mav3ric

Never been of the belief that he is 'World Class'. He is decent, but there are plenty goalies out there that are better, and at least 4 or 5 in the Premiership alone.

This interview has just re-inforced my view that Mather is being unfairly targeted. If his breakdown of the financials is fairly accurate then we can all rest slightly easier(just as long as the accounts reflect this also). Why are some people still failing to see that we had alot of one off costs last year and that is why we went through alot more cash than we will this year? It would certainly seem on the face of things that the club is being run alot more prudently and, all avenues of cost cutting are beig explored. I was also pleased to hear about discussions regarding development of youth and scouting, FanZone(albeit tentative) and also a vision for Edmiston House, whether we need a casino though, im not so sure. Another positive is the willingness to look at a membership scheme. There have been several threads on this and overall i think it would be backed wholeheartedly by us if the club run it properly and set out a clear proposal as to how the money would be utilised. I think we just have to hope that all can be resolved sensibly at the AGM, i think Blin being appointed would be of great benefit as he could quite clearly 'bring something to the table' and things can all settle down and the boards vision can be put into action. I do hope that we keep Mather, both Ally and Walter have put their name behind him and that is as good an endorsement as you can get at the club in my book and certainly McColl, based on his letter to Mather, does not seem as cold toward him as the media has portrayed.

If the website is blocked use https:// instead of http://

What i was suggesting was not about making money, it was about raising cash for the club to invest in the club, and in the overall infrastructure.

Completely agree. More fans would buy into the scheme if they knew it meant we had the majority control. Control to elect a fit and proper board, and to remove anyone should this sort of carry on we are witnessing was to ever happen again. The knowledge that we would, every year, be injecting a huge sum of cash into the club(which i believe should be used for youth development/scouting). Hamburg have a membership of 70,000, now if this scheme was opened up to all bears around the globe, who's to say we could not match that? I set out a basic business model and ideas for how it could work on another thread and potential incomes that could be generated, but even if our membership subscription was set at £15 a month(£180 per year, and i dont find that too large), at 70,000 members thats just over £12.5m! And that would be yearly.

Apologies, i should have made clear, the membership fee is a yearly subscription that would hopefully grow over the years as its primary aim would be to give the club a guaranteed income every year. Also, i wasnt very clear, i meant that 50% of revenue would be thru Sponsership and investment from the 49% of investors. Hopefully the sponsorships would improve as we grew and as suggested, put ourselves in a similar position to Porto, Ajax etc. Also apologies to the guys ive just replied to, my phone has decided to stop quoting posts!

If we had less ST's then yes then the potential would be there to maximise match day income as you would potentially have new people and a greater proportion of the fan base coming through the turnstiles due to lower ticket prices and we wouldn't have the empty seats due to ST holders not showing up. Would also look at safe standing in one of the stands further giving us the chance for greater revenue. possible risk of people not turning up, but those who didn't have ST's who previously did would still go due to affordability. Well i would have thought.

The single biggest obstacle, whether we like it or not, is ourselves. Would thousands be prepared to relinquish ST's, even though normal seats would be much more affordable? The point you make re: scouting, training, academies etc would probably mean looking at a Director of Football role too. In my opinion this is entirely possible. Just needs the right people to drive it forward.

Ive posted this in another thread but i think it got lost. A basic businessmodel to work to accompanied with your own suggestione re: academies and other hook ups. No reason why we cant acheive significant membership numbers.... Im with you on this one mate, but it would ned a radical re-think on the part of our own supporters, in terms of working toward the same goal and uniting under the one umbrella, to make this happen. So in theory we would have a minimum of 51% owned by the fans. Taking into account the HSV example of 70,000(adjust to figure you deem acceptable) members, if we went down a route of a membership costing £180(straight up fee or £15 p/m) that would give us an initial investment of £12.6m These members would then democratically elect a chairman and board to look after the day to day running of the club. Salaries would be competitive but not exuberent. The board would be responsible for, and maximising, sponsorship deals and financial investment and selling off the 49% as profitably as possible. We should be looking for between 40-50% of revenue generated through sponsorship deals, so we need financially astute guys on the board to broker this. Wages should operate around 35-39% of revenue, a figure we are already meant to be at. Only around 30% of the stadium should be offered up for ST. If we were to charge £260 for a ST that would give us another £4m revenue. That would then allow 70% of seating up for general sale every matchday. If we could sell out our 18 home games at £15 a ticket that would generate a further £9.5m. I appreciate that these are very basic figures but in theory a financial model that could work. ST prices are very low as are matchday tickets. Take into acount the figures mentioned, without sponsors and institutional investment, and its very clear that we, as a fan base, could quite clearly finance a huge chunk of the club. I appreciate that 70,000 members is a little far fetched, but if HSV can acheive it, why cant we? After all we MUST be a bigger club, fan wise? Thoughts guys?

Im with you on this one mate, but it would ned a radical re-think on the part of our own supporters, in terms of working toward the same goal and uniting under the one umbrella, to make this happen. So in theory we would have a minimum of 51% owned by the fans. Taking into account the HSV example of 70,000(adjust to figure you deem acceptable) members, if we went down a route of a membership costing £180(straight up fee or £15 p/m) that would give us an initial investment of £12.6m These members would then democratically elect a chairman and board to look after the day to day running of the club. Salaries would be competitive but not exuberent. The board would be responsible for, and maximising, sponsorship deals and financial investment and selling off the 49% as profitably as possible. We should be looking for between 40-50% of revenue generated through sponsorship deals, so we need financially astute guys on the board to broker this. Wages should operate around 35-39% of revenue, a figure we are already meant to be at. Only around 30% of the stadium should be offered up for ST. If we were to charge £260 for a ST that would give us another £4m revenue. That would then allow 70% of seating up for general sale every matchday. If we could sell out our 18 home games at £15 a ticket that would generate a further £9.5m. I appreciate that these are very basic figures but in theory a financial model that could work. ST prices are very low as are matchday tickets. Take into acount the figures mentioned, without sponsors and institutional investment, and its very clear that we, as a fan base, could quite clearly finance a huge chunk of the club. I appreciate that 70,000 members is a little far fetched, but if HSV can acheive it, why cant we? After all we MUST be a bigger club, fan wise? Thoughts guys?

But based on what we are hearing tonight he presided over some outlandish spending while we were in Div 3?? Kind of bombs that logic. Also, based on what was said tonight, the costs of the playing squad have been reduced, so they were perfectly justified in bringing the 8 players. That is if you are to believe what has been said??

I actually believe its more than that. What about the £12m raised from last seasons ST sales? Green said this years accounts would be healthy due to the fact there would be 2 sets of ST sales in it. I think im even more scepical than you mate.

So, in theory, whether this includes ST sales or not, this is still a horrific figure as we would have recouped circa £11-12m ST cash based on the 38k sales? So with IPO £22m and ST sales we had £32m+ around December last year and thats not even accounting for shirt sales, advertising etc..

One other thing that concerns me regarding the cash flow. There is all this talk about blowing the IPO cash, but last seasons ST cash has also been blown in addition. I seem to remember Greens rhetoric about how cash rich we were going to be when these accounts were published as they would include 2 SETS of ST sales. I've not seen anyone else pick up on this, although there are a few threads, so it may have been mentioned. Anyone else not recall this?

Find it hard to believe this was even a debate. Mols was by far the more complete player both in terms of individuality and team work. Cruel twist of fate that denied us his best years.