Takeover Rumour

If the Mcburnie money has gone towards wiping the debt then Rupp isn't financing the club, the club is financing itself.

Why would anyone thank Rupp for using the clubs biggest and only asset to cover the mess HE got us into?

The mind boggles.

 

The club has limited assets. Squad and league status only, plus potential

 

Intrigued by how you're working all this out.

We know Lawn and Rhodes were over budget every season - and needed cup runs and player sales to cover the overspend each season.

This season's squad must be more expensive than the one that Parky assembled to get us promoted from League Two, so we know we're running to a deficit.

Last season, the deficit was astronomical, and Rahic lost his job because of it.

Are you implying that the McBurnie sale covered BOTH the astronomical loss of last season AND the significant deficit for this season's playing squad?

Because if not, and it's a pretty ludicrous assertion, Rupp pretty clearly IS financing the club, and the McBurnie money is only a partial repayment of the totally unnecessary amounts of money Rupp has lost.

 

When Rupp took over and paid a reported 6mill the club had assets. It had sell on’s for nakhi Wells and McBurnie written into contracts. We also had Charlie wyke who was a very salable asset. We also had a league one status. At the time you could have estimated those 3 alone to be a minimum of 2.5 - 3mill, with the addition of a league 1 club, with a large fan base.

Since then, all of those assets have been systematically stripped, along with losing our league 1 status. The strong fan base has also dwindled but now remains our only asset, with the exception of our football league status.

Our only saleable assets are paudie and maybe wood, but those two are speculative at best currently. The club is not worth anywhere close to the value Rupp paid initially. It was probably worth the 6 mill he paid at a push, but with all of the above assets stripped it’s no where close to that value anymore.

 

@Dubai bantam dont you think stripped is a tad harsh? Stripped usually means removed, and in the case of a takeover usually means the buyer has taken the cash out. That hasn’t happened. The sell ons matured and the funds have been spent by the football club.

Plus the sell on’s etc were speculative too as was shown by Cleverley, you say they were worth 2.5-3mbut they could have brought in nothing

 

The overspend we've been told was £2M. We're receiving £3M from the Mcburnie sale which would cover both.

Even if it doesn't cover every single penny, £3M is enough to seize control over the situation, make the debt manageable and not require Rupp to urgently dip into his pocket.

It's been done to death on here but there's literally zero evidence of Rupp putting money into the club and even if there is, I'm struggling to muster up any praise for him.

We've received roughly £4M worth of income since Rupp took over. Just let that sink in. £4M. That's £4M which if used correctly could easily propel a league 1 club Into the Championship. Instead it's gone towards financing a debt free league 2 club and there are some on here who are grateful to Rupp because he was prepared to finance us but instead used the clubs biggest asset to do it.

I mean seriously?

 

#prayforbury

 

A proportion of it, or perhaps the running costs of the club? There are other expenses to be considered you know.

 

Charlie Wyke was bought buy Rupp.

 

Exactly. And the mentality of some is 'be grateful we're not Bury'. Everything we do screams mediocrity and we deserve to be a plodding league 2 club. That's the harsh reality.

 

In order for these figures to work, we would have needed to have received the 15 percent as a lump sum.

It's perfectly possible, but if it's installments over multiple seasons then you can see the issuem

 

And according to reports - So was Doyle ......... As Wykes sale alone would not cover the costs of Doyle.

 

Let's not forget, McBurnies windfall was never a guarantee ....... He could have played his Swansea contract out as did the lad at Everton, a few seasons back.

 

We've already been told that the Mcburnie fee is going towards the debt. (Parker, the YP and Rhodes himself have all confirmed this). Whether the debt is going to be covered in one lump sum, paid off in instalments or involve Rupp paying himself back, the end result is exactly the same. Rupp, when all is said and done, would not have spent a penny and the millions which should have gone towards taking the club forward will instead have gone towards rectifying Rupp's mistakes.

This is the same owner some are thanking for having our back? If you're responsible for £2M worth of debt and can afford cover it then you should do exactly that. Rupp isn't, but according to some we're still supposed to be grateful for his involvement in the club.

 

Come on Tolly. I think you know it's not that simple. Where do you think this seasons competitive budget has come from? It's not all self financed by the club - which would be a nice place to be in. Rupp is willing to invest sensibly to make the club competitive. Rahic ripped that strategy up and Rupp covered it.

The board will have agreed on a budget which they believe gives Bowyer the tools to assemble a squad capable of challenging for promotion this season. That budget will have factored in income generated by the club - ticket sales, EFL, sponsors etc. - ensured running costs are accounted for and then the rest set aside for team strengthening. I would imagine there would be a gap between income brought in by the club and the agreed budget. Rupp will have pumped money in to cover that gap.

Rupp made a mistake by entrusting so much responsibility in Rahic. What I look for in people is acceptance of responsibility (check) and the ability to learn from those mistakes and it looks as though he is - Bowyer running team affairs, Rhodes brought in to ensure club is operating professionally for example.

 

So Rupp is not putting in any money?!

Then why is the clubs budget more competitive under Rupp than at any point under Rhodes and Lawn? Are you saying the club is generating more money now than at any other point under Lawn and Rhodes? If so, well done Rupp!

 

How do you come to the conclusion that 'the clubs budget is more competitive under Rupp than at any point under Rhodes and Lawn'?

 

Think you misunderstood.

If the money is coming in installments, it not only doesn't cover this season's loss, it's also only partially covering future season's deficits as well.

 

The main reason we have playing debt that needs to be underwritten is through the lack of governance and oversight by the custodian of the club.

He has at least shown some personal integrity by doing so, because he could have just written his money off.

There's more control by qualified professionals than 12 months ago but there could hardly be less.

But we dont have financial and sporting ambition. Theres an aspiration to be a championship club but no real plan.

What I wouldn't give for an owner like Dean Hoyle.

 

I knew that question would be coming. Last seasons budget was 4th biggest in League 1 and the largest we have had since any of the last two administrations - it was reckless and blame should apportioned to both Rupp and Rahic but more so Rahic. This season it has been stated the budget is circa £3.5m and likely top 3 for League 2.

When did we ever have the top 3-4 budget under Lawn and Rhodes? I recall the season we got relegated to League 2 they pushed the boat out for top 7 but then it was cut the following season. They generally aimed at top 10 budget. The gap between being top 10 and top 3 can be significant.