Doyle signs

It’s pretty obvious to me that you had the players and Stuart in one corner and Rahic in the other. Rahic probably knew (but not to the extent it happened), that removing McCall would upset the apple cart. It’s no surprise that the main gang members are no longer at the club.

Apologies for going off topic.

 

I didn't say it was fact. There's little point in you throwing out a hypothetical question and then not accepting a hypothetical answer.

You're not even listening. I've never even mentioned hate or manipulation I just tried to give a logical scenario that answered the question you asked.

One last time and I'll try to keep it simple. IF a split appeared between Rahic and McCall then McCall's closeness with the players and very open style of communication MAY have caused some of the players to naturally take his side.

At that point McCall's closeness with his players may have affected his relationship with Rahic (which was the question you asked) because a more guarded and distant manager may have been able to keep any personal disagreements out of the dressing room.

Can We get back to talking about Doyle yet?

 

If others believe the hypothetical situation, it has to be believable and if it isn't, I'm going to question it. Even you said it "surely" means that it affected the relationship between McCall an Rahic. Personally, I don't find It as glaringly obvious as that. It's guess work at best.

 

Who are the main gang members, can you name them?

 

Fine. It wasn't even a guess, I didn't say it even actually happened. It's just a scenario given what we know as to how it could have done.

 

The sustainable model could mean that the club is solvent.

We got rid of the highly paid pros on their last legs and replaced such desperate methods with an actual payments structure, a method now being adapted throughout the EFL. This places any liabilities within the clubs reach without needing extraordinary revenues just to tread water. In principle.

It also leaves monies to spend in other areas which we are seeing.

It also means that should the need arise that investment is needed, which as far as I am aware the owners considered will be necessary in the CC and have stated that they are prepared to However this will be also represented on the asset side not just costs as the players will have some resale value. In principle. This does not always pan out even for the fancy Dans of the PL, however one would be very unlucky indeed if that was true across the whole team. So one would hope that players bought for x amount will be worth y amount if/when any transfers arise. The difference between the two is where the idea of sustainability lies. The difference is where club revenues come in to fund that shortfall but at not too great an expense to the club. Sustainable. Plus hopefully the difference will be represented by how well they've played and how much further they have taken us on.

It also leaves financial capacity latent should some dire need arise, the less debt you are carrying the more capacity for such you have in hand, once again should the need arise.

So the clubs monies should be going into this year and future years not paying off deficits, that alone is worth a fortune to the club in not having to pay the costs of the repayment and servicing of debt, very expensive. That alone is a form of windfall, football complains about agents fees yet turns a blind eye to the solicitors, bank and accountancy fees necessary for a seat of the pants deficit method of business.

On the Academy problem. Well the EFL have just brought that rule in about development players so the board were ahead of the curve on that one. Like it or not that makes the Academy an integral and necessary part of the club. That's the way the wind blows, bend like a reed in the wind or snap is the ancient Far Eastern proverb.

Back to the beginning of the post. Really, really not sure the idea is to just develop to sell on, as others have said, just that they carry a value and therefore help balance the costs in wages, insurance etc. Once again as others have said for them to be worth a transfer fee they must have performed for us.

So if we are running the same model as Lawn and Rhodes why couldn't they do these things? Somethings changed and even those opposed to or seriously doubting the business aptitude of the board should be able to see that surely.

If your income AND assets are worth more than your expenditure then you have a sustainable model and that is something the club should at least be aiming at. Healthy for the finances and healthy all round for the club.

 

All about sustainable debt. I very much doubt that as the current squad stand we could balance the books every season as Lawn and Rhodes tried to do. The income from TV revenue, gate receipts and the like will not cover the staff payroll and the off field developments, remaining debt free was always dependant on a cup run or player sales. I'm all for running the club at a deficit if the owners believe it is beneficial in the long term.

 

Good read that Dennis. I'm no business expert but i guess that any new business idea will take a loss for the first few years before their business plan comes to fruition. The aim being that some point in the future the the money invested will pay for itself. Being fully committed in the beginning gives far greater chance of success down the line, i think the saying is speculate to accumulate.

 

I remember we were running at £750,000 loss earlier in the year, then it somehow disappeared. Do you think Rupp filled the gap, or did we receive more income?

Your posts are always interesting, for me in particular as I know nothing about running a business, so I learn things

 

Only beg to disagree on one point. They were paying the debt off the season before. I feel the present owners are trying to balance on this season. Hopefully starting each season with a 'cleaner' slate if not an entirely clean one. Should allow us your point of being able to carry a certain amount of manageable debt.

 

@Dennis Could I just bring up the point of the EFL must have a development player rule. Surely that's forced their hand a little in having to spread thinner than even themselves would have liked? Perhaps raise the pitch as well which many seemed to think was about to get us in to trouble from the FA. So whilst squeezing us somewhat it would appear in many respects to have been forced upon us and I think it has been handled better than one could have hoped for.

 

Popped into this thread to read posters views about Doyle and thought I'd logged into the finacial times football section, or how to run a football club for dummies Rahic style, can you high flyers get back on topic **worship.

 

Hoping he plays with fingers crossed for a debut goal.

 

Far too sensible post!! Off with your head!!

 

Your wife or his ?

 

Isn't the rule that the seventh person on your bench has to be the above. If you don't/ can't meet it you can only have six on the bench so it's not a big deal really.