Steve Waggott

[DE.]

It's still Venky's fault because they're responsible for ensuring the people in these roles are actually competent. The buck always stops with them, as it should for the head of any organisation.

[bluebruce]

Waggott saying the 1.5 mill from being shown so much by Sky will be offset by losses made by the club and covered by the owners. Which is it, do they spend all they can within FFP or not? Bollocks.

Also, the club lost gate money from so many Sky games, so that better have been calculated in before figuring out how much less the owners need to give us, or else the Sky games actually cost the club money.

[Mattyblue]

Remember when he tried to put houses on Brockhall? 

We’d probably be sharing with Blackpool at their training ground by now, players getting changed in Portakabins if he’d had got his way - I’d say he has some brass neck to still show his face after that, but he’s hardly said a word in public since but continues to be rewarded handsomely.

Incompetence coupled with arrogance is a dangerous mix and the evidence of that is for all to see as the club withers on the vine. Yet the owners let this farce carry on year in year out (see page 1 of this very thread as proof of that).

Edited June 2, 2023 by Mattyblue

[wilsdenrover]

21 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Waggott saying the 1.5 mill from being shown so much by Sky will be offset by losses made by the club and covered by the owners. Which is it, do they spend all they can within FFP or not? Bollocks.

Also, the club lost gate money from so many Sky games, so that better have been calculated in before figuring out how much less the owners need to give us, or else the Sky games actually cost the club money.

FFP rules are losses of £5 million a year or £13 million a year if owners inject equity to cover losses.

[JHRover]

Lets remember that the owners didn't want Waggott or indeed anyone as CEO. They were quite happy to drift through the first 8 years of their ownership with nobody. 

Unfortunately despite their best efforts it started to get a bit uncomfortable for them and their man in the shadows when Mike Cheston, the last man standing in executive capacity at the club, was left having to deal with disgruntled supporters and the press whilst doubling up as the financial director.

Then the FA came along with their mandatory once per year fan consultation meetings (anyone remember those? Set up by the authorities to ensure a channel of communication between ownership and fans, conveniently abandoned under the guise of Covid and never mentioned again, just like shareholder meetings)

Big problem in those meetings, Cheston wasn't up to the job of handing the fans and was out of his depth. They needed someone else and quick otherwise the anger and focus was going to turn to India and the shadow man, which must be avoided at all costs.

So after employing snake oil salesman number one for 6 months during the relegation season before he packed up on relegation they needed another. Only this time around the manager they had taken a shine to was able to recommend someone willing to do the job and play the Venky game, someone who had been happy to do similar at crisis clubs Coventry and Charlton and who had been moving around doing short term 'consultancy' work for those bastions of stability and transparency Southend and Gillingham.

Seems Steve doesn't get offers to be CEO at normal functioning respectable clubs but manages to find work at all the laughing stocks. 

So I think he's here to box tick and maintain an edifice of normality for the authorities, press and fans, whilst tasked to ensure his costs are covered by the fruits of his labour in increasing revenues and cutting costs. Win win for those in India who never really saw any need for a CEO but if he pays his own way on his salary why not. 

When he finally, finally retires (that day can't come soon enough) we will be back to the owners trying to make do without a replacement or promoting an existing inadequate staff member to the role and fudging it. 

[tomphil]

So we keep getting told we can't spend because of lack of income and owners can't put more in because of FFP.

Now we are 1.5 mill better off in extra income that should be available to spend but it's swallowed up despite the budget being the same ?

Good old Swaggo double speak spin.

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, wilsdenrover said:

FFP rules are losses of £5 million a year or £13 million a year if owners inject equity to cover losses.

Indeed. But if this Sky money just meant they injected equity to cover 11.5 million of losses, we'd have been financially better off not being on Sky, and they're not doing their best to help with FFP 

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Waggott saying the 1.5 mill from being shown so much by Sky will be offset by losses made by the club and covered by the owners. Which is it, do they spend all they can within FFP or not? Bollocks.

Also, the club lost gate money from so many Sky games, so that better have been calculated in before figuring out how much less the owners need to give us, or else the Sky games actually cost the club money.

Shouldn't that money have gone towards making ST's cheaper for the coming season so instead of being £379 reduce to £279 for BBE for example?

[bluebruce]

33 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Shouldn't that money have gone towards making ST's cheaper for the coming season so instead of being £379 reduce to £279 for BBE for example?

That would be one good use of it. One which might even have seen the money recouped through extra sales. Another option would have been to spend it on a decent player that could strengthen the team then either turn us a profit, or help get us to the Prem, potentially repaying the money many times over.

More to the point though is just how it contradicts the claim we keep hearing, that Venkys will spend everything they can to help us go up. It's clear to me from that statement (amongst other things) that their commitment isn't at that level and they want to lose less than they are. Without seemingly realising the only two ways to do that are to sell players at good values (repeatedly vetoed) or get promotion (without investing enough unless we get lucky hiring the right manager who can do it with an arm behind their back).

[chaddyrovers]

3 hours ago, bluebruce said:

That would be one good use of it. One which might even have seen the money recouped through extra sales.

Exactly.

 

3 hours ago, bluebruce said:

 

Another option would have been to spend it on a decent player that could strengthen the team then either turn us a profit, or help get us to the Prem, potentially repaying the money many times over.

Fair enough there  

[wilsdenrover]

6 hours ago, bluebruce said:

Indeed. But if this Sky money just meant they injected equity to cover 11.5 million of losses, we'd have been financially better off not being on Sky, and they're not doing their best to help with FFP 

I don’t think we’d have been financially better off if we’d not been on Sky but what SW says suggests Venkys will be better off because we were on Sky.

6 hours ago, tomphil said:

So we keep getting told we can't spend because of lack of income and owners can't put more in because of FFP.

Now we are 1.5 mill better off in extra income that should be available to spend but it's swallowed up despite the budget being the same ?

Good old Swaggo double speak spin.

I think (but I’m by no means certain) the owners can’t put more in because of FFP.

I don’t see why the extra income from Sky can’t be spent on transfer fees/wages or offset against lower ticket prices.

 

[tomphil]

3 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I don’t think we’d have been financially better off if we’d not been on Sky but what SW says suggests Venkys will be better off because we were on Sky.

I think (but I’m by no means certain) the owners can’t put more in because of FFP.

I don’t see why the extra income from Sky can’t be spent on transfer fees/wages or offset against lower ticket prices.

 

That's my point it's extra unexpected income so seeing as the owners can only cover losses at the moment to stay within FFP then surely that extra few quid presents a small spending opportunity.  

Be it a fee or extra wages for a big signing or the most sensible invest it in a decent young player.

We are told the only way we can spend is by increasing income, well it just did last season.

[wilsdenrover]

1 hour ago, tomphil said:

That's my point it's extra unexpected income so seeing as the owners can only cover losses at the moment to stay within FFP then surely that extra few quid presents a small spending opportunity.  

Be it a fee or extra wages for a big signing or the most sensible invest it in a decent young player.

We are told the only way we can spend is by increasing income, well it just did last season.

100% agree 

[Ulrich]

Are people just establishing that we are run and owned by lying twonks?

Who'd have guessed it 😲

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, Ulrich said:

Are people just establishing that we are run and owned by lying twonks?

Who'd have guessed it 😲

 Nope, we discussing the details of what makes them lying twonks…

[Ulrich]

19 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

 Nope, we discussing the details of what makes them lying twonks…

That's a long conversation given their time in tenure.

Ronaldinho is coming 👍🤣🤣

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Ulrich said:

Are people just establishing that we are run and owned by lying twonks?

Who'd have guessed it 😲

No, just discussing the CEO basically admitting it in the press and most of the fanbase (including those who are somehow thankful for Venkys) not really noticing it.

[bluebruce]

6 hours ago, wilsdenrover said:

I don’t think we’d have been financially better off if we’d not been on Sky but what SW says suggests Venkys will be better off because we were on Sky.

 

My previous post explained why we would potentially be worse off financially for it. Depends how it was calculated - if Venkys simply sent us 1.5 mill less in losses due to it (ie all the extra Sky money), we lost money from reduced ticket sales from being on Sky.

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, bluebruce said:

My previous post explained why we would potentially be worse off financially for it. Depends how it was calculated - if Venkys simply sent us 1.5 mill less in losses due to it (ie all the extra Sky money), we lost money from reduced ticket sales from being on Sky.

I understand now 😀 (if often takes things being explained twice for this to happen!)

 

[bluebruce]

3 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

I understand now 😀 (if often takes things being explained twice for this to happen!)

 

Then there's the less tangible question of whether we would have made the playoffs without being featured on Sky so much, due to our awful record when we're on it...but I don't know how much of that is coincidence, and how much is players bottling it in front of the cameras (or being less gee'd up due to smaller crowds).

[wilsdenrover]

17 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Then there's the less tangible question of whether we would have made the playoffs without being featured on Sky so much, due to our awful record when we're on it...but I don't know how much of that is coincidence, and how much is players bottling it in front of the cameras (or being less gee'd up due to smaller crowds).

It’s the intangible benefits of a bigger home support which makes SW’s obsession with revenue (over bums on seats) so infuriating.

[tomphil]

23 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Then there's the less tangible question of whether we would have made the playoffs without being featured on Sky so much, due to our awful record when we're on it...but I don't know how much of that is coincidence, and how much is players bottling it in front of the cameras (or being less gee'd up due to smaller crowds).

I don't think the smaller crowds bit measures up at all to what actually happened.

Stage fright due to bigger crowds and cameras yeah maybe.

[wilsdenrover]

19 minutes ago, tomphil said:

I don't think the smaller crowds bit measures up at all to what actually happened.

Stage fright due to bigger crowds and cameras yeah maybe.

Average attendances in league:

Wins - 13,907

Draws - 14,833

Losses - 16,400

First 18 matches - 2.22 points per match

Final 5 matches - 0.6 points per match.

Clearly very unscientific but looks like the pressure got to them - if so, hopefully they’ll be better for it next season (and in a position to take advantage of the ‘experience’)

[damo100]

Genuine question to all members in this group. 

Do you think Steve Waggot gets an easy ride in the Fans Forum meetings, or are the minutes edited by the club to serve purpose?

When is this bullshit going to end, when is Waggot going to retire?

[wilsdenrover]

Just now, damo100 said:

Genuine question to all members in this group. 

Do you think Steve Waggot gets an easy ride in the Fans Forum meetings, or are the minutes edited by the club to serve purpose?

When is this bullshit going to end, when is Waggot going to retire?

I think @only2garners would say if the minutes had been edited by the club and if this distorted what took place.

The minutes do suggest the club gets an easier ride from the fans forum than they would from some members on here but without being in the room it’s impossible for us to know.