Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
 61 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:54:06 
Started by Peter Venkman - Last post by Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG
I went for 2 - although 1 is also a factor.

Even if we had super duper trusted owners…

Things I’d want clear answers for:
Do these boxes run alongside the current facilities in the Arkells?
If yes - is there current demand for the extra hospitality? Do we sell out & turn people away currently? Or is the plan the assumption people will turn up in droves because it’s new & shiny?
If no - then how do these new facilities bring in significantly more than the current set up.

What benefits does this bring to the football club?
Currently the only thing I can go on roughly is the 6 year ROI - that’s 500k profit a year, basically 10k a week. How do they plan on having the new facilities make 10k profit every week?
Will any of that extra profit go towards the playing budget? I’d currently assume not - seeing as from my understanding the club currently run at a 2m loss a year. An extra 500k per year just reduced that loss (which Clem funds) to 1.5m a year.
So, all these new facilities add is 3m debt to start with - then after 6 years they reduce the money Clem puts in (also technically debt) to 1.5m a year.

Under current trends that means after the 6 years the debt would be 27m (12m + 3m + [2m a year x 6])

So what are the benefits?

For me, on paper this only works if the development is basically funded purely out of pocket with no pay back. The capital needs to be a gift to the football club in order to make his viable. Clem won’t (understandably) do that. You’d need to Man City money for that.

I could of course be talking absolutely rubbish and / or I’ve missed the answers to my above musings but I just don’t see what the actual benefits are.

Even if the master plan was to do this development with a view to selling up - I’m not sure the new facilities outweigh the extra 3m debt with regards to making the club marketable.

I’d definitely be more inclined to just roll with it under different ownership


Should be both really shouldn't it, if we're voting responsibly. The plans should be solid and we should have trust in the owners. You'd definitely give more leeway to owners with a good track record and not a history of lying though, but the plans should still be solid and there should be provisions against just whacking a block of flats on the car park for example.

 62 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:50:49 
Started by Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG - Last post by Ƭ̵̬̊: The Artist Formerly Known as CWIG
We have created a fairly unique situation where we are wedded to an owner that it appears half of fans have decided they no longer like or trust. It’s easy to blame Clem for most things, but I think it’s actually a failure of the fanbase to allow itself to get backed into a corner like this.

Not an ounce of this is the fans fault. Not one iota.

We've been on a consistent diet of shit sandwiches for over a decade now, its just a shame about half of our fan base are happy to keep eating them with a smile on their face because an Australian bloke shook their hand once and wore a bucket hat.

 63 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:46:56 
Started by Peter Venkman - Last post by Peter Venkman
Any chance of making it multi-vote? I'm sure lots might want different answers!
Be decisive man! Cheesy

 64 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:45:36 
Started by Simon Pieman - Last post by Berniman
The world is going to shit as we all meander into WWIII

 65 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:43:25 
Started by Don Rogers Shop - Last post by Peter Venkman
It’s all very well saying Iandolo was rubbish, but, I don’t recall us being blessed with any better replacements until Kirkman came along.
IMO Iandolo was rubbish, I would take Dion Donohue and FBT ahead of him every day, both here at the same time as EI and both far better defenders, even Rob Hunt was better at LB.

 66 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:37:24 
Started by Simon Pieman - Last post by Legends-Lounge
Ive heard Taiwan and China could be on a collision course in time.

Lest we forget that China have been pushing the envelope with India recently.

 67 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:25:49 
Started by Simon Pieman - Last post by Bob's Orange
Well yeah. And that could start really really bad shit.

What about orange hat and non orange hat conflict?

 68 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:21:41 
Started by Peter Venkman - Last post by DV
I went for 2 - although 1 is also a factor.

Even if we had super duper trusted owners…

Things I’d want clear answers for:
Do these boxes run alongside the current facilities in the Arkells?
If yes - is there current demand for the extra hospitality? Do we sell out & turn people away currently? Or is the plan the assumption people will turn up in droves because it’s new & shiny?
If no - then how do these new facilities bring in significantly more than the current set up.

What benefits does this bring to the football club?
Currently the only thing I can go on roughly is the 6 year ROI - that’s 500k profit a year, basically 10k a week. How do they plan on having the new facilities make 10k profit every week?
Will any of that extra profit go towards the playing budget? I’d currently assume not - seeing as from my understanding the club currently run at a 2m loss a year. An extra 500k per year just reduced that loss (which Clem funds) to 1.5m a year.
So, all these new facilities add is 3m debt to start with - then after 6 years they reduce the money Clem puts in (also technically debt) to 1.5m a year.

Under current trends that means after the 6 years the debt would be 27m (12m + 3m + [2m a year x 6])

So what are the benefits?

For me, on paper this only works if the development is basically funded purely out of pocket with no pay back. The capital needs to be a gift to the football club in order to make his viable. Clem won’t (understandably) do that. You’d need to Man City money for that.

I could of course be talking absolutely rubbish and / or I’ve missed the answers to my above musings but I just don’t see what the actual benefits are.

Even if the master plan was to do this development with a view to selling up - I’m not sure the new facilities outweigh the extra 3m debt with regards to making the club marketable.

I’d definitely be more inclined to just roll with it under different ownership

 69 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 13:13:30 
Started by Don Rogers Shop - Last post by Pericardinho
Jay McEveley was good. Nobody else really springs to mind.

Think he played centre half a lot as well though.

 70 
 on: Saturday, June 14, 2025, 12:58:51 
Started by Don Rogers Shop - Last post by Nemo
It’s all very well saying Iandolo was rubbish, but, I don’t recall us being blessed with any better replacements until Kirkman came along.

I do like what I've seen of Kirkman so far but he's played very little and often as a makeshift centre back, I don't think I'd want to go into a season with him as the only option just yet.

We really haven't had that many good left backs in modern times really. Since Bodin, has anyone absolutely nailed that position for more than a season tops? We've had plenty of decent RBs in the same time.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10