£180,000 Incoming?

Talk about anything to do with Cheltenham Town, CTFC 500 Club, League 1, ex players & Managers

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

MSB
Posts: 134
Joined: 10 Aug 2014, 15:26
According to Glos Live, Luke Thomas is off to West Ham for £1.2million which would net us £180,000 in sell on fees. Couple that with the Pell money and we're looking at some big decisions to be made regarding finances this coming season. A real good opportunity to push the club on in the new chairman's first season.
Jon Palmer
Posts: 5046
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 20:19
Story here: http://bit.ly/WestHamThomas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I knew Fulham were doing CTFC a favour when they beat Derby.

Seriously though, big news and a real bonus if it happens. More money in the budget to sign players to support Mo!
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
£280,000 is decent money and could fund 4-5 experienced free transfers however I doubt it will all go into next seasons budget.
User avatar
Nesty
Posts: 6652
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 09:17
Robin wrote:£280,000 is decent money and could fund 4-5 experienced free transfers however I doubt it will all go into next seasons budget.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
I wouldn't expect a big splurge especially with the new main stand a clear target. Cambridge received similar money when they played Man Utd they spent it all on wages and now they are skint so need to avoid going down that route.
Fuller
Posts: 2675
Joined: 27 Jun 2012, 09:23
OK PB is no longer Chairman, but he said on the radio before the Crewe game that any transfer fees would help towards funding half a dozen Capital Projects that had been on the back burner for a while, which might well be at Seasons or amongst other much needed schemes.

Like when we sold Steve Giliespie for £400k, did any of that go into transfer fees ? No.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
When we sold Gillespie we offered £100,000 to Port Vale for Marc Richards so the intent to spend was there, then the window closed and we ended up using it on expensive loans if I recall.
Fuller
Posts: 2675
Joined: 27 Jun 2012, 09:23
Robin wrote:When we sold Gillespie we offered £100,000 to Port Vale for Marc Richards so the intent to spend was there, then the window closed and we ended up using it on expensive loans if I recall.
I recall Josh Low and Lloyd Owusu coming in on transfer deadline day.

Like John Ward the year before, Keith Downing had loads of knockbacks. He tried to sign Woolford & Hooper as well, both would have been great signings at the time.

Just something a smaller club like us has to put up with I suppose, however disappointing that is.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Yes all were six figure fees if I recall and all went to Scunthorpe instead of us. The one thing we didn't do back then which we do now is pay agent fees and that can be a pivotal factor when wages being offered are not too far apart.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Fuller wrote:
Robin wrote:When we sold Gillespie we offered £100,000 to Port Vale for Marc Richards so the intent to spend was there, then the window closed and we ended up using it on expensive loans if I recall.
I recall Josh Low and Lloyd Owusu coming in on transfer deadline day.

Like John Ward the year before, Keith Downing had loads of knockbacks. He tried to sign Woolford & Hooper as well, both would have been great signings at the time.

Just something a smaller club like us has to put up with I suppose, however disappointing that is.
Lol yeah I remember Hooper farce and the Martin Patterson one. Was laughable to think we stood a chance.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Once again you are talking balls RCS, one of those two came very close to signing for us the other came down and looked at the training ground but we couldn't match the financial package being offered (deal length and wages). Perhaps instead of ignorantly making sweeping statements you could consider listening to others.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote:Once again you are talking balls RCS, one of those two came very close to signing for us the other came down and looked at the training ground but we couldn't match the financial package being offered (deal length and wages).
It would be remiss of any player who needs a new club not to visit the training ground or enter talks. If I lost my job tomorrow and a worse job offer came along I would go along and see what it was about and maybe even plan a start date but bail as soon as something better came along. Doesn’t mean the job I turned down was close to being my level.

Happy to listen to others and will consider the evidence provided. Where others state things with no evidence or sources then there is nothing to suggest their comments are any less of a sweeping generalisation or opinion than mine.

You saying “but me and JP said..” doesn’t make it any more believable without anything to back it up, hence the bullshit claxon going into overdrive.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Whilst I don't disagree with you entirely if you recognised that others have stated something in good faith (rightly or wrongly) it would give more balance.
paperboy
Posts: 2716
Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 22:56
....getting back on topic, I wonder if West Ham appointing a new manager will affect what is still a sizeable investment for that club.
plymrob
Posts: 337
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 14:03
"I wouldn't expect a big splurge especially with the new main stand a clear target."

Oh for some people's insider knowledge... Your own money to follow mouth then please....

I hope, through looming opportunities, there might be a budget pot for a bit of both - players and ground improvements. I would probably try to balance them - and for me, a more consistently better performing team might justify a new stand but in that order. The often spoken about enhanced and 'guaranteed' increased off field income needs to be treated with the same degree of caution as a mad new player splurge. So let's have a sensible splurge - new players and money in the future new stand pot.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote:Whilst I don't disagree with you entirely if you recognised that others have stated something in good faith (rightly or wrongly) it would give more balance.
Not disputing it is said in good faith. Statements and claims could be made with the best will in the would. Doesn’t make them true or believable.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
plymrob wrote:"I wouldn't expect a big splurge especially with the new main stand a clear target."

Oh for some people's insider knowledge... Your own money to follow mouth then please....

I hope, through looming opportunities, there might be a budget pot for a bit of both - players and ground improvements. I would probably try to balance them - and for me, a more consistently better performing team might justify a new stand but in that order. The often spoken about enhanced and 'guaranteed' increased off field income needs to be treated with the same degree of caution as a mad new player splurge. So let's have a sensible splurge - new players and money in the future new stand pot.

So you are totally ignoring the comments of our new chairman and disregarding the notiion that the new stand is vital for our club for both off field revenue generation and larger away capacity it would bring. :shock: I highly doubt all money will go to the stand and some would almost certainly go back into the playing budget.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote:
plymrob wrote:"I wouldn't expect a big splurge especially with the new main stand a clear target."

Oh for some people's insider knowledge... Your own money to follow mouth then please....

I hope, through looming opportunities, there might be a budget pot for a bit of both - players and ground improvements. I would probably try to balance them - and for me, a more consistently better performing team might justify a new stand but in that order. The often spoken about enhanced and 'guaranteed' increased off field income needs to be treated with the same degree of caution as a mad new player splurge. So let's have a sensible splurge - new players and money in the future new stand pot.

So you are totally ignoring the comments of our new chairman and disregarding the notiion that the new stand is vital for our club for both off field revenue generation and larger away capacity it would bring. :shock: I highly doubt all money will go to the stand and some would almost certainly go back into the playing budget.
To be fair to Plymrob, he is not all totally ignoring or disregarding. He has accepted the arguments behind a new stand but advised caution and reminders that it is not guaranteed to boost revenue.

I must admit, whilst I myself have been a big advocate of a new stand and always bring out the “we need to added off the pitch income” to justify my view, I have not considered the work and effort involved to generate the income and where demand for the facilities will come from. So whilst I think a new stand is required, there is no guarantee it will earn money. Which is all Plymrob is saying, and it is a very prudent point to make.
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Whist I agree there is no guarantee (there rarely is) there is a precedent of other clubs making it work, most notably Fleetwood and Burton. I also feel that the chairman wants to move his business into the office space so clearly has a vested interest in making it work.

My only concern is the capacity needs to be minimum 3000 in order to future proof the ground, ideally it's 4000.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote:Whist I agree there is no guarantee (there rarely is) there is a precedent of other clubs making it work, most notably Fleetwood and Burton. I also feel that the chairman wants to move his business into the office space so clearly has a vested interest in making it work.

My only concern is the capacity needs to be minimum 3000 in order to future proof the ground, ideally it's 4000.
Completely agree with you.
User avatar
Nesty
Posts: 6652
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 09:17
I would think the Lampard appointment will put paid to the deal.
paperboy
Posts: 2716
Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 22:56
....fact or rumour?

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/ ... ke-1749674" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Robin
Posts: 15948
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
Sounds like Derby are playing hardball but again hoping this goes through quickly as £180,000 should pay for a decent striker to come in and partner Mo.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote:Sounds like Derby are playing hardball but again hoping this goes through quickly as £180,000 should pay for a decent striker to come in and partner Mo.
Definitely agree there.
drgm
Posts: 323
Joined: 31 Jul 2014, 20:15
If a new stand was the guaranteed moneyspinner some on here think it is then why wait? Why not just
borrow the money from the bank and pay it off with the income generated from corporate functions, office
space and gym memberships? The reason we haven't done this is because the numbers don't stack up

I think a new stand would be nice but it's not essential for the future of the club. Rarely do we sell out the ground
so you could argue that capacity wise we are already ok.

A more modest proposal would be to extend the existing stand to the full length of the pitch and spread the seats
to give more leg-room.
horlickfanclub
Posts: 3908
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
I agree with DRGM .Looking after existing fans comfort could be achieved.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
drgm wrote:If a new stand was the guaranteed moneyspinner some on here think it is then why wait? Why not just
borrow the money from the bank and pay it off with the income generated from corporate functions, office
space and gym memberships? The reason we haven't done this is because the numbers don't stack up

I think a new stand would be nice but it's not essential for the future of the club. Rarely do we sell out the ground
so you could argue that capacity wise we are already ok.

A more modest proposal would be to extend the existing stand to the full length of the pitch and spread the seats
to give more leg-room.
Payback periods. It is a long term earner, so a long term loan would incur a lot of interest.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3428
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Robin wrote:Whilst I don't disagree with you entirely if you recognised that others have stated something in good faith (rightly or wrongly) it would give more balance.
Not disputing it is said in good faith. Statements and claims could be made with the best will in the would. Doesn’t make them true or believable.

Oh the irony
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16824
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Er, I might be missing something but the reason it hasn't been done is because the council STILL haven't come to a decision over the landswap with Cakebridge Place.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29759
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote:
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:
Robin wrote:Whilst I don't disagree with you entirely if you recognised that others have stated something in good faith (rightly or wrongly) it would give more balance.
Not disputing it is said in good faith. Statements and claims could be made with the best will in the would. Doesn’t make them true or believable.

Oh the irony
Eh? I have never claimed to have a source and behind the scenes intelligence. All my statements on Mo and new stand are my own view and what I consider to be common sense with no claims at all to know anything about behind the scenes discussion and plans.
Post Reply