Royal Lady If, as appears to be widely accepted on here, we are destined to make a loss every year - even after selling players, such as Sig last year for twice what our "black hole" was - can we all now stop spouting the "we're a well run club" bollocks in that case? Because if we're well run, that kind of implies that we don't get into debt, don't pay our players more than we should, etc etc. So could someone please explain to me how you define a "well run club" if it makes losses year on year?
Let's say the business model is based on 16,000 gates (whatever figure you like)
Let's say that in order to get that 16K we need to be above half-way.
Let's say we can do that but we go behind by 2-5 Million in the season.
Then, if we aren't promoted, we have to cash in on a player and find bargains as we have done for many years.
Now say we cut wages so that there wasn't a shortfall.
We then drop towards the relegation places, GATES DROP, say to 12K. 23 x 4K x £23.
That's a loss of gate money of £2.17 Million, so we still have a short-fall
Plus lost programme and kit sales, less corporate sponsorship..
Seems to me that the "Losing 3-5 million a year model" is one that gives us a decent punt at the POs
and more-or-less maintains gates. Get promoted, get a good pay-out. Miss out, sell 1-2 players, get
in a bargain, one you hope will increase in value by a couple of million.
Brett Williams, for example. Surely he's a punt to be 4th striker (initially) if Shane goes? (Hunt, Church or Manset, Williams)
but would probably go out on loan if we go up and/or Shane stays.
Manset, too, could easily develop and be worth a couple of million in a year or two.
