RotherhitheGill
Vital 1st Team Regular
I would have thought that just the general running costs (Council Tax and utilities) would be astronomical (have not bothered reading last years accounts, which I guess give an indication).
I don’t see how that would work. The financial fair play rules are specifically tied to turnover that is defined. If there was a clever accounting trick around it, the rules would be pointless.I'm not talking about Scally ploughing money he doesn't have, I'm talking about taking out loans etc from the bank to act as an investment pool, which you then invest in players on the basis that their values will go up. For example, if you invested £1m (all in) on about four players with potential, if one of them moon shots (which isn't unheard of - just ask Peterborough or Brentford) then you make your investment back and then some.
It's significantly more risky than what we do now, but that's only because what we do now has basically zero level of risk whatsoever.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if our credit rating is so far through the floor after the bad old days, that raising this capital in loans etc just plain wouldn't be an option.
The playing budget is what’s left when all our other costs have been taken account of. The budget would have been set by Scally based on an assumption of income. He already knew that a lot of income streams like banqueting are way down the line, so the only unknown would be gate receipts. They’re down by a percentage but not catastrophically so at the moment. There’s nothing to suggest that any ‘black hole’ has opened up in our accounts from what I can see.I would have thought that just the general running costs (Council Tax and utilities) would be astronomical (have not bothered reading last years accounts, which I guess give an indication).
For example, if you invested £1m (all in) on about four players with potential, if one of them moon shots (which isn't unheard of - just ask Peterborough or Brentford) then you make your investment back and then some.
I don’t see how that would work. The financial fair play rules are specifically tied to turnover that is defined. If there was a clever accounting trick around it, the rules would be pointless.
Both Peterborough and Brentford have multi-millionaire owners who could afford to put their hands in their pockets if the initial £1million investment bought dud players. And this is true with any cycle of investment that they do,.
On the other hand if Gillingham borrowed the money that then we'd only need to invest badly once to completely screw over the club.
We just go round and round in circles.
Some of the fans want Scally out.
Scally clearly wants out.
So they are pretty much in agreement.
Some of the fans criticise Scally for not ploughing money into the club that he doesn’t have.
Scally openly admits that he doesn’t have the money and he’s taken it as far as he can.
Some of the fans want Scally to sell.
Scally clearly wants to sell.
The only disagreement appears to be that some of the fans seem to think that he should give the club away.
Scally wants a return on 26 years of work.
I’d quite like him to front out the protesters and ask them to make him an offer.
Do you know something we don’t? Are the accounts wrong?
A bit harsh Chipteck. As someone who has regularly gone to the Gills since 1966 in spite of living outside Kent I can't help feeling f### the lical population. They don't deserve a league team. Where were these people in 1995?
Where were these people when.Scally was doing well and we didn't fill the ground in our Championship seasons. I was thrilled to be there. 75 mile round trips for the matches and the locals didn't bother. F### off.
Fair enough Harrow. Funnily enough, at a Gills v Millwall game about 5 years ago, my son (born in Millwall territory) and I were sat next to a Millwall fan who lived in Rainham. A neat swap.Probably because many amongst the local population 'White Flight' migrants from South London, and have no time for Gillingham, because they probably feel they have no attachment to the area or club. It seemed obvious to me when I was passing through Chatham to take my son to the Crewe Alexandra game that there were quite a few locals on Chatham High Street wearing Charlton and Millwall shirts, and that's before you see the usual Arsenal/Chelsea/Spurs/West Ham and your Liverpools/Man Yoos etc.
All true except your last three sentences.
1and 2. He doesn't need to give it away. However having been searching for investment for varying time it would be nice if he reduced his valuation to enable someone with more resources than him to take the baton on. Perhaps he's asking too much. I'd like £5M for my house but perhaps thats why its unsold.
3. That's as likely to be as successful as Evans asking someone from the Rainham end to play upfront tonight. Although if things get worse that might happen.
All we can ask now is for scally to be realistic to facilitate a sale.
I wonder whether Tracey Crouch's plans may persuade Scally and others to accept more realistic valuations. It could mark the end of chairmen cutting out fans altogether and from selling grounds without their agreement.
I wonder whether Tracey Crouch's plans may persuade Scally and others to accept more realistic valuations. It could mark the end of chairmen cutting out fans altogether and from selling grounds without their agreement.
Sadly, I share your cynicism. I hope we are wrong.Tracey Crouch's review will end up being nothing more than a way of trying to win over a few extra voters by being seen to be on the fan's side but will ultimately be toothless and the football pyramid will ultimately reject any findings.
Sadly, I share your cynicism. I hope we are wrong.
I only heard the headlines from the review. From what I understood, her proposals do not address the fundamental governance problems in football. The problems are that clubs are spending money that they don’t have.