[Archived] Scunthorpe United v ROVERS

[Gav]

12 minutes ago, Biz said:

Pulled up? Bunkum, it's just goal post moving. You said things haven't been done differently, I pointed out that certain things had been different this summer. 

Perhaps if they'd spent the Dack, Samuel et al money last summer, we wouldn't be league 1.

I'm not going to keep going round in circles with you, you're expectations have been dumbed down, but that actually happened years ago, not this summer.

Enjoy the match.

[tomphil]

It isn't 'investment' at all it's paying running costs and they come with any business or indeed household. It's only usually those looking to find a way of defending Venkys that throw that flannel about.

If they inject 5 million in Jan soley for recruiting players that's investment, or maybe a better term would be miracle.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, tomphil said:

It isn't 'investment' at all it's paying running costs and they come with any business or indeed household. It's only usually those looking to find a way of defending Venkys that throw that flannel about.

It's paying running costs that are far higher than any other clubs in this league. It's also spending the most money in the summer in this league on transfers. Facts aren't 'flannel', and I don't see anyone on here defending Venky's.

[tomphil]

4 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It's paying running costs that are far higher than any other clubs in this league. It's also spending the most money in the summer in this league on transfers. Facts aren't 'flannel', and I don't see anyone on here defending Venky's.

Clearly talking about the loose use of the term investment and where did I say defending Venkys on here ?

You normally only hear that kind of thing from you know who's friends at Sky pouring out the 'pumping 30 million per year' line repeatedly. Blatant propaganda and outright lies really.  They guarantee to underwrite running costs annually on the signing off of every set of accounts, that's what they do and I don't think the term 'annual investment' or anything like that shows up on those books.

I just can't stand the use of that term in regards to their involvement at Rovers because it's misleading and is used to defend them all over face book etc although often by kids who can be forgiven for knowing no better.

[blueboy3333]

Just now, tomphil said:

Clearly talking about the loose use of the term investment and where did I say defending Venkys on here ?

You normally only hear that kind of thing from you know who's friends at Sky pouring out the 'pumping 30 million per year' line repeatedly. Blatant propaganda and outright lies really.  They guarantee to underwrite running costs annually on the signing off of every set of accounts, that's what they do and I don't think the term 'annual investment' or anything like that shows up on those books.

I just can't stand the use of that term in regards to their involvement at Rovers because it's misleading and is used to defend them all over face book etc although often by kids who can be forgiven for knowing no better.

Apologies, thought you meant on here. I get your point but they are having to invest to keep the players we have and buy the likes of Dack and Samuel. Whether that comes out of their own pocket or gets left with the club when they bail out remains to be seen.

[Gav]

1 minute ago, blueboy3333 said:

Apologies, thought you meant on here. I get your point but they are having to invest to keep the players we have and buy the likes of Dack and Samuel. Whether that comes out of their own pocket or gets left with the club when they bail out remains to be seen.

It's all borrowed money blueboy, we're being run on credit?

[tomphil]

5 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Apologies, thought you meant on here. I get your point but they are having to invest to keep the players we have and buy the likes of Dack and Samuel. Whether that comes out of their own pocket or gets left with the club when they bail out remains to be seen.

Yes no one can dispute the fact that they've reinvested some of the previous sale proceeds this summer probably more through a restocking the fridge scenario insisted on by the auditors than an actual put something back in gesture.

To be fair though someone has held their nerve a bit because I think we all expected it to be a lot worse. Mind you I don't think big bids actually came in for anyone so that helped. The ones for Lenihen were paltry but it showed there isn't a desperation for cash again just yet.

 

[47er]

I think clubs might have known Lenihan had an injury problem!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

I think if serious bids would have come in for certain players the players would have been gone.

[arbitro]

25 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

It's paying running costs that are far higher than any other clubs in this league. It's also spending the most money in the summer in this league on transfers. Facts aren't 'flannel', and I don't see anyone on here defending Venky's.

Haven't the wages of outgoing players far outweighed the wages of incoming players which represents a significant saving. Lowe, Henley and Steele to name but three were all on big wages (and Steele brought in a fee). And the relegation clauses reportedly in some players contracts will also save money. I'd be surprised if the wage bill isn't a lot less now than last season. There are also the redundancies and cutting of employees hours to factor in.  

 

[tomphil]

In simple terms auditors come in and look at the clubs protracted total income this season, presumably that still being boosted by stage payments from big money players sold previously. Also the savings from big earners leaving, further cost cutting measures and possibly factoring in the manager selling a couple off for modest money. They look at the costs then they set a strict steadfast budget, a big one for this league but it has to or the other option is admin or more severe measures that result in instant relegation again and virtually no club left.

VH Group accounts agree to underwrite any losses in that budget as they do every year and this is more likely a loss leader that helps with tax or something but doubtful the term investment is used in regards to it. That's why the charade is allowed to continue, I think Hemmings props up North End in similar circumstances via one of his businesses. Loss making clubs are a handy tool when you have vast profits annually from other areas of your portfolios, it's all on paper it never need actually directly affect your personal pockets.

Within that budget set there was obviously a bit of movement to bring a few in offset by the loss of a large chunk of players a lot of who were stealing a living at BRFC with big wages and obviously a couple of modest sales. That's were it begins and ends though and further sales and how the proceeds might have been used or disappeared didn't materialise but I think it would have still been a case of as you were.

As long as there is no evidence of an outside injection of cash to spend on players to better the team and add value i'd dispense with the term investment. 

[Stuart]

9 hours ago, Biz said:

You thing fans are part of the problem? Have you seen the last couple of away followings? I don't think they're causing a problem personally, and I think our fanbase is the most United it has been in 5 years.

Our fanbase is more divided that it has ever been.

Just nobody shouts about it any more.

[blueboy3333]

5 hours ago, arbitro said:

Haven't the wages of outgoing players far outweighed the wages of incoming players which represents a significant saving. Lowe, Henley and Steele to name but three were all on big wages (and Steele brought in a fee). And the relegation clauses reportedly in some players contracts will also save money. I'd be surprised if the wage bill isn't a lot less now than last season. There are also the redundancies and cutting of employees hours to factor in.  

 

Probably all true but not sure what it has to do with the post you responded to?

[arbitro]

24 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Probably all true but not sure what it has to do with the post you responded to?

What they spent on transfer fees have been offset to a large degree by what they are saving on the wage bill.

[JAL]

1 hour ago, Stuart said:

Our fanbase is more divided that it has ever been.

Just nobody shouts about it any more.

Last night in the bars there was a lot of positive chat with regards to Rovers recently then they turn up today and show what a bunch keaners they can be.

 

[Athlete]

On 16/09/2017 at 11:45, Biz said:

I never said wonderful or revolutionary, I merely pointed out the difference between two summers. 

I never mentioned expectations either, I just pointed out actual facts, no smoke and mirrors, no praise of the owners. It's so pitiful that people cannot discuss actual goings on anymore, because pointing out false predictions is apparently having expectations "dumbed down"

Oh so actual facts, reports, finance figure, published accounts and general decent source articles are "my belief" but your completely made up unfounded, zilch evidence theories about money coming from elsewhere is "truth"?

Give me a break. 

Boi is fact bizzle 

[Athlete]

On 16/09/2017 at 12:32, Biz said:

Pulled up? Bunkum, it's just goal post moving. You said things haven't been done differently, I pointed out that certain things had been different this summer. 

Perhaps if they'd spent the Dack, Samuel et al money last summer, we wouldn't be league 1.

They've replaced better players with Dack and Samuel... We wouldn't have been in league one only for venkys.. The Coyle appointment and Mowbrays negativity took us down.. But we all know ultimately it was venkys