Town to publish 'healthy' audit results

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: Sangita Shah Sangita Shah

SWINDON Town officials are confident that the club is in its ‘healthiest financial position for years’ as the Robins prepare to reveal the results of an audit today.

Financial experts Hacker Young reviewed Town’s accounts earlier this year, after director Sangita Shah revealed no such process had been undertaken at the County Ground for ‘10 to 15 years’.

Shah has been busy writing a simplified commentary of the accountants’ findings and those findings will now be presented to supporters.

Amongst the key information to emerge will be that the club’s debt has been slashed and that the football wage bill will continue to be reduced.

Shah's statement said: “In a nutshell, the club is in a far healthier financial position than it has been for a number of years. The debt in the club has reduced from £13.1m to £2.95m.

“Furthermore, this debt of £2.95m is held as a debenture against the club by messrs (Andrew) Black and Sir Martyn Arbib and is long-term, ultimately realisable upon the redevelopment of the stadium if this ever happens.

“The underlying net loss of running the club has substantially fallen from £3.6m per annum to £1.2m. This is a reflection of shrewd and prudent management both off and on the field.

“On the field, under the aegis of Lee Power in his capacity as director of football, we have seen a marked improvement in the quality of football - a fact borne out by our current seventh-placed league position - and all this whilst substantially cutting the players’ wages bill to £2.4m.

“The style of the football that the Robins have played has clearly rallied our supporters as we have seen our average match attendances rise to 8600.

“Off the field, the former chairman, Jed McCrory, led the charge to substantially reduce overheads and identify other revenue streams.

“This is an ethos that we will continue to follow.

“The board is committed to protecting the long-term future of the club, and putting its finances on a sustainable footing. And to that end, by the end of the season, irrespective of whether we are promoted or not, we will be taking measures to ensure that the net running costs of the club are covered by its income.

“Without compromising the team and using our excellent links with Premiership clubs, we will continue to reduce the football wage bill.

“Further cuts in back office costs have already been implemented and we are actively canvassing sponsors to support us.

“As insurance, we can confirm that any future shortfall in running the club has been underwritten by Lee Power to the satisfaction of the Football League.

“The motto for the club is ‘Salubritas et Industria’ (healthy and industrious). The board have embraced this sentiment. We would like to thank all the supporters for their tremendous support and encouragement. Without you there would be no Swindon Town FC.

“Lee has made no secret of his intention to propel the club into the Championship and beyond, where it rightfully belongs.”

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:29am Thu 12 Dec 13

avo says...

What's not to like.
What's not to like. avo

7:38am Thu 12 Dec 13

stfc2012 says...

Anything they haven't previously stated?
Anything they haven't previously stated? stfc2012

8:02am Thu 12 Dec 13

madred says...

very positive, may not appease all supporters, particulary the "I WANT IT ALL NOW" brigade, But the vast majority of sensible level headed fans who will be here come rain or shine for many years will welcome this prudent approach. Better a club that can be sustainable and grow into the future than one that will overreach financially and utimately crash and burn.
very positive, may not appease all supporters, particulary the "I WANT IT ALL NOW" brigade, But the vast majority of sensible level headed fans who will be here come rain or shine for many years will welcome this prudent approach. Better a club that can be sustainable and grow into the future than one that will overreach financially and utimately crash and burn. madred

8:28am Thu 12 Dec 13

Wildwestener says...

This is very positive but I would suggest that an audit of the club's accounts doesn't need to comment on football matters. Whilst some football we have played this year has been excellent, some has been as poor as I can ever remember (home to Walsall for example). I'm not criticising the football, just the wisdom of making broad statements which are perhaps a hostage to fortune.
I am very hopeful that we now have club that wont be in danger of imploding at any given moment and that is to be welcomed after the last umpteen years of backroom chaos.
This is very positive but I would suggest that an audit of the club's accounts doesn't need to comment on football matters. Whilst some football we have played this year has been excellent, some has been as poor as I can ever remember (home to Walsall for example). I'm not criticising the football, just the wisdom of making broad statements which are perhaps a hostage to fortune. I am very hopeful that we now have club that wont be in danger of imploding at any given moment and that is to be welcomed after the last umpteen years of backroom chaos. Wildwestener

8:37am Thu 12 Dec 13

Oxon-Red says...

Seems to me that a Hatchet job has been done to turn the club into a going concern without compromising the football too much. I would say this is a job well done in a short space of time and the club is on a firm footing to move forward.

I would genuinely like to hear Fredi's take on this. If Murrell and Jed were paid it may have been money well spent and all they were guilty of was promising a bit more than they could deliver and using up to date communications.

COYMR
Seems to me that a Hatchet job has been done to turn the club into a going concern without compromising the football too much. I would say this is a job well done in a short space of time and the club is on a firm footing to move forward. I would genuinely like to hear Fredi's take on this. If Murrell and Jed were paid it may have been money well spent and all they were guilty of was promising a bit more than they could deliver and using up to date communications. COYMR Oxon-Red

8:59am Thu 12 Dec 13

London Red says...

Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks!
.
Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better!
.
Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount!
.
If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+
Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks! . Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better! . Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount! . If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+ London Red

9:16am Thu 12 Dec 13

Cleuso says...

Wildwestener wrote:
This is very positive but I would suggest that an audit of the club's accounts doesn't need to comment on football matters. Whilst some football we have played this year has been excellent, some has been as poor as I can ever remember (home to Walsall for example). I'm not criticising the football, just the wisdom of making broad statements which are perhaps a hostage to fortune.
I am very hopeful that we now have club that wont be in danger of imploding at any given moment and that is to be welcomed after the last umpteen years of backroom chaos.
Oh give it a rest....if you read any company report as well as the financials it the organisation always make reference to either its successes in certain areas, its products or developments. Look a few up online and you will soon see that is "the way of the world"

Some it seems just like to moan and find an issue when there isn't one...

PS Walsall was only relatively poor as it was compared to the previous excellent home performances and no where near as some that have been seen at the County Ground over the years... perhaps my memory is just longer than yours
[quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: This is very positive but I would suggest that an audit of the club's accounts doesn't need to comment on football matters. Whilst some football we have played this year has been excellent, some has been as poor as I can ever remember (home to Walsall for example). I'm not criticising the football, just the wisdom of making broad statements which are perhaps a hostage to fortune. I am very hopeful that we now have club that wont be in danger of imploding at any given moment and that is to be welcomed after the last umpteen years of backroom chaos.[/p][/quote]Oh give it a rest....if you read any company report as well as the financials it the organisation always make reference to either its successes in certain areas, its products or developments. Look a few up online and you will soon see that is "the way of the world" Some it seems just like to moan and find an issue when there isn't one... PS Walsall was only relatively poor as it was compared to the previous excellent home performances and no where near as some that have been seen at the County Ground over the years... perhaps my memory is just longer than yours Cleuso

9:26am Thu 12 Dec 13

Stilloyal says...

London Red wrote:
Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks!
.
Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better!
.
Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount!
.
If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+
Agree with you LR, if teams like Yeovil can do it so can we. Just look at our history and the great teams of Bert Head, Danny Williams and Lou Macari built without substantial funds
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks! . Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better! . Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount! . If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+[/p][/quote]Agree with you LR, if teams like Yeovil can do it so can we. Just look at our history and the great teams of Bert Head, Danny Williams and Lou Macari built without substantial funds Stilloyal

9:53am Thu 12 Dec 13

the don69 says...

It's all well and good throwing money at football clubs(if you got it flaunt it)so many clubs have just blew money away!most of them have failed,Bristol City £30m of Lansdown's dosh and their in the relegation zone after just coming down from the championship.Sheff Utd have wasted millions and yes Black,Wray let PDC waste a load of dosh!Power knows the football circus so he should have a better chance of success than many with his knowledge of players,agents and wages,but there's no guarantee he can succeed we're so many have failed.he can talk the talk can he walk the walk?????
It's all well and good throwing money at football clubs(if you got it flaunt it)so many clubs have just blew money away!most of them have failed,Bristol City £30m of Lansdown's dosh and their in the relegation zone after just coming down from the championship.Sheff Utd have wasted millions and yes Black,Wray let PDC waste a load of dosh!Power knows the football circus so he should have a better chance of success than many with his knowledge of players,agents and wages,but there's no guarantee he can succeed we're so many have failed.he can talk the talk can he walk the walk????? the don69

11:06am Thu 12 Dec 13

TheDukeOfBanbury says...

avo wrote:
What's not to like.
8,600 average crowds and seats in the Town End......:)
[quote][p][bold]avo[/bold] wrote: What's not to like.[/p][/quote]8,600 average crowds and seats in the Town End......:) TheDukeOfBanbury

11:28am Thu 12 Dec 13

london paolo says...

I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment.

- The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years?

- What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date?

- The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this?

- This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time).

- Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own.

- I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory.

- The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from?

- The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime.

- I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1.

I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.
I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing. london paolo

1:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oxon-Red says...

london paolo wrote:
I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment.

- The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years?

- What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date?

- The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this?

- This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time).

- Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own.

- I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory.

- The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from?

- The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime.

- I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1.

I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.
" For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory."

We didn't score 5 until we beat Tranmere on December 21st to move INTO the play-off places, roughly same as this year but we have scored 5 twice already. The triangle was in place before Paolo joined and was lost at the start of the 2012-13 season.

"The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187."

This season's attendances have been mainly against teams with small away followings which, City aside, have rarely exceeded 250. We have yet to see Wolves, Coventry, Peterborough, Sheffield Utd, Brentford and Preston at the County Ground.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]london paolo[/bold] wrote: I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.[/p][/quote]" For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory." We didn't score 5 until we beat Tranmere on December 21st to move INTO the play-off places, roughly same as this year but we have scored 5 twice already. The triangle was in place before Paolo joined and was lost at the start of the 2012-13 season. "The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187." This season's attendances have been mainly against teams with small away followings which, City aside, have rarely exceeded 250. We have yet to see Wolves, Coventry, Peterborough, Sheffield Utd, Brentford and Preston at the County Ground. COYMR Oxon-Red

1:11pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Cleuso says...

london paolo wrote:
I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment.

- The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years?

- What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date?

- The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this?

- This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time).

- Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own.

- I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory.

- The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from?

- The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime.

- I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1.

I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.
BORED is the correct spelling you should be looking for as after reading your post, both singular and plural as it's how I feel.... yawn................
.................

Now if you are looking at historical pairings no need to look further than Rogers and Trollope far better than Ferry (strugging in div 2) Ritchie and Caddis... Don and John didn't need a triangle of player, just two of them were fine....and whether you agree with Westerner or not commenting on performance is the way of the world when presenting figures...figures by themselves are only part of the story..... how they got there and what they deliver , and intend to deliver and puts the flesh on the stark numbers.

You don't like it because it doesn't fit with your thinking or knowledge, I get that. May I ask what your agenda is ?
[quote][p][bold]london paolo[/bold] wrote: I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.[/p][/quote]BORED is the correct spelling you should be looking for as after reading your post, both singular and plural as it's how I feel.... yawn................ ................. Now if you are looking at historical pairings no need to look further than Rogers and Trollope far better than Ferry (strugging in div 2) Ritchie and Caddis... Don and John didn't need a triangle of player, just two of them were fine....and whether you agree with Westerner or not commenting on performance is the way of the world when presenting figures...figures by themselves are only part of the story..... how they got there and what they deliver , and intend to deliver and puts the flesh on the stark numbers. You don't like it because it doesn't fit with your thinking or knowledge, I get that. May I ask what your agenda is ? Cleuso

1:17pm Thu 12 Dec 13

who am i says...

london paolo wrote:
I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.
Fantastic post with some great points made very eloquently put much better than I could ever had done. Unfortunately your not allowed to criticize on here so by the end of the day you will have over twenty thumbs down from the happy clappers and rose tinted. But you get a thumbs up from me.
[quote][p][bold]london paolo[/bold] wrote: I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.[/p][/quote]Fantastic post with some great points made very eloquently put much better than I could ever had done. Unfortunately your not allowed to criticize on here so by the end of the day you will have over twenty thumbs down from the happy clappers and rose tinted. But you get a thumbs up from me. who am i

1:45pm Thu 12 Dec 13

London Red says...

Paolo - not sure what rattled your cage but you have a lot wrong in that rant!
.
Swindon Football Holdings Ltd (6421639) were and always were a different company to Swindon Town Football Club Ltd (53100) - they were simply former Majority Sharehlders of Swindon Town Football Club Ltd and are now dissolved.
.
That means when Swindon Football Holdings Ltd GROUP accounts are viewed they would have consolidated in Swindon Town Football Club Ltd - not the other way round
.
Now that Swindon Town Football Club Ltd is majority owned by Swinton Reds 20 - it means they will have to conolidate it their GROUP accounts
.
When talking about Swindon Town Football Club Ltd - as the above is - as we do not own anyone else the accounts will only ever refer to the club itself
.
The accounts have always said "the Company was exempt from the requirement to have its financial results audited and as such no auditor has been appointed"
.
The Government's website states: Your company may qualify for an audit exemption if your company meets 2 of the following:
.
has an annual turnover of no more than £6.5 million
has assets worth no more than £3.26 million
has 50 or fewer employees on average
.
So the club qualifies via point 1 and 2 - As most Holding companies do not have many other activities I am pretty certain Swindon Football Holdings Ltd therefore also qualified
.
The clubs fiancial year is 31 May - to coincide with the end of the football season - so the accounts in question are the 31 May 2013
.
Power has publically stated that the write off by Black played a big part in our turnaround - plus we have not seen the actual club version - so that may have it in there????
.
Your view of sustainablility doesn't match everyone's - so why is yours right? Plus a lot of that has no direct link to revenue and incurrs a lot of costs - so how is that sustainability?
.
Like him or not - Jed was part of a team that set out to increase revenue to a level above costs - which you don't have to be an accountant to know that will mean you make a profit - thus you are self sufficicent - so her description is technically right
.
An audit is factual yes - but what are the auditing? The Club's annual statement - which as pointed out above goes beyond the mere numbers but outlines the compaines goals and objectives - and football has to be at the centre of our being a football club
.
Its like saying why are VW talking about making innovative cars or saftey records? We only want to know bottom line profit figure is!
.
The £3.6m will more than likely be the OPERATING loss made last year - too many people ignore this figure but this is the key one and determines sustainability
.
Bottom line takes into account net player transfers - so occasionally i.e. 2010 you make a profit - but really it was due to a windfall (Cox and McNamee) - as we made a stonking operating loss that year!
.
Clearly we are now removing that windfall element as it is a lottery (Ritchie sold way below true value!) - and looking to have break even minimum at an operating level so we are finally covering the running costs not looking for a bail out each year
.
Not sure why you have a beef with her - but the two quotes you make reference too are not even in the article above - for example it clearly says "The debt in the club has reduced from £13.1m to £2.95m". Which is true and factual - nowhere does it say it reduced itself??????
Paolo - not sure what rattled your cage but you have a lot wrong in that rant! . Swindon Football Holdings Ltd (6421639) were and always were a different company to Swindon Town Football Club Ltd (53100) - they were simply former Majority Sharehlders of Swindon Town Football Club Ltd and are now dissolved. . That means when Swindon Football Holdings Ltd GROUP accounts are viewed they would have consolidated in Swindon Town Football Club Ltd - not the other way round . Now that Swindon Town Football Club Ltd is majority owned by Swinton Reds 20 - it means they will have to conolidate it their GROUP accounts . When talking about Swindon Town Football Club Ltd - as the above is - as we do not own anyone else the accounts will only ever refer to the club itself . The accounts have always said "the Company was exempt from the requirement to have its financial results audited and as such no auditor has been appointed" . The Government's website states: Your company may qualify for an audit exemption if your company meets 2 of the following: . has an annual turnover of no more than £6.5 million has assets worth no more than £3.26 million has 50 or fewer employees on average . So the club qualifies via point 1 and 2 - As most Holding companies do not have many other activities I am pretty certain Swindon Football Holdings Ltd therefore also qualified . The clubs fiancial year is 31 May - to coincide with the end of the football season - so the accounts in question are the 31 May 2013 . Power has publically stated that the write off by Black played a big part in our turnaround - plus we have not seen the actual club version - so that may have it in there???? . Your view of sustainablility doesn't match everyone's - so why is yours right? Plus a lot of that has no direct link to revenue and incurrs a lot of costs - so how is that sustainability? . Like him or not - Jed was part of a team that set out to increase revenue to a level above costs - which you don't have to be an accountant to know that will mean you make a profit - thus you are self sufficicent - so her description is technically right . An audit is factual yes - but what are the auditing? The Club's annual statement - which as pointed out above goes beyond the mere numbers but outlines the compaines goals and objectives - and football has to be at the centre of our being a football club . Its like saying why are VW talking about making innovative cars or saftey records? We only want to know bottom line profit figure is! . The £3.6m will more than likely be the OPERATING loss made last year - too many people ignore this figure but this is the key one and determines sustainability . Bottom line takes into account net player transfers - so occasionally i.e. 2010 you make a profit - but really it was due to a windfall (Cox and McNamee) - as we made a stonking operating loss that year! . Clearly we are now removing that windfall element as it is a lottery (Ritchie sold way below true value!) - and looking to have break even minimum at an operating level so we are finally covering the running costs not looking for a bail out each year . Not sure why you have a beef with her - but the two quotes you make reference too are not even in the article above - for example it clearly says "The debt in the club has reduced from £13.1m to £2.95m". Which is true and factual - nowhere does it say it reduced itself?????? London Red

1:51pm Thu 12 Dec 13

TelSTFC says...

Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers.

Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget.

No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also.

Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!!

All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances.
We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them.

At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now.

COYR
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR TelSTFC

2:05pm Thu 12 Dec 13

stfc2012 says...

Good post London Paolo. Good post London red. For me, we don't need her commentary. And with the audit only showing a few months after they took the helm, one in 12 months may be more useful. I'm hoping Fredi pops up to tell us about the real deal inc the consultancy payments he or she mentioned before which were allegedly over inflated at best. What was consulted exactly?
Good post London Paolo. Good post London red. For me, we don't need her commentary. And with the audit only showing a few months after they took the helm, one in 12 months may be more useful. I'm hoping Fredi pops up to tell us about the real deal inc the consultancy payments he or she mentioned before which were allegedly over inflated at best. What was consulted exactly? stfc2012

2:20pm Thu 12 Dec 13

who am i says...

TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
[quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass. who am i

2:27pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Old Town says...

Jeez there are some who seem to want nothing more than to see the club's owners fail !

We didn't have a financial audit done properly before - so one has been done - all because the current owners (whether you want to say Jed or Lee doesn't really matter) made it happen.

The outcome - we have debts of £2.95 Million down from £13.1 Million - and the £2.95 Million is not a debt that will be called in anytime soon

We have halved our wage bill from the reckless and ridiculous spending of PDC and J Wray

We have seen good attendances - and as someone else pointed out these will rise as the away teams we have played have bought very little fans so far - so by the season end we will have a better average than last season

The football we are playing is better than it has been since Hoddle was in charge (in my opinion), and certainly the best we have seen for a long time.

With all this GOOD NEWS - people like stfc2012, whoami and london paolo still find plenty to moan about --- and lets be honest fella's you are banging a broken drum !

I think you have been shown to be absolutely out of your depth when talking about any actual facts so do us all a favour and give it up !

no-one minds when you are talking facts, but all this negativity based purely on hearsay and rumour is just nonsense !
Jeez there are some who seem to want nothing more than to see the club's owners fail ! We didn't have a financial audit done properly before - so one has been done - all because the current owners (whether you want to say Jed or Lee doesn't really matter) made it happen. The outcome - we have debts of £2.95 Million down from £13.1 Million - and the £2.95 Million is not a debt that will be called in anytime soon We have halved our wage bill from the reckless and ridiculous spending of PDC and J Wray We have seen good attendances - and as someone else pointed out these will rise as the away teams we have played have bought very little fans so far - so by the season end we will have a better average than last season The football we are playing is better than it has been since Hoddle was in charge (in my opinion), and certainly the best we have seen for a long time. With all this GOOD NEWS - people like stfc2012, whoami and london paolo still find plenty to moan about --- and lets be honest fella's you are banging a broken drum ! I think you have been shown to be absolutely out of your depth when talking about any actual facts so do us all a favour and give it up ! no-one minds when you are talking facts, but all this negativity based purely on hearsay and rumour is just nonsense ! Old Town

2:36pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

stfc2012 wrote:
Good post London Paolo. Good post London red. For me, we don't need her commentary. And with the audit only showing a few months after they took the helm, one in 12 months may be more useful. I'm hoping Fredi pops up to tell us about the real deal inc the consultancy payments he or she mentioned before which were allegedly over inflated at best. What was consulted exactly?
We were told the payments related to costs of the takeover. I still can't get my head around that one. Since when does a company being bought incur the costs of its own purchase?

LP, the League don't require our accounts to be audited as we are below Championship level and I'm sure we'd be well below the thresholds at which an audit is legally required. It seems unlikely that the club has volunteered for a full statutory audit, with all the cost it would have incurred (Hacker Young would not come cheap) so I wonder what we are actually going to get.

LR, you are quite right about not needing to spend a fortune to build a good side but I seem to remember that you were one of those who thought PDC should get what he wanted whenever he wanted it when others were suggesting he should rein it in.
[quote][p][bold]stfc2012[/bold] wrote: Good post London Paolo. Good post London red. For me, we don't need her commentary. And with the audit only showing a few months after they took the helm, one in 12 months may be more useful. I'm hoping Fredi pops up to tell us about the real deal inc the consultancy payments he or she mentioned before which were allegedly over inflated at best. What was consulted exactly?[/p][/quote]We were told the payments related to costs of the takeover. I still can't get my head around that one. Since when does a company being bought incur the costs of its own purchase? LP, the League don't require our accounts to be audited as we are below Championship level and I'm sure we'd be well below the thresholds at which an audit is legally required. It seems unlikely that the club has volunteered for a full statutory audit, with all the cost it would have incurred (Hacker Young would not come cheap) so I wonder what we are actually going to get. LR, you are quite right about not needing to spend a fortune to build a good side but I seem to remember that you were one of those who thought PDC should get what he wanted whenever he wanted it when others were suggesting he should rein it in. Oi Den!

3:03pm Thu 12 Dec 13

ging999 says...

stfc2012 wrote:
Good post London Paolo. Good post London red. For me, we don't need her commentary. And with the audit only showing a few months after they took the helm, one in 12 months may be more useful. I'm hoping Fredi pops up to tell us about the real deal inc the consultancy payments he or she mentioned before which were allegedly over inflated at best. What was consulted exactly?
First of all you moaned about lack of communication, now you come on here moaning about communication. Some saddo's are never happy are they.
[quote][p][bold]stfc2012[/bold] wrote: Good post London Paolo. Good post London red. For me, we don't need her commentary. And with the audit only showing a few months after they took the helm, one in 12 months may be more useful. I'm hoping Fredi pops up to tell us about the real deal inc the consultancy payments he or she mentioned before which were allegedly over inflated at best. What was consulted exactly?[/p][/quote]First of all you moaned about lack of communication, now you come on here moaning about communication. Some saddo's are never happy are they. ging999

3:15pm Thu 12 Dec 13

London Red says...

Yes Den I did - but that was under the premisis that a budget had been set and not yet spent and was covered - like Power is covering this years shortfall!
.
£4.5m had been set for last year and we had £0.5m left - I was saying why can't we use it in Oct/Nov to cover the injuries we had at that time - I never said exceed it - just bring it forward
.
If we had been at £4.5m already - then it would be tough - like it is for Cooper (until possibly Jan when we maybe able to do some deals)
.
Wray has confirmed that Black was offered Manager X on £1.5m a season budget in L2 or PdC on £2.5m in L2 and c£4m in L1 to get into the Championship within 2 years after promotion back to L1 - Black opted for the latter
.
Now when he opted for that route he was signing up to the loss that was always going to occur from it - as we all know our current revenues can not support those wage levels!
.
So to commit our club to have players signed up on that basis and then pull out halfway through is what p1ssed people like me off
.
If he had stayed and left in the summer - we could have avoided the near miss of liquidation we had and not had to sell our best player for peanuts to survive

Or if he didn't fancy the losses - he could could have cut our cloth accordingly last summer and avoided the outgoings on Williams, Roberts, Navarro et al
.
If we lost PdC so be it - but at least we would have a stable club!
.
2012 - surely the "consultancy fees" are in the audited accounts if they did occur (still no evidence of this) as they were alleged to have been taken out in March - so will have to had been accounted for - no audit would be signed off if hundreds of thousands had disappeared from the bank without showing where it went!
Yes Den I did - but that was under the premisis that a budget had been set and not yet spent and was covered - like Power is covering this years shortfall! . £4.5m had been set for last year and we had £0.5m left - I was saying why can't we use it in Oct/Nov to cover the injuries we had at that time - I never said exceed it - just bring it forward . If we had been at £4.5m already - then it would be tough - like it is for Cooper (until possibly Jan when we maybe able to do some deals) . Wray has confirmed that Black was offered Manager X on £1.5m a season budget in L2 or PdC on £2.5m in L2 and c£4m in L1 to get into the Championship within 2 years after promotion back to L1 - Black opted for the latter . Now when he opted for that route he was signing up to the loss that was always going to occur from it - as we all know our current revenues can not support those wage levels! . So to commit our club to have players signed up on that basis and then pull out halfway through is what p1ssed people like me off . If he had stayed and left in the summer - we could have avoided the near miss of liquidation we had and not had to sell our best player for peanuts to survive Or if he didn't fancy the losses - he could could have cut our cloth accordingly last summer and avoided the outgoings on Williams, Roberts, Navarro et al . If we lost PdC so be it - but at least we would have a stable club! . 2012 - surely the "consultancy fees" are in the audited accounts if they did occur (still no evidence of this) as they were alleged to have been taken out in March - so will have to had been accounted for - no audit would be signed off if hundreds of thousands had disappeared from the bank without showing where it went! London Red

4:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Jockster says...

who am i wrote:
TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant.

How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.
[quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.[/p][/quote]Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant. How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not. The Jockster

5:36pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Is that you Lovesey says...

Regardless of personal oppinion on Jed, the guy worked his asenal off for this club and put a lot of hours in, he has been the one here day in day out when Power lives abroad, the guy deserves some credit, he probably made a tidy little profit, but so what, without him we would have been up a brown creek without a paddle, I don't doubt there were questionable things done, but IMO he tried to do what he felt was right to turn the club around to a sustainable place, after all he bought on Power. I am sure him and Murrell made some mistakes but they didn't exactly have loads of time and inherited some wierd decisions such as paying Commazi 12k a month to sit on his aras in Italy doing nothing.

I am interested in how the meeting with the lawyers went to discuss the impending court cases of Rooney and Commazi. Yet no mention of them.
Regardless of personal oppinion on Jed, the guy worked his asenal off for this club and put a lot of hours in, he has been the one here day in day out when Power lives abroad, the guy deserves some credit, he probably made a tidy little profit, but so what, without him we would have been up a brown creek without a paddle, I don't doubt there were questionable things done, but IMO he tried to do what he felt was right to turn the club around to a sustainable place, after all he bought on Power. I am sure him and Murrell made some mistakes but they didn't exactly have loads of time and inherited some wierd decisions such as paying Commazi 12k a month to sit on his aras in Italy doing nothing. I am interested in how the meeting with the lawyers went to discuss the impending court cases of Rooney and Commazi. Yet no mention of them. Is that you Lovesey

5:46pm Thu 12 Dec 13

avo says...

Still banging the same drum then Jock, thought you would of moved on by now!
.
This silly thumbs up thumbs down thing on here is exactly that. Silly. IMHO it offers nothing to the usual debate!
.
I think most of us are willing to listen to, and accept, the views of supporters who offer a balanced view, be that good bad or indifferent at any given time. I cannot attend many matches these days, and as such, if you were to come on here after a game and tell me that yet again our central defence was woeful, I would accept the view as being from someone at the match.
.
It's when someone claims that we'll be relegated this season, after an awful run of two defeats, yes two, that people start to question the sanity of certain posters!
.
That works equally, in case it's gone unoticed, when wildly speculative claims of promotion are being shouted from the rooftops after the same amount of wins on the bounce.
.
Seperate the ludicrous, both negative or positive, from what lies in between among the posters on this site and there is always some good balanced debate!
.
Time to move on Jock!
Still banging the same drum then Jock, thought you would of moved on by now! . This silly thumbs up thumbs down thing on here is exactly that. Silly. IMHO it offers nothing to the usual debate! . I think most of us are willing to listen to, and accept, the views of supporters who offer a balanced view, be that good bad or indifferent at any given time. I cannot attend many matches these days, and as such, if you were to come on here after a game and tell me that yet again our central defence was woeful, I would accept the view as being from someone at the match. . It's when someone claims that we'll be relegated this season, after an awful run of two defeats, yes two, that people start to question the sanity of certain posters! . That works equally, in case it's gone unoticed, when wildly speculative claims of promotion are being shouted from the rooftops after the same amount of wins on the bounce. . Seperate the ludicrous, both negative or positive, from what lies in between among the posters on this site and there is always some good balanced debate! . Time to move on Jock! avo

5:52pm Thu 12 Dec 13

ciclosporindorset says...

Why is it so many get upset by the scores on the doors. Its not as though they mean much other than +/-. Its common knowledge some commentators deliberately try to get the biggest number of - 's in a day to break their record. That's just banter, humour, mirth and fun and games - all in good spirit.
Why is it so many get upset by the scores on the doors. Its not as though they mean much other than +/-. Its common knowledge some commentators deliberately try to get the biggest number of - 's in a day to break their record. That's just banter, humour, mirth and fun and games - all in good spirit. ciclosporindorset

6:04pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Jeremy Hilary Boob says...

Stilloyal wrote:
London Red wrote:
Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks!
.
Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better!
.
Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount!
.
If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+
Agree with you LR, if teams like Yeovil can do it so can we. Just look at our history and the great teams of Bert Head, Danny Williams and Lou Macari built without substantial funds
The difference between the Town and Yeovil is that Yeovil fans probably never imagined being in the FLC, so just being there is enough for them. Surviving would be like the Town managing to hang on in the PL if it ever gets there again - that might be a big ask, but we should be capable of doing more than the likes of Yeovil. You might be able to be competitive (and let's be brutal, Yeovil aren't really) with a far smaller budget than other FLC teams, but you can only do that for so long unless you've got a manager who can work wonders and/or a conveyer belt of kids something through.

As for the Head, Williams and Macari teams, that was 25-50 years ago. Whatever budgets they had, they were likely a lot closer to the top teams (in FL1/Div 3 and probably even the FLC/Div 2) than the Town's is now.

Bert Head benefitted from a string of young players that stayed with the Town for far longer than they would today. The 2013 equivalents of Hunt, Summerbee, Rogers would have left by the time they were 18 today, so unless we got the sort of money Palace got for Zaha for them, we'd never have benefitted. We'll certainly never get the likes of Rogers or Rod Thomas playing for the Town for the length of time they did if they were playing for us today.

The problem with looking at how Macari did things is that - as he said at the time - he relied on picking up a Colin Gordon every year - he might have been a donkey but we made £100k on him back when that was a handy profit. But things like the Bosman ruling make it much harder to pick up a player and turn a handy profit on them, unless they're kids, and the PL teams have got the Academy side nicely stitched up in their favour these days.

I don't think we should return to the profligacy of the Wray/PDC era, but we need to be able to generate more money than we can at present if we are to stand a realistic chance of surviving in the FLC.
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks! . Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better! . Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount! . If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+[/p][/quote]Agree with you LR, if teams like Yeovil can do it so can we. Just look at our history and the great teams of Bert Head, Danny Williams and Lou Macari built without substantial funds[/p][/quote]The difference between the Town and Yeovil is that Yeovil fans probably never imagined being in the FLC, so just being there is enough for them. Surviving would be like the Town managing to hang on in the PL if it ever gets there again - that might be a big ask, but we should be capable of doing more than the likes of Yeovil. You might be able to be competitive (and let's be brutal, Yeovil aren't really) with a far smaller budget than other FLC teams, but you can only do that for so long unless you've got a manager who can work wonders and/or a conveyer belt of kids something through. As for the Head, Williams and Macari teams, that was 25-50 years ago. Whatever budgets they had, they were likely a lot closer to the top teams (in FL1/Div 3 and probably even the FLC/Div 2) than the Town's is now. Bert Head benefitted from a string of young players that stayed with the Town for far longer than they would today. The 2013 equivalents of Hunt, Summerbee, Rogers would have left by the time they were 18 today, so unless we got the sort of money Palace got for Zaha for them, we'd never have benefitted. We'll certainly never get the likes of Rogers or Rod Thomas playing for the Town for the length of time they did if they were playing for us today. The problem with looking at how Macari did things is that - as he said at the time - he relied on picking up a Colin Gordon every year - he might have been a donkey but we made £100k on him back when that was a handy profit. But things like the Bosman ruling make it much harder to pick up a player and turn a handy profit on them, unless they're kids, and the PL teams have got the Academy side nicely stitched up in their favour these days. I don't think we should return to the profligacy of the Wray/PDC era, but we need to be able to generate more money than we can at present if we are to stand a realistic chance of surviving in the FLC. Jeremy Hilary Boob

6:24pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

LR, I think you're disappearing up a dark passage with that argument. On the one hand you tell us that it's not necessary to spend a lot of money to build a good side and on the other you say wanted us to spend £4.5m barely 2 months into the season - just because it was in the budget? Of course Black agreed to the budget but he probably didn't bank on PDC blowing most of it straightaway (much of it on crap players), getting us into a transfer embargo and then continually demanding more cash even after another half a million had been stumped up to get us out of it.

I'll always see Andrew Black as one of the best things that ever happened to STFC and I'll see PDC as the man who brought us great excitement but took the the owners' generosity for granted and nearly wrecked the club in the process.

Lee Power said he scratches his head in disbelief at the abusive comments aimed at Black, after all he did for Swindon Town. One of the many sensible things we've heard from the new owner. As Don says, he is talking a good game. Fingers crossed he can succeed.
LR, I think you're disappearing up a dark passage with that argument. On the one hand you tell us that it's not necessary to spend a lot of money to build a good side and on the other you say wanted us to spend £4.5m barely 2 months into the season - just because it was in the budget? Of course Black agreed to the budget but he probably didn't bank on PDC blowing most of it straightaway (much of it on crap players), getting us into a transfer embargo and then continually demanding more cash even after another half a million had been stumped up to get us out of it. I'll always see Andrew Black as one of the best things that ever happened to STFC and I'll see PDC as the man who brought us great excitement but took the the owners' generosity for granted and nearly wrecked the club in the process. Lee Power said he scratches his head in disbelief at the abusive comments aimed at Black, after all he did for Swindon Town. One of the many sensible things we've heard from the new owner. As Don says, he is talking a good game. Fingers crossed he can succeed. Oi Den!

6:43pm Thu 12 Dec 13

MITTED says...

Publish the auditors' remit and also their report . People can then make up their own minds. Simple. If the board don't, then what have they to hide? Plenty will be suspicious as has already been proved.
Publish the auditors' remit and also their report . People can then make up their own minds. Simple. If the board don't, then what have they to hide? Plenty will be suspicious as has already been proved. MITTED

7:01pm Thu 12 Dec 13

who am i says...

steady jock your be getting joey on here saying were one of the same....now theres a thought lol..
steady jock your be getting joey on here saying were one of the same....now theres a thought lol.. who am i

7:24pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oxon-Red says...

who am i wrote:
london paolo wrote:
I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.
Fantastic post with some great points made very eloquently put much better than I could ever had done. Unfortunately your not allowed to criticize on here so by the end of the day you will have over twenty thumbs down from the happy clappers and rose tinted. But you get a thumbs up from me.
You can criticise but you should get things correct. Technically we were never top of League 1 under Paolo because he was not in charge of the team at Tranmere. We are also in a similar league position this season to the same time last season.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]london paolo[/bold] wrote: I'm not quite sure what her agenda is here? Has anyone told her Jedda has gone? Or which time period she is trying to cover? Anyway, her statement does beg some clarification and comment. - The club (well, Swindon Town Holdings) is a limited company and has to publish annual accounts. I don't have a copy of the last accounts to hand, but surely these have to be audited? So why does she think it hasn't been done for 15 years? - What is the date or period being audited? A snapshot, in which case at which date? An annual period, but with arbitrary start/end dates? The financial year for the 2012/13 accounts due to be published (I don't think the 2011/12 accounts are published yet though), and if that's the case, to which year-end date? - The club is in a 'healthy' position thanks to Black and Arbib generously writing off the large sums of money owed to them. Maybe they could have been credited for this? - This debenture, if linked specifically to any ground development, is different to what Power said (payable upon a takeover, but waived this time). - Describing Jedda as leading a 'charge towards sustainability' is ridiculous. He had no money to put in other than a pound (in fact was looking to make a profit), and had no choice but to slash the wage bill. That's not sustainability - that's balancing the books. As I've said before, sustainability (which implies at least the medium term) includes four things: maintaining and growing attendances; a scouting network to discover players with potential; a thriving youth development pipeline; and good coaching to improve the quality and value of players we own. - I agree with Wildwesterner. A financial audit is a factual, quantitative process. What's she doing adding a subjective opinion about the quality of football? Also, she's only been here a few months, hasn't seen any previous Swindon teams, and doesn't know the first thing about football. For what it's worth, the football played by Paolo's team 12 months ago, when we were sticking five past everyone, was the best in my opinion, and the Ferry-Ritchie-Caddis triangles still live in the memory. - The general consensus was that annual losses under the previous regime were £2.4m, on a playing budget of £4.8m. So now the playing budget has been halved to £2.4m surely we should be break-even? Where does she get a new, bigger previous 'loss' of £3.6m from? - The supporters have not been 'rallied'. Last season the average League attendance was 8,528 - the sixth highest in the division. This season the average has dropped to 8,187. I know quite a few people who have stayed away this season. Unless she's been selective and included the Chelsea game, but not Wycombe? Or, if it's an annual period, it includes the promotion run-in attendances of last season - hardly anything to do with the new regime. - I'm pleasantly surprised that we are as high as 7th, I expected us to be no better than mid-table this season. But when Black/PDC departed we were top of League 1. I'm afraid that for the most part, this woman is taking out of her Arsenal. Also, if she is going to provide a simplified commentary, she should get a grasp of the English language first (debt does not reduce itself, it is reduced by the actions of others; and 'board' is singular, not plural). But let's give her a break. After all, football isn’t her thing.[/p][/quote]Fantastic post with some great points made very eloquently put much better than I could ever had done. Unfortunately your not allowed to criticize on here so by the end of the day you will have over twenty thumbs down from the happy clappers and rose tinted. But you get a thumbs up from me.[/p][/quote]You can criticise but you should get things correct. Technically we were never top of League 1 under Paolo because he was not in charge of the team at Tranmere. We are also in a similar league position this season to the same time last season. COYMR Oxon-Red

7:28pm Thu 12 Dec 13

mancrobin says...

The Jockster wrote:
who am i wrote:
TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant.

How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.
The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows:
Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious;
You bang on about the same points over and over;
You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.[/p][/quote]Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant. How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.[/p][/quote]The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows: Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious; You bang on about the same points over and over; You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view. mancrobin

7:50pm Thu 12 Dec 13

joey butler says...

who am i wrote:
steady jock your be getting joey on here saying were one of the same....now theres a thought lol..
who am i,

You cannot possibly be jock, because he is also me and I know that I am not you, but I must surely be jock, because wiz said so, which can only be true!
[quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: steady jock your be getting joey on here saying were one of the same....now theres a thought lol..[/p][/quote]who am i, You cannot possibly be jock, because he is also me and I know that I am not you, but I must surely be jock, because wiz said so, which can only be true! joey butler

7:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

London Red says...

Den - there are two different arguements you are merging together.
.
1 is do you need £4.5m as both Fitton and Wray thought . Previously I was more inclined to say yes but am seeing more and more the answer appears to be no as Yeovil, Doncaster, Orient and us now are showing!
.
2 is of spending the budget set. Be it £1m or £100m. So at this point separate the actual numbers from the argument. So for example if Cooper has £Xm and is told during the summer he can spend 80% and will get the other 20% in Jan if we need it - the question is do you let him get loan in while we have injuries in November before the window shuts - but will not go over the 100% for the year - or do you say tough.
.
This year it was a no as we are pretty much at 100% already - does that mean Cooper and Power are reckless?
Den - there are two different arguements you are merging together. . 1 is do you need £4.5m as both Fitton and Wray thought . Previously I was more inclined to say yes but am seeing more and more the answer appears to be no as Yeovil, Doncaster, Orient and us now are showing! . 2 is of spending the budget set. Be it £1m or £100m. So at this point separate the actual numbers from the argument. So for example if Cooper has £Xm and is told during the summer he can spend 80% and will get the other 20% in Jan if we need it - the question is do you let him get loan in while we have injuries in November before the window shuts - but will not go over the 100% for the year - or do you say tough. . This year it was a no as we are pretty much at 100% already - does that mean Cooper and Power are reckless? London Red

7:54pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Jockster says...

Cheers Manc doubtless you won't be surprised to learn the feeling is somewhat mutual and having had many good debates on here I obviously don't accept your last statement. See you at Sheffield on Saturday?
Cheers Manc doubtless you won't be surprised to learn the feeling is somewhat mutual and having had many good debates on here I obviously don't accept your last statement. See you at Sheffield on Saturday? The Jockster

8:33pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Cleuso says...

Jeremy Hilary Boob wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
London Red wrote:
Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks!
.
Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better!
.
Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount!
.
If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+
Agree with you LR, if teams like Yeovil can do it so can we. Just look at our history and the great teams of Bert Head, Danny Williams and Lou Macari built without substantial funds
The difference between the Town and Yeovil is that Yeovil fans probably never imagined being in the FLC, so just being there is enough for them. Surviving would be like the Town managing to hang on in the PL if it ever gets there again - that might be a big ask, but we should be capable of doing more than the likes of Yeovil. You might be able to be competitive (and let's be brutal, Yeovil aren't really) with a far smaller budget than other FLC teams, but you can only do that for so long unless you've got a manager who can work wonders and/or a conveyer belt of kids something through.

As for the Head, Williams and Macari teams, that was 25-50 years ago. Whatever budgets they had, they were likely a lot closer to the top teams (in FL1/Div 3 and probably even the FLC/Div 2) than the Town's is now.

Bert Head benefitted from a string of young players that stayed with the Town for far longer than they would today. The 2013 equivalents of Hunt, Summerbee, Rogers would have left by the time they were 18 today, so unless we got the sort of money Palace got for Zaha for them, we'd never have benefitted. We'll certainly never get the likes of Rogers or Rod Thomas playing for the Town for the length of time they did if they were playing for us today.

The problem with looking at how Macari did things is that - as he said at the time - he relied on picking up a Colin Gordon every year - he might have been a donkey but we made £100k on him back when that was a handy profit. But things like the Bosman ruling make it much harder to pick up a player and turn a handy profit on them, unless they're kids, and the PL teams have got the Academy side nicely stitched up in their favour these days.

I don't think we should return to the profligacy of the Wray/PDC era, but we need to be able to generate more money than we can at present if we are to stand a realistic chance of surviving in the FLC.
Excellent summary Jeremy of where we are today...and why......some seem to forget that and want and expect Premiership "perfection" every week....and find "issues" here there and everywhere when they don't get it....
[quote][p][bold]Jeremy Hilary Boob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Hope the actual publication has more than above as that could have been knocked up in an hour or two not weeks! . Think the point about sitting 7th etc is to highlight the point that you don't need to spend excess millions to achieve the same or better! . Bar Ritchie the squad is far stronger and more balanced than last year but cost about half the amount! . If we can do that with the legacy drainers still on the books - why can we not go up and be competitive without having to have a wage bill of £15m+[/p][/quote]Agree with you LR, if teams like Yeovil can do it so can we. Just look at our history and the great teams of Bert Head, Danny Williams and Lou Macari built without substantial funds[/p][/quote]The difference between the Town and Yeovil is that Yeovil fans probably never imagined being in the FLC, so just being there is enough for them. Surviving would be like the Town managing to hang on in the PL if it ever gets there again - that might be a big ask, but we should be capable of doing more than the likes of Yeovil. You might be able to be competitive (and let's be brutal, Yeovil aren't really) with a far smaller budget than other FLC teams, but you can only do that for so long unless you've got a manager who can work wonders and/or a conveyer belt of kids something through. As for the Head, Williams and Macari teams, that was 25-50 years ago. Whatever budgets they had, they were likely a lot closer to the top teams (in FL1/Div 3 and probably even the FLC/Div 2) than the Town's is now. Bert Head benefitted from a string of young players that stayed with the Town for far longer than they would today. The 2013 equivalents of Hunt, Summerbee, Rogers would have left by the time they were 18 today, so unless we got the sort of money Palace got for Zaha for them, we'd never have benefitted. We'll certainly never get the likes of Rogers or Rod Thomas playing for the Town for the length of time they did if they were playing for us today. The problem with looking at how Macari did things is that - as he said at the time - he relied on picking up a Colin Gordon every year - he might have been a donkey but we made £100k on him back when that was a handy profit. But things like the Bosman ruling make it much harder to pick up a player and turn a handy profit on them, unless they're kids, and the PL teams have got the Academy side nicely stitched up in their favour these days. I don't think we should return to the profligacy of the Wray/PDC era, but we need to be able to generate more money than we can at present if we are to stand a realistic chance of surviving in the FLC.[/p][/quote]Excellent summary Jeremy of where we are today...and why......some seem to forget that and want and expect Premiership "perfection" every week....and find "issues" here there and everywhere when they don't get it.... Cleuso

9:06pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

MITTED wrote:
Publish the auditors' remit and also their report . People can then make up their own minds. Simple. If the board don't, then what have they to hide? Plenty will be suspicious as has already been proved.
MITTED, I've been saying the same. No need for simplification. For a start, I can't imagine it'll be that complicated but if it is and we don't understand it we can ask, can't we?
[quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: Publish the auditors' remit and also their report . People can then make up their own minds. Simple. If the board don't, then what have they to hide? Plenty will be suspicious as has already been proved.[/p][/quote]MITTED, I've been saying the same. No need for simplification. For a start, I can't imagine it'll be that complicated but if it is and we don't understand it we can ask, can't we? Oi Den!

9:16pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Gladiator says...

mancrobin wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
who am i wrote:
TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant.

How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.
The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows:
Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious;
You bang on about the same points over and over;
You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.
Spot on Mancrobin, I have never seen a balanced view from Jockster?
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.[/p][/quote]Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant. How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.[/p][/quote]The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows: Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious; You bang on about the same points over and over; You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.[/p][/quote]Spot on Mancrobin, I have never seen a balanced view from Jockster? The Gladiator

9:23pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Jockster says...

Ditto you Gladiator :) another whose posts are best avoided.
Ditto you Gladiator :) another whose posts are best avoided. The Jockster

9:29pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Den - there are two different arguements you are merging together.
.
1 is do you need £4.5m as both Fitton and Wray thought . Previously I was more inclined to say yes but am seeing more and more the answer appears to be no as Yeovil, Doncaster, Orient and us now are showing!
.
2 is of spending the budget set. Be it £1m or £100m. So at this point separate the actual numbers from the argument. So for example if Cooper has £Xm and is told during the summer he can spend 80% and will get the other 20% in Jan if we need it - the question is do you let him get loan in while we have injuries in November before the window shuts - but will not go over the 100% for the year - or do you say tough.
.
This year it was a no as we are pretty much at 100% already - does that mean Cooper and Power are reckless?
LR, I'm not sure Fitton and Wray thought we needed £4.5m. They probably thought it would be helpful to have a bit more than you need - and I would agree. But I don't see why the manager has to spend £4.5m just because that's the maximum available to him. As you've indicated, PDC didn't need anything like that. What he really needed was:

- coaching ability (top notch)
- an eye for a good player (patchy)
- an idea of a player's value (poor)
- man management skills (poor)

PDC's coaching skills, Danny Wilson's eye for a player and Mark Cooper's man management would be a great combination. But maybe Cooper has all three. Here's hoping.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Den - there are two different arguements you are merging together. . 1 is do you need £4.5m as both Fitton and Wray thought . Previously I was more inclined to say yes but am seeing more and more the answer appears to be no as Yeovil, Doncaster, Orient and us now are showing! . 2 is of spending the budget set. Be it £1m or £100m. So at this point separate the actual numbers from the argument. So for example if Cooper has £Xm and is told during the summer he can spend 80% and will get the other 20% in Jan if we need it - the question is do you let him get loan in while we have injuries in November before the window shuts - but will not go over the 100% for the year - or do you say tough. . This year it was a no as we are pretty much at 100% already - does that mean Cooper and Power are reckless?[/p][/quote]LR, I'm not sure Fitton and Wray thought we needed £4.5m. They probably thought it would be helpful to have a bit more than you need - and I would agree. But I don't see why the manager has to spend £4.5m just because that's the maximum available to him. As you've indicated, PDC didn't need anything like that. What he really needed was: - coaching ability (top notch) - an eye for a good player (patchy) - an idea of a player's value (poor) - man management skills (poor) PDC's coaching skills, Danny Wilson's eye for a player and Mark Cooper's man management would be a great combination. But maybe Cooper has all three. Here's hoping. Oi Den!

9:31pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

The Gladiator wrote:
mancrobin wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
who am i wrote:
TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant.

How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.
The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows:
Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious;
You bang on about the same points over and over;
You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.
Spot on Mancrobin, I have never seen a balanced view from Jockster?
You're obviously not sure about that! (?)
[quote][p][bold]The Gladiator[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.[/p][/quote]Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant. How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.[/p][/quote]The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows: Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious; You bang on about the same points over and over; You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.[/p][/quote]Spot on Mancrobin, I have never seen a balanced view from Jockster?[/p][/quote]You're obviously not sure about that! (?) Oi Den!

10:03pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Jockster says...

Oi Den! wrote:
London Red wrote:
Den - there are two different arguements you are merging together.
.
1 is do you need £4.5m as both Fitton and Wray thought . Previously I was more inclined to say yes but am seeing more and more the answer appears to be no as Yeovil, Doncaster, Orient and us now are showing!
.
2 is of spending the budget set. Be it £1m or £100m. So at this point separate the actual numbers from the argument. So for example if Cooper has £Xm and is told during the summer he can spend 80% and will get the other 20% in Jan if we need it - the question is do you let him get loan in while we have injuries in November before the window shuts - but will not go over the 100% for the year - or do you say tough.
.
This year it was a no as we are pretty much at 100% already - does that mean Cooper and Power are reckless?
LR, I'm not sure Fitton and Wray thought we needed £4.5m. They probably thought it would be helpful to have a bit more than you need - and I would agree. But I don't see why the manager has to spend £4.5m just because that's the maximum available to him. As you've indicated, PDC didn't need anything like that. What he really needed was:

- coaching ability (top notch)
- an eye for a good player (patchy)
- an idea of a player's value (poor)
- man management skills (poor)

PDC's coaching skills, Danny Wilson's eye for a player and Mark Cooper's man management would be a great combination. But maybe Cooper has all three. Here's hoping.
Den like you I think Cooper has done exceptionally well since being appointed team manager given the somewhat difficult circumstances he inherited post KMac's departure and the uncertainty with the ownership of the club.
Now that Power has laid his cards on the table by stating he's in it for the long haul it is to be hoped that the supporters can look forward to a lengthly period of stability while perhaps having to accept that there isn't an unlimited pot of gold and the possible sale of certain key players will be necessary to ensure that that stability is maintained.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Den - there are two different arguements you are merging together. . 1 is do you need £4.5m as both Fitton and Wray thought . Previously I was more inclined to say yes but am seeing more and more the answer appears to be no as Yeovil, Doncaster, Orient and us now are showing! . 2 is of spending the budget set. Be it £1m or £100m. So at this point separate the actual numbers from the argument. So for example if Cooper has £Xm and is told during the summer he can spend 80% and will get the other 20% in Jan if we need it - the question is do you let him get loan in while we have injuries in November before the window shuts - but will not go over the 100% for the year - or do you say tough. . This year it was a no as we are pretty much at 100% already - does that mean Cooper and Power are reckless?[/p][/quote]LR, I'm not sure Fitton and Wray thought we needed £4.5m. They probably thought it would be helpful to have a bit more than you need - and I would agree. But I don't see why the manager has to spend £4.5m just because that's the maximum available to him. As you've indicated, PDC didn't need anything like that. What he really needed was: - coaching ability (top notch) - an eye for a good player (patchy) - an idea of a player's value (poor) - man management skills (poor) PDC's coaching skills, Danny Wilson's eye for a player and Mark Cooper's man management would be a great combination. But maybe Cooper has all three. Here's hoping.[/p][/quote]Den like you I think Cooper has done exceptionally well since being appointed team manager given the somewhat difficult circumstances he inherited post KMac's departure and the uncertainty with the ownership of the club. Now that Power has laid his cards on the table by stating he's in it for the long haul it is to be hoped that the supporters can look forward to a lengthly period of stability while perhaps having to accept that there isn't an unlimited pot of gold and the possible sale of certain key players will be necessary to ensure that that stability is maintained. The Jockster

10:20pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Gladiator says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The Gladiator wrote:
mancrobin wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
who am i wrote:
TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant.

How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.
The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows:
Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious;
You bang on about the same points over and over;
You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.
Spot on Mancrobin, I have never seen a balanced view from Jockster?
You're obviously not sure about that! (?)
Definitely sure!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Gladiator[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.[/p][/quote]Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant. How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.[/p][/quote]The reasons I wouldn't normally respond to you Jock are as follows: Your responses are often ill tempered and obnoxious; You bang on about the same points over and over; You are a prime example of someone who cannot accept alternative points of view.[/p][/quote]Spot on Mancrobin, I have never seen a balanced view from Jockster?[/p][/quote]You're obviously not sure about that! (?)[/p][/quote]Definitely sure! The Gladiator

10:52pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Jockster says...

Gladiator thank you for confirming that you're definitely sure you're not sure :) love and hugs xx
Gladiator thank you for confirming that you're definitely sure you're not sure :) love and hugs xx The Jockster

11:29pm Thu 12 Dec 13

STFCman&boy1973 says...

I don't understand how we are losing money, still!!!
Thought with the cutbacks we'd break even...
Little saddened, but at least the love of my life is still alive!!!

COYMRs
I don't understand how we are losing money, still!!! Thought with the cutbacks we'd break even... Little saddened, but at least the love of my life is still alive!!! COYMRs STFCman&boy1973

11:46pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Chish and Fips says...

The Jockster wrote:
Gladiator thank you for confirming that you're definitely sure you're not sure :) love and hugs xx
oooooooo you little two timer Jock ... JB is not going to be a happy bunny ... :o)
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Gladiator thank you for confirming that you're definitely sure you're not sure :) love and hugs xx[/p][/quote]oooooooo you little two timer Jock ... JB is not going to be a happy bunny ... :o) Chish and Fips

12:20am Fri 13 Dec 13

Oxon-Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
MITTED wrote:
Publish the auditors' remit and also their report . People can then make up their own minds. Simple. If the board don't, then what have they to hide? Plenty will be suspicious as has already been proved.
MITTED, I've been saying the same. No need for simplification. For a start, I can't imagine it'll be that complicated but if it is and we don't understand it we can ask, can't we?
Den,

Are you sure we can ask :-)

Question then is: will the answers be accepted ?

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MITTED[/bold] wrote: Publish the auditors' remit and also their report . People can then make up their own minds. Simple. If the board don't, then what have they to hide? Plenty will be suspicious as has already been proved.[/p][/quote]MITTED, I've been saying the same. No need for simplification. For a start, I can't imagine it'll be that complicated but if it is and we don't understand it we can ask, can't we?[/p][/quote]Den, Are you sure we can ask :-) Question then is: will the answers be accepted ? COYMR Oxon-Red

12:49am Fri 13 Dec 13

Oxon-Red says...

The Jockster wrote:
who am i wrote:
TelSTFC wrote:
Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR
It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.
Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant.

How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.
Jockster,

Turn your statement round and take the not out of "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc". Are you saying the "thou shall criticise" is now the only accepted opinion.

then "your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade" - you are insinuating that the words you agree with are gospel and cannot be diasagreed with.

I would argue that "doubting Thomas's" can sit on either side of the fence i.e those that believe everything someone called Fredi says and those that would like to hear it (see it written) by someone other than an anomymous internet poster.

I agree that a player's performance has to have been seen to form a judgement, you cannot possibly say they were good or bad from a commentary on STFC Player or the radio. I have seen many comments saying someone played well or badly which having witnessed the game I don't agree with. Surely performances are in the EYE (not ear) of the beholder.

Having seen the performance we may then agree/disagree with the opinion and when is all said and done the forum is about opinions not thumbs (in my day, thumbs were used to get a lift if you missed the bus - used mine to get back from Cornwall when I was 17).

Hope I have been adult enough in my reply.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]who am i[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TelSTFC[/bold] wrote: Why oh why do you 'who am i' refer to positive comments as happy clappers. Just because most of us can see the positive side to what the current board are trying to achieve and on a sustainable budget. No disrespect but do you think PDC's way of buying players and putting them on ridiculous wages for a club on our attendances was good management I don't. He had me fooled yes and most others. It got out of control so JW was answerable also. Top of the league yes and nearly out of business bar Ritchie sale!! All the majority of fans want to see is the club being moved in the right direction and on a budget that suits the clubs attendances. We should be eventually aiming for the Brighton model if we can get into the championship because we are no bigger than them. At least the board are trying to be transparent with the fans now. COYR[/p][/quote]It's not the positive comments that are what I refer to as happy clappers it's the posters that constantly do a thumbs down when somebody posts what they foresee as a negative post. To me it's just another opinion. Like you I also see the positive side to the current set up. I have no problem whatsoever with a substanable club as long as we have ambition which on the face of it power has. I just can't see why every time a poster post a different view to the norm that has good points is classed as being negative coz it doesn't fit with the popular mass.[/p][/quote]Here here whoami well said - you must remember the golden rule on here namely "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc" and even if your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade - the "doubting Thomas's" of this forum. You cannot attend a game and criticise a players performance as dire - when you know for a fact it was - because an armchair wallah who wasn't there will argue the guy was brilliant. How much more adult to reply saying you don't agree and stating why not.[/p][/quote]Jockster, Turn your statement round and take the not out of "thou shalt not criticise players, club, management and board etc". Are you saying the "thou shall criticise" is now the only accepted opinion. then "your account is factually correct you will have to contend with the "prove it" brigade" - you are insinuating that the words you agree with are gospel and cannot be diasagreed with. I would argue that "doubting Thomas's" can sit on either side of the fence i.e those that believe everything someone called Fredi says and those that would like to hear it (see it written) by someone other than an anomymous internet poster. I agree that a player's performance has to have been seen to form a judgement, you cannot possibly say they were good or bad from a commentary on STFC Player or the radio. I have seen many comments saying someone played well or badly which having witnessed the game I don't agree with. Surely performances are in the EYE (not ear) of the beholder. Having seen the performance we may then agree/disagree with the opinion and when is all said and done the forum is about opinions not thumbs (in my day, thumbs were used to get a lift if you missed the bus - used mine to get back from Cornwall when I was 17). Hope I have been adult enough in my reply. COYMR Oxon-Red

4:45am Fri 13 Dec 13

jstamos says...

If y'all want a place to talk swindon football, head to the newly created subreddit reddit.com/r/swindon
town. just started out, would love to make it a good forum for swindon banter.
If y'all want a place to talk swindon football, head to the newly created subreddit reddit.com/r/swindon town. just started out, would love to make it a good forum for swindon banter. jstamos

4:46am Fri 13 Dec 13

jstamos says...

jstamos wrote:
If y'all want a place to talk swindon football, head to the newly created subreddit reddit.com/r/swindon

town. just started out, would love to make it a good forum for swindon banter.
whoops, its actually reddit.com/r/swindon
town
[quote][p][bold]jstamos[/bold] wrote: If y'all want a place to talk swindon football, head to the newly created subreddit reddit.com/r/swindon town. just started out, would love to make it a good forum for swindon banter.[/p][/quote]whoops, its actually reddit.com/r/swindon town jstamos

4:47am Fri 13 Dec 13

jstamos says...

jstamos wrote:
jstamos wrote:
If y'all want a place to talk swindon football, head to the newly created subreddit reddit.com/r/swindon


town. just started out, would love to make it a good forum for swindon banter.
whoops, its actually reddit.com/r/swindon

town
(no space in swindontown)
[quote][p][bold]jstamos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jstamos[/bold] wrote: If y'all want a place to talk swindon football, head to the newly created subreddit reddit.com/r/swindon town. just started out, would love to make it a good forum for swindon banter.[/p][/quote]whoops, its actually reddit.com/r/swindon town[/p][/quote](no space in swindontown) jstamos

10:15am Fri 13 Dec 13

Wildwestener says...

Cleuso wrote:
Wildwestener wrote:
This is very positive but I would suggest that an audit of the club's accounts doesn't need to comment on football matters. Whilst some football we have played this year has been excellent, some has been as poor as I can ever remember (home to Walsall for example). I'm not criticising the football, just the wisdom of making broad statements which are perhaps a hostage to fortune.
I am very hopeful that we now have club that wont be in danger of imploding at any given moment and that is to be welcomed after the last umpteen years of backroom chaos.
Oh give it a rest....if you read any company report as well as the financials it the organisation always make reference to either its successes in certain areas, its products or developments. Look a few up online and you will soon see that is "the way of the world"

Some it seems just like to moan and find an issue when there isn't one...

PS Walsall was only relatively poor as it was compared to the previous excellent home performances and no where near as some that have been seen at the County Ground over the years... perhaps my memory is just longer than yours
Nope, been a regular for 40 years now, Walsall was as poor as anything I've seen. My point was simply that a company's accounts is no place to make hostage to fortune statement about the relative quality of the football. I've written company annual reports so don't try and tell me what's in them.

You also clearly didn't really post as I also said some football this year has been excellent. Oh and PS, don't tell me to give my view a rest just because you disagree with it. You don't own the forum.
[quote][p][bold]Cleuso[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wildwestener[/bold] wrote: This is very positive but I would suggest that an audit of the club's accounts doesn't need to comment on football matters. Whilst some football we have played this year has been excellent, some has been as poor as I can ever remember (home to Walsall for example). I'm not criticising the football, just the wisdom of making broad statements which are perhaps a hostage to fortune. I am very hopeful that we now have club that wont be in danger of imploding at any given moment and that is to be welcomed after the last umpteen years of backroom chaos.[/p][/quote]Oh give it a rest....if you read any company report as well as the financials it the organisation always make reference to either its successes in certain areas, its products or developments. Look a few up online and you will soon see that is "the way of the world" Some it seems just like to moan and find an issue when there isn't one... PS Walsall was only relatively poor as it was compared to the previous excellent home performances and no where near as some that have been seen at the County Ground over the years... perhaps my memory is just longer than yours[/p][/quote]Nope, been a regular for 40 years now, Walsall was as poor as anything I've seen. My point was simply that a company's accounts is no place to make hostage to fortune statement about the relative quality of the football. I've written company annual reports so don't try and tell me what's in them. You also clearly didn't really post as I also said some football this year has been excellent. Oh and PS, don't tell me to give my view a rest just because you disagree with it. You don't own the forum. Wildwestener

3:49pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Oi Den! says...

WW, I agree on all points. The Walsall performance was not relatively poor. It would have been diabolical in the context of any sequence of games. Perhaps it's just as well Ms Shah did mention the football though - because she said hardly anything else.
WW, I agree on all points. The Walsall performance was not relatively poor. It would have been diabolical in the context of any sequence of games. Perhaps it's just as well Ms Shah did mention the football though - because she said hardly anything else. Oi Den!

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree