Transfer Speculation / Gossip

[hilts_coolerking]

Even I think Shakatak would be an utterly shit signing.

How about that Italian lad Mezzoforte?

[hilts_coolerking]

Have a look at how much he's continued to put in. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

The tables don't lie.

[dave.woodhall]

But that was our Chief Financial Officer saying in a press release on the official site that we're now self sustaining.

I don't think a finance professional like him would be speaking in tongues. We either are, or we are not.

Randy wrote off a load of debt at the start of the year. There is no getting away from that, and I am having no truck with the "he's taking money out" people, but they told us that we were now self sufficient.

We have a woefully inadequate squad and four years of struggle under our belts, and are about to be cop for a gigantic amount of money, yet despite all that, we're picking up dross like Cole, Senderos and Richardson on free transfers, with nothing to suggest it is going to get much better than that.

Like I said, it's a different world. Is that breaking even with the debt getting no worse, or making a profit with it reducing?

I don't think there are that many interpretations of self-sustaining - living on what we earn. Whatever it means, they were promoting it as a positive, hence that press release.

It's hard to find a definition that explains the forthcoming avalanche of television money being paired with an approach to transfers which is more in suiting with Ellis circa 2005.

We've had three different potential definitions already.

[pauliewalnuts]

But that was our Chief Financial Officer saying in a press release on the official site that we're now self sustaining.

I don't think a finance professional like him would be speaking in tongues. We either are, or we are not.

Randy wrote off a load of debt at the start of the year. There is no getting away from that, and I am having no truck with the "he's taking money out" people, but they told us that we were now self sufficient.

We have a woefully inadequate squad and four years of struggle under our belts, and are about to be cop for a gigantic amount of money, yet despite all that, we're picking up dross like Cole, Senderos and Richardson on free transfers, with nothing to suggest it is going to get much better than that.

Like I said, it's a different world. Is that breaking even with the debt getting no worse, or making a profit with it reducing?

I don't think there are that many interpretations of self-sustaining - living on what we earn. Whatever it means, they were promoting it as a positive, hence that press release.

It's hard to find a definition that explains the forthcoming avalanche of television money being paired with an approach to transfers which is more in suiting with Ellis circa 2005.

We've had three different potential definitions already.

That doesn't mean they're realistic definitions, though.

They tell us we're self sufficient. They should know, they're running the club.

We stand to cash in from a huge TV money deal, yet we're still amongst the least ambitious clubs in the league regarding signings.

Ultimately, if the definition of self sufficient that they used was not one which put us in a positive financial situation, they wouldn't have been boasting about it in the first place.

[dave.woodhall]

Ultimately, we won't know until the next lot of accounts come out.

[ozzjim]

Have a look at how much he's continued to put in. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

The tables don't lie.

How is that in any way a response to how much money Randy has continued to put in. The od saying a fool and his money may apply, but he has still put shed loads in during the past couple of seasons.

When does the TV money actually come to the clubs, and how? I reckon about 15 million will be spent, so am not going to get upset about some freebies giving the squad experience in areas we are weak.

[pauliewalnuts]

Ultimately, we won't know until the next lot of accounts come out.

I disagree.

They told us we're self sufficient. They're running the club. They told us this in a "this is good news" style.

I don't see why we need to wait a year (or however long) to translate what they meant by that. It looks pretty clear to me - how can it be a bad thing?

I don't see how it is possible to marry that with the current not-spending approach we seem to have adopted.

End of last season, pretty much  to a man, we all agreed that there were certain positions in the team where we desperately needed to improve our starting options. Not the "better than our current third choice" stuff we've heard about the signings so far, but players who will improve our starting line up.

Thus far, we've failed to do any of that. Despite the fact our turnover is guaranteed to improve hugely next season even if we fail to earn an extra penny anywhere else across the business.

And here we are, poking around the bargain basement end of the market yet again.

[hilts_coolerking]

How is that in any way a response to how much money Randy has continued to put in. The od saying a fool and his money may apply, but he has still put shed loads in during the past couple of seasons.

My point is that there is one outstanding reason why we have dropped down the table so far and so quickly.

[ChicagoLion]

Self sufficient means that income is more than or the same as expenditure. It would also suggest that there is no need for external funding. The point is, how much of the increase in revenue is he prepared to spend on players? These 3 signings have added less than £5 mil to the wage bill.

[ciggiesnbeer]

Ultimately, we won't know until the next lot of accounts come out.

I disagree.

They told us we're self sufficient. They're running the club. They told us this in a "this is good news" style.

I don't see why we need to wait a year (or however long) to translate what they meant by that. It looks pretty clear to me - how can it be a bad thing?

I don't see how it is possible to marry that with the current not-spending approach we seem to have adopted.

End of last season, pretty much  to a man, we all agreed that there were certain positions in the team where we desperately needed to improve our starting options. Not the "better than our current third choice" stuff we've heard about the signings so far, but players who will improve our starting line up.

Thus far, we've failed to do any of that. Despite the fact our turnover is guaranteed to improve hugely next season even if we fail to earn an extra penny anywhere else across the business.

And here we are, poking around the bargain basement end of the market yet again.

One thing is for sure. CFO's do not bullshit when speaking about finances. They can be held accountable for any misrepresentation. I think we can take as gospel what he said is accurate. But not necessarily complete.

What he said was we were self sufficient going forward but also our loss after tax for last fiscal year increased to 51M. Even taking out exceptional items (like player sales) our loss was 43M

In other words, add in the TV money to our 43M a year loss , assume we have paired back a few extra million in costs and you get to this:

"As we near the end of the 2013-14 season, the Club is financially self-sufficient, compliant with both UEFA's and the Premier League's Financial Fair Play requirements and we look forward to a period of continued growth and progress on and off the pitch."

The bold bit indicates he may have been counting in the new 2014/2015 TV money as part of his self sufficient boast.

[PeterWithesShin]

Held accountable by who? I'm no expert so am genuinely interested. As there are no shareholders, as long as we aren't lying to the tax man, and a potential buyer now, they can say any old bollocks to us and the press as long as Randy knows the true state of the club?

[Dave Cooper please]

Even I think Shakatak would be an utterly shit signing.

How about that Italian lad Mezzoforte?

I'd throw a Garden Party if we signed him.

[ciggiesnbeer]

Held accountable by who? I'm no expert so am genuinely interested. As there are no shareholders, as long as we aren't lying to the tax man, and a potential buyer now, they can say any old bollocks to us and the press as long as Randy knows the true state of the club?

In the USA , and I assume the UK, CFO's can go to jail if they lie in earnings statements or about earnings in public statements. Usually under conspiracy to commit fraud, in particular his statement was material (it might rustle up interest from a potential buyer under fraudulent information for example) and public and included go forward financial guidance.

That kind of statement is usually prefaced by any public company CFO with a safe harbor statement , private companies have a bit more leeway but still they would never deliberately lie. The reason is CFO's (and other officers actually, but in particular CFO's) can and do alter the value of a company by their financial statements and forecasts, be it public or private.

There is no way a CFO of a 80M+ a year company like Robin Russell would lie about the numbers. But as I said, he could be incomplete, or cherry pick numbers he anted to talk about. But lie? Nah. I do not believe he would do that for a second.

[Villafirst]

Why can't Lerner just come out and say if there's any money for transfers? It's always just shrouded in secrecy - the club needs more transparency. Instead all you get is endless rumours and counter-rumours amongst the fans & media. A shambolic situation that's just left to fester.

[Ads]

This is what I don't understand; why are we the only club who seem concerned or interested in being financially self sufficient? Our current peers Hull for example, a tiny club in comparison, seem to have the ability to spend yet we don't.