Dons Thread

Quoted from Maringer

Yeah, running a football club with dozens of employees must be much more difficult than running a business with many hundreds of employees.

In other words, don't be daft.

Though I'm certainly on the same side of the political scale as Stockwood, I have to say, I'm not overly interested in reading his articles published by the Guardian. Don't find anything much interesting in them most of the time and personally think that they are often overly verbose (he said, knowingly). If money in = money out, that's a successful business in this regard and this is what we want be managing over the longer term.

Most tech companies rely on fantastic software not hundreds of employees. Football clubs are far more reliant on the efforts of people not the efficiency of software.

But successful businesses employ the right people and treat them properly as well as having an overarching business plan. It looks to me that this is  what Stockwood and Pettit are aiming for at GTFC.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Simply Business, which Stockwood was CEO of, employs 800 people. Most of those would be dealing with customers (possibly in call centres?), not the tech side of things.

I'm happier with the new owners trying to run the club more like a successful tech company as opposed to the previous owner who tried to run it as a fish factory and on the cheap, to boot!

Quoted from Maringer

But successful businesses employ the right people and treat them properly as well as having an overarching business plan. It looks to me that this is  what Stockwood and Pettit are aiming for at GTFC.

If Wikipedia is to be believed, Simply Business, which Stockwood was CEO of, employs 800 people. Most of those would be dealing with customers (possibly in call centres?), not the tech side of things.

I'm happier with the new owners trying to run the club more like a successful tech company as opposed to the previous owner who tried to run it as a fish factory and on the cheap, to boot!

If we try and run a L2 football club like a tech business, we're absolutely fu(ked. Running it like a fish factory meant things were left to get run down, but at least the money went on the playing squad. Having huge staff and community presence, whatever that means, has to be funded from somewhere and the owners won't be doing it. So I hope you've got your kickstarter account sorted when they come asking. Buckets at the gate are so 1999, we're modern now you know?

Stockwood said this in The Guardian:

Quoted Text

When we move on as shareholders it is important the business does not crumble or go into administration, because no one will buy an unprofitable, debt-laden club. Unrealistic expectations are the enemy of joy and short-term changes often offer an illusion of control and improvement.

"No one will buy an unprofitable, debt-laden club."

There we have it, the swelling back office team need to add value and on current evidence some of them aren't.

Quoted from jamesgtfc

Stockwood said this in The Guardian:



"No one will buy an unprofitable, debt-laden club."

There we have it, the swelling back office team need to add value and on current evidence some of them aren't.

Well they did!!

Quoted from ska face

The content is completely different, in the sense that 1878 have been open about that they’ll be making a substantial loss but happy to do so for a long-term gain, whereas Fenty would do his annual statement about how great everything was because the club was marginally in the black, all while racking up enormous debts to him and the infrastructure crumbled. They‘ve also been completely clear since about day 1 in that they don’t see the stadium as a priority, whereas Fenty spent two decades bullshítting everyone on that particular front.

The content is not different at all.

JF - money input as benign loans,
JS - money input as equity which will increase their shareholding and stake in the club so they get more when it's sold.
Both ways, the next guy is paying for it.

JF - minimise expenditure on everything, club just about breaks even
JS - increase expenditure everywhere whilst saying the club has to be sustainable.
With increased costs and limited funding from the owners, there has to be new income streams or the playing budget suffers.

JF - money from EFL trophy is needed, we had good days in it so supported it.
JS - get to enjoy seeing big clubs and future stars.
The stragest one JS has supported when it's been so universally unpopular.

JF - we have a top 10 budget
JS - we have a budget that's not near the top teams but way above the bottom teams
Basically the same. It's "competitive", but we're not.

JF - multiple statements of seeming contempt for fans, which target the minority but appear to tar the whole fanbase with that brush.
JS - statements complaining about being accosted immediately after full time whistle, expectations too high, stop complaining about the lack of a striker becase they don't exist.
They both seem thin skinned and complain about what happens, but Fenty managed to upset everybody whereas Stockwood uses about a thousand words to dilute it a bit.

Then there's the stadium issue. JS and AP say we don't need one, but if that's what they think then why on earth were they two thirds of a consortium that was publicly putting their plans for a new stadium in the press 24 months ago. It's completely baffling and sounds rather deceitful to me.

Ok, we'll have some nicer things at a stadium that's not fit for a modern football club. We might get some more community involvement, although I'm yet to hear of anything that's different other than trying to give a job to the entire community. But on the pitch, where it really matters, all I hear is more of the same. And let's face it, we've been mostly excrement on the pitch for over 20 years

Ultimately, I don't expect them to throw millions at it, it's their money and they can spend it however they want. But if you haven't been happy with the football then you aren't going to be any happier because there's no sign of anything changing unless the fair weather fans stick around despite the lack of performances.

Quoted from HerveJosse

Well they did!!

Did they? The debt was somewhere just below £2million with £800k in the bank. We had offers in for Pollock and a very likely fee coming in for Dembele. The fact that the debt was cleared in less than 12 months with them paying zero towards it means the club was in no way debt laden and it was a very manageable debt.

Quoted from pen penfras

The content is not different at all.

JF - money input as benign loans,
JS - money input as equity which will increase their shareholding and stake in the club so they get more when it's sold.
Both ways, the next guy is paying for it.

JF - minimise expenditure on everything, club just about breaks even
JS - increase expenditure everywhere whilst saying the club has to be sustainable.
With increased costs and limited funding from the owners, there has to be new income streams or the playing budget suffers.

JF - money from EFL trophy is needed, we had good days in it so supported it.
JS - get to enjoy seeing big clubs and future stars.
The stragest one JS has supported when it's been so universally unpopular.

JF - we have a top 10 budget
JS - we have a budget that's not near the top teams but way above the bottom teams
Basically the same. It's "competitive", but we're not.

JF - multiple statements of seeming contempt for fans, which target the minority but appear to tar the whole fanbase with that brush.
JS - statements complaining about being accosted immediately after full time whistle, expectations too high, stop complaining about the lack of a striker becase they don't exist.
They both seem thin skinned and complain about what happens, but Fenty managed to upset everybody whereas Stockwood uses about a thousand words to dilute it a bit.

Then there's the stadium issue. JS and AP say we don't need one, but if that's what they think then why on earth were they two thirds of a consortium that was publicly putting their plans for a new stadium in the press 24 months ago. It's completely baffling and sounds rather deceitful to me.

Ok, we'll have some nicer things at a stadium that's not fit for a modern football club. We might get some more community involvement, although I'm yet to hear of anything that's different other than trying to give a job to the entire community. But on the pitch, where it really matters, all I hear is more of the same. And let's face it, we've been mostly excrement on the pitch for over 20 years

Ultimately, I don't expect them to throw millions at it, it's their money and they can spend it however they want. But if you haven't been happy with the football then you aren't going to be any happier because there's no sign of anything changing unless the fair weather fans stick around despite the lack of performances.

Just for info they have input zero money into the club as equity despite what was said( before anyone asks my source the answer is the public record Companies House) . Any money injected into The club ( of which they own 53%) must therefore be loans from their acquisition vehicle 1878 Partners Ltd presumably benign . We await the accounts for year ended 31 May 22 to reveal the amounts . The club has also taken a loan from external source to fund ground improvements ( my source the public record Companies House)

Quoted from HerveJosse

Just for info they have input zero money into the club as equity despite what was said( before anyone asks my source the answer is the public record Companies House) . Any money injected into The club ( of which they own 53%) must therefore be loans from their acquisition vehicle 1878 Partners Ltd presumably benign . We await the accounts for year ended 31 May 22 to reveal the amounts . The club has also taken a loan from external source to fund ground improvements ( my source the public record Companies House)

How much have they put in then? There was a fair whack available to them as cash and the amount of season ticket sales doesn't look anywhere near to have gone on the playing squad. Might be that they've not put anything in so didn't need to buy more shares?

Quoted from HerveJosse

Just for info they have input zero money into the club as equity despite what was said( before anyone asks my source the answer is the public record Companies House) . Any money injected into The club ( of which they own 53%) must therefore be loans from their acquisition vehicle 1878 Partners Ltd presumably benign . We await the accounts for year ended 31 May 22 to reveal the amounts . The club has also taken a loan from external source to fund ground improvements ( my source the public record Companies House)

Didn't they change the accounting year end to 30th June?

I wonder if they will wait until the deadline in March or the beginning of February when the transfer window is closed...