calscot 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I'm not sure I get you, the PLG tenure looked a great idea, it just turned out badly, but who could have predicted it? When you think you've got the hottest young GP driver you can't predict that he'll immediately drive you car like someone who's just past their test and still not have sussed it 5 months later. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I think the crux is that the only to keep improving is to have millionaire input, which ultimately precludes fan ownership. Fan ownership would mean lack of money for wages/players which would make us regress until the finances were sorted. But I think it's been demonstrated over the last 15 years that we have to live within our means. The club need to fix a maximum debt which is a small fraction of turnover. I think we'll prosper more in the long term if stick to a proper budget and keep debt negligible which also keeps the interest payments negligible. I suppose the problem comes when we need to upgrade the stadium etc or need to go that extra mile for a star player. I think the disappointing thing is that despite all our "downsizing" in the last 7 years we're in no better financial health than your average Premiership club, which makes us pretty vulnerable considering our income streams. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I think if we want the club in the fans' hands we have to turn down investors with �£10M and limit them to something like �£1M - and I assume that would put them off. If it is to be owned by the fans then large investors probably should not be part of the plan - especially with takeover rules etc. I think the payback for any rich businessman buying the club from Murray would be to reduce any potential losses by following the Murray model of subcontracting everything to his own companies. That is probably a big sweetener for someone who is bound to lose millions during their ownership. The reality is that the club are actively seeking these large investors right now because it needs them. Without a radical reduction of it's debt, the club is in trouble & needs to scale down it's spending to a level where it's not losing money when we're not in Europe. Bluedell will have an idea, but the figure being thrown around as 'expected' for last years losses is said to be around �£8m. This is a real problem for a fan ownership model because even a debt-free club will have serious problems with such hefty losses unless there's sufficient facilities in place to enable it to ride through those bad times. Without a buyer or consortium of buyers willing to heavily invest in the very near future, the only immediate solution available will be to sell some key players to curtail the debt with no guarantee of when there might be money available again to spend on players. I know I've stated the obvious here, but when there's talk of turning down investors with �£10m I think it's time to take a reality check. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I think the crux is that the only to keep improving is to have millionaire input, which ultimately precludes fan ownership. Fan ownership would mean lack of money for wages/players which would make us regress until the finances were sorted. Maybe. I don't agree that we necessarily need to crap before we can get better though, which seems to be a regular arguement when people can't justify there stance. Could we not just aim to improve? Who started all this few years of dross bollocks and why is it trotted out so often? In my mind, the best way to move forward is with one small step forward, not a leap backwards first. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I'm not sure I get you, the PLG tenure looked a great idea, it just turned out badly, but who could have predicted it? When you think you've got the hottest young GP driver you can't predict that he'll immediately drive you car like someone who's just past their test and still not have sussed it 5 months later. I didn't make the point well as I was too lazy to write it out in full. See post above as hopefully that explains it. The idea that PLG had to make us worse before we could get better and we should just accept that. DOn't want to get into that anyway, just there were similarities in the argument. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miniblue 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) guys Sorry I ended up in a meeting all day, I will read through the various replied and come back later today. miniblue Edited November 11, 2009 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Maybe. i dont think its that ambiguous. while clearly there is no law that says you have got to get worse before you get better, if the way forward involves less money for players and wages in the short term, its hard to imagine how it will get better in small increments. i think that is the biggest hurdle proponents of pure fan ownership have to face. on the other side of things, its hard to know what is better is four or five steps after the fact. pure fan ownership may still, if it werent for the debt, allow us to invest more in the team than the rest of the spl, and encourage us to adopt a rangers way of producing and playing players. in a real sense what is happening to us now me be a prototype of what will ultimately happen across the board, and what seems like a step back may be a step forward. i dunno. all speculation at this stage. you are right though - not every situation demands getting worse before getting better, but i cant see how fan ownership will be able to cough up the money to clear the debt as well as finance improvement on the park. hell, im not sure if big money guys can do that. one thing is clear - you only get this chance for innovation once every few generations and its fallen to ours. lets hope we dont make an arses of it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I don't agree that we necessarily need to crap before we can get better though, which seems to be a regular arguement when people can't justify there stance. You think fan ownership will lead to a better side straight away? I would point out, though, that despite the wearisome line trotted out that Murray Park has failed to come up with anything so far, we have a goalie (slightly, I know McGregor was loaned out as well), a RB in Little plus Hutton, a LB in Smith, a CB in Wilson, and a forward in Fleck. That's nearly half a team: if we can do that when it's NOT been a time to use young players, we ought to be nicely placed when it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Hey! How come s t r a i g h t got edited? Guess I spelled it wrongly. I'm intrigued as to what the filter thought I was typing! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,516 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) Hey! How come s t r a i g h t got edited? Guess I spelled it wrongly. I'm intrigued as to what the filter thought I was typing! Perhaps you got the R and the T round the wrong way. The editor doesn't like t a i g for some reason. Edited November 11, 2009 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.