|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jan 19, 2024 10:24:55 GMT 1
not sure what you mean, if we use marosi as an example, he's a great keeper for us, we probably couldn't give him away free as he's quite happy with his wage here until his contract expires, and then he becomes a free agent moves on that means to get rid we would have to pay him off, and thats only providing he can find another club willing to take him, that would cost us say maybe at least half of his remaining wage , which we probably couldn't afford anyway, and then a cheap keeper is required to replace him, if we end up paying this new keeper half of what marosi is on, that would mean we will be paying roughly the same for a less quality keeper, it would be madness on our part I think we are broadly thinking along similar lines in terms of getting rid of players and paying x%, I believe the difference is you think their wages are that high that they will put off any interest, whereas I don't. Whilst high for us, I don't think they are anything extortionate at our level and whilst we talk of 'Chamipionship' wages I suspect they are at the bottom end of that scale. My view is that if the big earners were made available then there would be interest, not necessarily all of them would go but I would be very surprised if fellow L1 clubs didn't look at the likes of Marosi, Dunkley, Shipley & Bayliss. As for the players, I suspect they would jump at the chance to go. I bet you Cotterill sold them a dream of targeting promotion to the Championship and that's gone now, it's about survival and the calibre of players coming in is very different (as per Flanaghan's comments) My main point though is the fact we've kept them all (and tried to keep Pennington & Leahy), those are not the actions of a club that is struggling financially. Of course, the fact the board are effectively paying the wages themselves, would suggest that is the case. Which is the bit I'm really struggling with, I don't understand the position of the club financially. And not only did we seek to keep Leahy and Pennington, but we actively went out and brought Winchester in on a permanent.
|
|
|
Post by floreatsalopia1 on Jan 19, 2024 10:47:42 GMT 1
This is the case at present with Mr Delves apparently leaving If it is true then what a **** up. I believe it to be true 100%. The clubs statements about bringing in two new investors yesterday now seems to haVe changed into the word takeover in today's s.star. It's all to deflect from the Swedish consortium bid story to buy the club that Roland has rejected for his own unexplained reasons. The rumour is Paul Delves has resigned but no news has been released from the club. However since the supporters meeting we have news about investors and takeover to put Roland and Duncan in a positive light. We should be concentrating on our transfer business, but we seem to be in a position where the club wants to promote Roland, and Duncan are supporting the club in these difficult times. Whilst times are difficult it is apparent Roland is spinning the narrative which attempts to deflect from his failings over the last 2 years and his ongoing failure to sell the club. In my opinion he wants to appear to be keen to find the right person but seeking new investors maintains the status quo with RW at the helm still.
|
|
|
Post by servernaside on Jan 19, 2024 10:59:47 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC?
|
|
|
Post by ProudSalopian on Jan 19, 2024 11:05:34 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? I'm guessing the 'high net worth' and 'invest heavily into the club' are the main reasons
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Jan 19, 2024 11:06:04 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? Consortium of foreign individuals who would make decision making impossible in a transfer window, layers upon layers. And if it is a plaything, who is to say they would not lose interest/build on the site.
|
|
|
Post by dibblydobbly on Jan 19, 2024 11:10:54 GMT 1
If it is true then what a **** up. I believe it to be true 100%. The clubs statements about bringing in two new investors yesterday now seems to haVe changed into the word takeover in today's s.star. It's all to deflect from the Swedish consortium bid story to buy the club that Roland has rejected for his own unexplained reasons. The rumour is Paul Delves has resigned but no news has been released from the club. However since the supporters meeting we have news about investors and takeover to put Roland and Duncan in a positive light. We should be concentrating on our transfer business, but we seem to be in a position where the club wants to promote Roland, and Duncan are supporting the club in these difficult times. Whilst times are difficult it is apparent Roland is spinning the narrative which attempts to deflect from his failings over the last 2 years and his ongoing failure to sell the club. In my opinion he wants to appear to be keen to find the right person but seeking new investors maintains the status quo with RW at the helm still. "The rumour is Paul Delves has resigned but no news has been released from the club" Owned no shares, accounts say he invested no money, bought a bit of advertising and that is it Not sure why his supposed resignation will make any difference
|
|
|
Post by ProudSalopian on Jan 19, 2024 11:14:40 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? Consortium of foreign individuals who would make decision making impossible in a transfer window, layers upon layers. And if it is a plaything, who is to say they would not lose interest/build on the site. A foreign consortium is always going to cause a debate amongst our fans as we've seen it cause problems elsewhere and it's a brand new concept for us. Some won't like it, personally I'd be all for it. We've had years of playing it safe, plodding along and going nowhere. That's why fans are bored. If it ends up like Reading then so be it, I'd prefer to take the chance that we might end up doing something.
|
|
|
Post by The Clash 1966 on Jan 19, 2024 11:17:15 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? It could be Mr Spotify, he's mates with Bergkamp 🇸🇪🇳🇱🤣
|
|
|
Post by martinshrew on Jan 19, 2024 11:21:19 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? Ultra high net worth individuals aren't likely to want to asset strip us or make money off us as such, in theory. This one consortium was ex pros wanting to develop a club to make a ridiculously good academy and use their skills and knowledge to develop the youth and training side of a club.
|
|
|
Post by cabanas2017 on Jan 19, 2024 11:23:53 GMT 1
Why would Roland initially think Swedish consortium were good for our FC in the first place, I suspect he is playing a game with no intention of selling. Seem he has strung them along ……
I just don’t think he can be trusted anymore
|
|
|
Post by The Clash 1966 on Jan 19, 2024 11:24:43 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? Ultra high net worth individuals aren't likely to want to asset strip us or make money off us as such, in theory. This one consortium was ex pros wanting to develop a club to make a ridiculously good academy and use their skills and knowledge to develop the youth and training side of a club. we can dream, that did sound positive .
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Jan 19, 2024 11:28:50 GMT 1
He wants to make sure that the people who buy the club do the right thing not only by him but also by our loyal supporters – he wants that to be the case.I'm not sure how to read that "by him but also" but first impressions is that it doesn't read well... And crazy that we are talking about ten years, yet what has been result of that? And looking to that Salopcast tweet and that article it looks as though there was some Swedish investors interested. Maybe RW didn't think the offer did right by him. Whether it was decent enough for the club and the fans however, I guess we'll never know. This is where following a little club with little press interest makes life difficult. The 'news' in the Star is not some exclusive and comes off great journalism, it's literally what the CEO told an open fans parliament. If this were a big club there would be interest to find out who these two buyers are but also who the Swedish consortium were and why it fell through. But instead we have to rely on the rumour mill and then the standard line from the club of "there is interest but Roland wants to make sure the are the right people for the club". I genuinely don't think Roland will look to sell to some dodgy investment company, however we do know that Roland hasn't always been the best judge of character and his ego can get in the way of things. Having read that article the concern I have is that whilst I appreciate the chairman wants a deal that does right by him what if its not be best deal available for the club and the fans. And what happens in no such deal is in the offering. What we might have passed on (because the chairman doesn't consider it does right by him). Looks a bit of a mess now this and you think it should have been sorted way before now. And no doubt this is playing its part when looking to the dire performances we're having to endure week after week.
|
|
|
Post by darkshrew on Jan 19, 2024 11:31:02 GMT 1
I know someone who went to see Roland with an offer to buy some shares for 250k - it was around 2014 when it was claimed that Roland was having to pay wages. He had no desire to be on the board but did want sovereign membership. Roland’s response - my friend could donate the cash to the foundation and join the sovereign like anyone else - no shares would be sold that would dilute Roland’s holdings. My friend went from season ticket holder to iFollow watcher and has said he would not go back until Roland goes (although I know he has been to quite a few games in block 14. He said that he could not believe how unpleasant the meeting was and that all the cliches I warned him about were true - focusing on where he was brought up, what school he went to, what star sign he was, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Jan 19, 2024 11:54:32 GMT 1
I think we are broadly thinking along similar lines in terms of getting rid of players and paying x%, I believe the difference is you think their wages are that high that they will put off any interest, whereas I don't. Whilst high for us, I don't think they are anything extortionate at our level and whilst we talk of 'Chamipionship' wages I suspect they are at the bottom end of that scale. My view is that if the big earners were made available then there would be interest, not necessarily all of them would go but I would be very surprised if fellow L1 clubs didn't look at the likes of Marosi, Dunkley, Shipley & Bayliss. As for the players, I suspect they would jump at the chance to go. I bet you Cotterill sold them a dream of targeting promotion to the Championship and that's gone now, it's about survival and the calibre of players coming in is very different (as per Flanaghan's comments) My main point though is the fact we've kept them all (and tried to keep Pennington & Leahy), those are not the actions of a club that is struggling financially. Of course, the fact the board are effectively paying the wages themselves, would suggest that is the case. Which is the bit I'm really struggling with, I don't understand the position of the club financially. And not only did we seek to keep Leahy and Pennington, but we actively went out and brought Winchester in on a permanent. in fairness leahy was cheap when we signed him , had an awful cv , 2 consecutive league 1 relegations , he demanded a big wage rise after we triggered another season , can't blame him as he got what he wanted after improving his cv Pennington went on strike towards the end of last season , obviously didn't like the offer on the table Winchester Probably our best signing , I would guess he had to take a hit as he couldn't find better, maybe he enjoyed it here , doesn't look like he currently is though
|
|
|
Post by FloreatShrew on Jan 19, 2024 12:07:57 GMT 1
Delves was the local connection to sell it to Roland with the Swedish group giving the money while the Delves gave the local connections.
Brian leaving got the deal going again after the first offer failed due to STFC messing everyone around. Second offer was the 11m and 30m investment. This was turned down, don't know why. It is all dead but there's still interest if Roland goes back and actually is serious about leaving.
|
|
|
Post by sheltonsalopian on Jan 19, 2024 12:12:19 GMT 1
Consortium of foreign individuals who would make decision making impossible in a transfer window, layers upon layers. And if it is a plaything, who is to say they would not lose interest/build on the site. If it ends up like Reading then so be it, I'd prefer to take the chance that we might end up doing something. I think that's where I'm at now. If 17 goals in 27 games and League one purgatory is the best we could ever hope for then I'm willing to roll the dice, even if it results in relegation/promotion or whatever, just change it up.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 19, 2024 12:27:26 GMT 1
If it is true then what a **** up. I believe it to be true 100%. The clubs statements about bringing in two new investors yesterday now seems to haVe changed into the word takeover in today's s.star. It's all to deflect from the Swedish consortium bid story to buy the club that Roland has rejected for his own unexplained reasons. The rumour is Paul Delves has resigned but no news has been released from the club. However since the supporters meeting we have news about investors and takeover to put Roland and Duncan in a positive light. We should be concentrating on our transfer business, but we seem to be in a position where the club wants to promote Roland, and Duncan are supporting the club in these difficult times. Whilst times are difficult it is apparent Roland is spinning the narrative which attempts to deflect from his failings over the last 2 years and his ongoing failure to sell the club. In my opinion he wants to appear to be keen to find the right person but seeking new investors maintains the status quo with RW at the helm still. You believe this 100%? You believed the "James Hughes tweet" story too - what percentage did you give that? I'm sure there's a Scandinavian group looking to buy an English club and I'm ready to believe they had a look at STFC as part of this exercise. Beyond that we return to the realm of wild assumption - that because they're apparently no longer interested, that must be because Wycherley rejected their offer. That's just one possibility out of several and, if it is true, it would most likely be because they didn't offer enough for his shares. If so that's his prerogative - if someone offers to buy your house or your car you're not obliged to accept if you don't think it's a fair price. Just because they're "ultra high net worth" (how's that defined anyway?) doesn't mean they'll make a good offer. But I think the more likely position is that the group is looking at several clubs simultaneously. They've no connection with STFC, or any other club as far as is known, so it would be sensible business to assess what's in the market. There are plenty of distressed or near-distressed clubs around that might be better located (for size of population & business community, transport links to Scandinavia), more attractive for player recruitment, illustrious history, have higher league status, better facilities and whatever else might make for a better value investment. But that doesn't suit the anti-Wycherley narrative, so it must be that he's rejected their perfectly acceptable bid ..... Just to be clear, I'm in the camp that's grateful for what Wycherley's done for the club during his ownership but believe it would have been better for him to have sold it by now. We need change at the top. What I'm not having is the knee jerk "if what I want doesn't happen it must be his fault" type of responses we're seeing. That's a false and unhelpful narrative. The club is for sale and a sale will happen, sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by floreatsalopia1 on Jan 19, 2024 12:33:34 GMT 1
Delves was the local connection to sell it to Roland with the Swedish group giving the money while the Delves gave the local connections. Brian leaving got the deal going again after the first offer failed due to STFC messing everyone around. Second offer was the 11m and 30m investment. This was turned down, don't know why. It is all dead but there's still interest if Roland goes back and actually is serious about leaving. This is exactly the Scenario as I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by FloreatShrew on Jan 19, 2024 12:36:31 GMT 1
I believe it to be true 100%. The clubs statements about bringing in two new investors yesterday now seems to haVe changed into the word takeover in today's s.star. It's all to deflect from the Swedish consortium bid story to buy the club that Roland has rejected for his own unexplained reasons. The rumour is Paul Delves has resigned but no news has been released from the club. However since the supporters meeting we have news about investors and takeover to put Roland and Duncan in a positive light. We should be concentrating on our transfer business, but we seem to be in a position where the club wants to promote Roland, and Duncan are supporting the club in these difficult times. Whilst times are difficult it is apparent Roland is spinning the narrative which attempts to deflect from his failings over the last 2 years and his ongoing failure to sell the club. In my opinion he wants to appear to be keen to find the right person but seeking new investors maintains the status quo with RW at the helm still. .They've no connection with STFC, or any other club as far as is known, so it would be sensible business to assess what's in the market. This is incorrect. They had connections with STFC through the Delves who had connections to them through a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by ProudSalopian on Jan 19, 2024 12:39:06 GMT 1
If it ends up like Reading then so be it, I'd prefer to take the chance that we might end up doing something. I think that's where I'm at now. If 17 goals in 27 games and League one purgatory is the best we could ever hope for then I'm willing to roll the dice, even if it results in relegation/promotion or whatever, just change it up. For years we have been plodding along and some of our fans (myself at times) have been a bit sanctimonious about how well run we are compared to other clubs. But where has that got us? I get the impression that some fans have been thinking that sooner or later football in this country is going to implode and we will be the ones left laughing because we've been so careful. The reality is it isn't going to happen, clubs overspend, get into debt, get taken over, overspend again. In extreme cases clubs fold but even then, a new one springs up. Of course people will disagree and would prefer the safety factor. That isn't wrong as is their opinion but my opinion has changed over the years, I see other clubs spending beyond their means and the success they get, yes there might be the consequences but they have had those years of success. The examples I use are Portsmouth and Wigan. They've had some struggle in recent seasons but they were in the Premier League, were in Wembley Finals and played in Europe. Do you think their fans would prefer the 'safety' approach over that?
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 19, 2024 12:49:19 GMT 1
.They've no connection with STFC, or any other club as far as is known, so it would be sensible business to assess what's in the market. This is incorrect. They had connections with STFC through the Delves who had connections to them through a marriage. Point taken, thanks. I stand by the rest of it though.
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jan 19, 2024 13:00:54 GMT 1
I think that's where I'm at now. If 17 goals in 27 games and League one purgatory is the best we could ever hope for then I'm willing to roll the dice, even if it results in relegation/promotion or whatever, just change it up. For years we have been plodding along and some of our fans (myself at times) have been a bit sanctimonious about how well run we are compared to other clubs. But where has that got us? I get the impression that some fans have been thinking that sooner or later football in this country is going to implode and we will be the ones left laughing because we've been so careful. The reality is it isn't going to happen, clubs overspend, get into debt, get taken over, overspend again. In extreme cases clubs fold but even then, a new one springs up. Of course people will disagree and would prefer the safety factor. That isn't wrong as is their opinion but my opinion has changed over the years, I see other clubs spending beyond their means and the success they get, yes there might be the consequences but they have had those years of success. The examples I use are Portsmouth and Wigan. They've had some struggle in recent seasons but they were in the Premier League, were in Wembley Finals and played in Europe. Do you think their fans would prefer the 'safety' approach over that? Not only that, but if the years of sensible and careful financial prudence and self sustainability can be completely undone by one year of questionable spending and a late receipt of PL money, then it’s failed at the first hurdle anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Exkeeper on Jan 19, 2024 13:05:55 GMT 1
I vaguely remember a quote in one of the local papers when RW over the club that was in dire straights. He apparently said that when his time was up, he would leave the club in a better position that it was at that time. Should we be relegated this season, with a negative bank balance, that would surely not be the right time for him to depart.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 19, 2024 13:14:51 GMT 1
I think that's where I'm at now. If 17 goals in 27 games and League one purgatory is the best we could ever hope for then I'm willing to roll the dice, even if it results in relegation/promotion or whatever, just change it up. For years we have been plodding along and some of our fans (myself at times) have been a bit sanctimonious about how well run we are compared to other clubs. But where has that got us? I get the impression that some fans have been thinking that sooner or later football in this country is going to implode and we will be the ones left laughing because we've been so careful. The reality is it isn't going to happen, clubs overspend, get into debt, get taken over, overspend again. In extreme cases clubs fold but even then, a new one springs up. Of course people will disagree and would prefer the safety factor. That isn't wrong as is their opinion but my opinion has changed over the years, I see other clubs spending beyond their means and the success they get, yes there might be the consequences but they have had those years of success. The examples I use are Portsmouth and Wigan. They've had some struggle in recent seasons but they were in the Premier League, were in Wembley Finals and played in Europe. Do you think their fans would prefer the 'safety' approach over that? That's a fair argument. I agree that the football business isn't going to implode but that's because, as we're seeing more and more, English football clubs are currently attractive to foreign buyers, for whatever reasons. I wouldn't assume that will continue indefinitely. American groups now own half the Premier League because they believe it's capable of generating much more money than it already does. If they're right and succeed then the pyramid structure will at greater risk of collapse than ever - Championship clubs are already hugely indebted trying to reach the promised land and the price of doing so would only get even higher. The chances of a Portsmouth or a Wigan playing in Europe again are more or less non-existent now. But at our level we should expect a cycle of promotion and relegation to punctuate the mid-table seasons - it's what happens to every club and that's healthy. So I agree - if we have the capability to spend a bit more than we should (but still within whatever parameters the EFL sets) I don't mind if we do. It might make life more exciting, as you suggest. The bounce back that you assume would happen if things went wrong doesn't necessarily get you close to the level you once occupied though. My rugby league club, Widnes, were domestic and world champions and signed some of the very best players (Jonathan Davies, Martin Offiah etc). We couldn't really afford it though and it wasn't sustainable. The great players left and we've since been through at least two administrations, failed to establish ourselves as a Super League club, and only survived extinction by going part time, which has left us in mid-table of the second tier and unable even to reach the play offs for many seasons. Different sport I know, but there are certainly parallels - how many of those ex-league clubs currently in non-league seem likely to return to the EFL soon?
|
|
|
Post by stfcfan87 on Jan 19, 2024 13:18:59 GMT 1
Why would anyone think that a foreign consortium of allegedly 'ultra high net worth individuals' would necessarily be good for STFC? Ultra high net worth individuals aren't likely to want to asset strip us or make money off us as such, in theory. This one consortium was ex pros wanting to develop a club to make a ridiculously good academy and use their skills and knowledge to develop the youth and training side of a club. that sounds intriguing, although that is assuming we wouldn't be a B team for someone higher up
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 19, 2024 13:23:52 GMT 1
I vaguely remember a quote in one of the local papers when RW over the club that was in dire straights. He apparently said that when his time was up, he would leave the club in a better position that it was at that time. Should we be relegated this season, with a negative bank balance, that would surely not be the right time for him to depart. These next accounts will make very interesting reading because at June 2022 there was still £1.55m in the bank. If that's gone negative then the club really has been horribly mismanaged, because there's no obvious reason for it to have happened. But I don't think we can afford to rely on Wycherley to improve things if it is that bad. Better to have a change of ownership and a reset.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on Jan 19, 2024 13:29:52 GMT 1
For years we have been plodding along and some of our fans (myself at times) have been a bit sanctimonious about how well run we are compared to other clubs. But where has that got us? I get the impression that some fans have been thinking that sooner or later football in this country is going to implode and we will be the ones left laughing because we've been so careful. The reality is it isn't going to happen, clubs overspend, get into debt, get taken over, overspend again. In extreme cases clubs fold but even then, a new one springs up. Of course people will disagree and would prefer the safety factor. That isn't wrong as is their opinion but my opinion has changed over the years, I see other clubs spending beyond their means and the success they get, yes there might be the consequences but they have had those years of success. The examples I use are Portsmouth and Wigan. They've had some struggle in recent seasons but they were in the Premier League, were in Wembley Finals and played in Europe. Do you think their fans would prefer the 'safety' approach over that? Not only that, but if the years of sensible and careful financial prudence and self sustainability can be completely undone by one year of questionable spending and a late receipt of PL money, then it’s failed at the first hurdle anyway. Why so? If your strategy is to manage your club prudently and sustainably and you do that for several years, that isn't negated by a relatively short period of overspending. It still achieved what it set out to do throughout those years. There's actually a stronger argument to say that overspending failed at the first hurdle and the prudent course was better. What exactly did that overspending bring - 12th place and boring football? Wave the tiny flags. If we ever do throw a bit more money around I hope it's better spent than that!
|
|
|
Post by FloreatShrew on Jan 19, 2024 13:34:26 GMT 1
We need people in who can actually run a business, know all the food and beer increases since the Wrexham game, thats the outsourced company doing that. Worst bit?! The club didn't know about it until they were asked why the prices had gone up. The CEO joked he was now increasing the rent they charge!
If they hadn't been asked would they have noticed!? My pint was 50p cheaper in the Sov lounge than it is in the South Stand! Work that out.
And even better, the moaning about the prices will be a bad rep for the club, not knowing its not actually the clubs fault!
|
|
|
Post by Feedo Gnasher on Jan 19, 2024 13:36:32 GMT 1
Not only that, but if the years of sensible and careful financial prudence and self sustainability can be completely undone by one year of questionable spending and a late receipt of PL money, then it’s failed at the first hurdle anyway. Why so? If your strategy is to manage your club prudently and sustainably and you do that for several years, that isn't negated by a relatively short period of overspending. It still achieved what it set out to do throughout those years. There's actually a stronger argument to say that overspending failed at the first hurdle and the prudent course was better. What exactly did that overspending bring - 12th place and boring football? Wave the tiny flags. If we ever do throw a bit more money around I hope it's better spent than that! We don’t and may never know the full extent and scale of the overspending, there’s no all sorts of rumours/leaks from excessive wages, huge kit orders, lavish hotel stays, team coach, and even alleged fraudulent activity that I wouldn’t dare go into. I guess my point is that if at the first sign of trouble we have to significantly regress ourself as a club, require emergency cash injections and look for new ownership, the stability must’ve been built on sand.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Jan 19, 2024 14:03:33 GMT 1
1971-72 Shrewsbury Town a Football Club who own their own ground in the 3rd tier of English Football
2023-24 Shrewsbury Town a Football Club who own their own ground in the 3rd tier of English Football
|
|