has led to the excessive level of overheads. We should also be questioning how the finances are going to be managed and overheads kept in check now that the two accountants on the staff, Martyn Starnes and Ben Rendle, have been allowed to leave. Some fans will say "ah, but if we reduced our overheads and made cuts we should soon be back in the National League". That theory doesn't stand up when clubs like Shrewsbury and AFC Wimbledon can operate in League 1 with overheads of about £6 million by managing their businesses properly. And in any event carrying overheads of £ 9 million pa hasn't prevented our slide down the leagues so reverting to a common sense business approach is unlikely to make things worse. I have to agree with this. It seems the current owners came in with a greater financial capacity than their predecessors but if we measure the outcomes then that increased capacity has been wasted. So I do think the charge of "a poorly managed business" sticks.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,166
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Jan 6, 2022 11:01:59 GMT
I haven't been in touch with Ed for many years Cheshire. The quick answer to your question is to say the previous regime wouldn't have been able to fund the extra losses caused by the pandemic, which we are told amounted to £ 3 million, but they wouldn't have needed to because under their stewardship the extra losses caused by the pandemic would have been nowhere near £ 3 million. I know it can appear to be tedious but if Gasheads really want to understand why Rovers underperform then we need to look at the business model and in particular the lack of financial control which has led to the excessive level of overheads. We should also be questioning how the finances are going to be managed and overheads kept in check now that the two accountants on the staff, Martyn Starnes and Ben Rendle, have been allowed to leave. Some fans will say "ah, but if we reduced our overheads and made cuts we should soon be back in the National League". That theory doesn't stand up when clubs like Shrewsbury and AFC Wimbledon can operate in League 1 with overheads of about £6 million by managing their businesses properly. And in any event carrying overheads of £ 9 million pa hasn't prevented our slide down the leagues so reverting to a common sense business approach is unlikely to make things worse. I have to agree with this. It seems the current owners came in with a greater financial capacity than their predecessors but if we measure the outcomes then that increased capacity has been wasted. So I do think the charge of "a poorly managed business" sticks. Swiss Your faith in the old regime of Higgs and Watola to manage our finances through a pandemic is admirable especially in view of the fact that had WAQ and/or another white knight not come along we would still be borrowing at 'Wonga' rates as nobody wanted to put more money into the business! I do agree with you that we seem to have developed a casual attitude to the amount of money our owner is prepared to put in which seems to create a lax attitude to costs. However I would point out that a simple focus on reducing costs is not always the best approach or a guarantee of survival. Of course you have to have an eye on costs but increasing revenue, especially higher margin revenue, should also be a focus along side. That with finding the balance in the 'Asda vs Waitrose' argument of stack it high/sell it cheap against higher quality/higher margin [but potentially lower] sales. The lack of a director with a financial accounting background is a worry as they usually act as a good counter against the intentions of an owner who may have unrealistic aspirations. Your last paragraph is a good summary in that if others with lower crowds/potential/income can do it there is no reason why BRFC cannot do similar. And as you say, and I paraphrase, throwing money at B***** isn't working! regards
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,278
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 6, 2022 11:59:04 GMT
I have to agree with this. It seems the current owners came in with a greater financial capacity than their predecessors but if we measure the outcomes then that increased capacity has been wasted. So I do think the charge of "a poorly managed business" sticks. Swiss Your faith in the old regime of Higgs and Watola to manage our finances through a pandemic is admirable especially in view of the fact that had WAQ and/or another white knight not come along we would still be borrowing at 'Wonga' rates as nobody wanted to put more money into the business! I do agree with you that we seem to have developed a casual attitude to the amount of money our owner is prepared to put in which seems to create a lax attitude to costs. However I would point out that a simple focus on reducing costs is not always the best approach or a guarantee of survival. Of course you have to have an eye on costs but increasing revenue, especially higher margin revenue, should also be a focus along side. That with finding the balance in the 'Asda vs Waitrose' argument of stack it high/sell it cheap against higher quality/higher margin [but potentially lower] sales. The lack of a director with a financial accounting background is a worry as they usually act as a good counter against the intentions of an owner who may have unrealistic aspirations. Your last paragraph is a good summary in that if others with lower crowds/potential/income can do it there is no reason why BRFC cannot do similar. And as you say, and I paraphrase, throwing money at B***** isn't working! regards I think our owner had good intentions and thought that these experts would expedite pushing UWE or another stadium on but it didn’t stop and much money was thrown at a dead in the water project it proves one thing, without doubt, that money doesn’t make for success as a guarantee. I understood the upsurge of losses then but not after they either left of were sent packing, if i remember rightly, one was made a director, just can’t remember which. I know it was the Wembley guy but his name eludes me. People must remember, surely, how Higgs was given stick for our losses back then. I am of the opinion now that many of us were nicer and better supporters before the forums.
|
|