January Transfer window

[JHRover]

In order of preference (and by that what I believe to be in the best interests of this club)

1) Venkys run the club properly and invest - after 15 years we know that isn't ever going to happen

2) Venkys leave and let someone else run the club properly and invest - I hope and pray that their legal issues/funding cuts in the last 18 months are a precursor to this

3) Venkys stay, but don't invest - we get the worst of both worlds - negligent owners whose appalling oversight cannot be balanced out by money invested.

Over the last 10 years their ability / willingness to send over £15 million a year has at the very least allowed us to remain an average Championship club. Nothing to be grateful to them for but at least it's allowed us to do something.

If that money stops they are absolutely no use to anyone, and aren't needed here. If the club is to wash its own face then the very least it needs is competent and engaged ownership and management to maximise its capabilities.

My ideal scenario is that the legal and financial pressures they are under become unbearable to them to the point that they are forced to relinquish control of the club. It would be a nice bonus if their business empire and fortune collapsed with it. 

 

 

[Herbie6590]

9 hours ago, bluebruce said:

I don't know why you're even making this argument. They have repeatedly shown they have no interest in selling the club. They won't even entertain discussions with prospective bidders who have all been met with outright refusals at best, and crickets at worst.

In reality, everything is for sale at the right price. If the business you are selling is losing money, “the right price” is inevitably less than if it breaks even.

The danger of making it repeatedly break even with no long term investment is that eventually we are relegated and the ability to trade at breakeven is a luxury that isn’t achievable.

In my professional career I saw plenty of businesses trading on the basis of jam tomorrow…but only for so long. The old maxim is, your first loss is your cheapest (worst Rod Stewart tribute ever…).

 

[bluebruce]

1 hour ago, Herbie6590 said:

In reality, everything is for sale at the right price. If the business you are selling is losing money, “the right price” is inevitably less than if it breaks even.

The danger of making it repeatedly break even with no long term investment is that eventually we are relegated and the ability to trade at breakeven is a luxury that isn’t achievable.

In my professional career I saw plenty of businesses trading on the basis of jam tomorrow…but only for so long. The old maxim is, your first loss is your cheapest (worst Rod Stewart tribute ever…).

 

They're not even willing to discuss what that price is though.

[islander200]

2 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

We were chasing Wallace and Schlupp at the start of the window according to Nixon

As the window went on and it appears those targets weren't going to happen for different reasons 

Nixon saying Schlupp agreed to halve hie wages going to Celtic.He was on 60k a week at Palace

So has signed for Celtic on 30 grand a week.No chance we where ever paying that and as for Wallace, why didn't we get him?He wanted to leave earlier in the window when he was out of favour.

The budget is poor but guarantee it was chaos behind the scenes to with differing opinions 

Arguing amongst themselves over who to bid for.