Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #465 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:31:45 » |
|
The more you bet the higher the potential rewards.
The potential upside is fantastic. But what if the gamble fails?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #466 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:32:17 » |
|
How much extra will next season as aChampionship club bring?
I've no idea of the figures but the way Bournemouth are spending combined with their losses there is no way you can describe that as a 'little bit extra'. They made a loss of £3.4m in 11/12 and that will have increased this season. Bristol City's losses were much higher and they still got relegated. It's irrelevant anyway as both clubs have a rich wanker who is willing to throw money at it and we don't.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #467 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:33:25 » |
|
I'd strongly suggest the betting metaphor made that point clear.
Black could afford to gamble, I suspect Jed is not in such a fortunate position. I'm afraid it looks like we have to live with that.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 32331
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #468 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:38:02 » |
|
The potential upside is fantastic.
But what if the gamble fails?
I think the good people of the TEF have enough intelligence to work out what happens if the gamble fails without me having to spell it out Black could afford to gamble, I suspect Jed is not in such a fortunate position. I'm afraid it looks like we have to live with that.
Black couldn't afford the gamble, that's why he split. Which is a shame.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #469 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:40:28 » |
|
I think the good people of the TEF have enough intelligence to work out what happens if the gamble fails without me having to spell it out
My initial point included the term 'financial sense'. Do you think it makes financial sense to take a big gamble that could potentially see the end of the club?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 32331
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #470 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:43:16 » |
|
No but I haven't suggested that and neither did leefer originally.
You are going to a worse case scenario. Not every potential gamble has to be club destroying.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #471 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:43:41 » |
|
I think the good people of the TEF have enough intelligence to work out what happens if the gamble fails without me having to spell it out
Black couldn't afford the gamble, that's why he split. Which is a shame.
He could, he just had enough half way through so decided to bet in play and take the price. Admittedly a a hefty loss in his case but probably not as much as if he continued to play.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #472 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:45:44 » |
|
No but I haven't suggested that and neither did leefer originally.
You are going to a worse case scenario. Not every potential gamble has to be club destroying.
We overspent by approx £2m last season and didn't get up. How much more do we have to gamble? I suspect a couple of seasons like that and it becomes club destroying without a sugar daddy to bankroll us.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #473 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:46:09 » |
|
He could, he just had enough half way through so decided to bet in play and take the price. Admittedly a a hefty loss in his case but probably not as much as if he continued to play.
What was he ever going to win though? Unlikely he'd ever see his money again, any success at the club clearly meant nothing to him and if he'd waited until the summer and we got promoted we'd be royally fucked if we had to make budget cuts after being promoted
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cibocchi_Is_God
Offline
Posts: 486
The Italian Stallion
|
|
« Reply #474 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:46:26 » |
|
Black could afford to bankroll the club, he just didn't want to. Spending large amounts is all well and good so long as the benefactor can afford to and perhaps more importantly wants to, Andrew Black had no interest in Swindon Town, whereas someone like Lansdown at City wants to fund the club (as a fervent supporter) and can afford to.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Paolo69
Offline
Posts: 2790
|
|
« Reply #475 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:47:42 » |
|
What was he ever going to win though? Unlikely he'd ever see his money again, any success at the club clearly meant nothing to him and if he'd waited until the summer and we got promoted we'd be royally fucked if we had to make budget cuts after being promoted
All very true Sonic. Which does beg the question of why he got involved in the first place. Something I have no idea on I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Flashheart
|
|
« Reply #476 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:48:51 » |
|
No but I haven't suggested that and neither did leefer originally.
You are going to a worse case scenario. Not every potential gamble has to be club destroying.
So what are you suggesting?
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 32331
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #477 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:49:55 » |
|
We overspent by approx £2m last season and didn't get up. How much more do we have to gamble? I suspect a couple of seasons like that and it becomes club destroying without a sugar daddy to bankroll us.
Fuck me. There isn't a set figure where the gamble suddenly pays off. If Black had loaned the club the Ritchie fee instead of selling, on a low interest rate and we got Promoted everyone would be better off.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
sonicyouth
Offline
Posts: 22352
|
|
« Reply #478 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:50:32 » |
|
All very true Sonic. Which does beg the question of why he got involved in the first place. Something I have no idea on I'm afraid.
We got taken over by a bunch of mates/business associates who fancied trying to run a football club. They subsequently all fell out with each other and Black was the last man standing. That happened in 2008 and has happened again in 2013 it would seem...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
Online
Posts: 55422
|
|
« Reply #479 on: Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 20:51:19 » |
|
The Advertiser understands Plymouth Argyle have enquired about the availability of Swindon Town pair Luke Rooney and Lee Cox. #stfc
Would like to see Cox stay to see what he can do, especially if Macca is off. Luke Rooney not so bothered. There is a player in him but he's not worked out IMHO.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|