Protest must happen

Well in any one year we might make a profit, does this have any effect on the losses, in other words how do we reduce the losses. Then again we might have losses the next year, just wondering to they assess it?

 

Aren't 'altruistic' and 'investor' essentially non-compatible terms?

The term 'investment' implies the sought outcome of a profit.

Lawn wasn't a charity, no, but who outside the silly rich in the EFL actually are?

The crux of the issue is, if Lawn made money off the back of the club, was he then prepared to RE-invest it when the club needed it? Only then would you know whether Lawn was a standard, self-serving investor or someone prepared to really go the extra mile.

I personally believe that like any sensible businessman, he was somewhere between the two.

The truly cynical types often stand out a mile.

 

Ok, I think I understand. So for the sake of argument we somehow accumulated £2 million profit one year, it would then be wiped out? Then the following year we made a loss again, then we still would not be able to pay corporation tax or pay divs?

 

But I'm pretty sure all those guys are "investing" money in a bid to reach the Premier League - where I'm pretty sure they'll line their pockets, and then some.

That's the whole reason the Championship is so out-of-whack with reality - the Premier League is a lottery win, on a far more serious scale.

They're ALL just investors - whether those investments are sound, well, that's another story. But they're not charities.

The beauty of it is, though, if you get those clubs to the promised land, I doubt the fans would even bother accounting for the club's finances at this stage. You'd pretty much get a free pass.

I almost guarantee that's what these people are thinking.

 

While I agree with what you're saying, it's a rare instance that these people are pumping money into teams with no infrastructure.

This is where stadia and potential come into play. Fleetwood and Crawley received undue backing from their owners; you can make an argument for Scunthorpe for that matter - but, really, the ones that get the money are the ones that can (potentially) generate more.

We can class ourselves as part of that club, as we don't need a massive stadium overhaul. That makes us worthy of potential investment - but I can understand why clubs get the nod over us. There are a few oddball examples of clubs in a worse position getting serious investment, but it doesn't strike me as common.

Which gives us hope - if we're on par with some of the teams getting good money put behind them, then it might one day be us reaping the rewards.

But not under these clowns, obviously

 

Grow up

 

I hope any organised protest is aimed at Rupp too. Rahic, rightly so, gets a lot of flak, however, we have in Rupp, the major shareholder, a man who doesnt even like football that much apparently, he has rarely attended games since the takeover, and despite the ever growing crisis since the summer, he has not been near the place on matchdays apparently. Shocking way to run a football club in my opinion

 

I honestly have no idea what Rupp has done to deserve a protest. I expect his attention is devoted to the successful businesses that he understands.

 

It depends in my opinion on what Rupp’s attitude to risk is. He owns 80% of business that is presumably losing money, needs money spending on it and is presumably depreciating in value and will continue to do so unless money is spent on it and/or there is a good element of luck.

For me his options are sell now, continue to pour money in and under write the losses, loan money with a charge on the business or take as much money as is legally possible and hope for the best.

Unless there is a dramatic turnaround he must surely have mentally written off a good chunk of his investment. All that’s left is the debt the club owes him. It depends on how much of that he can get back and how much he is prepared to lose.

 

Surely Rupp's potential losses wouldn't keep him awake at night?

 

I disagree. He may well be a business man and ‘invested’ in our club, but he is not stupid and he must have realised that he would have responsibility for the club’s success and ongoing wellbeing; if he didn’t that is his error, plus he has the power to sack Rahic and he has chosen to leave him here Therefore he needs to be included in any protest.

 

protests wont happen

 

I don't see it like that. He is an honest investor and promised us nothing, we were looking for a buyer, he guaranteed the funds, we were happy then weren't we? He openly said football wasn't his game and I feel it's a bit harsh to start focusing on him. I don't see what he's done wrong and expect BCFC is well down the list on his day to day "to do" list.

 

Strange isn’t how we can both look at the same issue and see it different.