23 Oct 2024 20:26:12
Had major IT problems - computer died.
Don't want to make definitive statements about formations on the basis of one game and no formation should be set in stone as it should be horses for courses based on opposition and your available players but I thought we looked a lot better with our formerly "standard" 5 at the back formation against City.

1.) 23 Oct 2024
23 Oct 2024 22:42:58
I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption TFIOG. The fact it took the inevitable 'controversial' goal to beat us I think supports that view, plus the fact that we didn't capitulate and let in a shed load.

I make no secret of my criticism of decision making at the club, of late. How the football professionals believed we were equipt to play four at the back in the first place being a prime one. If we do turn a corner returning to five at the back how will that look then?

Personally, assuming lessons have been learned I feel a bit more confident in the possibility of our survival, I'm just not sure if GON will still be in charge to see it. In my opinion he's got two games left to start to make things happen.

2.) 24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024 06:37:24
Yes 2 games. The crystal palace game is a MUST win. A draw, loss will surely see GON fired. Don't give us much chance against Brighton at the Weekend. I suspect GON knows this.

3.) 24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024 06:49:34
Wilson first scapegoat, O'Neil next, one assumes.
Sad times.It’s not the hope that kills you, it’s having your hope killed by the Owners and CEO that does it.
ps
Fosun have a problem, so many other Premiership chasing new investment, it will make it hard to bring in the funds needed to progress.
The old adage of "If you are standing still, you are going backwards'
really applies to us.

4.) 24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024 09:02:41
I think we are the last club to be owned by Chinese owners, I don’t think investment will come while they are in charge. It happened down the road at the boggies, couldn’t get investment and the club went down and down till he had to sell to get some sort of return, don’t think many trust the Chinese owners enough to invest.

5.) 24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024 16:01:50
Rugeley I think you and Wolvo make good points, the problem being that no amount of money received from minority investors will change our PSR circumstances which is more about expenditure (running costs, Wages, etc) verses income (gate receipts, TV, sponsorships, etc).

Fosun/the Club have not been very successful in raising income streams for much debated reasons but I suppose minority investment could be used to fund ground expansion, etc.

6.) 24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024 18:44:21
Hi Everyone
I posted extracts from the accounts for the 3 years to 31 May 2023 a short time ago to try and help more informed discussion.
At least as far as those accounts are concerned LongmyndWolf is wrong. For those 3 years total income exceeded all running costs by over £4 million.
The problems lies in buying and selling players not the wages.
The cost of amortising the transfer fees for players over those 3 years is £210 million this is offset by profit on sale of player registrations amounting to £120 million ie a loss of £90 million.
So a profit of £4 million becomes a loss of £86 million when these costs are included
This may well worsen when the next accounts are published but for the minute the problem is the cost of buying and selling players
Wolves1960

7.) 24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024 21:35:06
1960- I think you need to be careful when considering 3 year accounts as 2021, the first of your 3 years, is badly skewed by covid. If you read page 5 of the accounts it states that the turnover is inflated by over £32m due to the deferral of fixtures from the previous year.
If you simply look though at the pre covid to post covid period i.e. a 5 year period you can see that turnover is actually down from £172m to £168m but the wage bill has gone up from £92m to £141m.
I accept that we have also - well in reality largely just for a brief period post Seville - made some very bad decisions in the transfer market but if the turnover/wages issue was better managed we would be fine even after these v poor transfer dealings.
As a further point though I am not certain how you can say that player amorts are not a running cost?
Without players there is no club it is like saying that if I ignore the depreciation on my cars my taxi business is a huge success?
So whilst I am sure you have fairly carefully picked out the relevant numbers from the accounts I am far from certain that you have analysed them correctly.
All clubs/taxi firms have huge amorts it is the nature of the beast. The rest of the club/firm needs to be run to support these and the point Long made is that we haven't done it well enough. Your figure of £4m over 3 years - extrapolated to 5 years as a standard contract is 5 years - would have allowed the club to buy Sarabia as our sole purchase in that 3 year period. Is that realistic?