• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

James Maddison

DeanoAustin said:
We are fiscally cautious. I'm not saying that's absolutely wrong. What Levy has done at our club over 20 years is very, very impressive. Brought us from mid table to top end, built an incredible stadium and training ground. He can be very proud of his achievements and, I've said this before, I'd build a statue of him for what he's done for the area.

So I'm not trying to condemn the guy - I'm far from his harshest critic. But if we want to push on and be competitive, we have to take a few more risks and wages is one area that stands out like a sore thumb in terms of scope for more spending.

Levy's harshest critics would say that he just cares about money and not success. That's far too simplistic. He wants success for us. He's just does not seem willing to do it at a cost that would push our wages to turnover to a level in line with the rest of the league. If that is the case then, in my view, he's brought us as far as he can.
Click to expand...
I think that's fair.

I'm sure with infrastructure built and the reliability of income streams becoming more predictable and stable the percentages of wages to income will grow.

Levy is conservative BUT that's more so when there is risk or unknowns, now things are predictable/simplified he'll run things closer to Arsenal/Liverpool imo.

Of course that percentage can fluctuate without increasing the wage bill simply by reducing income by up to £100m by having a rough year on the pitch.

The important thing is it's underpinned by other income, that basically ensures that even if you had a rough 2-3 seasons you're not going to do a Leicester or Everton. Eg income will drop in this year's accounts but it looks like we're still happy giving Maddison £175k a week.

It could be true that Levy has taken us as far as he can BUT that might be a result of the other behaviour of nothing teams like Chelsea then City then Saudi Sportswashing Machine. On the flip side Liverpool and Arsenal are of similar comparison to us (which in itself is a progress statement), income and operation wise (ie normal clubs) and Liverpool have had success and Arsenal only failed because of mentality, not money, last season. Get the right people onboard, on and off the pitch, be smart, a good run of signings and you can be in the mix. It's tough, of course, not impossible.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
I think that's fair.

I'm sure with infrastructure built and the reliability of income streams becoming more predictable and stable the percentages of wages to income will grow.

Levy is conservative BUT that's more so when there is risk or unknowns, now things are predictable/simplified he'll run things closer to Arsenal/Liverpool imo.

Of course that percentage can fluctuate without increasing the wage bill simply by reducing income by up to £100m by having a rough year on the pitch.

The important thing is it's underpinned by other income, that basically ensures that even if you had a rough 2-3 seasons you're not going to do a Leicester or Everton. Eg income will drop in this year's accounts but it looks like we're still happy giving Maddison £175k a week.

It could be true that Levy has taken us as far as he can BUT that might be a result of the other behaviour of nothing teams like Chelsea then City then Saudi Sportswashing Machine. On the flip side Liverpool and Arsenal are of similar comparison to us (which in itself is a progress statement), income and operation wise (ie normal clubs) and Liverpool have had success and Arsenal only failed because of mentality, not money, last season. Get the right people onboard, on and off the pitch, be smart, a good run of signings and you can be in the mix. It's tough, of course, not impossible.
Click to expand...
I heard a guy in another pod, who seemed to be well educated and experienced say why didn’t we invest in players but did in property…

but he couldn’t come up with where the money comes from

Borrowing for fixed asset like buildings is easy ish

should we borrow for variable assets like players? I dont think so

so where does it come from
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I heard a guy in another pod, who seemed to be well educated and experienced say why didn’t we invest in players but did in property…

but he couldn’t come up with where the money comes from

Borrowing for fixed asset like buildings is easy ish

should we borrow for variable assets like players? I dont think so

so where does it come from
Click to expand...
No-one is going to lend you money (ie outside institution) for buying players (maybe Clearlake has??) as the risk is unquantifiable and the asset can go to zero quickly (Ndombele)...it's a fools investment.

If he's suggesting siphoning he'd have to explain how that's happening via accounts analysis.
With ENICs track record of construction they'd have little trouble getting projects funded (all things being equal). They're not putting that burden on the club, or if they are it because the project brings club income benefits. The only other thing they could be doing is transferring original club assets (land etc) into other companies that then don't benefit the club.

Edit: I actually think some of the extra £250m we borrowed to pay back the COVID Gov loan oiled the wheels for our transfer business.
Iirc we paid back the government, a short term HSBC loan and then there was about £40-50m left over.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
No-one is going to lend you money (ie outside institution) for buying players (maybe Clearlake has??) as the risk is unquantifiable and the asset can go to zero quickly (Ndombele)...it's a fools investment.

If he's suggesting siphoning he'd have to explain how that's happening via accounts analysis.
With ENICs track record of construction they'd have little trouble getting projects funded (all things being equal). They're not putting that burden on the club, or if they are it because the project brings club income benefits. The only other thing they could be doing is transferring original club assets (land etc) into other companies that then don't benefit the club.

Edit: I actually think some of the extra £250m we borrowed to pay back the COVID Gov loan oiled the wheels for our transfer business.
Iirc we paid back the government, a short term HSBC loan and then there was about £40-50m left over.
Click to expand...

Exactly and the reason for the investment in property and other assets around the area is two fold, it raises the value of the club for the investor (which people will moan about) but it also increases income with rents from partners such as supermarkets, cinemas, hotels, business etc. Also as you rightly say its easier to raise future capital through having more assets on your books. We had a cash in the bank value of around 200-300m at the time of the ground build and people wanted that money spent but there would be no doubt that cashflow was used as part of the reasoning to get more favourable terms on loans at the bank etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back