Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2013 21:57:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Dec 18, 2013 7:57:09 GMT
We're not ready for that yet with just over 300 Co-op members, IMO we should have some shares and we should have a place on the board and ideally we could work with local businessmen and maybe the council but complete ownership? Not yet IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Britannia on Dec 18, 2013 9:58:49 GMT
i dont think the COOP is anywhere near ready for anything like that, i nterms of size, structure , finances etc
|
|
|
Post by heatonhatter on Dec 18, 2013 10:08:50 GMT
No. I'll never back a fan-owned option until anyone can convince me it won't go the same way as the trust.
|
|
|
Post by Imposter on Dec 18, 2013 10:25:18 GMT
I'll never back private ownership until anyone can convince me it won't go the same way as 2015.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Dec 18, 2013 10:32:21 GMT
I'll never back private ownership until anyone can convince me it won't go the same way as 2015. Or the numerous private owners we had that saw us on the brink of bankruptcy in the 70s and 80s. Or the owner who, for all that he gave us on-field success, left us vulnerable with his exit strategy.
The only private ownership I'd welcome unreservedly is being owned by the money-pixie who craps out gold sovereigns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 10:37:27 GMT
I'll never back private ownership until anyone can convince me it won't go the same way as 2015.
|
|
|
Post by heatonhatter on Dec 18, 2013 11:27:29 GMT
I'll never back private ownership until anyone can convince me it won't go the same way as 2015. The difference being that we've had successful private ownership i.e. Elwood. Stockport County FC is never going to break even, and we need owners with the means to bankroll us without having to borrow from third parties.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Dec 18, 2013 11:36:29 GMT
I'll never back private ownership until anyone can convince me it won't go the same way as 2015. The difference being that we've had successful private ownership i.e. Elwood. Stockport County FC is never going to break even, and we need owners with the means to bankroll us without having to borrow from third parties. It depends how you define success, surely. Elwood left us with a 4 million quid debt. So yes, we had on-field success (and I enjoyed it as much as anyone), but at what cost? And over the long term, County does break even, apart from the time we went into admin (and possibly the current regime when it plays out). Saying it doesn't implies that we get handouts, or money written off, which simply doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by heatonhatter on Dec 18, 2013 11:39:01 GMT
The difference being that we've had successful private ownership i.e. Elwood. Stockport County FC is never going to break even, and we need owners with the means to bankroll us without having to borrow from third parties. It depends how you define success, surely. Elwood left us with a 4 million quid debt. So yes, we had on-field success (and I enjoyed it as much as anyone), but at what cost? And over the long term, County does break even, apart from the time we went into admin (and possibly the current regime when it plays out). Saying it doesn't implies that we get handouts, or money written off, which simply doesn't happen. Ryan McKnight has been widely mocked and laughed at for his comments about the days in the Championship being the "bad old days", so I'm not going to comment on that. Has County ever broken even over one season? And to break even over the long-term, we'd have to have made a profit some seasons, has that ever happened?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2013 12:18:40 GMT
Was the 4 million debt or was it what the club was worth. From memory turnover (which I know does not mean profit) of the club was between 4 & 6 million before the philanthropist got involved. It then slumped to 1 million (gate receipts I would guess) once the club had been split from the ground. That says to me the revenue streams were stripped and this is when the club started to whither. I haven't looked into the old regimes in any depth only a cursory look.
The one thing hindering building revenue streams at the moment is the catering contract as the club can't hire out the function rooms without having to involve the catering company. If that deal hadn't been signed the club could hire out to people for parties etc and gain revenue from the hire fee and bar receipts. Yes having a catering firm is a bonus but not one that lumped up an amount of cash up front who will now want a return.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Dec 18, 2013 12:19:21 GMT
It depends how you define success, surely. Elwood left us with a 4 million quid debt. So yes, we had on-field success (and I enjoyed it as much as anyone), but at what cost? And over the long term, County does break even, apart from the time we went into admin (and possibly the current regime when it plays out). Saying it doesn't implies that we get handouts, or money written off, which simply doesn't happen. Ryan McKnight has been widely mocked and laughed at for his comments about the days in the Championship being the "bad old days", so I'm not going to comment on that. Has County ever broken even over one season? And to break even over the long-term, we'd have to have made a profit some seasons, has that ever happened? For clarity, I'm not advocating McKnight's view; please don't imply that I am. However, if you're going to define the Elwood era as "successful private ownership" in a discussion about finance, you can't simply ignore the off-field stuff, surely? It was successful on the field, it was successful for Elwood's bank account, but it left County with a £4 million debt. I'm pretty sure we made a profit in at least one season of Elwood's tenure. Charter of this parish could possibly say more. Elwood took back a lot of his loans during 96-7 (and possibly a season or two afterwards). But that's the point - essentially we broke even over the long term (albeit with a £4 million debt, which was being managed - it would have been paid off had the Trust kept their eye on the ball). We could go into more detail, but my essential point is that saying "County will never break even, and we always need a private owner lending us money" and "we have to have a private owner or we'll inevitably be non-league" (as that berk said at the open meeting when we went into admin under the Trust) is bollocks. I suppose the summary is: private owners do not donate money. Everything else flows from that. Everything. At best they provide loans - an effective overdraft, if you like - but they want it back. That said, such an arrangement can work. If you take their money for on-field success with a view to paying it back when success comes and players get sold, that seems, on the face of it reasonable. It's the kind of attitude that the rogue elements of the Trust held. The problem is that it rarely works because people get giddy and don't pay it back, or the success and players sales doesn't come. It's a gamble. Elwood succeeded in such a gamble, because his stake wasn't - relatively - that high. But he could easily have appointed someone other than Bergara back when he sacked Hartford. Whoever it was could have failed, we could have remained struggling in Div 4, and either his investment would have had to be increased (with, again, no guarantee of a return), or he might have had to cut his losses. He was in some ways a lucky owner (although credit to him for spotting a fairly low-risk investment opportunity).
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Dec 18, 2013 12:25:37 GMT
Was the 4 million debt or was it what the club was worth. From memory turnover (which I know does not mean profit) of the club was between 4 & 6 million before the philanthropist got involved. It then slumped to 1 million (gate receipts I would guess) once the club had been split from the ground. That says to me the revenue streams were stripped and this is when the club started to whither. I haven't looked into the old regimes in any depth only a cursory look. The one thing hindering building revenue streams at the moment is the catering contract as the club can't hire out the function rooms without having to involve the catering company. If that deal hadn't been signed the club could hire out to people for parties etc and gain revenue from the hire fee and bar receipts. Yes having a catering firm is a bonus but not one that lumped up an amount of cash up front who will now want a return. The 4 million to which I'm referring is the price for getting EP back. It was effectively the debt to Elwood, and it meant Kennedy owned EP. And for all the criticism due to the Trust for losing focus and letting the club go into admin, the deal they (I believe Dan Levy and Mark Maguire) negotiated with Kennedy was a fantastic one - raise the £4 million in 15 years and you can have the ground back. If only we'd stuck to it and directed all our efforts towards fundraising for that instead of getting distracted by a Bridgehall flatpack, we'd now own EP. As I've said before, we'd raised a quarter of the money in about a third of the time. Carry on like that and we'd easily have got a mortgage for the balance at the end of the 15 years deadline.
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Dec 18, 2013 12:28:05 GMT
Fan owned clubs can work and it's the most sustainable option but for now let's not run before we can walk.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Pratt on Dec 18, 2013 12:31:15 GMT
Fan owned clubs can work and it's the most sustainable option but for now let's not run before we can walk. Totally agree. The basket case we are at the moment can only be rescued by someone with money. Whether that'll happen or not remains to be seen.
|
|