javeajag

Costs compared to revenue are always more predictable so to use your example we know energy costs and their increase for the next 6 months. We don’t know that for revenue. the reluctance to look at cost control options remains baffling.

Steady that’s a sensible suggestion !

You mean the sustainable financial model of course….

Of course we would all love revenue to solve the problem and every sales manager has said the same thing since 1928 but we all know that’s wishful thinking and won’t happen. having an accountant on the board who can’t find any costs to save should be concerning because the axe will be coming.

Of course we should be raising revenue, increasing the fan base and commercial income. Donations however should be a bonus not a key operating income stream. and as everyone in business knows costs are certain , revenue uncertain and we are currently spending more than we are bringing in which cannot continue.

Who is opposed to him investing ? If he didn’t we would go bust that’s how bad things are. But for investing he has 10% of the shares of the club and a seat on the Board….its not free. and I’m not sure your characterisation of your beneficiaries wouldn’t warrant some editing.

I agree with this and voted for tranche 2 as I always said we should. In fact I’m not aware of anyone who has said they will vote against and that includes JJ ! without tranche 2 we face a financial crunch but what does that tell you about those running the club that even with donations of £225k a year they would still lose £280k this year and need an additional £500k to stop our creditors being paid in a few months ? That’s not sustainable! if the sustainable financial plan is to be base on increased revenue and donations , as stated , then frankly we should either plan for tranche 3 now or re think the form of fan ownership we have because that is no plan at all. it seems to me that what is being said is that in the championship there is an amount of spend necessary to fight for promotion that is above the clubs natural revenue level that can be supported through fan ownership. If that’s the case we need to do some serious thinking.

Tranche 2 does not address the underlying financial problems of the club it’s a short term term sticking plaster that’s needed because without it we won’t be able to pay our debts in a few months. And there is no such thing as free money , tranche 2 is buying shares and influence.

Jesus mate any Business that can’t pay its debts - that’s creditors - well guess what happens , they go bust…..so without tranche 2 we would go bust. Got it ?

As I said some words, no content

Some words no content.

The only point I would make is that it was stated that there were no costs to be cut outside the playing budget yet well we could save £30k on not funding the women’s team ( not something I would wish to do personally) which is 30% of a £100k deficit . So which is it there are no costs to be cut or just the ones we don’t like ?

You did just go back over the thread.

Therefore you believe cutting the playing budget would reduce revenues , increase our losses and make it harder for us to compete …. Yet cutting the playing budget was your solution to cutting our losses. maybe take a break to work things out

We have an unsustainable business model where the solution is in the least resort to cut the playing budget except that we were told would this lead to further revenue decline as we failed to perform on the pitch. Donations will then decline. And losses mount. Or don’t you believe the board ?