Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[Gav]

52 minutes ago, blondie said:

The amount of paranoia on here is frightening.

It's a way of creating funds outside of FFP.

I would be more worried if they did nothing and allowed us to run the club on income generated by 9,000 fans.

Regardless of all the mistakes , ignorance, complacency and arrogance portrayed by our owners, in the cold light of day we are poorly supported. I don't disagree with people's personal motives for non-attendance, but FFP will always restrict our growth due to the lack of income.

Can you blame the fans for being paranoid after 10yrs of lies, false promises and orchestrated decline?

We are not poorly supported in normal times, we had phenomenal support in the Premiership when Venkys arrived and will have again when this lot sod off.

Sheff Weds sold Hillsborough to themselves, they ended up with point deductions and league 1 and I’d wager Weds owner could run rings around our 3 stooges shared brain cell.

[blondie]

16 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So why the secrecy? Why no announcement from the owners, CEO etc. at a fans forum meeting or on twitter to reassure concerns?

If it is a mechanism to overcome FFP then how come we slashed costs in the summer, sold Armstrong for £15 million and spent a couple of hundred grand on a full back from Lincoln and have failed to secure any senior players to new deals despite a critical need to do so? A £16.6 million boost to the accounts along with the Armstrong cash would surely put us in a great position to resolve the above?

They have created a situation where we have only 9000 fans turning up. You make it sound as though they are innocent powerless bystanders in that. Want more than 9000? Don't run the club like this and let Mowbray and Waggott continue. Appoint a commercial director. Get a kit manufacturer that delivers shirts to sell. 

They have created these problems. Maybe this is a way to overcome it. So what happens in another couple of years when there are no more assets to sell off and crowds have dwindled further/we are in League One due to a lack of investment?

Investment is linked by the constraints of FFP due to low income.

I don't in any way believe Venky's are as you surmise, far from it.

As other posters have intimated, there appear to be changes in the club, new appointments , a leaner organisation, but for reasons beyond our thoughts, do not seem to want to announce these.

At the end of this season, we drop off, within the 3 year cycle, an expensive recruitment season. With Armstrong's sale and this cash injection through the training ground, hopefully allied to the expected departure of Mowbray and Waggot, we may be looking to a brighter future,

On non attendance, my father stopped going after the Wembley 1960 debacle.

When we were at our lowest ebb, early1970's he started attending again. He ruefully remarked that his non attendance had achieved nothing, only the demise of the club and denying him watching the club he loved.

[den]

1 hour ago, blondie said:

The amount of paranoia on here is frightening.

It's a way of creating funds outside of FFP.

 

Not having that.

Its just a coincidence that it’s the same STC they tried to sell off for housing around the same time?  What follows - sell themselves the other half next season, the ground the season after?

Sorry, not for me.

 

[JHRover]

7 minutes ago, blondie said:

Investment is linked by the constraints of FFP due to low income.

I don't in any way believe Venky's are as you surmise, far from it.

As other posters have intimated, there appear to be changes in the club, new appointments , a leaner organisation, but for reasons beyond our thoughts, do not seem to want to announce these.

At the end of this season, we drop off, within the 3 year cycle, an expensive recruitment season. With Armstrong's sale and this cash injection through the training ground, hopefully allied to the expected departure of Mowbray and Waggot, we may be looking to a brighter future,

On non attendance, my father stopped going after the Wembley 1960 debacle.

When we were at our lowest ebb, early1970's he started attending again. He ruefully remarked that his non attendance had achieved nothing, only the demise of the club and denying him watching the club he loved.

We have low income because of Venkys and the way they run the club. So their 'steps' to overcome this by selling a prime asset are not good enough.

New appointments? Who? The commercial bloke who worked at crisis club Hull? Who else?

Leaner organisation? That's just a positive spin on making people redundant and cutting costs.

They don't want to announce these because there's nothing worth announcing.

You've put the most positive outlook on things possible. Given the history of these people I think expecting the back of Mowbray, a decent new manager and healthy transfer kitty next summer is fairyland stuff.

[blondie]

20 minutes ago, Gav said:

Can you blame the fans for being paranoid after 10yrs of lies, false promises and orchestrated decline?

We are not poorly supported in normal times, we had phenomenal support in the Premiership when Venkys arrived and will have again when this lot sod off.

Sheff Weds sold Hillsborough to themselves, they ended up with point deductions and league 1 and I’d wager Weds owner could run rings around our 3 stooges shared brain cell.

If everything is viewed as negative, then that's paranoia.

The only problem regarding points deductions is the relative amount of the sale, Derby and Sheff Wednesday were massively disproportionate to the actual value..

90% of non attendees will not return if Venky's depart, that is the crux.

 

 

 

[bluebruce]

Apologies if already asked and answered, but I find myself wondering...

Why are we only just hearing about this now if it happened in June?

The only reasonable non-detrimental reason I can conjure is that we didn't want to put it in the public spotlight incase the league felt under pressure to disallow it somehow, so we waited for official confirmation there won't be some blowback from it. I'm not sure that idea holds up though.

I can think of some detrimental or at least manipulative answers to the question though.

[toogs]

10 minutes ago, blondie said:

90% of non attendees will not return if Venky's depart, that is the crux.

You don’t know that. It may be your opinion, but don’t state it as fact. 

[tomphil]

32 minutes ago, blondie said:

Investment is linked by the constraints of FFP due to low income.

I don't in any way believe Venky's are as you surmise, far from it.

As other posters have intimated, there appear to be changes in the club, new appointments , a leaner organisation, but for reasons beyond our thoughts, do not seem to want to announce these.

At the end of this season, we drop off, within the 3 year cycle, an expensive recruitment season. With Armstrong's sale and this cash injection through the training ground, hopefully allied to the expected departure of Mowbray and Waggot, we may be looking to a brighter future,

On non attendance, my father stopped going after the Wembley 1960 debacle.

When we were at our lowest ebb, early1970's he started attending again. He ruefully remarked that his non attendance had achieved nothing, only the demise of the club and denying him watching the club he loved.

This is the danger here now with people thinking this is some way of injecting team building, manager changing money.

It's far more likely money that was desperately needed to just get through the pandemic and service the already stretched overdraft. Therefore in future not much is likely to change they've set their future stall out this summer just gone.

[davulsukur]

It's a pretty rare occasion when Venkys do something which ends up being to the benefit of the club, so I'm not convinced this will be either.

I was under the impression, mainly from journo's and maybe even from what Waggott has said previously, that we were sailing very close to the wind with FFP but not actually in breach of it? 

Saying that, we were under an embargo earlier this summer, is this how we showed enough future book balancing to get out of it? Because selling Armstrong was no guarantee at that point.

Feels like something that will bite us in the ass in the future one way or another. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by davulsukur

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

17 minutes ago, tomphil said:

This is the danger here now with people thinking this is some way of injecting team building, manager changing money.

It's far more likely money that was desperately needed to just get through the pandemic and service the already stretched overdraft. Therefore in future not much is likely to change they've set their future stall out this summer just gone.

I agree. I’d be really surprised if we see a penny of this money spent out on the pitch.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Just now, davulsukur said:

It's a pretty rare occasion when Venkys do something which ends up being to the benefit of the club. 

I was under the impression, mainly from journo's and maybe even from what Waggott has said previously, that we were sailing very close to the wind with FFP but not actually in breach of it? 

Saying that, we were under an embargo earlier this summer, is this how we showed enough future book balancing to get out of it? Because selling Armstrong was no guarantee at that point.

Feels like something that will bite us in the ass in the future one way or another. 

I’ve had that feeling for the last ten years. It’s getting a bit wearing by now.

[blondie]

18 minutes ago, tomphil said:

This is the danger here now with people thinking this is some way of injecting team building, manager changing money.

It's far more likely money that was desperately needed to just get through the pandemic and service the already stretched overdraft. Therefore in future not much is likely to change they've set their future stall out this summer just gone.

Whoever is right, it is better than doing nothing at all.

[Beanie01289]

I'd say despite all the paranoia going around the timing of the sale is fairly important they made the sale just before the loophole on these deals closed.

[bluebruce]

29 minutes ago, tomphil said:

This is the danger here now with people thinking this is some way of injecting team building, manager changing money.

It's far more likely money that was desperately needed to just get through the pandemic and service the already stretched overdraft. Therefore in future not much is likely to change they've set their future stall out this summer just gone.

It happened in June and even recently they have been saying they can't really offer any more in contract negotiations to valuable assets. It's definitely only been done to keep the ship afloat and probably to pass FFP.

[tomphil]

13 minutes ago, blondie said:

Whoever is right, it is better than doing nothing at all.

Which is the way they tend to play it with just about everything else at the club.

[DE.]

1 minute ago, tomphil said:

Which is the way they tend to play it with just about everything else at the club.

A shame they don't have the 'better to do something than nothing' attitude with the manager!

[tomphil]

3 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

It happened in June and even recently they have been saying they can't really offer any more in contract negotiations to valuable assets. It's definitely only been done to keep the ship afloat and probably to pass FFP.

Mowbray was only saying the other day about selling those in Jan whose contracts are running down. In order to free up some investment for the team, says it all really.

[JHRover]

So in the last 6 months we've had the Armstrong cash (minimum £10 million?), the Raya bonus for promotion, the Brockhall sale cash (£16.6 million) and then there was another substantial share issue in the summer as I recall (maybe this share issue was using the Brockhall cash - probably needs clarifying). 

All in there a massive pile of cash, greatly exceeding the £20 million covid loss we keep hearing about. On top of that massive wage savings through departures this summer and no new contracts issued.

Where is all this headed?

 

[islander200]

56 minutes ago, tomphil said:

This is the danger here now with people thinking this is some way of injecting team building, manager changing money.

It's far more likely money that was desperately needed to just get through the pandemic and service the already stretched overdraft. Therefore in future not much is likely to change they've set their future stall out this summer just gone.

Have they set their future stall out though?Can any of us really know that?Im not saying it definitely isnt the case but...

It isnt the first time they have halted spending and made cut backs only for to then back the playing side reasonably well.

This wage ceiling didnt always exist we were paying Rhodes 35k a week at one point.

I just dont see why they wouldnt just sell the STC rather than what they have done.

The cutbacks were necessary we couldnt keep running our wagebill at that level,when our income just cant support it.Yeah its the fault of the  owners and Waggotbetc totally agree with  that, there is not enough effort put into getting income into the club but its the reality we find ourselves in and i just dont see how we couldnt  have been on brink with FFP.

With the Armstrong sale and this money being injected into the club i now do expect money to be reinvested in to the squad  hopefully another manager spending it

[Mike E]

13 minutes ago, JHRover said:

So in the last 6 months we've had the Armstrong cash (minimum £10 million?), the Raya bonus for promotion, the Brockhall sale cash (£16.6 million) and then there was another substantial share issue in the summer as I recall (maybe this share issue was using the Brockhall cash - probably needs clarifying). 

All in there a massive pile of cash, greatly exceeding the £20 million covid loss we keep hearing about. On top of that massive wage savings through departures this summer and no new contracts issued.

Where is all this headed?

 

Hopefully a clean slate for a new manager in summer.

I'd say 'managed decline to recoup some losses to make the club more sellable' but think I'd be asking for too much.

At least the former is within Venky-logic.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

2 hours ago, blondie said:

The amount of paranoia on here is frightening.

It's a way of creating funds outside of FFP.

I would be more worried if they did nothing and allowed us to run the club on income generated by 9,000 fans.

Regardless of all the mistakes , ignorance, complacency and arrogance portrayed by our owners, in the cold light of day we are poorly supported. I don't disagree with people's personal motives for non-attendance, but FFP will always restrict our growth due to the lack of income.

We are currently 'poorly supported' because the present owners have dragged the Club backwards on its arse for the last eleven years.They and they alone are responsible.

You know Blondie....those BILLIONAIRE big shots from Pune.

This sale just raises suspicions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[alcd]

9 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Hopefully a clean slate for a new manager in summer.

I'd say 'managed decline to recoup some losses to make the club more sellable' but think I'd be asking for too much.

At least the former is within Venky-logic.

The sale of the site does not generate any cash. Neither does the issue of new shares. Only the sale of Armstrong. Whatever the reason for the intra-group transfer it has absolutely nothing to do with generating any income.

[alcd]

5 hours ago, den said:

I guess in the event that the owners sell the club, the STC wouldn’t be included.

Absolutely. This appears to be about ensuring that on a sale of BRFC plc the STC is omitted so they can exploit its residential development value. And as a site no longer used by the football club, there is likely to be much less difficulty in securing planning permission.

[alcd]

5 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Great Post. 

Nice to see some balance  being injected into the debate.

It seems to me on first glance the owners are getting panned for trying to find creative ways of injecting funds into the Club without breaching FFP. ***

*** Needs further clarification and investigation and I stand to be corrected should anything untoward come to light.

It's unlikely that a sale for £16m will generate a significant profit by reference to the carrying value in the accounts.

[islander200]

4 minutes ago, alcd said:

Absolutely. This appears to be about ensuring that on a sale of BRFC plc the STC is omitted so they can exploit its residential development value. And as a site no longer used by the football club, there is likely to be much less difficulty in securing planning permission.

So what about all the other clubs that did this?Derby ,Sheffield Wednesday ,Villa,Reading etc?

I didnt see any of them doing what your stating.If it wasnt to help with accounting or for the owners to be able to spend a few extra quid on the the playing side why did their owners do it.

Of course an injection of 16.6 million helps our cause with FFP and it takes away that excuse.Im not saying multi millions but some money will be spent either in january or next summer