|
|
Post by bringbackelmo on Sept 14, 2015 23:06:46 GMT
If this is the secret model, then I'm sure the benevestors can find enough money to pay the Spanish player I tried to get the club to look at. And find him a job locally in the financial sector too. And let's not talk about "the budget" any more. Let's talk about the "public budget" and the "secret budget." If we've got an undesirable club structure, let's at least use it to get promoted. Jeez I've been on holiday for ten days, I come back and find you still haven't let this one go. You need a hobby old boy. |
|
|
|
Post by Fownhope Bull on Sept 15, 2015 6:13:13 GMT
And this here's the rub...
After watching HUFC die, in large part due to overwhelming debts, and HFC rise from the ashes, the general consensus was, 'we must live well within our means'
But what happens when the season doesn't pan out as many had expected - the p***ing of a tin pot league doesn't materialise?
It doesn't matter what league you're in, when results don't go your way the response is to throw money at it - pundits on 5 Live this evening were adamant that Chelsea needed to get in some quality signings to sort the problem out.
Clearly our crowds are way above expectation and, for the money players are on at this level, we should be able to afford both - I suspect Jamer's release was for footballing reasons and his new job suggests this was not a sudden decision. But even so, at what point do fans hold their hands up and say, 'we go with what we've got'? Or do we keep spending money regardless? Obviously you don't "spend money regardless." You protect your core income - the attendances - by making sure they want to keep coming back. On here, it seems you either have to be in favour of crazy spending or a poor match day experience. Madness.Not at all. But at what point does sensible spending become crazy? We had some defenders - they weren't brilliant but we won some games and lost some others. The fans cried that this wasn't good enough so we went and got the Captain of the form team in the league and have now signed Ryan Green. If we lose two of the next four matches, what then? Do we carry on spending or accept the situation? I'm not providing an answer, just a question. |
|
|
|
Post by Villier on Sept 15, 2015 6:33:33 GMT
It's not really any of my business, but is everyone comfortable with individuals paying players rather than the club? It just seems a bit strange. Edit - obviously, I only ask as Bullrush has suggested that it may be the case. I am in no way suggesting this to be a fact. As long as they guarantee the whole contract then fine by me. I didn't mind Keyte running the club beyond its means until he stopped funding the gap. That was his business until that moment. We once had a guy who left some money to the club specifically to buy an electronic scoreboard. Not much difference is there? Personally I'd rather a couple of strikers. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmeadowender on Sept 15, 2015 7:15:43 GMT
If this is the secret model, then I'm sure the benevestors can find enough money to pay the Spanish player I tried to get the club to look at. And find him a job locally in the financial sector too. And let's not talk about "the budget" any more. Let's talk about the "public budget" and the "secret budget." If we've got an undesirable club structure, let's at least use it to get promoted. Tell us a bit more about Juan the man, and why, in your opinion, he would fit in to the local "financial sector" - you never know who might be reading this tonight He has a business degree from Madrid, he came here last year to learn English, he has an excellent conscientious character and would be a superb member of any team - in a bank, accounts department or football team. |
|
|
|
Post by oldmeadowender on Sept 15, 2015 7:16:59 GMT
If this is the secret model, then I'm sure the benevestors can find enough money to pay the Spanish player I tried to get the club to look at. And find him a job locally in the financial sector too. And let's not talk about "the budget" any more. Let's talk about the "public budget" and the "secret budget." If we've got an undesirable club structure, let's at least use it to get promoted. Jeez I've been on holiday for ten days, I come back and find you still haven't let this one go. You need a hobby old boy. I've got a hobby. Football. Just as well someone didn't let it go about the defence, old boy. Two great signings have resulted from people not letting that one go. Hope you enjoyed your holiday - deserter. (LOL) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 8:21:41 GMT
So weve only got a rumour about a third party paying for the two best players weve got IMHO and some people are not happy!! Jeez.
If its a bennyfactor then we know they are genuine fans of the club (well Roberts, Ellis and Blandford, don't really know Donaldson) so I doubt they are doing anything wrong. Plus it means we are running on less money from the club coffers so whats not to like?
However its only a rumour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 8:25:50 GMT
Tell us a bit more about Juan the man, and why, in your opinion, he would fit in to the local "financial sector" - you never know who might be reading this tonight He has a business degree from Madrid, he came here last year to learn English, he has an excellent conscientious character and would be a superb member of any team - in a bank, accounts department or football team. Are you shagging him or what? |
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 15, 2015 9:11:00 GMT
It's not really any of my business, but is everyone comfortable with individuals paying players rather than the club? It just seems a bit strange. Edit - obviously, I only ask as Bullrush has suggested that it may be the case. I am in no way suggesting this to be a fact. If it's all legal and above board (which I'm sure it is) then no problem here. As long as the integrity of the club is not put at risk. It's an FA rule specific to semi-professional clubs regarding payments to contract and non-contract players.
Google will find you the pdf that refers too it.
FA Rules
FA Rules C 1 (b), C1 (c) and C2 (b) require that:
all payments to a player are made by the Club and fully recorded in the accounting records
of the Club;
all salaried payments to a player must be subject to PAYE and NI. This includes weekly
wages, performance bonuses (win, points, goals scored etc, share of prize money), loyalty
bonuses and signing on fees;
[/I] [/p] |
|
|
|
Post by Barney still in B-Block on Sept 15, 2015 9:19:25 GMT
He may or may not be Andrew Munsley, but I'm pretty sure MW wouldn't let players be paid against FA regs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Sept 15, 2015 9:29:04 GMT
He may or may not be Andrew Munsley, but I'm pretty sure MW wouldn't let players be paid against FA regs. Indeed. Most likely that a form of sponsorship is coming in to The Club to cover the cost of the wages being paid by The Club. |
|
|
|
Post by bazbodenham on Sept 15, 2015 9:29:39 GMT
Why has this been brought up at all?  ? FFS stop digging at everything HFC and enjoy the f**king football! |
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Sept 15, 2015 9:37:52 GMT
He may or may not be Andrew Munsley, but I'm pretty sure MW wouldn't let players be paid against FA regs. Indeed. Most likely that a form of sponsorship is coming in to The Club to cover the cost of the wages being paid by The Club. Like a strength and conditioning business at rotherwas, or a local sausage seller, or maybe munsley himself ? |
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Sept 15, 2015 9:48:29 GMT
Why has this been brought up at all? ? FFS stop digging at everything HFC and enjoy the f**king football! We've lost one version of the club already. It would be a pity not to learn from our mistakes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 9:50:42 GMT
Plus it means we are running on less money from the club coffers so whats not to like? However its only a rumour. The apparent lack of faith it displays in the business model we were all told was right for the club by those who were doing the telling? If Mills and Heysham are outside the budget this year, how will we finance strikers next? I accept that it is only a rumour and the responses we are seeing acknowledge that. If true, I can understand the concern from a supporter base that has recently seen their club die partly because the gentleman holding the purse strings decided to pull them tight again. I thought we all agreed we wanted sensible, sustainable spending? As others have said, at this level we should be able to afford a competitive squad without going cap in hand to the "foundation shareholders". What if they say no next time? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 10:01:22 GMT
Just do what you're f**king told and support the boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peroni on Sept 15, 2015 10:02:32 GMT
Plus it means we are running on less money from the club coffers so whats not to like? However its only a rumour. The apparent lack of faith it displays in the business model we were all told was right for the club by those who were doing the telling? If Mills and Heysham are outside the budget this year, how will we finance strikers next? I accept that it is only a rumour and the responses we are seeing acknowledge that. If true, I can understand the concern from a supporter base that has recently seen their club die partly because the gentleman holding the purse strings decided to pull them tight again. I thought we all agreed we wanted sensible, sustainable spending? As others have said, at this level we should be able to afford a competitive squad without going cap in hand to the "foundation shareholders". What if they say no next time?We'll just put it into maintenance mode, and start again PS If they are paying for some fireworks, I would imagine its a calculated investment to hopefully aid promotion to a more sensible level and ensure the club achieves a more appropriate level of football, where the finance will still sustain it, and a bonus gesture might achieve more. Isnt it like treating yourself with the shopping, the normal budget gets you the weekly aldi, and then your mum gives you a tenner, and look out its waitrose sausages, knowing full well its back to own brand sausages next Friday, but that's okay because that what I should be eating, but I still enjoyed the sausages, because mummy doesn't want anything back.
|
|
|
|
Post by BullRush on Sept 15, 2015 10:02:49 GMT
He may or may not be Andrew Munsley, but I'm pretty sure MW wouldn't let players be paid against FA regs. Indeed. Most likely that a form of sponsorship is coming in to The Club to cover the cost of the wages being paid by The Club. I think that is what is most likely the case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 10:08:03 GMT
Indeed. Most likely that a form of sponsorship is coming in to The Club to cover the cost of the wages being paid by The Club. I think that is what is most likely the case. Yes it probably is. THREAD CLOSED. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2015 10:07:46 GMT
It's not really any of my business, but is everyone comfortable with individuals paying players rather than the club? It just seems a bit strange. Edit - obviously, I only ask as Bullrush has suggested that it may be the case. I am in no way suggesting this to be a fact. As long as they guarantee the whole contract then fine by me. I didn't mind Keyte running the club beyond its means until he stopped funding the gap. That was his business until that moment. We once had a guy who left some money to the club specifically to buy an electronic scoreboard. Not much difference is there? Personally I'd rather a couple of strikers. Yes, it's pretty clear that nobody cared about Keyte giving the club money until he decided to stop and try to claw it all back. It was very much "it's his money and he's helping the club. Just be grateful ffs!" I would suggest that the fans do not allow the new club to be in that situation. |
|
|
|
Post by bazbodenham on Sept 15, 2015 10:18:23 GMT
It's a pity this site only has a "like" button.
|
|
?
