'We've got to be creative', says Phil Parkinson as Bantams boss addresses need to bolster his threadbare squad

HOT RECEPTION: Phil Parkinson waits to tear into his players outside the Valley Parade changing rooms after a lacklustre first-half showing against Hartlepool on Saturday. It did the job, with a much-improved performance after the break in a 1-1 friendly

HOT RECEPTION: Phil Parkinson waits to tear into his players outside the Valley Parade changing rooms after a lacklustre first-half showing against Hartlepool on Saturday. It did the job, with a much-improved performance after the break in a 1-1 friendly

First published in Sport
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , Bradford City Reporter

PHIL Parkinson has played down any suggestion of a rift with the City board over the need to beef up the squad.

Parkinson will intensify his plans to increase options in the dressing room with the big kick-off against Coventry only five days away.

And he insists that he can work together with the Valley Parade hierarchy to get the extra bodies in place.

Parkinson said: “Obviously my job is to get the best team on the pitch for the supporters and to help out the existing players. I’m fighting their corner to do that.

“The board are passionate Bradford City supporters, every single one of them, and they want that as well.

“But equally I do understand it’s got to be done with certain constraints.

“We’re a club with no debt – one of the few in the country like that – and the board would like to keep it that way.

“We’ve got to be creative. But the board also know that 14 senior players is not enough, simple as that.

“If we go with what we’ve got now, we will struggle. But there’s an understanding that everybody knows that.

“We’re trying to bring the players in with the best possible deals we can to improve what we’ve got.”

Parkinson is confident that a second goalkeeper will be in place this week.

“That is one decision we can’t leave and we are working on a few situations with that. We’re trying to do it to buy us a bit of time.”

He will also make a final call on the current trialists at the club. Centre half Christopher Routis and winger Mo Shariff both impressed again as substitutes in Saturday’s 1-1 draw against Hartlepool.

The City chief added: “I picked the best team to start but those lads who came on have given us food for thought. But that’s what pre-season is all about.

“We’ve got a couple more coming in today and one in particular who I think could be a good fit for what we need.

“It’s very easy to sign four or five players but they need to be good enough to play in the first team.

“If you go back two years ago when we had a small squad, our mantra was that we had to be confident that everybody we signed could start in the team.

“We are trying to do that again but to get those players isn’t easy, especially when we have got limited resources.”

Parkinson has ruled out any departures to create room in the budget, which is on its limit. There has been speculation linking James Hanson, arguably City’s most saleable asset, with Millwall.

But Parkinson said: “At the moment I don’t think we can afford to move anybody out. We need to add to what we’ve got.

“It’s a nine-month season and I’ve got to get this squad right in the next two or three weeks if I can.

“It’s a bit of a battle we’ve got but it’s one we’re all trying to achieve. We will get there.”

Raffaele De Vita’s chances of earning another deal look to have gone after he returned to Italy for treatment on his recurring thigh injury.

Parkinson said: “Raffa’s paid for himself to have two weeks of intensive treatment back in Rome. I’ll need to have a chat with him.”

Comments (73)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:51am Mon 4 Aug 14

BD16 says...

I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.
I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief. BD16
  • Score: 12

9:09am Mon 4 Aug 14

Freddy says...

BD16 wrote:
I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.
Totally agree this comment by BD16.
HULL must have cheered all the way to their Bank, when he was bought by City. I am full of trepidation about this coming Season. The match on Saturday v COVENTRY !!!. Will be a very interesting opener. I suspect more Loan Players will be arriving this month.
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.[/p][/quote]Totally agree this comment by BD16. HULL must have cheered all the way to their Bank, when he was bought by City. I am full of trepidation about this coming Season. The match on Saturday v COVENTRY !!!. Will be a very interesting opener. I suspect more Loan Players will be arriving this month. Freddy
  • Score: 9

9:21am Mon 4 Aug 14

northyorksbantam says...

There seems to be a few issues of concern in this article. The main one is the fact it states we are on the limit of the budget... with just 14 senior players, is this even with the recent release of Taylor?.... . We must have a really top heavy salary structure to be in such a situation. Everything else seems to point to the fact there is very little room for manoeuvre in trying to bring other players in. Hopefully a couple of quality loan players might still yet come in to bolster the numbers, and then it looks like we are scratching around the bargain basement stuff. Routis looks like he could be a decent back up and Shariff potentially a dangerous player.. if we can afford them. Maybe Parky may look to see if someone of the likes of Grealish or Reach becomes available first up front. We certainly need more of a goal threat going forward, and can't be reliant on McLean getting 15-20 goals.

There may not be a major rift but reading this there still seems to be some tension in the air.
There seems to be a few issues of concern in this article. The main one is the fact it states we are on the limit of the budget... with just 14 senior players, is this even with the recent release of Taylor?.... . We must have a really top heavy salary structure to be in such a situation. Everything else seems to point to the fact there is very little room for manoeuvre in trying to bring other players in. Hopefully a couple of quality loan players might still yet come in to bolster the numbers, and then it looks like we are scratching around the bargain basement stuff. Routis looks like he could be a decent back up and Shariff potentially a dangerous player.. if we can afford them. Maybe Parky may look to see if someone of the likes of Grealish or Reach becomes available first up front. We certainly need more of a goal threat going forward, and can't be reliant on McLean getting 15-20 goals. There may not be a major rift but reading this there still seems to be some tension in the air. northyorksbantam
  • Score: 15

10:07am Mon 4 Aug 14

jsummers96 says...

when do we expect another signing to happen then??
when do we expect another signing to happen then?? jsummers96
  • Score: -4

10:10am Mon 4 Aug 14

Peter300 says...

BD16 wrote:
I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.
And yet you were the first to say don't sign a goalscorer with a proven track record in L1. And if Davies had left you would not have complained. And no doubt you would have been happy for Darby to leave. I mean, he's tying up quite a bit of the budget.
[quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.[/p][/quote]And yet you were the first to say don't sign a goalscorer with a proven track record in L1. And if Davies had left you would not have complained. And no doubt you would have been happy for Darby to leave. I mean, he's tying up quite a bit of the budget. Peter300
  • Score: -6

10:11am Mon 4 Aug 14

Halifax Bantam says...

After watching the game at the weekend i think the diamond formation is being played out of necessity as we have no natural width and will not work for us, too many times their winger and full back out numbered us and any team playing 442 will do this and against better players we will struggle.
I suggested last week that the 'competetive budget' mentioned by Lawn might in reality not be that competative and with PP seemingly near the top of his budget with just 14 players its looking increasingly that way. Isnt it about time one of the chairmen told supporters what the situation is and not just fob us off with the be patient line, 5 days before the season starts and id put money on it that we have the smallest squad in any of the divisions save the shambles at Blackpool.
After watching the game at the weekend i think the diamond formation is being played out of necessity as we have no natural width and will not work for us, too many times their winger and full back out numbered us and any team playing 442 will do this and against better players we will struggle. I suggested last week that the 'competetive budget' mentioned by Lawn might in reality not be that competative and with PP seemingly near the top of his budget with just 14 players its looking increasingly that way. Isnt it about time one of the chairmen told supporters what the situation is and not just fob us off with the be patient line, 5 days before the season starts and id put money on it that we have the smallest squad in any of the divisions save the shambles at Blackpool. Halifax Bantam
  • Score: 3

10:21am Mon 4 Aug 14

Peter300 says...

I made a mistake on Saturday. Dave the Lecturer's talks on football finance are charged at £150 (+VAT) and not £250 as stated. Apologies to all concerned.
I made a mistake on Saturday. Dave the Lecturer's talks on football finance are charged at £150 (+VAT) and not £250 as stated. Apologies to all concerned. Peter300
  • Score: -9

10:29am Mon 4 Aug 14

lawsonio123 says...

We have signed him on a long contract at a large salary if e does not produce the money is wasted. As yet he has failed to really come up with the goods and once again not match fit. The claim he would produce this season has yet to be proved he must be given the chance to earn his corn but now really does need to get a gallop on. Meanwhile all this talk about budget is wearing a little thin is doe seam we may be hoping our young men come good they are very promising but do need time oh for a Waddle on our wing
We have signed him on a long contract at a large salary if e does not produce the money is wasted. As yet he has failed to really come up with the goods and once again not match fit. The claim he would produce this season has yet to be proved he must be given the chance to earn his corn but now really does need to get a gallop on. Meanwhile all this talk about budget is wearing a little thin is doe seam we may be hoping our young men come good they are very promising but do need time oh for a Waddle on our wing lawsonio123
  • Score: 3

10:53am Mon 4 Aug 14

Smithy3075 says...

This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had.
I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters?
Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion.
Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this
This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this Smithy3075
  • Score: 5

11:19am Mon 4 Aug 14

Plastic Bantam says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this
They only get 4000 fans but they charge £300+ for season tickets so the budget they have is still similar to ours.. Yes ours might be slightly higher but then no doubt players then ask for more money when they come to us!

As has previosuly been stated on numerous forums, we're going for a squad of quality not quantity!! which some teams seem to do!!
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this[/p][/quote]They only get 4000 fans but they charge £300+ for season tickets so the budget they have is still similar to ours.. Yes ours might be slightly higher but then no doubt players then ask for more money when they come to us! As has previosuly been stated on numerous forums, we're going for a squad of quality not quantity!! which some teams seem to do!! Plastic Bantam
  • Score: 11

11:30am Mon 4 Aug 14

Smithy3075 says...

Plastic Bantam wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this
They only get 4000 fans but they charge £300+ for season tickets so the budget they have is still similar to ours.. Yes ours might be slightly higher but then no doubt players then ask for more money when they come to us!

As has previosuly been stated on numerous forums, we're going for a squad of quality not quantity!! which some teams seem to do!!
There budget in terms of gate money may be of similar size but sponsors money will be far reduced than ours, advertising to 12000+ costs more than to 3000+
And where is the quality you talk about? No big signings as far as I can see. Check out other teams signings inc Saturdays opponents who are, according to reports, pretty much bust. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slating anybody, just being realistic
[quote][p][bold]Plastic Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this[/p][/quote]They only get 4000 fans but they charge £300+ for season tickets so the budget they have is still similar to ours.. Yes ours might be slightly higher but then no doubt players then ask for more money when they come to us! As has previosuly been stated on numerous forums, we're going for a squad of quality not quantity!! which some teams seem to do!![/p][/quote]There budget in terms of gate money may be of similar size but sponsors money will be far reduced than ours, advertising to 12000+ costs more than to 3000+ And where is the quality you talk about? No big signings as far as I can see. Check out other teams signings inc Saturdays opponents who are, according to reports, pretty much bust. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slating anybody, just being realistic Smithy3075
  • Score: 1

11:59am Mon 4 Aug 14

Waydownsouth says...

You cod say that it took us decades to get to the Premiership, and it was all done on tight budgets but with the x-factor of inspirational management and some superb transfer wheeling and dealing. However, that might not work in this day and age of inflated wages, so maybe the board wlll have to do some limited gambling for us to make progress.
You cod say that it took us decades to get to the Premiership, and it was all done on tight budgets but with the x-factor of inspirational management and some superb transfer wheeling and dealing. However, that might not work in this day and age of inflated wages, so maybe the board wlll have to do some limited gambling for us to make progress. Waydownsouth
  • Score: 2

12:04pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lawsonio123 says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had.
I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters?
Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion.
Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this
It is high time to Stop crying the Poor Tale
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this[/p][/quote]It is high time to Stop crying the Poor Tale lawsonio123
  • Score: -2

12:06pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Nickloza says...

According to skysports we are set to sign Shariff
According to skysports we are set to sign Shariff Nickloza
  • Score: 8

12:22pm Mon 4 Aug 14

mrmuzzy says...

All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition. mrmuzzy
  • Score: -24

12:31pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Smithy3075 says...

lawsonio123 wrote:
We have signed him on a long contract at a large salary if e does not produce the money is wasted. As yet he has failed to really come up with the goods and once again not match fit. The claim he would produce this season has yet to be proved he must be given the chance to earn his corn but now really does need to get a gallop on. Meanwhile all this talk about budget is wearing a little thin is doe seam we may be hoping our young men come good they are very promising but do need time oh for a Waddle on our wing
And you criticise my post!
Players get injured, hence why we need to put more money into the squad. What would happen if hans was injured, would you be happy with mcburnie coming in as a replacement? Think not!
[quote][p][bold]lawsonio123[/bold] wrote: We have signed him on a long contract at a large salary if e does not produce the money is wasted. As yet he has failed to really come up with the goods and once again not match fit. The claim he would produce this season has yet to be proved he must be given the chance to earn his corn but now really does need to get a gallop on. Meanwhile all this talk about budget is wearing a little thin is doe seam we may be hoping our young men come good they are very promising but do need time oh for a Waddle on our wing[/p][/quote]And you criticise my post! Players get injured, hence why we need to put more money into the squad. What would happen if hans was injured, would you be happy with mcburnie coming in as a replacement? Think not! Smithy3075
  • Score: 1

12:32pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Smithy3075 says...

mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
[quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me Smithy3075
  • Score: -19

12:43pm Mon 4 Aug 14

SouthCheshireBantams says...

McLean was a mistake. We suddenly had money and, without thinking, we just had to spend it! I cast my mind back to the £10,000 we spent on Willy Topp and what a superstar he turned out to be! The signings so far look very positive indeed but I just don't understand the board's current position. They stated in an earlier article on here that the aim for this season was a push in the cup competitions to help balance the books and yet they seem to think this is achievable with 14 players? It's going to take an almighty effort from the players and fitness staff to make that happen!

As much as I like Hanson, I can't see how someone of his size and lack of speed is going to fit into this new diamond set up. He's not exactly been prolific so far in preseason. Maybe there lies a chunk of budget to free up?

Unfortunately, unless you're turning over tens of millions of pounds a season then, if you want success, it's just not going to be possible to keep the club permanently in the black now that it is. I'd rather see short term debt to bring long term success than see financial security and overall stagnation - after all, if we become a nothing team again then the crowds will drop, they players won't come, the sponsorship drops and the money goes anyway so you've got to spend money to make money! Sensibly though......
McLean was a mistake. We suddenly had money and, without thinking, we just had to spend it! I cast my mind back to the £10,000 we spent on Willy Topp and what a superstar he turned out to be! The signings so far look very positive indeed but I just don't understand the board's current position. They stated in an earlier article on here that the aim for this season was a push in the cup competitions to help balance the books and yet they seem to think this is achievable with 14 players? It's going to take an almighty effort from the players and fitness staff to make that happen! As much as I like Hanson, I can't see how someone of his size and lack of speed is going to fit into this new diamond set up. He's not exactly been prolific so far in preseason. Maybe there lies a chunk of budget to free up? Unfortunately, unless you're turning over tens of millions of pounds a season then, if you want success, it's just not going to be possible to keep the club permanently in the black now that it is. I'd rather see short term debt to bring long term success than see financial security and overall stagnation - after all, if we become a nothing team again then the crowds will drop, they players won't come, the sponsorship drops and the money goes anyway so you've got to spend money to make money! Sensibly though...... SouthCheshireBantams
  • Score: 3

12:47pm Mon 4 Aug 14

whisky1 says...

Mr Muzzy please elaborate on your assertion(which you have made before) that "All the money is in MLs back pocket"...what money?...are you suggesting he has taken money improperly?...do you have some form of mental illness or are you just stupid?
Mr Muzzy please elaborate on your assertion(which you have made before) that "All the money is in MLs back pocket"...what money?...are you suggesting he has taken money improperly?...do you have some form of mental illness or are you just stupid? whisky1
  • Score: 17

12:48pm Mon 4 Aug 14

jamiejoe says...

jsummers96 wrote:
when do we expect another signing to happen then??
A keeper this week and up 4 players over the next 3 weeks is what Parky and Parker have just said / written here.
[quote][p][bold]jsummers96[/bold] wrote: when do we expect another signing to happen then??[/p][/quote]A keeper this week and up 4 players over the next 3 weeks is what Parky and Parker have just said / written here. jamiejoe
  • Score: 9

12:51pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Bantam Dubai says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!! Bantam Dubai
  • Score: 31

12:59pm Mon 4 Aug 14

tyker7745 says...

I can see Hanson being sold to enable bodies to be brought in; big mistake if that happens!
I can see Hanson being sold to enable bodies to be brought in; big mistake if that happens! tyker7745
  • Score: -3

1:25pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Smithy3075 says...

Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else.
Heard this all before.
That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season.
Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back?
Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time?
Dont talk unless you know what your talking about!
[quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!![/p][/quote]Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else. Heard this all before. That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season. Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back? Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time? Dont talk unless you know what your talking about! Smithy3075
  • Score: -23

1:27pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Babbsy says...

People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years. Babbsy
  • Score: 7

1:38pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Farsley Bantam says...

Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
[quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 12

1:48pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Bantam Dubai says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else.
Heard this all before.
That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season.
Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back?
Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time?
Dont talk unless you know what your talking about!
You're having a personal gripe at Mark Lawn because he loaned City £million, interest was paid on that yearly. Now there's speculation as to what the interest rate was. We can only guess.... With the windfall that we got from the 2 runs to Wembley. Julian Rhodes asked Mark Lawn to take back the loan. Thus clearing the debt and the interest payments. At the same time we sorted out the club shop. Now looking back to when Mark loaned City the money we were in trouble, Hence why do you think Julian asked him...!! Do you think the banks would of loaned us the money? The answer to that is NO. Should he not of loaned us the money where do you think we would be now.... I'll tell you non league. Are you the type of supporter, that would ask for his money back when we do lose...!! or are you the one that would loan the club 1 million pounds. We all know what Mark Lawn did for the club. What have you done my friend.... And please don't respond with Blah Blah Blah, You shouldn't comment when it's clear you have no knowledge as regards the finances at our club..... By the way should you have a spare Million to invest i'm sure our fans would welcome you with open arms.....!! funny how Mark doesn't get the same respect....!!
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!![/p][/quote]Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else. Heard this all before. That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season. Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back? Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time? Dont talk unless you know what your talking about![/p][/quote]You're having a personal gripe at Mark Lawn because he loaned City £million, interest was paid on that yearly. Now there's speculation as to what the interest rate was. We can only guess.... With the windfall that we got from the 2 runs to Wembley. Julian Rhodes asked Mark Lawn to take back the loan. Thus clearing the debt and the interest payments. At the same time we sorted out the club shop. Now looking back to when Mark loaned City the money we were in trouble, Hence why do you think Julian asked him...!! Do you think the banks would of loaned us the money? The answer to that is NO. Should he not of loaned us the money where do you think we would be now.... I'll tell you non league. Are you the type of supporter, that would ask for his money back when we do lose...!! or are you the one that would loan the club 1 million pounds. We all know what Mark Lawn did for the club. What have you done my friend.... And please don't respond with Blah Blah Blah, You shouldn't comment when it's clear you have no knowledge as regards the finances at our club..... By the way should you have a spare Million to invest i'm sure our fans would welcome you with open arms.....!! funny how Mark doesn't get the same respect....!! Bantam Dubai
  • Score: 23

2:12pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Smithy3075 says...

Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else.
Heard this all before.
That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season.
Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back?
Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time?
Dont talk unless you know what your talking about!
You're having a personal gripe at Mark Lawn because he loaned City £million, interest was paid on that yearly. Now there's speculation as to what the interest rate was. We can only guess.... With the windfall that we got from the 2 runs to Wembley. Julian Rhodes asked Mark Lawn to take back the loan. Thus clearing the debt and the interest payments. At the same time we sorted out the club shop. Now looking back to when Mark loaned City the money we were in trouble, Hence why do you think Julian asked him...!! Do you think the banks would of loaned us the money? The answer to that is NO. Should he not of loaned us the money where do you think we would be now.... I'll tell you non league. Are you the type of supporter, that would ask for his money back when we do lose...!! or are you the one that would loan the club 1 million pounds. We all know what Mark Lawn did for the club. What have you done my friend.... And please don't respond with Blah Blah Blah, You shouldn't comment when it's clear you have no knowledge as regards the finances at our club..... By the way should you have a spare Million to invest i'm sure our fans would welcome you with open arms.....!! funny how Mark doesn't get the same respect....!!
And you still don't get it!
Ml is a part owner of the club, not simply a supporter that loaned the club some money!
And this is where the difference is.
How many chairmen of clubs take there hard earned money back out of there club, regardless of wether they support that club or not!
Mr Rhodes obviously did the right thing giving the money back, that is a no-brainier when the club is paying interest on the money.
But when are you going to get the fact that when you put money into a football club, the chances of seeing a return are pretty slim.
I have no doubt ml is a very good business man, he is just not a football club chairman, simple as that
[quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!![/p][/quote]Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else. Heard this all before. That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season. Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back? Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time? Dont talk unless you know what your talking about![/p][/quote]You're having a personal gripe at Mark Lawn because he loaned City £million, interest was paid on that yearly. Now there's speculation as to what the interest rate was. We can only guess.... With the windfall that we got from the 2 runs to Wembley. Julian Rhodes asked Mark Lawn to take back the loan. Thus clearing the debt and the interest payments. At the same time we sorted out the club shop. Now looking back to when Mark loaned City the money we were in trouble, Hence why do you think Julian asked him...!! Do you think the banks would of loaned us the money? The answer to that is NO. Should he not of loaned us the money where do you think we would be now.... I'll tell you non league. Are you the type of supporter, that would ask for his money back when we do lose...!! or are you the one that would loan the club 1 million pounds. We all know what Mark Lawn did for the club. What have you done my friend.... And please don't respond with Blah Blah Blah, You shouldn't comment when it's clear you have no knowledge as regards the finances at our club..... By the way should you have a spare Million to invest i'm sure our fans would welcome you with open arms.....!! funny how Mark doesn't get the same respect....!![/p][/quote]And you still don't get it! Ml is a part owner of the club, not simply a supporter that loaned the club some money! And this is where the difference is. How many chairmen of clubs take there hard earned money back out of there club, regardless of wether they support that club or not! Mr Rhodes obviously did the right thing giving the money back, that is a no-brainier when the club is paying interest on the money. But when are you going to get the fact that when you put money into a football club, the chances of seeing a return are pretty slim. I have no doubt ml is a very good business man, he is just not a football club chairman, simple as that Smithy3075
  • Score: -11

2:26pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Bantam Dubai says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else.
Heard this all before.
That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season.
Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back?
Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time?
Dont talk unless you know what your talking about!
You're having a personal gripe at Mark Lawn because he loaned City £million, interest was paid on that yearly. Now there's speculation as to what the interest rate was. We can only guess.... With the windfall that we got from the 2 runs to Wembley. Julian Rhodes asked Mark Lawn to take back the loan. Thus clearing the debt and the interest payments. At the same time we sorted out the club shop. Now looking back to when Mark loaned City the money we were in trouble, Hence why do you think Julian asked him...!! Do you think the banks would of loaned us the money? The answer to that is NO. Should he not of loaned us the money where do you think we would be now.... I'll tell you non league. Are you the type of supporter, that would ask for his money back when we do lose...!! or are you the one that would loan the club 1 million pounds. We all know what Mark Lawn did for the club. What have you done my friend.... And please don't respond with Blah Blah Blah, You shouldn't comment when it's clear you have no knowledge as regards the finances at our club..... By the way should you have a spare Million to invest i'm sure our fans would welcome you with open arms.....!! funny how Mark doesn't get the same respect....!!
And you still don't get it!
Ml is a part owner of the club, not simply a supporter that loaned the club some money!
And this is where the difference is.
How many chairmen of clubs take there hard earned money back out of there club, regardless of wether they support that club or not!
Mr Rhodes obviously did the right thing giving the money back, that is a no-brainier when the club is paying interest on the money.
But when are you going to get the fact that when you put money into a football club, the chances of seeing a return are pretty slim.
I have no doubt ml is a very good business man, he is just not a football club chairman, simple as that
Now we get to the point. We could afford to pay the money back with the 2 trips to Wembley and that is crucial to this tread now. It's a total no brainer to pay the money back. It was a loan.... please don't forget that...!! You are right in what you say as regards getting you're money back, how many league 2 clubs could afford to pay back that sort of money.... only 1... and that was us. Look where we were going and look at were we are now.... Mark Lawn has played his part in the revival of our club and he should be thanked not ridiculed for giving the club the shot in the arm it needed at the time...... Mark Lawn is a massive life long City fan. If you cut him he would bleed our colours. He's not a billionaire but i know if he was we'd be playing champions league.......!!
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!![/p][/quote]Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else. Heard this all before. That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season. Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back? Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time? Dont talk unless you know what your talking about![/p][/quote]You're having a personal gripe at Mark Lawn because he loaned City £million, interest was paid on that yearly. Now there's speculation as to what the interest rate was. We can only guess.... With the windfall that we got from the 2 runs to Wembley. Julian Rhodes asked Mark Lawn to take back the loan. Thus clearing the debt and the interest payments. At the same time we sorted out the club shop. Now looking back to when Mark loaned City the money we were in trouble, Hence why do you think Julian asked him...!! Do you think the banks would of loaned us the money? The answer to that is NO. Should he not of loaned us the money where do you think we would be now.... I'll tell you non league. Are you the type of supporter, that would ask for his money back when we do lose...!! or are you the one that would loan the club 1 million pounds. We all know what Mark Lawn did for the club. What have you done my friend.... And please don't respond with Blah Blah Blah, You shouldn't comment when it's clear you have no knowledge as regards the finances at our club..... By the way should you have a spare Million to invest i'm sure our fans would welcome you with open arms.....!! funny how Mark doesn't get the same respect....!![/p][/quote]And you still don't get it! Ml is a part owner of the club, not simply a supporter that loaned the club some money! And this is where the difference is. How many chairmen of clubs take there hard earned money back out of there club, regardless of wether they support that club or not! Mr Rhodes obviously did the right thing giving the money back, that is a no-brainier when the club is paying interest on the money. But when are you going to get the fact that when you put money into a football club, the chances of seeing a return are pretty slim. I have no doubt ml is a very good business man, he is just not a football club chairman, simple as that[/p][/quote]Now we get to the point. We could afford to pay the money back with the 2 trips to Wembley and that is crucial to this tread now. It's a total no brainer to pay the money back. It was a loan.... please don't forget that...!! You are right in what you say as regards getting you're money back, how many league 2 clubs could afford to pay back that sort of money.... only 1... and that was us. Look where we were going and look at were we are now.... Mark Lawn has played his part in the revival of our club and he should be thanked not ridiculed for giving the club the shot in the arm it needed at the time...... Mark Lawn is a massive life long City fan. If you cut him he would bleed our colours. He's not a billionaire but i know if he was we'd be playing champions league.......!! Bantam Dubai
  • Score: 16

2:30pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 7

2:40pm Mon 4 Aug 14

nowt fresh says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Just the two of you then ;-))
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Just the two of you then ;-)) nowt fresh
  • Score: 11

2:42pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Pablo says...

tyker7745 wrote:
I can see Hanson being sold to enable bodies to be brought in; big mistake if that happens!
As stated by another poster above, Hanson doesn't appear comfortable in this new style of play.

Like you, I wouldn't be surprised if he's sold. The seeds have been sown in this interview and, once we get some more bodies in the building, I think he may be off.

I agree also with comments above that we don't appear to have much to show for the Wells fee.
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: I can see Hanson being sold to enable bodies to be brought in; big mistake if that happens![/p][/quote]As stated by another poster above, Hanson doesn't appear comfortable in this new style of play. Like you, I wouldn't be surprised if he's sold. The seeds have been sown in this interview and, once we get some more bodies in the building, I think he may be off. I agree also with comments above that we don't appear to have much to show for the Wells fee. Pablo
  • Score: 2

2:47pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Pablo says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
More effective to have 10,000 season ticket holders each paying £10 extra, than a couple of hundred lobbing a few quid each into a player fund.
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]More effective to have 10,000 season ticket holders each paying £10 extra, than a couple of hundred lobbing a few quid each into a player fund. Pablo
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Mon 4 Aug 14

settler07 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
There was option to do exactly that as part of buying season tickets. And it raised, genuinely, about £70. Bradford is a poor city, hence why the maths don't add up if you look to increase season ticket prices. All the predictors say total sales revenue would reduce if we put prices up.
As for the bloke knocking Mark Lawn, please stop posting - you are embarrassing. We are financially back on track down to the incredible efforts of Julian, Mark and David Baldwin. If any one of those three walked away, we'd be instantly back in big trouble. His heart must sink when he reads comments like yours.
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]There was option to do exactly that as part of buying season tickets. And it raised, genuinely, about £70. Bradford is a poor city, hence why the maths don't add up if you look to increase season ticket prices. All the predictors say total sales revenue would reduce if we put prices up. As for the bloke knocking Mark Lawn, please stop posting - you are embarrassing. We are financially back on track down to the incredible efforts of Julian, Mark and David Baldwin. If any one of those three walked away, we'd be instantly back in big trouble. His heart must sink when he reads comments like yours. settler07
  • Score: 14

2:58pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Farsley Bantam says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
That idea doesn't really work for me. How many people, realistically, are going to donate a worthwile sum of money to the club? Not enough for that money to make a noticable difference I imagine.
Say 1000 people donated £50. Still only gives you £50k. Thats about 1 player, and not a decent one at that. I wouldn't be prepared to throw £50 in for that. I would have wasted £50.
It's not until everyone is forced to chip in that the money makes a real difference. 10,000 at £50 is £500k. Thats 2 Aaaron McLeans!
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]That idea doesn't really work for me. How many people, realistically, are going to donate a worthwile sum of money to the club? Not enough for that money to make a noticable difference I imagine. Say 1000 people donated £50. Still only gives you £50k. Thats about 1 player, and not a decent one at that. I wouldn't be prepared to throw £50 in for that. I would have wasted £50. It's not until everyone is forced to chip in that the money makes a real difference. 10,000 at £50 is £500k. Thats 2 Aaaron McLeans! Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Nickloza says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
You can donate Lonnie, but why should those who do, subsidise cheap tickets for everyone who doesn't want to pay higher (though still reasonable) prices? It would be totally unfair imo, the fact is there is room for a reasonable increase without a risk of a big drop in attendances. Then a larger budget.
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]You can donate Lonnie, but why should those who do, subsidise cheap tickets for everyone who doesn't want to pay higher (though still reasonable) prices? It would be totally unfair imo, the fact is there is room for a reasonable increase without a risk of a big drop in attendances. Then a larger budget. Nickloza
  • Score: 4

3:10pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

Pablo wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
More effective to have 10,000 season ticket holders each paying £10 extra, than a couple of hundred lobbing a few quid each into a player fund.
You really believe that the player Budget is the be-all-and end-all of keeping a football Club in business?

Apart from the BCFC Board having a considered and different opinion from you (and they know and make decisions in the knowledge of the facts relating to all the individual budgets of running a business) I would like you to convince me how you would guarantee 10,000 season tickets would be bought. According to waynus we have sold just over 9500 season tickets. I asked you if you disagreed with his figures and you did not disagree. Waynus confirmed he didn't know the adult junior split etc.

Now, would you explain how you feel that increasing season ticket prices would result in your belief that season ticket sales would increase?

If operating the financial side of the Club is as simplistic as you appear to be suggesting, would you take this opportunity to explain your 'strategy' if you were in the position of ML or JR.
[quote][p][bold]Pablo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]More effective to have 10,000 season ticket holders each paying £10 extra, than a couple of hundred lobbing a few quid each into a player fund.[/p][/quote]You really believe that the player Budget is the be-all-and end-all of keeping a football Club in business? Apart from the BCFC Board having a considered and different opinion from you (and they know and make decisions in the knowledge of the facts relating to all the individual budgets of running a business) I would like you to convince me how you would guarantee 10,000 season tickets would be bought. According to waynus we have sold just over 9500 season tickets. I asked you if you disagreed with his figures and you did not disagree. Waynus confirmed he didn't know the adult junior split etc. Now, would you explain how you feel that increasing season ticket prices would result in your belief that season ticket sales would increase? If operating the financial side of the Club is as simplistic as you appear to be suggesting, would you take this opportunity to explain your 'strategy' if you were in the position of ML or JR. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 2

3:33pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

Nickloza wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
You can donate Lonnie, but why should those who do, subsidise cheap tickets for everyone who doesn't want to pay higher (though still reasonable) prices? It would be totally unfair imo, the fact is there is room for a reasonable increase without a risk of a big drop in attendances. Then a larger budget.
I am not saying anyone should subsidise anyone Nick. I am offering those who appear to be frustrated at not being charged enough and who can afford to pay more to take the initiative and do so. I wouldn't have thought that every season ticket is bought by an individual adult who earns wages. Therefore, a family of 4? would have a significant amount of money to find.

I don't see any unfairness in people freely donating money to the Club. If they don't want to they are not being forced to. I do see a problem in higher prices reducing attendances. I, and I assume many thousands of other supporters are happy just to be able to watch City play professional football -evidenced by the superb attendances when playing league 2 football. If some supporters can't afford to watch City play then it doesn't really matter much what League they are in I suppose.

I would be very unlikely to donate. It costs me a significant amount of money in travel expenses and other costs to get to VP so count me out on that I'm afraid. If you ever read me complaining about attendance prices being too cheap then get back to me and I WILL donate a sum of money.
[quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]You can donate Lonnie, but why should those who do, subsidise cheap tickets for everyone who doesn't want to pay higher (though still reasonable) prices? It would be totally unfair imo, the fact is there is room for a reasonable increase without a risk of a big drop in attendances. Then a larger budget.[/p][/quote]I am not saying anyone should subsidise anyone Nick. I am offering those who appear to be frustrated at not being charged enough and who can afford to pay more to take the initiative and do so. I wouldn't have thought that every season ticket is bought by an individual adult who earns wages. Therefore, a family of 4? would have a significant amount of money to find. I don't see any unfairness in people freely donating money to the Club. If they don't want to they are not being forced to. I do see a problem in higher prices reducing attendances. I, and I assume many thousands of other supporters are happy just to be able to watch City play professional football -evidenced by the superb attendances when playing league 2 football. If some supporters can't afford to watch City play then it doesn't really matter much what League they are in I suppose. I would be very unlikely to donate. It costs me a significant amount of money in travel expenses and other costs to get to VP so count me out on that I'm afraid. If you ever read me complaining about attendance prices being too cheap then get back to me and I WILL donate a sum of money. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 5

3:41pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Nickloza says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
Nickloza wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
You can donate Lonnie, but why should those who do, subsidise cheap tickets for everyone who doesn't want to pay higher (though still reasonable) prices? It would be totally unfair imo, the fact is there is room for a reasonable increase without a risk of a big drop in attendances. Then a larger budget.
I am not saying anyone should subsidise anyone Nick. I am offering those who appear to be frustrated at not being charged enough and who can afford to pay more to take the initiative and do so. I wouldn't have thought that every season ticket is bought by an individual adult who earns wages. Therefore, a family of 4? would have a significant amount of money to find.

I don't see any unfairness in people freely donating money to the Club. If they don't want to they are not being forced to. I do see a problem in higher prices reducing attendances. I, and I assume many thousands of other supporters are happy just to be able to watch City play professional football -evidenced by the superb attendances when playing league 2 football. If some supporters can't afford to watch City play then it doesn't really matter much what League they are in I suppose.

I would be very unlikely to donate. It costs me a significant amount of money in travel expenses and other costs to get to VP so count me out on that I'm afraid. If you ever read me complaining about attendance prices being too cheap then get back to me and I WILL donate a sum of money.
I see what your say but an Increase has to come at some point, they have been frozen for a while now. I not advocating a huge hike, but £20 would equate to less than a pound a game.
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nickloza[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]You can donate Lonnie, but why should those who do, subsidise cheap tickets for everyone who doesn't want to pay higher (though still reasonable) prices? It would be totally unfair imo, the fact is there is room for a reasonable increase without a risk of a big drop in attendances. Then a larger budget.[/p][/quote]I am not saying anyone should subsidise anyone Nick. I am offering those who appear to be frustrated at not being charged enough and who can afford to pay more to take the initiative and do so. I wouldn't have thought that every season ticket is bought by an individual adult who earns wages. Therefore, a family of 4? would have a significant amount of money to find. I don't see any unfairness in people freely donating money to the Club. If they don't want to they are not being forced to. I do see a problem in higher prices reducing attendances. I, and I assume many thousands of other supporters are happy just to be able to watch City play professional football -evidenced by the superb attendances when playing league 2 football. If some supporters can't afford to watch City play then it doesn't really matter much what League they are in I suppose. I would be very unlikely to donate. It costs me a significant amount of money in travel expenses and other costs to get to VP so count me out on that I'm afraid. If you ever read me complaining about attendance prices being too cheap then get back to me and I WILL donate a sum of money.[/p][/quote]I see what your say but an Increase has to come at some point, they have been frozen for a while now. I not advocating a huge hike, but £20 would equate to less than a pound a game. Nickloza
  • Score: 3

3:55pm Mon 4 Aug 14

whisky1 says...

I am sure the club spends a lot of time deciding where to pitch their ST offer. For every City fan who is well off enough not to feel the pinch with an increase there will be others particularly with kids who will. What is clear is that the principle of affordable STs is a good one for both club and Fan. If they are erring on the side of caution that is far better than taking stick for charging too much
I am sure the club spends a lot of time deciding where to pitch their ST offer. For every City fan who is well off enough not to feel the pinch with an increase there will be others particularly with kids who will. What is clear is that the principle of affordable STs is a good one for both club and Fan. If they are erring on the side of caution that is far better than taking stick for charging too much whisky1
  • Score: 4

3:56pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
That idea doesn't really work for me. How many people, realistically, are going to donate a worthwile sum of money to the club? Not enough for that money to make a noticable difference I imagine.
Say 1000 people donated £50. Still only gives you £50k. Thats about 1 player, and not a decent one at that. I wouldn't be prepared to throw £50 in for that. I would have wasted £50.
It's not until everyone is forced to chip in that the money makes a real difference. 10,000 at £50 is £500k. Thats 2 Aaaron McLeans!
I believe the Board has looked at the pro's and cons of raising ticket prices and decided against it.

It wasn't that long ago posters on hear were wanting prices slashed in order to get numbers into the stadium and create an atmosphere.

It is a complex balancing act that I happen to believe they are getting just about right. The Club has been moving forward both on and off the field and the ambition of ML is to achieve Championship football at a cost that can be afforded.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]That idea doesn't really work for me. How many people, realistically, are going to donate a worthwile sum of money to the club? Not enough for that money to make a noticable difference I imagine. Say 1000 people donated £50. Still only gives you £50k. Thats about 1 player, and not a decent one at that. I wouldn't be prepared to throw £50 in for that. I would have wasted £50. It's not until everyone is forced to chip in that the money makes a real difference. 10,000 at £50 is £500k. Thats 2 Aaaron McLeans![/p][/quote]I believe the Board has looked at the pro's and cons of raising ticket prices and decided against it. It wasn't that long ago posters on hear were wanting prices slashed in order to get numbers into the stadium and create an atmosphere. It is a complex balancing act that I happen to believe they are getting just about right. The Club has been moving forward both on and off the field and the ambition of ML is to achieve Championship football at a cost that can be afforded. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 6

4:32pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else.
Heard this all before.
That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season.
Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back?
Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time?
Dont talk unless you know what your talking about!
As a club it made sense to pay Mark Lawn his money back, it was a loan when very few loan companies would touch us. Add to that we now don't have the annual % to pay back to him and it makes perfect sense.

The Rhodes family took dividends out of the club when they were able and haven't when they weren't able.

Business/supporting are two different things, they are in it to try make money or at least to not lose money, we are in it for the long run and entertainment.

They cannot demand we spend our money watching we cannot demand they spend their money buying players and shelling out for wages over and above what is prudent.

Bit of a useful idiot by the sound of it fella.
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!![/p][/quote]Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else. Heard this all before. That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season. Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back? Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time? Dont talk unless you know what your talking about![/p][/quote]As a club it made sense to pay Mark Lawn his money back, it was a loan when very few loan companies would touch us. Add to that we now don't have the annual % to pay back to him and it makes perfect sense. The Rhodes family took dividends out of the club when they were able and haven't when they weren't able. Business/supporting are two different things, they are in it to try make money or at least to not lose money, we are in it for the long run and entertainment. They cannot demand we spend our money watching we cannot demand they spend their money buying players and shelling out for wages over and above what is prudent. Bit of a useful idiot by the sound of it fella. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 9

4:56pm Mon 4 Aug 14

whisky1 says...

MLs loan enabled the club to move forad...without it we would still be in League 2 in all probability and possibly even in the Conference...and yes there was no prospect of a commercial loan. The Rhodes took significant dividends from the first Prem year pretty much in line with their investment to get us there.
MLs loan enabled the club to move forad...without it we would still be in League 2 in all probability and possibly even in the Conference...and yes there was no prospect of a commercial loan. The Rhodes took significant dividends from the first Prem year pretty much in line with their investment to get us there. whisky1
  • Score: 8

4:58pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Nickloza says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
Bantam Dubai wrote:
Smithy3075 wrote:
mrmuzzy wrote:
All money is in mark lawns back pocket.
feel sorry for parkinson.
absolute shambles by the board.
no ambition.
At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me
Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!!
Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else.
Heard this all before.
That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season.
Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back?
Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time?
Dont talk unless you know what your talking about!
On what grounds could you ask for your money back? The club charge you watch a game. They do not guarantee the result!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bantam Dubai[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mrmuzzy[/bold] wrote: All money is in mark lawns back pocket. feel sorry for parkinson. absolute shambles by the board. no ambition.[/p][/quote]At last! Somebody who is on the same planet as me[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comments from both of you....!! Both of our chairmen are far far bigger supporters of BCFC than both of you.... That I can guarantee!! If you open you're eyes we are one of a very few club's that are not in debt. We are a prime club, ripe for takeover. However we should be very wary because the grass is never ever greener. We are lucky that both Mark Lawn & Julian Rhodes and the Rhodes family as a whole have stuck with us. There wouldn't be a club without them..... Never forget that..!![/p][/quote]Blah blah blah saved the club, bigger supporters than anybody else. Heard this all before. That bigger supporters than the rest of the fans but you dont see us asking for our money back when we lose, unlike ml who took his money back out of the cup success and promotion season. Did u hear mr rhodes asking for his money back? Did u see the fans who raised money for the club in bad times asking for money for there time? Dont talk unless you know what your talking about![/p][/quote]On what grounds could you ask for your money back? The club charge you watch a game. They do not guarantee the result!!!! Nickloza
  • Score: 8

5:04pm Mon 4 Aug 14

jamiejoe says...

whisky1 wrote:
Mr Muzzy please elaborate on your assertion(which you have made before) that "All the money is in MLs back pocket"...what money?...are you suggesting he has taken money improperly?...do you have some form of mental illness or are you just stupid?
And are you slanderous or just vindictive?
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: Mr Muzzy please elaborate on your assertion(which you have made before) that "All the money is in MLs back pocket"...what money?...are you suggesting he has taken money improperly?...do you have some form of mental illness or are you just stupid?[/p][/quote]And are you slanderous or just vindictive? jamiejoe
  • Score: -2

5:08pm Mon 4 Aug 14

jamiejoe says...

Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
I am inclined to agree with you on this one.

I also am willing to bet we ain't had much back on the goal scoring deal!

I bet he has to bag a sackful rather than we get a bit of dosh in the post from Leeds Road for each one 1 he scores!

£2.5 million would have been nice.

We could have sold his this summer on the back of the World Cup Americas (the whole 2 continents and smaller nations success) raising profile generally.
[quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]I am inclined to agree with you on this one. I also am willing to bet we ain't had much back on the goal scoring deal! I bet he has to bag a sackful rather than we get a bit of dosh in the post from Leeds Road for each one 1 he scores! £2.5 million would have been nice. We could have sold his this summer on the back of the World Cup Americas (the whole 2 continents and smaller nations success) raising profile generally. jamiejoe
  • Score: 1

5:12pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Mr Perks says...

For anyone who's interested, think back to the multi million dividend the Rhodes family took from the club before we went bang the first time. I think he'll be just about equal in terms of what's been paid in/taken out of BCFC. Lawn will be in profit, because his loan was repaid with interest. No point in running at break even when we don't own the ground, nobody will buy the club that owns nothing. We are at a disadvantage because the vast majority of clubs run on an operating loss, really common in business, as long as it's sensible, just like a mortgage. We will stagnate and eventually regress with these two holding the purse strings, mark my words!!!!
For anyone who's interested, think back to the multi million dividend the Rhodes family took from the club before we went bang the first time. I think he'll be just about equal in terms of what's been paid in/taken out of BCFC. Lawn will be in profit, because his loan was repaid with interest. No point in running at break even when we don't own the ground, nobody will buy the club that owns nothing. We are at a disadvantage because the vast majority of clubs run on an operating loss, really common in business, as long as it's sensible, just like a mortgage. We will stagnate and eventually regress with these two holding the purse strings, mark my words!!!! Mr Perks
  • Score: -11

6:44pm Mon 4 Aug 14

tyker7745 says...

Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season?


If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros.

That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!!
Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season? If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros. That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!! tyker7745
  • Score: -4

8:24pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

tyker7745 wrote:
Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season?


If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros.

That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!!
Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's?

How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season? If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros. That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!![/p][/quote]Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's? How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are? lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 8

8:25pm Mon 4 Aug 14

#toerag43479 says...

whisky1 wrote:
I am sure the club spends a lot of time deciding where to pitch their ST offer. For every City fan who is well off enough not to feel the pinch with an increase there will be others particularly with kids who will. What is clear is that the principle of affordable STs is a good one for both club and Fan. If they are erring on the side of caution that is far better than taking stick for charging too much
Agreed; 3 generations of my family go watch City and the discounts are what make BCFC a family club. Also, the VP capacity is 25,000 so with crowds of 10, 000 or less the atmosphere would be a bit **** really.
[quote][p][bold]whisky1[/bold] wrote: I am sure the club spends a lot of time deciding where to pitch their ST offer. For every City fan who is well off enough not to feel the pinch with an increase there will be others particularly with kids who will. What is clear is that the principle of affordable STs is a good one for both club and Fan. If they are erring on the side of caution that is far better than taking stick for charging too much[/p][/quote]Agreed; 3 generations of my family go watch City and the discounts are what make BCFC a family club. Also, the VP capacity is 25,000 so with crowds of 10, 000 or less the atmosphere would be a bit **** really. #toerag43479
  • Score: 4

8:35pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Baby Bantam says...

Smithy3075 wrote:
This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had.
I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters?
Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion.
Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this
How do you know we haven't got a budget bigger than them? I bet ours is one of the biggest even with the £500,000 down
[quote][p][bold]Smithy3075[/bold] wrote: This is all starting to sound a bit like the start to the season that jacko had. I'm not really buying in to all this talk of smaller budget etc etc. There are clubs in league 1 that barely get 4000 fans through the turnstiles that are putting better squads together than ours. Is there more to this than the club are sharing with the supporters? Are we a club that can only manage in league 2? Small budget=small ambition in my opinion. Fellow supporters, please feel free to comment on this[/p][/quote]How do you know we haven't got a budget bigger than them? I bet ours is one of the biggest even with the £500,000 down Baby Bantam
  • Score: 2

8:46pm Mon 4 Aug 14

jamiejoe says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
That is not right.

Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too.

It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]That is not right. Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too. It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems. jamiejoe
  • Score: 3

9:19pm Mon 4 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

jamiejoe wrote:
Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
That is not right.

Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too.

It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.
It was reported that 3 Clubs were interested in bidding for Wells but Wells made it clear he was going to Huddersfield and only Huddersfield. This prevented City from benefiting from a bidding war. It may seem easy to keep a player until his contract reaches it's conclusion but what if the player is not as motivated or effective because you wont let him leave to play in a higher league? In the meantime his value is shrinking until he eventually goes to his choice of Club anyway.

The other matter to consider is that we don't know how much he was sold for anyway because Huddersfield wanted the fee undisclosed, and we don't know how the 'add-ons' are set up.
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]That is not right. Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too. It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.[/p][/quote]It was reported that 3 Clubs were interested in bidding for Wells but Wells made it clear he was going to Huddersfield and only Huddersfield. This prevented City from benefiting from a bidding war. It may seem easy to keep a player until his contract reaches it's conclusion but what if the player is not as motivated or effective because you wont let him leave to play in a higher league? In the meantime his value is shrinking until he eventually goes to his choice of Club anyway. The other matter to consider is that we don't know how much he was sold for anyway because Huddersfield wanted the fee undisclosed, and we don't know how the 'add-ons' are set up. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 2

9:38pm Mon 4 Aug 14

tyker7745 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season?


If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros.

That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!!
Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's?

How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?
look at what parky has sid
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season? If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros. That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!![/p][/quote]Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's? How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?[/p][/quote]look at what parky has sid tyker7745
  • Score: -1

10:25pm Mon 4 Aug 14

bazb1966 says...

Just read that we are signing Felipe Morais ex Stevenage winger, how true this is only time will tell
Just read that we are signing Felipe Morais ex Stevenage winger, how true this is only time will tell bazb1966
  • Score: 1

10:45pm Mon 4 Aug 14

Babbsy says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
He could have gone in the summer even though he had another full season to honour of his contract?

Doesn't matter whether he wanted to go or not - it was our decision to make, not his. We might not have got the best out of him as a consequence. He would probably have spat his dummy out, but he was our player at the end of it all. If he wanted to go to them then they haw their advantage over the other clubs that wanted him. Then it was up to is to make sure they paid the money he was worth. They didn't, we accepted a derisory offer, and that was that. Anybody who believes we got the best deal on Wells needs to get real. Wilson had exactly the same amount of time left on his Coventry contract as Wells did on his City one when they negotiated a £3M deal at the end of this season. The difference was they were capable of keeping things together and getting the maximum return from their prized asset.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]He could have gone in the summer even though he had another full season to honour of his contract? Doesn't matter whether he wanted to go or not - it was our decision to make, not his. We might not have got the best out of him as a consequence. He would probably have spat his dummy out, but he was our player at the end of it all. If he wanted to go to them then they haw their advantage over the other clubs that wanted him. Then it was up to is to make sure they paid the money he was worth. They didn't, we accepted a derisory offer, and that was that. Anybody who believes we got the best deal on Wells needs to get real. Wilson had exactly the same amount of time left on his Coventry contract as Wells did on his City one when they negotiated a £3M deal at the end of this season. The difference was they were capable of keeping things together and getting the maximum return from their prized asset. Babbsy
  • Score: 1

12:22am Tue 5 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

tyker7745 wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season?


If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros.

That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!!
Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's?

How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?
look at what parky has sid
I can't see anywhere where Parky is saying that the budget is spent, or that we are making a promotion challenge based on only 14 pros or that the Board will be happy to see the Club stagnate or battle against relegation.

I will look forward to your response when the next signing is made. And the one after that. And the one after that etc.
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season? If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros. That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!![/p][/quote]Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's? How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?[/p][/quote]look at what parky has sid[/p][/quote]I can't see anywhere where Parky is saying that the budget is spent, or that we are making a promotion challenge based on only 14 pros or that the Board will be happy to see the Club stagnate or battle against relegation. I will look forward to your response when the next signing is made. And the one after that. And the one after that etc. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 3

7:26am Tue 5 Aug 14

Babbsy says...

jamiejoe wrote:
Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
That is not right.

Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too.

It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.
Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had.

Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty!
[quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]That is not right. Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too. It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had. Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty! Babbsy
  • Score: 1

7:40am Tue 5 Aug 14

BD16 says...

Peter300 wrote:
BD16 wrote:
I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.
And yet you were the first to say don't sign a goalscorer with a proven track record in L1. And if Davies had left you would not have complained. And no doubt you would have been happy for Darby to leave. I mean, he's tying up quite a bit of the budget.
Come on then Peter, show you're an economic genius as well as a football one.

How does it work if you have a set budget and a lot of that budget is tied up in 2-3 players? How do you stretch it so that we have a squad of 20 players? What do you suggest, do we spend more than we can afford and go into admin, again, or do we sign players that fit into our budget?

If you are in the library can I suggest you take a look at the economics section.
[quote][p][bold]Peter300[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BD16[/bold] wrote: I'm not being critical of him as a footballer at all, I think he'll score plenty of goals if we give him the right service, but why did we sign Aaron McLean? He came on a big contract, which apparently triggered a clause in the contract of Andrew Davies. When we signed him we must have had an idea where we were going to be this season in terms of a budget so to tie up so much of that budget up in just a couple of players beggars belief.[/p][/quote]And yet you were the first to say don't sign a goalscorer with a proven track record in L1. And if Davies had left you would not have complained. And no doubt you would have been happy for Darby to leave. I mean, he's tying up quite a bit of the budget.[/p][/quote]Come on then Peter, show you're an economic genius as well as a football one. How does it work if you have a set budget and a lot of that budget is tied up in 2-3 players? How do you stretch it so that we have a squad of 20 players? What do you suggest, do we spend more than we can afford and go into admin, again, or do we sign players that fit into our budget? If you are in the library can I suggest you take a look at the economics section. BD16
  • Score: -2

8:30am Tue 5 Aug 14

Farsley Bantam says...

Babbsy wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
That is not right.

Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too.

It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.
Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had.

Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty!
He did not have 18 months left on his contract. He was out of contract at the end of the promotion season and signed a one year extention. I stand to be corrected on this but I'm pretty sure that was the case.
He wanted to go to Huddersfield. Huddersfield knew he wanted to go to them. He wasn't prepared to even talk to any other clubs. Obviously Wells was worth more than what we got but he put us in a very weak position.
[quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]That is not right. Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too. It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had. Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty![/p][/quote]He did not have 18 months left on his contract. He was out of contract at the end of the promotion season and signed a one year extention. I stand to be corrected on this but I'm pretty sure that was the case. He wanted to go to Huddersfield. Huddersfield knew he wanted to go to them. He wasn't prepared to even talk to any other clubs. Obviously Wells was worth more than what we got but he put us in a very weak position. Farsley Bantam
  • Score: -1

9:54am Tue 5 Aug 14

jamiejoe says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
That is not right.

Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too.

It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.
Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had.

Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty!
He did not have 18 months left on his contract. He was out of contract at the end of the promotion season and signed a one year extention. I stand to be corrected on this but I'm pretty sure that was the case.
He wanted to go to Huddersfield. Huddersfield knew he wanted to go to them. He wasn't prepared to even talk to any other clubs. Obviously Wells was worth more than what we got but he put us in a very weak position.
On this occasion you are wrong.

Otherwise Wells could have signed pre-contract terms in Jan. and we would have been getting much less than a million (for half a season - think about it!).

We could have waited until this summer and he still had a year to go - and got some decent money. Wells could have taken the improved terms we had offered (and in effect McLean got) and chosen a club with more potential than Huddersfield Town.

As it he cost nowt and we sold him for about £1.2 million plus a bit more although City wanted to keep it quiet and Hudders agreed.


Okay, so it's all recent history and funny how memories morph into something else. The only reason it is relevant is that we are facing the consequences now. Let's hope Aaron bangs the goals in and this is forgotten about!
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]That is not right. Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too. It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had. Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty![/p][/quote]He did not have 18 months left on his contract. He was out of contract at the end of the promotion season and signed a one year extention. I stand to be corrected on this but I'm pretty sure that was the case. He wanted to go to Huddersfield. Huddersfield knew he wanted to go to them. He wasn't prepared to even talk to any other clubs. Obviously Wells was worth more than what we got but he put us in a very weak position.[/p][/quote]On this occasion you are wrong. Otherwise Wells could have signed pre-contract terms in Jan. and we would have been getting much less than a million (for half a season - think about it!). We could have waited until this summer and he still had a year to go - and got some decent money. Wells could have taken the improved terms we had offered (and in effect McLean got) and chosen a club with more potential than Huddersfield Town. As it he cost nowt and we sold him for about £1.2 million plus a bit more although City wanted to keep it quiet and Hudders agreed. Okay, so it's all recent history and funny how memories morph into something else. The only reason it is relevant is that we are facing the consequences now. Let's hope Aaron bangs the goals in and this is forgotten about! jamiejoe
  • Score: 2

10:23am Tue 5 Aug 14

dannbradfc says...

If a long term view and strategy is considered everything is perhaps been set up to entice a wealthy backer ys is actually financially capable of taking us forward at a greater pace. We are making profits are debt free. Give the appearance of good attendances due to the pricing structure.......I'm not privy to any plans the chairman have but the above factors certainly make any prospect of a backer with money more likely. ...
If a long term view and strategy is considered everything is perhaps been set up to entice a wealthy backer ys is actually financially capable of taking us forward at a greater pace. We are making profits are debt free. Give the appearance of good attendances due to the pricing structure.......I'm not privy to any plans the chairman have but the above factors certainly make any prospect of a backer with money more likely. ... dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

10:33am Tue 5 Aug 14

dannbradfc says...

Ps however relegation would not help the above obviously
Ps however relegation would not help the above obviously dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

10:58am Tue 5 Aug 14

Farsley Bantam says...

dannbradfc wrote:
If a long term view and strategy is considered everything is perhaps been set up to entice a wealthy backer ys is actually financially capable of taking us forward at a greater pace. We are making profits are debt free. Give the appearance of good attendances due to the pricing structure.......I'm not privy to any plans the chairman have but the above factors certainly make any prospect of a backer with money more likely. ...
Exactly this. I get the feeling that they are trying to make the club an attractive proposition, from a business perspective at least. As you say no debt, modest wage bill with few tied town to long term contracts, big fan base, modern ground that needs little investment etc.
I won't be surprised if Lawn/Rhodes sell up in the next year/18 months
[quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: If a long term view and strategy is considered everything is perhaps been set up to entice a wealthy backer ys is actually financially capable of taking us forward at a greater pace. We are making profits are debt free. Give the appearance of good attendances due to the pricing structure.......I'm not privy to any plans the chairman have but the above factors certainly make any prospect of a backer with money more likely. ...[/p][/quote]Exactly this. I get the feeling that they are trying to make the club an attractive proposition, from a business perspective at least. As you say no debt, modest wage bill with few tied town to long term contracts, big fan base, modern ground that needs little investment etc. I won't be surprised if Lawn/Rhodes sell up in the next year/18 months Farsley Bantam
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Babbsy says...

So are you accepting that you were incorrect on how long Wells had left on his contract then Farsley, and as a consequence how the club failed to make the best they could out of his deal?

Thanks Jamiejoe by the way, for backing up the facts.
So are you accepting that you were incorrect on how long Wells had left on his contract then Farsley, and as a consequence how the club failed to make the best they could out of his deal? Thanks Jamiejoe by the way, for backing up the facts. Babbsy
  • Score: 1

2:24pm Tue 5 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
dannbradfc wrote:
If a long term view and strategy is considered everything is perhaps been set up to entice a wealthy backer ys is actually financially capable of taking us forward at a greater pace. We are making profits are debt free. Give the appearance of good attendances due to the pricing structure.......I'm not privy to any plans the chairman have but the above factors certainly make any prospect of a backer with money more likely. ...
Exactly this. I get the feeling that they are trying to make the club an attractive proposition, from a business perspective at least. As you say no debt, modest wage bill with few tied town to long term contracts, big fan base, modern ground that needs little investment etc.
I won't be surprised if Lawn/Rhodes sell up in the next year/18 months
I think from the point of view that any potential buyer would no longer have to pay ML his £million loan as part of a buyout it would be more attractive. But, they don't own the ground and I think this is a big stumbling block for any buyer. Maybe getting the finances in a healthy state and then ML and the Rhodes family financing the purchase of the ground would be more attractive regards the sale of the Club.

How would you prefer the Club be run? Until recently we were a million pound in debt season after season with interest payments continuing to be paid at the rate of x% every month, even when that million quid had been spent. We have just paid ML his million back and are saving on interest rates. The Club does go over the budget dependent on the circumstances with the intention of clearing the debt as soon as finances allow under a planned method of operating the business of Bradford City. This to me is not being done at the expense of investment in the Team but simply a case of disciplined and competent budgeting and Management.

There is no magic wand that the Chairmen can wave to create money that they can invest into the Team. Their is no secret that ML and JR would sell the Club to anyone who can demonstrate they would invest more money into the Club and act with the best intentions for the Club as opposed to lining their own pockets at the Club's expense.

I don't think the Chairmen and Board of Directors at VP will ever get the support they deserve from some supporters. If the Club is facing administration or accumulating large debt they will obviously be criticised for poor financial management. If the Club gets promoted, plays in Cup finals they get criticised for paying off debts and liabilities. If the board allow Championship experience players to be paid 'high' wages in order to bring them to or keep them at the Club they get criticised. If they refuse to pay players the amount of money they want because they don't believe they are justified in such a sum or are making sure the manager doesn't go too far over budget they get criticised for it. If they go over the budget with the intention of giving the Manager support for a specific

I am absolutely convinced that if we had been about to start our second season in the premiership there would be posters on here still looking for ways to criticise the Board and Chairmen for 'lacking ambition'.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Chairmen sold up either considering they have publicly announced this on a number of occasions over the past few years. Any well run business with the potential for expansion and a return on investment will always be an 'attractive proposition'.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dannbradfc[/bold] wrote: If a long term view and strategy is considered everything is perhaps been set up to entice a wealthy backer ys is actually financially capable of taking us forward at a greater pace. We are making profits are debt free. Give the appearance of good attendances due to the pricing structure.......I'm not privy to any plans the chairman have but the above factors certainly make any prospect of a backer with money more likely. ...[/p][/quote]Exactly this. I get the feeling that they are trying to make the club an attractive proposition, from a business perspective at least. As you say no debt, modest wage bill with few tied town to long term contracts, big fan base, modern ground that needs little investment etc. I won't be surprised if Lawn/Rhodes sell up in the next year/18 months[/p][/quote]I think from the point of view that any potential buyer would no longer have to pay ML his £million loan as part of a buyout it would be more attractive. But, they don't own the ground and I think this is a big stumbling block for any buyer. Maybe getting the finances in a healthy state and then ML and the Rhodes family financing the purchase of the ground would be more attractive regards the sale of the Club. How would you prefer the Club be run? Until recently we were a million pound in debt season after season with interest payments continuing to be paid at the rate of x% every month, even when that million quid had been spent. We have just paid ML his million back and are saving on interest rates. The Club does go over the budget dependent on the circumstances with the intention of clearing the debt as soon as finances allow under a planned method of operating the business of Bradford City. This to me is not being done at the expense of investment in the Team but simply a case of disciplined and competent budgeting and Management. There is no magic wand that the Chairmen can wave to create money that they can invest into the Team. Their is no secret that ML and JR would sell the Club to anyone who can demonstrate they would invest more money into the Club and act with the best intentions for the Club as opposed to lining their own pockets at the Club's expense. I don't think the Chairmen and Board of Directors at VP will ever get the support they deserve from some supporters. If the Club is facing administration or accumulating large debt they will obviously be criticised for poor financial management. If the Club gets promoted, plays in Cup finals they get criticised for paying off debts and liabilities. If the board allow Championship experience players to be paid 'high' wages in order to bring them to or keep them at the Club they get criticised. If they refuse to pay players the amount of money they want because they don't believe they are justified in such a sum or are making sure the manager doesn't go too far over budget they get criticised for it. If they go over the budget with the intention of giving the Manager support for a specific I am absolutely convinced that if we had been about to start our second season in the premiership there would be posters on here still looking for ways to criticise the Board and Chairmen for 'lacking ambition'. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chairmen sold up either considering they have publicly announced this on a number of occasions over the past few years. Any well run business with the potential for expansion and a return on investment will always be an 'attractive proposition'. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Tue 5 Aug 14

lonniejockstrap says...

Babbsy wrote:
jamiejoe wrote:
Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
That is not right.

Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too.

It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.
Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had.

Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty!
I think you are crediting me with a post I didn't make or agree with.
[quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jamiejoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]That is not right. Wells had another 18 months on his contract when we sold him - we could have played it a bit better. The player has power but we had the contract and we needed more clubs to enter talks rather than rushing it through - then McLean too. It has been discussed lots because it is v important - a once in 10 year decision it seems.[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Lonnie. How long did the club have to wait for a saleable asset like Wells? Like you say, at least 10 years. Wilson had exactly another year on his contract when Coventry negotiated a £3M deal - exactly the amount of time Wells would have had this summer, yet everybody got cut up with this notion that his value would drop massively if we waited and didn't sell in the January window. So what did we do.....sold him 6 months earlier for £1.8M less than what they got, for what in my opinion was a player not quiet as good as what we had. Like you say, these opportunities have to be capitalised on as they have the potential to set the club up for a long time in the future, and rarely come around. Instead, here we are 6 months later being told the pot's empty![/p][/quote]I think you are crediting me with a post I didn't make or agree with. lonniejockstrap
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Waynus1971 says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
Babbsy wrote:
People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.
The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer.
Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.
"If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer"

WRONG!!!!!! Wells' contract still had 18mths to run and NOBODY can tell me his value would have dropped significantly from January to June!!!
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Babbsy[/bold] wrote: People talking about the Wells money burning a hole in our pocket and McLean being a mistake financially. Far bigger mistake was the pittance we let Wells go for. Coventry took £3M for Wilson because they had the accumen to negotiate a decent deal, rather than the panicking that set the wheels in motion on Wells's departure. If we'd actually have taken what he was worth we'd have a squad capable of challenging the very top of this division this season. What happened with Wells is something that will continue to frustrate me for years to come as it had the potential to set us up as a club for the next few years.[/p][/quote]The 'letting Wells go to cheap' argument has been done to death. Wells told Huddersfield he wanted to go to them. That put us in a very poor position to negotiate. If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer. Nothing to do with business accumen, Wells totally scuppered any chance of the club receiving the true market value. The club had a pretty crappy hand but Wells is to blame for this.[/p][/quote]"If we had blocked the sale in January his contract would have expired and he could have left for free in the summer" WRONG!!!!!! Wells' contract still had 18mths to run and NOBODY can tell me his value would have dropped significantly from January to June!!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Waynus1971 says...

lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
Every season ticket holder had the option of investing extra into a player budget fund. There were many on here (and elsewhere) claiming the ticket prices were too low, but how many of them added £25, £50 or more to their season ticket application?
[quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]Every season ticket holder had the option of investing extra into a player budget fund. There were many on here (and elsewhere) claiming the ticket prices were too low, but how many of them added £25, £50 or more to their season ticket application? Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Waynus1971 says...

settler07 wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
There was option to do exactly that as part of buying season tickets. And it raised, genuinely, about £70. Bradford is a poor city, hence why the maths don't add up if you look to increase season ticket prices. All the predictors say total sales revenue would reduce if we put prices up.
As for the bloke knocking Mark Lawn, please stop posting - you are embarrassing. We are financially back on track down to the incredible efforts of Julian, Mark and David Baldwin. If any one of those three walked away, we'd be instantly back in big trouble. His heart must sink when he reads comments like yours.
Not convinced the figure raised is as low as £70; I gave an extra £50 myself!
[quote][p][bold]settler07[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]There was option to do exactly that as part of buying season tickets. And it raised, genuinely, about £70. Bradford is a poor city, hence why the maths don't add up if you look to increase season ticket prices. All the predictors say total sales revenue would reduce if we put prices up. As for the bloke knocking Mark Lawn, please stop posting - you are embarrassing. We are financially back on track down to the incredible efforts of Julian, Mark and David Baldwin. If any one of those three walked away, we'd be instantly back in big trouble. His heart must sink when he reads comments like yours.[/p][/quote]Not convinced the figure raised is as low as £70; I gave an extra £50 myself! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Waynus1971 says...

Farsley Bantam wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc.

So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.
That idea doesn't really work for me. How many people, realistically, are going to donate a worthwile sum of money to the club? Not enough for that money to make a noticable difference I imagine.
Say 1000 people donated £50. Still only gives you £50k. Thats about 1 player, and not a decent one at that. I wouldn't be prepared to throw £50 in for that. I would have wasted £50.
It's not until everyone is forced to chip in that the money makes a real difference. 10,000 at £50 is £500k. Thats 2 Aaaron McLeans!
The problem with that is that many simply would not pay. We don't even have 10,000 season ticket holders and of the figure we do have, that includes youth and u11 season ticket holders.

This season we lost around 500 ticket holders. Put the price up by £50 and you would have low another 2-3,000.
[quote][p][bold]Farsley Bantam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: It never ceases to amaze me at the number of City fans who moan about the ticket prices not being high enough and the budget not being high enough. I would have thought that at least one of them would have organised a facility for fans to 'donate' money into a player budget fund. That way, those who feel they can and are willing to pay more than just the price of the season ticket can do so, and at the same time the Board of Directors can continue with their admirable attempts to enable access to a large numbers of supporters by maintaining season tickets prices at a reasonable cost. The benefit of the season ticket prices are large attendances. This increases the negotiating power of the Club when dealing with sponsors, caterers etc. So, if you want to pay more money into the Club then DO IT! Give the Club a call and ask how you can do it. Nobody is stopping you.[/p][/quote]That idea doesn't really work for me. How many people, realistically, are going to donate a worthwile sum of money to the club? Not enough for that money to make a noticable difference I imagine. Say 1000 people donated £50. Still only gives you £50k. Thats about 1 player, and not a decent one at that. I wouldn't be prepared to throw £50 in for that. I would have wasted £50. It's not until everyone is forced to chip in that the money makes a real difference. 10,000 at £50 is £500k. Thats 2 Aaaron McLeans![/p][/quote]The problem with that is that many simply would not pay. We don't even have 10,000 season ticket holders and of the figure we do have, that includes youth and u11 season ticket holders. This season we lost around 500 ticket holders. Put the price up by £50 and you would have low another 2-3,000. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Waynus1971 says...

Mr Perks wrote:
For anyone who's interested, think back to the multi million dividend the Rhodes family took from the club before we went bang the first time. I think he'll be just about equal in terms of what's been paid in/taken out of BCFC. Lawn will be in profit, because his loan was repaid with interest. No point in running at break even when we don't own the ground, nobody will buy the club that owns nothing. We are at a disadvantage because the vast majority of clubs run on an operating loss, really common in business, as long as it's sensible, just like a mortgage. We will stagnate and eventually regress with these two holding the purse strings, mark my words!!!!
"Lawn will be in profit , because his loan was repaid with interest".

What about the non-loan payment he made to secure a stake in the club? Both he and Rhodes will be lucky to see that (or a decent return) back!!!
[quote][p][bold]Mr Perks[/bold] wrote: For anyone who's interested, think back to the multi million dividend the Rhodes family took from the club before we went bang the first time. I think he'll be just about equal in terms of what's been paid in/taken out of BCFC. Lawn will be in profit, because his loan was repaid with interest. No point in running at break even when we don't own the ground, nobody will buy the club that owns nothing. We are at a disadvantage because the vast majority of clubs run on an operating loss, really common in business, as long as it's sensible, just like a mortgage. We will stagnate and eventually regress with these two holding the purse strings, mark my words!!!![/p][/quote]"Lawn will be in profit , because his loan was repaid with interest". What about the non-loan payment he made to secure a stake in the club? Both he and Rhodes will be lucky to see that (or a decent return) back!!! Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Tue 5 Aug 14

Waynus1971 says...

tyker7745 wrote:
lonniejockstrap wrote:
tyker7745 wrote:
Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season?


If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros.

That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!!
Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's?

How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?
look at what parky has sid
Nope Tyker. Read it again and I still don't see the words you used. Yes PP I saying that 14 senior players isn't enough, but nowhere does he say the pot is empty, that it has all been sent on those 14 players or that the board have sanctioned high wages on certain signings!!!
Stop reading between the lines trying to look for your next story. We know the board have promised to bring in 2/3 Premier League loanees. However, they may not know if those players will become available and how much of PP's budget will be needed to secure them. Maybe the purse strings will be relaxed once they know how much those players are going to cost us.

This would explain why 3 players arrived today on non-contract terms. If the loanees come under budget, I expect PP to snap up a couple of them on longer deals.
[quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lonniejockstrap[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker7745[/bold] wrote: Did the board sanction the contacts of the high earners last season and then those new lengthy contracts this season? If so they new exactly what the annual wages bill would be. They clearly knew that he budget would be taken up with just 14 experienced pros. That being so they must have known that the numbers were inadequate to mount a realistic challenge for promotion. Or are thy happy to see the club stagnate or, quite possibly, being in a relegation battle!![/p][/quote]Tyker, who said the budget has been taken up by 14 pros? (apart from you). If we sign at least 1 more does that prove your statement to be false? What if we sign 2 more pro's what will that say about the accuracy of your statement? Just think how much credibility you will have if we sign 3 more pro's? How silly is it to imply that the Board would be happy to see the Club stagnate or be involved in a relegation battle after all the extreme hard work they have put in to get us where we are?[/p][/quote]look at what parky has sid[/p][/quote]Nope Tyker. Read it again and I still don't see the words you used. Yes PP I saying that 14 senior players isn't enough, but nowhere does he say the pot is empty, that it has all been sent on those 14 players or that the board have sanctioned high wages on certain signings!!! Stop reading between the lines trying to look for your next story. We know the board have promised to bring in 2/3 Premier League loanees. However, they may not know if those players will become available and how much of PP's budget will be needed to secure them. Maybe the purse strings will be relaxed once they know how much those players are going to cost us. This would explain why 3 players arrived today on non-contract terms. If the loanees come under budget, I expect PP to snap up a couple of them on longer deals. Waynus1971
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Wed 6 Aug 14

dannbradfc says...

Waynus1971 wrote:
Mr Perks wrote:
For anyone who's interested, think back to the multi million dividend the Rhodes family took from the club before we went bang the first time. I think he'll be just about equal in terms of what's been paid in/taken out of BCFC. Lawn will be in profit, because his loan was repaid with interest. No point in running at break even when we don't own the ground, nobody will buy the club that owns nothing. We are at a disadvantage because the vast majority of clubs run on an operating loss, really common in business, as long as it's sensible, just like a mortgage. We will stagnate and eventually regress with these two holding the purse strings, mark my words!!!!
"Lawn will be in profit , because his loan was repaid with interest".

What about the non-loan payment he made to secure a stake in the club? Both he and Rhodes will be lucky to see that (or a decent return) back!!!
One point on this is though what happens to the profit we have made in 3 of past 4 seasons? I do not expect the chairman to do this for free thus do they take the profit, does it go back-in? i don't know and just wondering.....
[quote][p][bold]Waynus1971[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Perks[/bold] wrote: For anyone who's interested, think back to the multi million dividend the Rhodes family took from the club before we went bang the first time. I think he'll be just about equal in terms of what's been paid in/taken out of BCFC. Lawn will be in profit, because his loan was repaid with interest. No point in running at break even when we don't own the ground, nobody will buy the club that owns nothing. We are at a disadvantage because the vast majority of clubs run on an operating loss, really common in business, as long as it's sensible, just like a mortgage. We will stagnate and eventually regress with these two holding the purse strings, mark my words!!!![/p][/quote]"Lawn will be in profit , because his loan was repaid with interest". What about the non-loan payment he made to secure a stake in the club? Both he and Rhodes will be lucky to see that (or a decent return) back!!![/p][/quote]One point on this is though what happens to the profit we have made in 3 of past 4 seasons? I do not expect the chairman to do this for free thus do they take the profit, does it go back-in? i don't know and just wondering..... dannbradfc
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree