Sale of the Club

[Peter Venkman]

I think someone just lost their first ever "debate" in the history of the internet ever.

[url width=300 height=330]http://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png[/url]

[@MacPhlea]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Port-Vale-Ameriturf-ready-reconsider-investment/story-15087583-detail/story.html?sp=normal&1360658642637#axzz2KfljwZb6

I have a feeling this Ameriturf might be involved in our takeover if this Gary Hooper is still involved with them.

Oooh makes my life easier

[mrverve]

I think the long term aim has to be about sustainability but the short term has to be Championship football, it's absolutely paramount in keeping this club moving forward.

[BruceChatwin]

If they have little money for on field investment but a clear plan for keeping us sustainable while funding the development of a new stadium then that's pretty much the ideal scenario in my book.

The worry is they have little money for on field investment and both fewer funds and (snap judgement) less business savvy than the last lot for getting the stadium development going.

If the team aren't really going anywhere on the pitch then the fans need to feel the club is going somewhere off it or we'll lose what extra support we've built up in the Di Canio era and slip back into treading water in lower league mediocrity. 

Edit: whatever happens, it's paramount they make the short term investment necessary in giving the current team the chance to get promoted.

[Reg Smeeton]

http://www.onevalefan.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?54864-Gary-Hooper-Consultant-Ameriturf/page1

Found this on a Port Vale forum, it appears that Gary Hooper was a consultant for an American artificial pitch company.

This is one of the first "leaks" that make some sense, assuming this is our man. The FL are looking at changing the rules to allow artificial pitches....this then could mean after the initial outlay, an income generator through community use, and less overheads on maintainance...and losses through postponements. It is a good fit for a more sustainable future.

[Trashbat?]

To be fair with our average attendances compared to other clubs in this division, we should be creating enough revenue to stay competitive on the pitch and be sustainable.

The key in this scenario being the manager and board getting the most out of what they can afford, while also getting key decisions right. I think under Wilson/Fitton we saw the good and bad of a manager and board running a sustainable club.

[RJack]

I don't think it's that Gary Hooper.  BBC RS said he was Commercial manager for Brentford & previously QPR

[Batch]

To be fair with our average attendances compared to other clubs in this division, we should be creating enough revenue to stay competitive on the pitch and be sustainable.

On a level playing field. But Bournemouth (and our recent self) shows that a club with a benefactor can compensate for lack of real revenue. Its just not self sustaining as we know.

The key in this scenario being the manager and board getting the most out of what they can afford, while also getting key decisions right. I think under Wilson/Fitton we saw the good and bad of a manager and board running a sustainable club.

Indeed, but at least it shows sustainability doesn't always equal relegation dogfight! That said I agree its vital to keeping the momentum for the fans to see long term progress (the right redevelopment) if there is short term pain coming.

[Peter Venkman]

I don't think it's that Gary Hooper.  BBC RS said he was Commercial manager for Brentford & previously QPR

Working alongside Bill Power while at QPR and Mark Devlin at Brentford.

There is my 2+2=4,657 for ya as to the mystery investor.

[Bob's Orange]

I think this is the Mistry investor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Pallonji_Mistry

[Reg Smeeton]

To be fair with our average attendances compared to other clubs in this division, we should be creating enough revenue to stay competitive on the pitch and be sustainable.

The key in this scenario being the manager and board getting the most out of what they can afford, while also getting key decisions right. I think under Wilson/Fitton we saw the good and bad of a manager and board running a sustainable club.

But we don't create enough revenue to be sustainable...which is probably one of the reasons for Black wanting out. It's a difficult one to consider at what sort of level in the pyramid...might we be self sustainable? 

Take the scum as a model, they have a relatively small wage budget £1.5 mill a season....compared to our £3 mill. For which they get an ability to maintain Div 4/Conference level football, but still lose close approx £750K a year which the chairman covers.

They of course get next to nothing from other sources connected to the ground..

Is the logic of wishing to be sustainable to accept a slight drop down the football pyramid? It seems to me that the current model would be completely at odds with the little we've heard about the new lot...

[Trashbat?]

I don't think it's that Gary Hooper.  BBC RS said he was Commercial manager for Brentford & previously QPR

Port Vale fans seemed to think it was the same person, whether it was confirmed or not I don’t know.

[fittons_coaching_badge]

I think this is the Mistry investor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Pallonji_Mistry

Having Indian involvement at STFC would make me happy!  

[Ardiles]

Is the logic of wishing to be sustainable to accept a slight drop down the football pyramid? It seems to me that the current model would be completely at odds with the little we've heard about the new lot...

No.  Hence earlier comments about getting the development/redevelopment right.

With a stadium like Oxford's (sited in a poor location, rented from a third party and with little opportunity to develop alternative income streams), sustainability probably does mean settling around League 2, with occasional forays in to League 1 and the Conference.  Despite being fairly well supported at that level, they are hamstrung/constrained by their stadium situation.  To be truly sustainable (ie if Lenegan stopped funding their losses to the tune of several £100k per annum), they would have to accept lower league football as their only realistic aim in the longer term.

But with a well located stadium, that the Club owned (even if it won't own the freehold of the land its sited on), with facilities on site that will generate additional revenues - sustainability in the Championship (and higher) is perfectly possible.  There are plenty of examples to show this.  In our case, I'm not even going to entertain Premiership football as a possibility again - and nor do I really want to.  But Championship football on a self-sustaining budget is, most definitely.

[Barnard]

Is the logic of wishing to be sustainable to accept a slight drop down the football pyramid? It seems to me that the current model would be completely at odds with the little we've heard about the new lot...

I got the impression that Fitton thought that the financial fair play rules would produce a position where clubs naturally found their level based on attendances and the ability to sell players further up the food chain.

If this had happened we would be sitting naturally at the top end of League 1 based on attendances and with some astute management of players etc and a bit of development, we would have had the potential to shift that natural position to a sustainable mid table championship club.

The fair play rules haven't had that sort of impact at all as yet, with clubs like Bournemouth, Crawley etc showing that there are ways round the limits on turnover.  In addition we've seen that 1 seasons mismanagement on the pitch can seriously fuck you up.

As things stand, if we are to be sustainable in the current climate based purely on our attendances, that might be at a lower level than we might like. I can't see running a bottom end of L1 side being attractive to the new guys and hope that their idea of sustainable is something slightly different.