Forest Visitor
New member
- Mar 27, 2013
- 30
Tudgay, Miller, Derbyshire will all be gone in the summer. Blackstock long term injury. Paterson not a striker, more an attacking wide man!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Are Forest taking the Pis#???
- Thread starter Neecha
- Start date
Tudgay, Miller, Derbyshire will all be gone in the summer. Blackstock long term injury. Paterson not a striker, more an attacking wide man!
Forest Visitor
New member
- Mar 27, 2013
- 30
This hopefully!
Paris
Well-known member
Aren't most Prem clubs owned by foreigners? I think they all do OK generally and we don't yet know that Cardiff and Hull won't but agree there will be failures. Bad practice is not only limited to those from overseas as we all well know (as do Dirty Leeds, Palace etc etc)
Exactly, I would hate it if a bloke based in Australia for half the year stuck £160 million into the Albion.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
Ultimately if an owner wishes to inject money in a legitimate way that more than offsets their true operating costs and losses but enables them to reach the Prem, then good luck. I don't know the details of Forest's owners, for example whether they have a long association with the Club and whether they are in for the long term?
As a fan I would be very worried if an unheard of foreign owner suddenly took over, injected huge amounts of money in a short term bid to get into the Prem, as a plaything and platform to promote their business interests abroad. Ok that is their right but the 'franchise' style of ownership isn't necessarily a happy one, as Cardiff and Hull are finding, plus Pompey who are the classic car crash of a Club that got into a cycle of living for today, whatever the cost to them - and worse still caused lots of collateral damage in the community.
If success isn't instant, the Prem eludes them again and the owner gets bored and jumps ship then Forest could be left in a real financial mire. We could well have a say in their outcome, being as we are at the City ground on the final day of the season.
We don't spend within our means, last year we lost £9 million, the previous year £7 million etc.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
You know exactly what I mean.
I think there is a lot of hypocrisy here. If the FFP rules had been introduced five years ago then The Amex could not have been built, is that what you really want?
driller
my life my word
The sponsorship deal is for 5 years.
They are using all the money this year and not a fifth as it should be.
It will be interesting to see how they use the sponsorship money 'again' next year.
driller
my life my word
Capital investment is not included in ffp so it could.
HAILSHAM SEAGULL
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 10,347
But the trouble is they are likely being paid above the odds in an attempt to reach the promised land, so when they try to get rid of them, nobody will meet their wage demands.
Meanwhile, the new strikers that you will have to buy to keep you in the Premier League, if you go up, want bigger wages, and the club are losing money hand over fist.
A viscious spiral IMHO
Having read a view of your posts on various threads, you are making a number of veiled insuations with regards to finances at the club and future losses. You are one of the more balanced and rational posters, not to mention humourous, on here so I would be extremely interested in your position on this. Can you just come out and state the point that you are getting at?
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Perhaps Forest are playing the Monopoly game tactic - buy everything that is half decent so that your competitors can't use them against you - works if you can afford it.
Seagull over Canaryland
Well-known member
Going back to Forest related matters I can't imagine the strikers in their youth / development squads are too impressed given they potentially have 9 strikers fighting for a place in the first team.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
Suppose it's marginally better than a bloke based in Spain living off the Cup Final and playoff money, whatever happened to him? I guess he cashed in his shares in some shady deal too
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 8,703
I agree with this. I think we should be run sustainably and am glad that we are regardless of how other clubs are recklessly chucking the money around. It can only be good for us in the long term to be run sensibly, I am not interested in becoming the next Portsmouth or Coventry.
I don't have any inside information. All I have done is take last years losses at a start point, and made the following adjustments
Losses £(9)million
Less: Cost savings £1.5 million
Less: Increased revenue £1.5 million
Plus: Increased wages £3 million
Plus: Stadium Depreciation £4 million
Plus: Increased player amortisation £2 million
Total losses £15 million
My point is that a lot of people are looking enviously at other clubs, making accusations that these clubs are being run dishonestly/unethically, yet ignore that we have benefitted ourselves from the incredible generosity of TB. Based on my estimates (which are at best, inspired guesswork), TB last season subsidised every seat at the Amex to the tune of £22, which is an amazing contribution.
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
You just realise what an asset El Abd was to this club. Never moaned, probably paid peanuts compared to some of the other players, just got on with his job. Brighton through and through.
Agree