£180,000 Incoming?
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
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.
-
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 20:19
Story here: http://bit.ly/WestHamThomas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 29820
- 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!
Seriously though, big news and a real bonus if it happens. More money in the budget to sign players to support Mo!
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.
Like when we sold Steve Giliespie for £400k, did any of that go into transfer fees ? No.
I recall Josh Low and Lloyd Owusu coming in on transfer deadline day.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Lol yeah I remember Hooper farce and the Martin Patterson one. Was laughable to think we stood a chance.Fuller wrote:I recall Josh Low and Lloyd Owusu coming in on transfer deadline day.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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
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.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).
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.
"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.
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.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
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 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.
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. I highly doubt all money will go to the stand and some would almost certainly go back into the playing budget.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
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.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. I highly doubt all money will go to the stand and some would almost certainly go back into the playing budget.
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.
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.
My only concern is the capacity needs to be minimum 3000 in order to future proof the ground, ideally it's 4000.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Completely agree with you.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.
....fact or rumour?
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/ ... ke-1749674" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/ ... ke-1749674" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Definitely agree there.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.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3936
- Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
I agree with DRGM .Looking after existing fans comfort could be achieved.
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Payback periods. It is a long term earner, so a long term loan would incur a lot of interest.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.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: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 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.
Oh the irony
-
- Posts: 29820
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
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.Ihearye wrote:RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: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 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.
Oh the irony