New Manager

No it means we don’t need owner financial input . I thought I explained that originally. Apologies if I didn’t . Otherwise how else would one explain self funded or whatever terminology one cares to use?

 

Football and sport is different to other businesses though there are so many variables. You can’t account for injuries loss of form managers with great reputations failing. True the more money you throw at it the better your chances but using borrowed money the risk outweighs the benefits

 

No, I get the general inference. And I'm not saying its a bad thing. But isn't running a business within its operating revenue a fairly standard thing? I expect that from relatively low level managers who own budgets in my business. Its hardly a glorious testament to a CEO's performance. And yet it seems to be the narrative we build our sense of success or performance around. Its bizarre to me.

 

All business is about a balance of risk and opportunity. Its just the context that's different. Why does the risk outweigh the advantages? That boils down to competence and where/how you choose to invest.

 

Because investing in humans is not like machinery or property. Football needs money to progress but it has to be Money you are prepared to lose. Putting the club at risk is not a good long term policy as us and many others have found out. I wish Rupp wouls put some of his money forward but he won’t .so in my opinion we are following the right oath

 

If running an EFL club without incurring substantial losses and as an absolute MINIMUM breaking even is the benchmark , then he’s a winner in the owner’s eye. Name another club in the EFL that does that without owner/ benefactor input that gets the club to the level of financial stability BCAFC are at.
Everyone is making out it’s easy but cannot name another club. Clearly at the moment it’s status quo Non of us like it and wish the owner be profligate?

 

All business comes down to humans at some point. It’s no different. You’re hiring people in, giving them tools and an environment to perform, and managing risks. Why would debt, if it’s manageable put the club at risk? Or to ask it another, is there risk in our current approach and how do you know it’s any less than some form of investment plan? It’s as much an opportunity as a risk, the defining point which determines the side of the coin you land on, is largely down to competence of those in charge. So in a sense, I agree, it’d be more of a risk to us than an opportunity.

 

It was the manner of the defeat that has got us all scratching our heads.

Tactically very poor.

Ripped up a "nearly team" and inserted a whole bunch of players who are struggling or appear to be struggling to play a certain formation.

That's what is causing me concern. I do want the club to get promoted but right now feel as flat as a fart.

The Crewe game is now very important for the management team and players to deliver a solid winning performance.

 

The point of a football club is to succeed, and grow, not demonstrate the avoidance of a loss on your P&L each year. Its not a marker of success and it isn’t the zero risk approach many seem to think.

 

if that was true we would be in debt.

 

If what was true?

 

But you can’t grow when all income is taken servicing debt. If someone is standing that debt is one thing but quite another when it’s in the club particularly at the cost of money these days

 

No doubt. But it’d be a low benchmark. And if that’s how he’s being judged, then the owner will be happy, and as a young CEO, it might be enough for Sparks in his current gig. What I’d hope for though, and what you’d get with a more experienced and visionary CEO, is a challenge back to the owner that says ‘this is how I take your asset from being worth the £6m you paid for it to one that’s in the championship and with £30m, and this is what it’ll cost you’. Maybe Sparks has done that, and maybe Rupp has said ‘no’. And if so, and if Sparks is ambitious, then I wouldn’t expect him to hang round for long.

To be clear, I don’t think Sparks is doing a bad job as such, I just think he needs some help on the football side. Our problems stem from the owner, we’ve done nothing but regress under his tenure.

 

We aren't where we are because of lack of money. We are where we are because of a lack of imagination in appointing managers. Hopkin/ Grayson/ Bowyer/ Adams/ Hughes all chips off the same block of boringness.

The only deviation was Stuart who lost the plot.

 

A better idea is to Succeed sustainably which with our fan base and management we are quite capable of at this level

 

Why would anyone commit all of their income to servicing debt. Its kind of the point I made earlier Park, some (and I think in this case it applies to you), people either see zero-debt and safety, or club ending levels of risk and unserviceable debt. There’s a huge amount of variance in between.

It’s much, much harder to grow when you’re operating to a limit of ‘self sustainability’. Nearly every business needs an injection of capital to grow, and you need a plan to service that capital.

 

Do you have any example of a club who’s gone from League 2 to the championship and consolidated there, on a ‘self sustaining budget’? I can’t think of any. We’re consigned to this division for a good few years yet in my opinion.

 

At this level I said of course as you move up the league the harder it gets especially with money drop down these days

 

I went up to Apperley Bridge on three occasions last season and Hughes played very little active part in the training sessions. Hodges was doing all the organising and shouting instructions. There seemed very little rapport between Hughes and the squad and no sign of encouragement.

 

He's openly said he's all about matchday and that's what he missed.