Made in Wigan
Vital Champions League
If nandy told me today was tuesday i would have to ask someone else just to make sure
I have the same response whenever I hear our admin speak.
If nandy told me today was tuesday i would have to ask someone else just to make sure
Don't get me wrong, 4% would be ridiculous, but to measure it against the cost of the purchase price only is wrong. That wouldn't be all that the owners would be spending. There'd be running costs also .......for the "up front" 2 year period (whether it lasts that long or not). The total investment (purchase + ongoing) cost should inform any % offered to the SC ..............so :
£3.5m + £5m = £8.5m ................ £850k is 10%. Seems more reasonable than 4%
The segway to the sale of the ground is my hypothesis. It’s on the basis it’ll be the only saleable asset we have left so not a stretch to see the end game here with something that isn’t profitable with owners who are only interested in money.
The bit around the academy is not my hypothesis. Cough up as we won’t fund it in a nutshell. Whether it’s a bluff remains to be seen, however I don’t think I’m breaking any confidence in sharing it and I trust that the source knows it to be accurate. I don’t think you would either. It’s supports previous information on this. I haven’t seen any SC response response refuting it. However refuting something and it actually being not true are two different concepts.
The first paragraph of this post shows it up for what it is,Rumours,and false ones at that and supposition based on concious bias!Absolute poppycock
The segway to the sale of the ground is my hypothesis. It’s on the basis it’ll be the only saleable asset we have left so not a stretch to see the end game here with something that isn’t profitable with owners who are only interested in money.
The bit around the academy is not my hypothesis. Cough up as we won’t fund it in a nutshell. Whether it’s a bluff remains to be seen, however I don’t think I’m breaking any confidence in sharing it and I trust that the source knows it to be accurate. I don’t think you would either. It’s supports previous information on this. I haven’t seen any SC response response refuting it. However refuting something and it actually being not true are two different concepts.
Nandy herself said they have an unsustainable model - she's got nothing to gain by lying.
Are you seriously saying that a £5m investment will keep the club afloat for 2 years? That will be burned through in less than a year unless crowds are allowed back and they come back in numbers well above 10K..
And what happens when the money runs out? As the SC have a 10% stake, then their nominated person on the board would be expected to put in 10% of whatever is needed to fund the shortfall. Its ok raising money through supporter donations when the supporters are not paying for a ST and many are watching via dodgy foreign streams or not at all, but raising significant funds from folk who have shelled out £300 for a ST will prove a lot more challenging.
As someone else has said, how would Nandy know that it was an unsustainable model?? She's not party to the inner workings of the bid & it's proposals.
Whilst I haven't actually seen that quote from her, I'm a bit baffled as to how the model is unsustainable when (of the 3 alleged bids) it's the only one that isn't on about spending fortunes but running the club within its means
This is also the same Lisa Nandy who criticised the preferred bidders because they had proposed some temporary wage cuts. You know in an effort to make the club more sustainable by only paying out salaries that it can afford based on it's current levels???
I'm not saying Lisa Nandy has anything to gain by lying but the things she says, to me, seem an indication that some of the other players have her ear
Love that word....... poppycock
I fail to see your point about owners being only interested in money. How long has Moreno owned Leganes and what makes you think that he will be any different with us ?
Your hypothesis is again based on your assumption that he is without funds and looking to strip the club of any assets left however the evidence of his involvement with Leganes proves the opposite.
I believe you, like others are confusing the fact that Moreno's stated intention is not to invest large amounts of capital into the club but to invest sensibly and to make the club sustainable, with being "potless".
Moreno and his wife have the means to support the club, and more besides, but are choosing to invest the capital needed to sustain the club whilst planning to increase funding in the academy to make the it the basis upon which future profits can be made.
The funding of the academy is the only way that there is any way he can recoup his outlay and any profit. It would be suicidal for him to underfund the academy as that will be the life blood of the club, as it is at his other club Leganes, upon which he is basing his business plan for Wigan Athletic. His philosophy in football is to develop youth and promote them whilst using this to bring money into the club in the form of player sales to maintain the balance in the accounts.
In my opinion it is a strategy that will lead to Wigan Athletic becoming less reliant on investment and loans from its owners and more self sufficient and ultimately to the club being successful and less prone to anything like what has happened this year ever happening again.
Simply if we live within our means and without debt this chapter of our history need never be repeated.
They don’t intend to put anything above the minimal in. Whether they’ve other funds is irrelevant- it isn’t their plan. They will make sweeping staff cuts and will not fund the academy - they will take the grants for it but not invest in it. Sadly this chapter will be repeated as they’ll bail in short order leaving us far worse off than when they bought us.
Not quite sure the highlighted bit will happen ....... the EFL would need to be even more incompetent than we already think they are for that scenario.
Experience of applying for grants (on behalf of local cricket club) from local councils and other funds providers tells me that unless they show evidence of their contribution, then they ain't getting anything for free.
As someone else has said, how would Nandy know that it was an unsustainable model?? She's not party to the inner workings of the bid & it's proposals.
Whilst I haven't actually seen that quote from her, I'm a bit baffled as to how the model is unsustainable when (of the 3 alleged bids) it's the only one that isn't on about spending fortunes but running the club within its means
This is also the same Lisa Nandy who criticised the preferred bidders because they had proposed some temporary wage cuts. You know in an effort to make the club more sustainable by only paying out salaries that it can afford based on it's current levels???
I'm not saying Lisa Nandy has anything to gain by lying but the things she says, to me, seem an indication that some of the other players have her ear
They don’t have to provide money for running costs. They just have to hoodwink the efl that they have the cash. Given they won’t fund the academy and are intent on making sweeping and deep wage cuts, then they won’t be putting in this 5 million. The SC need to retain this money for the battle ahead as they won’t raise it again and using it to prop up these wankers in the short term would be a mistake.
Nandy has been banging the drum for the Supporters Club bid from the start, which is the least sustainable option of them all!
They don’t intend to put anything above the minimal in. Whether they’ve other funds is irrelevant- it isn’t their plan. They will make sweeping staff cuts and will not fund the academy - they will take the grants for it but not invest in it. Sadly this chapter will be repeated as they’ll bail in short order leaving us far worse off than when they bought us.