Forum Replies Created
-
Hey, leave the Mouse out of it! Wile E Coyote set up would be more accurate! Big plans, utter failure.
2 users thanked author for this post.
It’s fair to say we’re all pretty shocked at the depth of the cuts to the squad yesterday. But there may be one, small positive. I should quantify two things before I write anything further – firstly, I’m no Swann apologist or fan. The last few years have been a disaster; secondly, I’m basing these thoughts on the wages list posted online on the Salary Sport website.
So, here goes: based on their figures, the released players will cut the weekly wage bill by nearly £22k (or £1.13m per year of the £1.95m annual wage bill for 2020/21). Those cuts include KVV (£4k). McGahey (£3.2k), Clarke (£3.1k) & Gilliad (£2.5k). A quick flick through the (alleged) wage bills of the other League Two clubs and there are only 13 players earning more than KVV.
With say £15k per week to play with (assuming that is what remains in the playing budget after the releases, ie £7k pw or £360k less than this season’s budget) that should be ample money to be able to sign seven “decent” players while still offering them a “decent” League Two wage. Interestingly, Karacan doesn’t feature on the list of player wages so I have no idea what will be saved by the very poor decision to not offer him a new deal. Again, based on a scan through the wages of this season’s successful sides, a maximum of £2k per week should secure the type of players needed to at the very least drag us into the top half of the table.
Anyway, that’s a speculative positive-ish spin on yesterday’s news. Let’s just hope and pray our recruitment this time around is better than last and lessons have been learnt. Unlikely, I know, but we can but hope!
2 users thanked author for this post.
I think what’s required is an independent audit into the value of the assets/land transferred to the Swanns. IF that shows the value matches the debt covered then so be it, job done and as I mentioned above that’s a sensible way to manage the debt without increasing it. At least for now.
If the value is LESS than the quoted £11m then we all have to say (albeit begrudgingly) thank you, Mr Chairman. And we get back to the real job at hand which is getting our club back up the table and beyond.
However, if the valuation shows the value is higher than the quoted £11m then there are serious questions to answer. I’m have no legal knowledge, so if anyone knows if the freedom of information act makes it possible to get this question answered I’ll be happy to work with them in submitting the application.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Okay, for what it’s worth, here’s my take on it (as someone not versed on legal or contractual law):
Ground ownership: Doesn’t really bother me. The debt as it stands is now out of the clubs hands and, for now at least, will save a fortune in interest payments. Going forward, the claimed 999-year lease will need careful legal analysis to ensure a fair price for that rent (surely cheaper than maintaining a whole stadium?)
Looking at the Premier League, there are obvious examples of non-ownership of grounds: West Ham, Manchester City and Newcastle in the Premier League. While in the Championship there’s Swansea and Bournemouth (the latter of which pay around £300k per annum in rent a figure way higher than could ever be justified in League 2)
Indeed, Chelsea is a particularly interesting example because although Abramovich owns the stadium the actual pitch is owned by Chelsea Pitch Owners Association (something to do with the original ownership of the allotments on which the stadium was built – indeed it’s so successful as a model it was one of the reasons Chelsea got cold feet over the European Super League was because the pitch owners we’re about to declare their objections).
Do I think Swann’s ownership of all we have is a good thing? Probably not. But it’s the best we have at the moment with such a huge debt (albeit created by the current owners). The sooner a new owner/investor comes in the better.
Solutions: I’m hearing/reading a lot of blow-hard shouting, complaining and words of disapproval, but is anyone offering any alternatives? Here’s an idea, and it is only and idea and one for which I have no genuine knowledge of how it would work, but hear me out:
Okay, here goes: Take a brownfield site near the town centre and have the council build a new community stadium/sports & education hub. Let them hold it as a community asset with a voting veto right given to a club supporters group to prevent any nefarious dealings by (even more) unscrupulous future councils. The net result could (and I really do only mean could) have a good impact on the town centre, bringing in more footfall and business for up to 25 weekends of the season (including cup ties) plus the option for use as a concert venue. My initial thought would be for the area east of Crosby – close enough to town to make a difference (but I’m very much open to any other suggestions).
The club can be future-proofed with the right contract and the above mentioned supporter veto. As a possible extra-bonus, a community-owned asset would take control away from The Swanns. They can they do what they probably wanted all along and sell their underhandedly acquired land and do what they want with it. Indeed, a deal with the council COULD even see part of the costs for a new home met by the sale/lease of further council land around GP.
Anyway, look these are just a few thoughts. Happy to be shot down or backed. Thoughts?
5 users thanked author for this post.
Three words: Musselwhite, Crosby, Baraclough. The last time we were this poor we invested wisely in experience for the spine. The rest just happened to fall into place (luck rather than design?) and we began to soar. We can but hope for better things to come.
