Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Obtuse i think is the word i am looking for.Whyte could have cut all the operating costs with immediate effect when he took over could he have not?He didn't because to protect his investment and the value of his assets he had to increase their nett worth. This could only have been done by extending or improving their contracts. My view is that it was a short term issue that has now been addressed in the January window by letting 9 players leave the club either permanently or on loan.It is in year 2 onwards (after the tax case has been settled) that proper long term fiscal plans can be introduced and rigidly adhered to if he wants the club to be self sustaining. Even then though i think it will take the sale of one key player each season to keep us viable and competetive.There is no contradiction though to my basic point that if we cost £45m to run and only generate £35m then the present business model is flawed and has to change in the long term.Sorry Adoniram - Obtuse is correct, I'm just feeling a bit down this morning I've got to agree with this post, for years the gamble of qualifying for the CL group phase has determined whether we break even or make huge losses each season.A crazy situation, which I put down mainly to Murray's ego.I think we have to accept a few years of austerity and realism, to ensure our future viability.My fear over the Tax Case now though is what state we will be in after it, and who is able to pick up the pieces. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adoniram 1,919 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 No it means what it says.IF I COULDN'T AFFORD TO BUY AND RUN A FOOTBALL CLUB I WOULDN'T BUY ONE......Shouting doesn't make your answer correct.Your point centres around external funding and forms the basis of your argument.If you can't afford to...meaning personally cannot bankroll the club.Dress it up all you want but it is how Chelsea and Man City continue to survive.Self sufficiency means you spend what you generate via profit. A concept even you can grasp surely. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adoniram 1,919 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sorry Adoniram - Obtuse is correct, I'm just feeling a bit down this morning I've got to agree with this post, for years the gamble of qualifying for the CL group phase has determined whether we break even or make huge losses each season.A crazy situation, which I put down mainly to Murray's ego.I think we have to accept a few years of austerity and realism, to ensure our future viability.My fear over the Tax Case now though is what state we will be in after it, and who is able to pick up the pieces. No problem bud.It's a fear we all share and if the previous owner had one single shred of morality or feelings for our club then he would feel duty bound to deal with it personally seeing as he was the one who got us in to this shit in the first place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hemdale1873 167 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If the money didn't come from him, then, unless the lender was insane, they would have taken a security on the loan, hence Whyte would walk away with feck all.That seems to keep getting overlooked for some reason. Wonder why.Oh i have no doubt they would have taken out security on the loan and that is the scary part. No way on earth this guy would put his own assets/money on the line it would be the clubs lets not forget here the man is a venture capitalist by his own admission. The definition of which is:A venture capitalist is a person who invests in a business venture, providing capital for start-up or expansion. Venture capitalists are looking for a higher rate of return than would be given by more traditional investments.Generally, venture capitalists are looking for returns of 25 percent and up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw69uk 123 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Obtuse i think is the word i am looking for.Whyte could have cut all the operating costs with immediate effect when he took over could he have not?He didn't because to protect his investment and the value of his assets he had to increase their nett worth. This could only have been done by extending or improving their contracts. My view is that it was a short term issue that has now been addressed in the January window by letting 9 players leave the club either permanently or on loan.It is in year 2 onwards (after the tax case has been settled) that proper long term fiscal plans can be introduced and rigidly adhered to if he wants the club to be self sustaining. Even then though i think it will take the sale of one key player each season to keep us viable and competetive.There is no contradiction though to my basic point that if we cost £45m to run and only generate £35m then the present business model is flawed and has to change in the long term.To be pedantic, he SHOULD have done that, and, far more harshly than we have seen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Shouting doesn't make your answer correct.Your point centres around external funding and forms the basis of your argument.If you can't afford to...meaning personally cannot bankroll the club.Dress it up all you want but it is how Chelsea and Man City continue to survive.Self sufficiency means you spend what you generate via profit. A concept even you can grasp surely.i imagine i grasp the concept, you are the one that seems to miss it.....If you are looking for a sensible reponse i suggest you ask in a sensible manner...as ever... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adoniram 1,919 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 i imagine i grasp the concept, you are the one that seems to miss it.....If you are looking for a sensible reponse i suggest you ask in a sensible manner...as ever...You have two chances to that and you know it. I don't dance to the tune of sanctimonious arseholes like you.Oh and i see you didn't answer the point i made to you in a mannerly fashion. Next. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
outlaw69uk 123 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 i imagine i grasp the concept, you are the one that seems to miss it.....If you are looking for a sensible reponse i suggest you ask in a sensible manner...as ever...I have seen many sensible, polite questions asked of you over time, and, I am really struggling to remember a direct answer to any Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 You have two chances to that and you know it. I don't dance to the tune of sanctimonious arseholes like you.Oh and i see you didn't answer the point i made to you in a mannerly fashion. Next.I wopnder when the board police will be along to deal with this vicious abuse....i'll start holding my breath shall i..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Reading through this thread and its embarrassing.Its always the same negative cunts aswell, from day one there has been a few who have not given the guy a chance and they are in here spouting nonsense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 We should recoup some of the European money from Steven Whittakers salary Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGM_72 3,736 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I've been reading around on here like a maniac trying to understand all this. One thing I'd like to clear up in my head, what do we know/assume the ticketus money is covering? Is it operating costs or is it all/partly there to help cover the tax bill in the worst case scenario? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritishBear 34 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I don't for one minute believe Whyte that the shortfall is £10 million. £6 - £8 miliion maybe, thats just a guess/hunch based on how we got the debt down to £18 million.We pay very good wages compared to the rest of the SPL and even compared to most of the leagues in Europe (bar England, Spain, Italy and Germany).We also pay some very mediocre players some staggering amounts.We have a huge, albeit imblanced squad filled with dross.Last summer deals were given to Weir Little Kerkar and Healy, players who have contributed little or nothing and in Weirs case were finished. Why, continually buying squad players is only adding to costs and not raising the standard of our football.Add in Ortiz McKay and Bedoya and we end up paying for players who do nothing.Now if Whyte had played ball with his promised investment maybe McCoist wouldn't need a squad full of dross, but McCoist needs to take some blame as well (he should have bought a striker in the summer).We need a much smaller squad, we can't continue to carry so many passengers. We need to stop paying good wages to the likes of Broadfoot etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.