Who Says No Expectations | Page 2 | Vital Football

Who Says No Expectations

Hampton said:
Has the wage cap even been ratified ? Last I heard the PFA were challenging it, prior contracts were exempt and the "rules" were leaker than a colander !
Click to expand...

I think it is being challenged but is currently in place. But at the moment I think clubs may see the wage cap as a useful bargaining tool to keep players wages down at a time they have so little funds.
 
I can only imagine that having a stake in the club would mean access to the books, or at very least the kind of financial information that could help foresee another impending disaster long before it actually happens. That can surely only be a good thing.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
It depends on what is agreed. At other clubs with fans on the board they negotiated veto rights on certain things in exchange for the money. The Supporters Club have been talking to those fan trusts to work out what they can do.

They won't be putting in near 1m of crowd funded money without getting something meaningful in return.

I suspect the fans will get safeguards on many issues included in the board representation that go beyond a normal board members influence.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right !
 
All this negativity from some people about the SC and having a fans representative on the board is out of place.
The stated aim of the SC when they launched the appeal was to do just that, so what's the gripe?
The SC said what the money would be used for and people donated with that as the criteria, so no grounds for moaning now that it may be happening.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
Did anyone genuinely think any new owner would be splashing the cash? If they did I think they completely misjudged our situation.

We are a loss making club, in a loss making league with very little revenue before covid lockdowns destroy the football and non football world economy. Breaking even pre covid would've been totally reliant on successfully playing money ball which we never managed previously so breaking even now is probably near impossible in our situation even with the 2.5m salary cap forcing us to run a very modest wage bill.

Whoever comes in is looking at 3.5m to buy us, and at least 5m but likely a lot more in loses over the next 2 seasons before paying a transfer fee. So anyone buying us is probably looking at throwing in about 10m with very little chance of return for the short term. So it may not feel like splashing the cash but if the new owners aren't transferring the cost of buying us onto the club as debt like Choi did just covering the running cost will be investing very heavily for them.

Even if Ganaye and the Americans got us their philosophy was self sufficiency as otherwise you are looking at losing even more than the 10m loss they'd initially have to factor in. Look at Barnsley for example they have very rich owners but since they arrived they have received more in player fees than they spent and still ran annual loses. While Luton's owners have no money and have spent very little yet Luton have done better than Barnsley over the last few years all things considered and both done much better than Sunderland who have a wage bill bigger than both combined in the league below. So it just goes to show that it doesn't matter how rich your owners are, as they may not be willing to spend it on the club and even if they do it doesn't guarantee success. I'd take a chairman with less money with good judgement and a strategy over a rich one with poor judgement who thinks they can easily spend their way to success.

I remember in one of the supposedly leaked messages it said Lenegan was planning to buy us, run us on a shoe string and rely on free transfers and the academy and some people seemed upset by that suggestion. But that was almost certainly going to be the same strategy that any new owner would be following and most of the other clubs at this level will already be doing or forced to do if they want to avoid going bust and fit into the salary cap.

Anyone who has so much money they are happy to burn through millions on a toy will likely have enough money to buy a better club than Wigan so we need to set our expectations accordingly. We are looking at either naive gamblers like Choi who invested heavily and then pulled out when he realised his plan to make a huge immediate return based on Premiership promotion was unrealistic. Or a pragmatic owner who appreciates the challenge of successfully running a club and will run us sensibly aiming for self sustainability and only getting returns over the long term. Assuming the owner is willing and able to cover the running costs for the foreseeable future the level of financial clout beyond that probably a lot less important than their intentions and strategy.


In this league remember only 2 clubs had a net transfer expenditure and that was just 200k a piece and 18 of the 24 clubs didn't recieved or pay a penny in transfer fees. There is no money in this league at all and spending your way out is not really an option anymore like we did in the past. Success at this level is going to be decided by good managers and clever recruitment. The wage cap means realistically clubs can't be massively out bidding each other on wages with the majority of players being forced into 2k a week or less as an average so in many instances the player will probably choose where they want to go as money won't be vastly different between clubs at the same level. In this instance if we get the ship back on course we are probably one of the more attractive clubs at this level and have a good shout at having our pick of the frees. If we werent hamstrung by administration I think just using frees and loans we could've easily recruited a strong L1 squad and picked up a decent name manager. So I do think just having getting back to level playing field will give us a better chance than most of the competition to attract players.

The marketing guy who arranged the deal, Cliveden, will be the guy running things if the take over happens. He said his investors had a successful model they used in Spain that they wanted to apply to a L1 or L2 club. He explicitly said they weren't going to be sugar daddies. So any talk of being underwhelmed in the sense of splashing cash makes me wonder if the issue is less that the new owner is that bad but more unrealistic expectations meeting reality.

Personally I have 4 expectations that I really hope to see:

1. The new ownership don't transfer debt into the club like Choi did

2. The new owners understand the financial realities of L1 football and are pragmatic with their expectations. AKA they aren't ignorant or naive enough to think they can quickly and easily flip the club for a profit any time soon.

3. They have an understanding of English lower league football on the pitch.

4. They treat the club with respect. Even if they see us as a busines venture to make profit I hope they appreciate that the club is more than just that to the fans and there is a certain duty of care that our previous owners didn't afford us.

I was a bit concerned at the news that Jose Cristo was buying us as I didn't think he'd likely be well up on L1 and feared he thought what worked in the Spanish 3rd tier could easily translate here without fully taking into account how different it will be. But the news that Cliveden was involved made me feel more comfortable as he has a long background in sports marketing including working in football and tried to buy us with other investors before Choi got us from Whelan. So he has clearly kept an eye on us for a good while and in theory should be fully aware of the realities of L1. He seems to believe Cristo's model will work here, hopefully he is right. So I've got an open mind and interested to see exactly what that involves.

Maybe the new ownership will be hopeless or maybe it will be great - we'll just have to see how it goes. But I think we are lucky to get a new owner at all as there is no money to be made in lower league football at the moment and risk of never getting a return on investment on buying us is very high. So I am just grateful we have a lifeline when Bury and Macclesfield went bust and judge the new owners on what they do once they get in place. If they have the finances to cover running costs, fully understand what they have got themselves into and treat the club with respect I'll be quite pleased.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell mate, you do some long threads but that was like War and Peace. A dissertation wouldn't be that long

By the way, well done.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
It depends on what is agreed. At other clubs with fans on the board they negotiated veto rights on certain things in exchange for the money. The Supporters Club have been talking to those fan trusts to work out what they can do.

They won't be putting in near 1m of crowd funded money without getting something meaningful in return.

I suspect the fans will get safeguards on many issues included in the board representation that go beyond a normal board members influence.
Click to expand...

Kenny Morris said:
All this negativity from some people about the SC and having a fans representative on the board is out of place.
The stated aim of the SC when they launched the appeal was to do just that, so what's the gripe?
The SC said what the money would be used for and people donated with that as the criteria, so no grounds for moaning now that it may be happening.
Click to expand...

Also to confirm the deal is:

• This funding will be used to support the future of the football club with community-ownership and supporter representation and influence at the highest level.

• If we are unable to invest in the football club, all monies from this campaign are refundable. Monies will be held in escrow by Crowdfunder until we are able to invest the money in the club’s future or return all monies.

No ownership = money refunded.

The initial crowd funding money was used for the running of the club by the administration. There may be a small amount left (less than 30k), but the money being used for investment would be the 672k new crowdfunding effort.
 
What alternative do we have?

If we have no buyer by Christmas, we'll have no money to stay in the Football League, and will follow the same path as Bury and Macclesfield.
 
Wlatic said:
Also to confirm the deal is:

• This funding will be used to support the future of the football club with community-ownership and supporter representation and influence at the highest level.

• If we are unable to invest in the football club, all monies from this campaign are refundable. Monies will be held in escrow by Crowdfunder until we are able to invest the money in the club’s future or return all monies.

No ownership = money refunded.

The initial crowd funding money was used for the running of the club by the administration. There may be a small amount left (less than 30k), but the money being used for investment would be the 672k new crowdfunding effort.
Click to expand...
Investing the money into the club in exchange for a place on the board should fulfil the first bullet point of your post.
Therefore ownership = no money refunded

The admins also said they would refund the money from the first crowd funder from the proceeds of the sale, so lets see if they do and that would make it around the £860k mark to invest in the club from the SC
 
Wlatic said:
Also to confirm the deal is:

• This funding will be used to support the future of the football club with community-ownership and supporter representation and influence at the highest level.

• If we are unable to invest in the football club, all monies from this campaign are refundable. Monies will be held in escrow by Crowdfunder until we are able to invest the money in the club’s future or return all monies.

No ownership = money refunded.

The initial crowd funding money was used for the running of the club by the administration. There may be a small amount left (less than 30k), but the money being used for investment would be the 672k new crowdfunding effort.
Click to expand...

Kenny is right, Krasner has stated that the money from the initial crowdfunding is being treated as a "soft loan" and so long as there is sufficient funds recouped from the sale it will be repaid in full.
 
Kenny Morris said:
Investing the money into the club in exchange for a place on the board should fulfil the first bullet point of your post.
Therefore ownership = no money refunded

The admins also said they would refund the money from the first crowd funder from the proceeds of the sale, so lets see if they do and that would make it around the £860k mark to invest in the club from the SC
Click to expand...

A position on the board isn't ownership and therefore wouldn't fulfil the obligations they have. Board members can be got rid of pretty easily.

Fully agree about the "loan", but then again theyve said quite a few things which they have had to "clarify" and end up meaning something completely different.
 
Wlatic said:
A position on the board isn't ownership and therefore wouldn't fulfil the obligations they have. Board members can be got rid of pretty easily.

Fully agree about the "loan", but then again theyve said quite a few things which they have had to "clarify" and end up meaning something completely different.
Click to expand...

The SC have never said that their plan was for full "ownership" of the club.
They said they wanted to invest in the club in exchange for a seat on the board and a say in the direction the club was taking. i.e. to have some influence.
I believe they had /have a last resort plan of full ownership if there are no better bids agreed, but this is a last resort only. Financing the club going forward is not something the SC club can do realistically.
 
Wlatic said:
A position on the board isn't ownership and therefore wouldn't fulfil the obligations they have. Board members can be got rid of pretty easily.

Fully agree about the "loan", but then again theyve said quite a few things which they have had to "clarify" and end up meaning something completely different.
Click to expand...

I agree that a seat on the board doesn't necessarily equate to ownership, however if they are investing almost £1 million pound into the club I would imagine they would ask for shares to that value. I can't for one moment see them giving that amount of cash for nothing, I doubt that anyone would be that stupid.

I would not be surprised either if any seat on the board offered was given to Jonathon Jackson who for me is the best candidate. He is a long standing Latics man with a lot of experience in the game and would be best suited amongst all the fans to look after our interests.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
I agree that a seat on the board doesn't necessarily equate to ownership, however if they are investing almost £1 million pound into the club I would imagine they would ask for shares to that value. I can't for one moment see them giving that amount of cash for nothing, I doubt that anyone would be that stupid.

I would not be surprised either if any seat on the board offered was given to Jonathon Jackson who for me is the best candidate. He is a long standing Latics man with a lot of experience in the game and would be best suited amongst all the fans to look after our interests.
Click to expand...

No, we want fresh blood. Jackson comes with a dubious history.
 
Nottingham said:
No, we want fresh blood. Jackson comes with a dubious history.
Click to expand...

Not sure that’s fair Notts ....nothing dubious about him in my view.....
Now...that he (along with the Royles) ‘dropped the ball’ or were duped by the HK wide boys is broadly true, however J Jackson is a Latics ‘lifer’ and I expect he was as devastated as anyone at the turn of events and would be desperate for the chance to do anything to contribute towards our recovery
 
moonay said:
o_O

In what way? He failed to predict the attempted murder of a football club in the most unbelievable way possible?

There may be many adjectives that can be attributed to JJ, but I doubt most fans would include "dubious" in that list.
Click to expand...

Dubious, because he was around at the time of all the shenanigans....he must have had suspicions, surely...too much left unexplained...he needs to go, along with the Royles.
 
Zeb2 said:
Not sure that’s fair Notts ....nothing dubious about him in my view.....
Now...that he (along with the Royles) ‘dropped the ball’ or were duped by the HK wide boys is broadly true, however J Jackson is a Latics ‘lifer’ and I expect he was as devastated as anyone at the turn of events and would be desperate for the chance to do anything to contribute towards our recovery
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't share that faith......he must have had an inkling...he's a qualified accountant in the engine room of the club, yet was taken in by a bunch of con men....say no more!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.