|
Post by gasheadpirate on Jan 22, 2017 12:10:06 GMT
I think the initial cap is based on last season's income but it can be adjusted if income increased if there is a significant change and I would suggest we have had a significant increase in income. I may be wrong though, just seem to remember a similar debate a long time ago on this subject. Significant? What is the difference between this seasons average and last? Multiply by say £15 add on for food etc may make £18. Multiply by no of home fixtures divide by say 26 weeks. How much are we talking? Does it cover the difference in the 2 squads with a significant amount left over? Doubt it. I think the average gate last year was less than 8000 and this year so far about 9150? Hospitality and exec boxes pretty much sold out all season, so yes a significant increase in income before you count Chelsea.
|
|
|
Post by Feeling The Blues on Jan 22, 2017 12:48:00 GMT
The purchase of the land for the training ground would/will be a reassurance that there's nothing 'up'. Yes, if that doesn't happen and we are fed a load of bull about it than it will tell us the real state of affairs with UWE and our current owners attitude to their further involvement. Actions always speak louder than words.
|
|
basel
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,064
|
Post by basel on Jan 22, 2017 13:39:11 GMT
Hmm,a familiar feeling of 'it ain't gonna happen' comes along.Considering the past not surprising,perhaps.We'll see. I'm happy enjoying what's going on now,another great 'soap opera'Rovers season.UTG.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 14:46:26 GMT
The cap thing seems fair enough.
They set a maximum wage bill for the season, based on expected revenue. There's been a bigger squad than usual, so the wage bill is currently near its maximum. It's good, right, and proper, that they don't revisit their financial forecasts weekly and talk themselves into busting their planned budgets. Based on this year's figures, next year's might be different, but if this was taken as an adequate budget in June, it should still be treated that way in Jan, with or without extra cash found down the back of a sofa. As the squad is bigger than usual, and we're still only near, not over, the cap, the idea that it's adequate seems sound.
There's a huge difference between splashing out on a player in transfer fees (a one off) and committing to paying them top dollar for the next three years. What's more, I guess that budgeted wage bill might have been set to generate an 'acceptable' loss for the season anyway as we move to a more sustainable set-up; any increased income can offset that rather than being blown on an even bigger squad. All it says is that we need to move some off the wage bill if we want to put others on it. Let's not go back to doing it all on the fly, Watola style.
On the UWE issue, though I queried why neither agreement or walk away has happened, I guess - given we don't know the answer to that - the best I can do from reading the runes is that the lack of walk-away implies an expectation of agreement by both sides (though there must be a timeout on that approach at some stage).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 15:10:24 GMT
The cap thing seems fair enough. They set a maximum wage bill for the season, based on expected revenue. There's been a bigger squad than usual, so the wage bill is currently near its maximum. It's good, right, and proper, that they don't revisit their financial forecasts weekly and talk themselves into busting their planned budgets. Based on this year's figures, next year's might be different, but if this was taken as an adequate budget in June, it should still be treated that way in Jan, with or without extra cash found down the back of a sofa. As the squad is bigger than usual, and we're still only near, not over, the cap, the idea that it's adequate seems sound. There's a huge difference between splashing out on a player in transfer fees (a one off) and committing to paying them top dollar for the next three years. What's more, I guess that budgeted wage bill might have been set to generate an 'acceptable' loss for the season anyway as we move to a more sustainable set-up; any increased income can offset that rather than being blown on an even bigger squad. All it says is that we need to move some off the wage bill if we want to put others on it. Let's not go back to doing it all on the fly, Watola style. On the UWE issue, though I queried why neither agreement or walk away has happened, I guess - given we don't know the answer to that - the best I can do from reading the runes is that the lack of walk-away implies an expectation of agreement by both sides (though there must be a timeout on that approach at some stage). You can cut that out Seth. Far to logical. I really don't understand what the issue is with the fans over UWE. Did anyone really believe there was a sustainable business plan to run the stadium and club if the stadium had been built during the previous owners tenure? Does anyone really think that those same people actually calculated an ROI, and a timeline? Does anyone think that a cash flow forecast had been made, working capital requirement calculated and provision made? If you accept that most likely none of this was in place, that perhaps the whole basis of the deal with UWE (as negotiated previously) undermined that whole concept of a positive outcome, is it not surprising that the new owners are starting from scratch. All power to them. If they don't build it I would think its because the returns and cash flows make it untenable. Quite right to. I would imagine they are here because they believe they can achieve this, somewhere. In which case lets sit back and let them run the business properly. It makes a change from bravado and false swagger.
|
|
|
Post by droitwichgas on Jan 22, 2017 16:53:14 GMT
The cap thing seems fair enough. They set a maximum wage bill for the season, based on expected revenue. There's been a bigger squad than usual, so the wage bill is currently near its maximum. It's good, right, and proper, that they don't revisit their financial forecasts weekly and talk themselves into busting their planned budgets. Based on this year's figures, next year's might be different, but if this was taken as an adequate budget in June, it should still be treated that way in Jan, with or without extra cash found down the back of a sofa. As the squad is bigger than usual, and we're still only near, not over, the cap, the idea that it's adequate seems sound. There's a huge difference between splashing out on a player in transfer fees (a one off) and committing to paying them top dollar for the next three years. What's more, I guess that budgeted wage bill might have been set to generate an 'acceptable' loss for the season anyway as we move to a more sustainable set-up; any increased income can offset that rather than being blown on an even bigger squad. All it says is that we need to move some off the wage bill if we want to put others on it. Let's not go back to doing it all on the fly, Watola style. On the UWE issue, though I queried why neither agreement or walk away has happened, I guess - given we don't know the answer to that - the best I can do from reading the runes is that the lack of walk-away implies an expectation of agreement by both sides (though there must be a timeout on that approach at some stage). You can cut that out Seth. Far to logical. I really don't understand what the issue is with the fans over UWE. Did anyone really believe there was a sustainable business plan to run the stadium and club if the stadium had been built during the previous owners tenure? Does anyone really think that those same people actually calculated an ROI, and a timeline? Does anyone think that a cash flow forecast had been made, working capital requirement calculated and provision made? If you accept that most likely none of this was in place, that perhaps the whole basis of the deal with UWE (as negotiated previously) undermined that whole concept of a positive outcome, is it not surprising that the new owners are starting from scratch. All power to them. If they don't build it I would think its because the returns and cash flows make it untenable. Quite right to. I would imagine they are here because they believe they can achieve this, somewhere. In which case lets sit back and let them run the business properly. It makes a change from bravado and false swagger. Still can't understand after 12 months why we can't come to some agreement with the UWE, as far as the new ground going to be a viable proposition how can anyone project whether spending £30/40m at Rovers will net them a return or not unless they are a crystal ball, I doubt Pantsdown thought the 82ers could be playing Div 1 football when he planned on rebuilding AG. I can't understand why this wage cap talk has come form as a month ago DC was claiming he was working with just a bottom 8 budget,whereas we must have a top 6/8 attendance record.
|
|
Gashead
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 260
|
Post by Gashead on Jan 22, 2017 17:04:06 GMT
FFP means there's a wage cap based on revenue, it's not self-inflicted by Hamer and Wael.
DC's claims probably hold some validity because for some clubs their 'revenue' does not equate to their crowds. I'm thinking Fleetwood, and teams like Oxford or Peterborough who tend to get a bit from transfers which probably overrides any crowd differences between us and them. 'Bottom 8' probably a bit of an exaggeration though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 17:28:43 GMT
The cap thing seems fair enough. They set a maximum wage bill for the season, based on expected revenue. There's been a bigger squad than usual, so the wage bill is currently near its maximum. It's good, right, and proper, that they don't revisit their financial forecasts weekly and talk themselves into busting their planned budgets. Based on this year's figures, next year's might be different, but if this was taken as an adequate budget in June, it should still be treated that way in Jan, with or without extra cash found down the back of a sofa. As the squad is bigger than usual, and we're still only near, not over, the cap, the idea that it's adequate seems sound. There's a huge difference between splashing out on a player in transfer fees (a one off) and committing to paying them top dollar for the next three years. What's more, I guess that budgeted wage bill might have been set to generate an 'acceptable' loss for the season anyway as we move to a more sustainable set-up; any increased income can offset that rather than being blown on an even bigger squad. All it says is that we need to move some off the wage bill if we want to put others on it. Let's not go back to doing it all on the fly, Watola style. On the UWE issue, though I queried why neither agreement or walk away has happened, I guess - given we don't know the answer to that - the best I can do from reading the runes is that the lack of walk-away implies an expectation of agreement by both sides (though there must be a timeout on that approach at some stage). You can cut that out Seth. Far to logical. I really don't understand what the issue is with the fans over UWE. Did anyone really believe there was a sustainable business plan to run the stadium and club if the stadium had been built during the previous owners tenure? Does anyone really think that those same people actually calculated an ROI, and a timeline? Does anyone think that a cash flow forecast had been made, working capital requirement calculated and provision made? If you accept that most likely none of this was in place, that perhaps the whole basis of the deal with UWE (as negotiated previously) undermined that whole concept of a positive outcome, is it not surprising that the new owners are starting from scratch. All power to them. If they don't build it I would think its because the returns and cash flows make it untenable. Quite right to. I would imagine they are here because they believe they can achieve this, somewhere. In which case lets sit back and let them run the business properly. It makes a change from bravado and false swagger. I agree with all of that. Like Droitwich, though, I just wonder what the delay's about (not to doubt the wisdom of it). It seems 'we' have formulated a viable business model (audited / sanity checked by E&Y). That, presumably involves a (different) deal with UWE. UWE doesn't seem to have said no to the principle of that deal, and both sides appear to think agreement is possible. I just wonder what's stopping it. Maybe it is that the wheels of UWE grind slow (though I wouldn't be so sure of that) - but for yer man to be talking about a cut-off date in August.... Elsewhere, it's a fair point about the FFP cap, but is that variable through the season or based on last year's figures? Wherever the budgeted figure comes from, I think it should be adhered to. Plus, I don't think the answer to bad away form is to have more footballers.
|
|
|
Post by Westcountry Gas on Jan 22, 2017 17:33:19 GMT
First time I've heard FFP mentioned since John Ward used to talk about it. Bringing up FFP is a s**t excuse, and with only 2 permanent additions in the summer that went into a squad on league 2/conference wages it doesn't make sense. Our average crowd is up by 2-3k, we had decent money come in for the cup run, it makes the idea of the raffle sponsor draw for next season even more strange.
|
|
|
Post by billyocean on Jan 22, 2017 18:41:28 GMT
I'm also a little concerned by some of the UWE answers but to cast a positive light on the "not wishing to say when" debate, if you're looking to get the best price, it makes sense not to give the other party an earlier deadline or even a target date.
If they know you need or simply want to push it through earlier, they can put the price up. If you let it run its course, they also run out of time come August and we could walk away and they lose the opportunity completely. Apparently they want it to happen too so I think it could run up until August with both parties holding out for a more favourable deal.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2017 19:07:09 GMT
I'm also a little concerned by some of the UWE answers but to cast a positive light on the "not wishing to say when" debate, if you're looking to get the best price, it makes sense not to give the other party an earlier deadline or even a target date. If they know you need or simply want to push it through earlier, they can put the price up. If you let it run its course, they also run out of time come August and we could walk away and they lose the opportunity completely. Apparently they want it to happen too so I think it could run up until August with both parties holding out for a more favourable deal. Although Rovers seem not to have a plan B,I would think that the UWE have. Five and a half years is a long time and things change, Sainsbury's for instance. I quite expect that if the stadium plans fall through that the UWE will announce another use for the land soon after,student accommodation or some new research facility.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,067
|
Post by Angas on Jan 22, 2017 19:07:57 GMT
true - my read was that if they can get any of the 6 off the payroll there will be a bit more space under the cap. Or so he was hoping to imply
I don't know how the cap works. Off this year's receipts (which are unknowable in advance), last year's, other?
I think the initial cap is based on last season's income but it can be adjusted if income increased if there is a significant change and I would suggest we have had a significant increase in income. I may be wrong though, just seem to remember a similar debate a long time ago on this subject. SCMP (leagues 1 and 2) www.financialfairplay.co.uk/scmp.php
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 2:27:24 GMT
i too listened yesterday and must admit felt that old cant see this happening feeling, but do you know what whether the stadium happens or not then weve all got a football club till the day we go pining for the fjords. yes itll be a pisser but after 47 years [me] and 134 [ rovers] a bit longer wont hurt
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Jan 23, 2017 2:35:19 GMT
Pretty much resigned to the UWE not happening. Wael, Hamer & co must've been handed an absolute s**t state of a project.
How we'd love to know the basic ins & outs.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Jan 23, 2017 8:15:23 GMT
Pretty much resigned to the UWE not happening. Wael, Hamer & co must've been handed an absolute s**t state of a project. How we'd love to know the basic ins & outs. If it really was that bad then surely we would have walked away by now? Patience is something WAQ seems to have in spades and personally I suspect he is simply pushing for the best possible deal for the club before we get the whole show on the road. This is a critical time for the club because the basis of this deal could have an impact on the ongoing financials of the club for decades to come. Can't see WAQ being in a rush to get this contract across the line until all of the ducks are in a row and they are all sufficiently in our favour going forward.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 10:35:50 GMT
Pretty much resigned to the UWE not happening. Good. The Sainsbury's deal was a shambles. I see no reason to believe that the UWE deal would not be shambolic. I expect WAQ and SH have scoured the shambles to try and renegotiate something acceptable, with UWE negotiating for their opposite interests. If it's not the right deal, then WAQ will pull it. This is a setback, but longer term this is not the worst thing that could happen. We still need the right site. But funding is apparently no longer reliant upon large supermarket retail boom and Sainsbury's being forced to pay over the odds for the Memorial Ground. Were we seeking a site to accomodate a stadium for Vauxhall Conference football, we would fail. Seeking a site for third or even second division league football that our owner can actually afford to build, we should succeed. If UWE do not want BRFC to walk away, rather wanting the stadium built and BRFC playing there, then they have to accept terms acceptable to WAQ, who is not the desperate walkover that was Nicholas Higgs.
|
|
|
Post by Henbury Gas on Jan 23, 2017 11:20:33 GMT
Can i be a sad person a say i think we have the UWE over a barrel and trying to screw them for every penny ??
The UWE have committed to spend some serious wonga on expansion of facilities
Since that commitment the NHS have shafted the UWE by stopping some of the funding they get every year for training up new nurses ( NHS used to pay upfront for this training, now the students have to do this )
The UWE are desperate for this to go through to find that shortfall to fulfill that commitment
Wael being a very good business person knows this
My only source on this is somebody i know who works in admissions dept at the UWE and she said they a worried about budgets next year and she fears for her Job
Just a thought, nothing concrete
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jan 23, 2017 11:37:21 GMT
Can i be a sad person a say i think we have the UWE over a barrel and trying to screw them for every penny ?? The UWE have committed to spend some serious wonga on expansion of facilities Since that commitment the NHS have shafted the UWE by stopping some of the funding they get every year for training up new nurses ( NHS used to pay upfront for this training, now the students have to do this ) The UWE are desperate for this to go through to find that shortfall to fulfill that commitment Wael being a very good business person knows this My only source on this is somebody i know who works in admissions dept at the UWE and she said they a worried about budgets next year and she fears for her Job Just a thought, nothing concrete Certainly a different view point. As you say nothing concrete, but UWE themselves will want a good deal for various reasons. If WAQ and co are prepared to call UWE's bluff, they at least have the (apparent) weapon of "We actually have the money" unlike Nick Higgs and T.Watola
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2017 11:57:56 GMT
Can i be a sad person a say i think we have the UWE over a barrel and trying to screw them for every penny ?? The UWE have committed to spend some serious wonga on expansion of facilities Since that commitment the NHS have shafted the UWE by stopping some of the funding they get every year for training up new nurses ( NHS used to pay upfront for this training, now the students have to do this ) The UWE are desperate for this to go through to find that shortfall to fulfill that commitment Wael being a very good business person knows this My only source on this is somebody i know who works in admissions dept at the UWE and she said they a worried about budgets next year and she fears for her Job Just a thought, nothing concrete Certainly a different view point. As you say nothing concrete, but UWE themselves will want a good deal for various reasons. If WAQ and co are prepared to call UWE's bluff, they at least have the (apparent) weapon of "We actually have the money" unlike Nick Higgs and T.Watola The thing is, if the board are being commercial, I trust them to deliver a sustainable deal rather than a desperate one which only looks good on paper.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jan 23, 2017 13:10:34 GMT
Wasn't there something about a car park being needed for (last) October? It still strikes me as a long time to agree on whether to go forward or not, and I'd have thought both sides would have wanted to urinate or rise from the pôt, but heh. They have laid down what looks - from a distance - like a temporary car-park, on land that would be for the stadium. It's on the east side of the site, so closet to the UWE buildings. It's not huge - difficult to say, perhaps 100 or so spaces, with temporary floodlighting poles. If you look at google maps, moving west from the UWE, you have the old Wallscourt Farmhouse building, then a football pitch and duck pond, then a row of trees, hedges and shrubs, which mark the boundary of the stadium site, and then this new parking area.
|
|