El-Abd is urged to sign Albion deal

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

The company is already formed.

And will own the stadium. BHA will just rent the use as it does currently at Withdean from BHCC.

 

[BigGully]

A business is either solvent or it's not - end of. There can't be a 'qualified' solvency.
An operating loss is completely different and is normally sustained by raising further finance if there are insufficient funds already in the business - eg overdrafts, loans, capital from shareholders/owners (as RBS is proposing), sale of assets, gifts.
Should a company not be able repay any loans when they become due (assuming they ever do) then it may well be insolvent (= unable to pay it's debts).

BHA is solvent (as you clearly knew when you posted the initial libel) - get a copy of the last annual accounts from Companies House.

Wow thats a big leap of faith, technically probably right.

It was not me who brought the word 'solvent' into the debate, it was others.

And it was posted NOT in the context that you have just set out, it was posted to somehow show how we are financially prudent and in many respects we just are not.

I am astonished that we remain competitive with salaries and to buy a player for £300,000 with the associated costs is brilliant, but not to recognise that we are not any more financially prudent than all the other chancers out there.

I dont have any real concern that everthing will be fine because we all assume that wealthy benefactors will continue to prop us up.

There will be an in depth business plan lodged with our accountants showing how, after the stadium is built, we will, with projected revenue become a viable self standing business.

I am sure this will be the case, but I guess the worse case scenario is that we become the same business model as we are experiencing now, maybe running at a loss and continued support from wealthy benefactors with a shiny new stadium.

 

[Easy 10]

Wow thats a big leap of faith, technically probably right.

Its not "technically probably right".
its just simply RIGHT - as in CORRECT.

You then go on to say pretty much nothing in the rest of that post. Are you running out of things to criticise DK for ?

 

[BigGully]

Savage wanted a deal that would have made him the highest paid player at the club.
Hammond was offered a deal that would have made him the highest paid player at the club, but STILL wanted more.

Its a slippery slope. Give in to one or two players demands, and soon enough you get a queue of players at the Chairmans door looking for some hefty hikes in their contracts. And why not, if other players are getting what they ask for ?

Play by your rules, and the club would be labouring under a rapidly spiralling wagebill that could (and would) become unsustainable. Thankfully we have a chairman who reconises this, and keeps things in check. What would Wilkins want ? A job at a football club that is operating within its means - that way, people keep their jobs.

Its not a concept you're comfortable with, clearly. But I think its a method that has kept us afloat DESPITE the monstrous financial commitments this club has had to steer its way through these last few years. The fact we are competing and competing extremely well in this division is an absolute credit to DK and the board, as well as Wilkins.

But of course, for the likes of you, thats still not enough.

Your opinion is that DK contractual disputes with Savage, Hammond and O'Callaghan has kept this club finances 'in check'.

Of course it hasnt, the signing of Murray, Tompson, Richards, Martot and Dixon is likely to make no net gain financially for the club against agreeing terms with the first lot of players that Wilkins wanted here.

Argue all you want about whether we should of signed the players Wilkins wanted, but to somehow put it down to ensuring we are operating within our means is not valid.

Thankfully, we do not operate within our means, we are able to function by getting bungs of money from wealthy individuals.

Of course that technically means we are still solvent and I am glad, but DK and his contract disputes isnt really the saviour here.

 

[Easy 10]

You really don't grasp the concept of a WAGE STRUCTURE at a football club at all, do you.

 

[BigGully]

You really don't grasp the concept of a WAGE STRUCTURE at a football club at all, do you.

Wage Structure .... your joking !!

How does a club grasp the concept of budgets or wage structures when we are running at an annual loss of something like £2,000,000.

How do you agree a budget with such losses by offering Hammond and others very good contracts or by buying Murray for £300,000. I am absolutely delighted that we do, but dont talk about budgets in normal terms !!

Of course each year there is loosely agreed targets and decisions based on what might be considered a reasonable wage for players that need to be secured within the current squad or targets that may of been indentified by Lloyd or Wilkins, but it is down to the whims of certain board members.

The clubs Budgets and Wage Structure is how much certain individuals are willing to throw into the pot at any one time.

 

[Easy 10]

You seem obsessed by this £300k we stumped up for Murray, and continue to use this as a stick to beat DK and the board with - "if they found £300k for Murray, then why the hell couldn't they pay what Savage and Hammond were asking for ?" seems to be the gist, aye ?

Surely you can see the reasons why the club won't be dictated to on salaries, and will only pay what they feel a player is worth ? What is so WRONG with that ?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

You seem obsessed by this £300k we stumped up for Murray, and continue to use this as a stick to beat DK and the board with - "if they found £300k for Murray, then why the hell couldn't they pay what Savage and Hammond were asking for ?" seems to be the gist, aye ?

Surely you can see the reasons why the club won't be dictated to on salaries, and will only pay what they feel a player is worth ? What is so WRONG with that ?

He also seems to forget that a transfer fee would come from a total different budget to that which a wage increase would come from. And the fact that if we gave in to Savage's demands then other players would increase their demands to be on at least a par with someone who was no more than a squad player here.

Dick Knight did the right thing, no player is bigger than this club and if you are going to break your wage structure it has to be for someone a hell of a lot better at this level than Bas f***ing Savage.

 

[Easy 10]

I dunno Mr Shabadoo, I'm on the point of giving up to be honest.
I made that very point to him in the post he quoted of mine above, but he either doesn't agree, doesn't care, or doesn't understand. Possibly all three.

 

[steward 433]

He also seems to forget that a transfer fee would come from a total different budget to that which a wage increase would come from. And the fact that if we gave in to Savage's demands then other players would increase their demands to be on at least a par with someone who was no more than a squad player here.

Dick Knight did the right thing, no player is bigger than this club and if you are going to break your wage structure it has to be for someone a hell of a lot better at this level than Bas f***ing Savage.

Spot on no-one less than Zamora should be able to break the structure

 

[steward 433]

I dunno Mr Shabadoo, I'm on the point of giving up to be honest.
I made that very point to him in the post he quoted of mine above, but he either doesn't agree, doesn't care, or doesn't understand. Possibly all three.

Don't give up mate YOU HAVE made some very valid points and are winning the bout 10 rounds to 0 at the moment

 

[BigGully]

You seem obsessed by this £300k we stumped up for Murray, and continue to use this as a stick to beat DK and the board with - "if they found £300k for Murray, then why the hell couldn't they pay what Savage and Hammond were asking for ?" seems to be the gist, aye ?

Surely you can see the reasons why the club won't be dictated to on salaries, and will only pay what they feel a player is worth ? What is so WRONG with that ?

My point is that DK wont be dictated ( agree terms ) on salaries by some players but is willing to be dictated ( agree terms ) by other players, if the amounts of money involved are similar, who do you think should make the decision on which players to keep ?

That for me is the critical point, the Manager must be instrumental in bringing in or keeping players that he wants.

Murrays fee's and you must remember his wages too, contridict your view that DK couldnt stump up the money for Savage or O'Callaghan because of some perceived wage structure or budget constraints.

In comparison the money invloved in securing those player's would be similar to securing Murray and the other new intakes.

So there was no financial net gain from him not supporting his manager prior to Christmas, DK himself made decisions based on his own personal view of a players ability.

 

[BigGully]

He also seems to forget that a transfer fee would come from a total different budget to that which a wage increase would come from. And the fact that if we gave in to Savage's demands then other players would increase their demands to be on at least a par with someone who was no more than a squad player here.

Dick Knight did the right thing, no player is bigger than this club and if you are going to break your wage structure it has to be for someone a hell of a lot better at this level than Bas f***ing Savage.

Your kidding me ........

It didnt come from any budget , it came from Tony Blooms bank account.

And where does the wage increase come from ?

Another budget, you really are kidding me !!

Wages come from one of several bank accounts that are most likely overdrawn to the point of having to be bailed out by ............ hmmmmmm Tony Bloom !!

We aint generating enough money to cover our costs thats why we are losing somewhere near £2,000,000 annually.

Why do you choose to dismiss Murrays, Tompson's or Richards likely impact on wage differentials ??

 

[Easy 10]

My point is that DK wont be dictated ( agree terms ) on salaries by some players but is willing to be dictated ( agree terms ) by other players, if the amounts of money involved are similar, who do you think should make the decision on which players to keep ?

That for me is the critical point, the Manager must be instrumental in bringing in or keeping players that he wants.

Murrays fee's and you must remember his wages too, contridict your view that DK couldnt stump up the money for Savage or O'Callaghan because of some perceived wage structure or budget constraints.

In comparison the money invloved in securing those player's would be similar to securing Murray and the other new intakes.

So there was no financial net gain from him not supporting his manager prior to Christmas, DK himself made decisions based on his own personal view of a players ability.

Sorry, but thats just rubbish. "PERCEIVED" wage structure ?? Of COURSE there is a bloody wage structure, its probably the single most important aspect of the clubs budget. Who do you think we are, Chelsea ?

The fact is, if Murray and his agent had asked for more than DK and the board were prepared to pay him, then he wouldn't be banging in goals for the Albion right now. A deal was AGREED, and Murray has obviously joined with a salary that fits in with the current wage structure. DK was NOT prepared to break that wage structure for Hammond or Savage when their demands exceeded what the club were prepared to pay. Its not difficult, is it.

And wheres your evidence that DK simply hires and fires players according to his own personal view of their ability, regardless of Dean Wilkins's wishes ? Would DK bother employing Barry Lloyd if this is the case ? Do you HONESTLY think Wilkins has no input on who the Albion signs ? Of course DK controls the purse-strings (no manager in the League has carte-blanche to go out to sign and spend what they want), but you're back to your age-old habit of presenting your interpretation and speculation of how the club is run as FACT, when in actual fact, its BOLLOCKS.

 

[Perry Milkins]

you're back to your age-old habit of presenting your interpretation and speculation of how the club is run as FACT, when in actual fact, its BOLLOCKS.

Are you saying that the club is run on a 'bollocks' principle?

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

Your kidding me ........

We aint generating enough money to cover our costs thats why we are losing somewhere near £2,000,000 annually.

Well duh!

The difference between us and other clubs is that we effectively owe ourselves that money. The directors put in what they feel as individuals they can afford and we spend accordingly. What we do not do is leave our debts to external agencies unpaid, which is why teams such as leeds, bournemouth and luton etc are in such trouble. They lost control of their finances and were subject to the whims of third parties calling in the debt.

Very few if any teams at this level will be raking in enough revenue to cover their costs. The financial prudence that Albion has shown is manifested in this lack of exposure to external forces. If at any point the directors have to reduce the amount of money they put in then I'm sure the budgets would change and we would reduce our outgoings re wages etc.

 

[BigGully]

Sorry, but thats just rubbish. "PERCEIVED" wage structure ?? Of COURSE there is a bloody wage structure, its probably the single most important aspect of the clubs budget. Who do you think we are, Chelsea ?

The fact is, if Murray and his agent had asked for more than DK and the board were prepared to pay him, then he wouldn't be banging in goals for the Albion right now. A deal was AGREED, and Murray has obviously joined with a salary that fits in with the current wage structure. DK was NOT prepared to break that wage structure for Hammond or Savage when their demands exceeded what the club were prepared to pay. Its not difficult, is it.

And wheres your evidence that DK simply hires and fires players according to his own personal view of their ability, regardless of Dean Wilkins's wishes ? Would DK bother employing Barry Lloyd if this is the case ? Do you HONESTLY think Wilkins has no input on who the Albion signs ? Of course DK controls the purse-strings (no manager in the League has carte-blanche to go out to sign and spend what they want), but you're back to your age-old habit of presenting your interpretation and speculation of how the club is run as FACT, when in actual fact, its BOLLOCKS.

In some ways we are Chelsea, in very good disguise of course.

We are surviving and to some extent prospering by being bank rolled by wealthy individuals.

But I thought he was prepared to break the clubs 'wage structure' for Hammond !

Wilkins does have an input into players that he wants, he wanted Savage, O'Callaghan and Hammond but those couldnt be secured and then DK went and spent a similar amount on other players instead.

Wage differentials ....... How do you think Murrays might of impacted on that, why dismiss that ?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

You simply don't understand. If we had re-signed Bas Savage to the contract he was demanding we would have broken the wage structure at the club wide open and other players would have been demanding more to be on a level par with him. Instead we say no and bring in a number of players for possibly less, possibly more than 1 player wanted. How is this a bad thing.

If we bring in three players on 1k a week rather than paying another player 3k a week the club are in a lot better position. The club may not gain financially but the wage structure is kept intact, the club has a bigger squad with more options. (I don't actually know what the players are on, but am using those figures to try to illustrate my point about keeping a wage structure)

Just say we had we paid Savage what he wanted then Cox, Robinson, Forster, Butters and Elphick all demand to be on level terms with him, we break the wage structure and the directors are forced to go into their pockets more, it reaches breaking point, the directors cannot afford to pay anymore and the club goes into administration we lose points and are worse off.

The other option is to say no to these players who are then pissed off that another player is getting more than them and they want to leave and don't sign new contracts and leave for nothing or next to nothing.

Which option would you rather have?

A) We sign a few new players including a promising looking striker who is better than every other option upfront other than Nicky Forster, ultimately we strenghten the squad in a few positions and give ourselves more options in other positions and make a decent push at the play offs.

B) We keep Bas Savage pay him the extra wages, players get pissed off, we cannot afford to strengthen in other areas and slide down the table as morale within the club slides.

 

[BigGully]

Well duh!

The difference between us and other clubs is that we effectively owe ourselves that money. The directors put in what they feel as individuals they can afford and we spend accordingly. What we do not do is leave our debts to external agencies unpaid, which is why teams such as leeds, bournemouth and luton etc are in such trouble. They lost control of their finances and were subject to the whims of third parties calling in the debt.

Very few if any teams at this level will be raking in enough revenue to cover their costs. The financial prudence that Albion has shown is manifested in this lack of exposure to external forces. If at any point the directors have to reduce the amount of money they put in then I'm sure the budgets would change and we would reduce our outgoings re wages etc.

Well duh !!

A rather complex way of saying that any budgets or wage structure are down to the whims of our wealthy benefactors,

Its already been said that any budgets are dictated to how much these people are willing to put into the club at any one time.

 

[BigGully]

You simply don't understand. If we had re-signed Bas Savage to the contract he was demanding we would have broken the wage structure at the club wide open and other players would have been demanding more to be on a level par with him. Instead we say no and bring in a number of players for possibly less, possibly more than 1 player wanted. How is this a bad thing.

If we bring in three players on 1k a week rather than paying another player 3k a week the club are in a lot better position. The club may not gain financially but the wage structure is kept intact, the club has a bigger squad with more options. (I don't actually know what the players are on, but am using those figures to try to illustrate my point about keeping a wage structure)

Just say we had we paid Savage what he wanted then Cox, Robinson, Forster, Butters and Elphick all demand to be on level terms with him, we break the wage structure and the directors are forced to go into their pockets more, it reaches breaking point, the directors cannot afford to pay anymore and the club goes into administration we lose points and are worse off.

The other option is to say no to these players who are then pissed off that another player is getting more than them and they want to leave and don't sign new contracts and leave for nothing or next to nothing.

Which option would you rather have?

A) We sign a few new players including a promising looking striker who is better than every other option upfront other than Nicky Forster, ultimately we strenghten the squad in a few positions and give ourselves more options in other positions and make a decent push at the play offs.

B) We keep Bas Savage pay him the extra wages, players get pissed off, we cannot afford to strengthen in other areas and slide down the table as morale within the club slides.

Firstly you must accept that there was no finacial net saving on either options, that is critical.

Then you go on to tell me who YOU think are the best options, I say it of course needs to be left to Wilkins to decide who stays and goes.

The wage differential and any subsequant pissed off players questions remains with either option.

I am not sure why you think that Savage would impact on wage differentials whilst Murray and the rest dont.