Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

rncfc wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 9:35 pm

rncfc wrote: November 6th, 2023, 8:46 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 5:23 pm

rncfc wrote: November 6th, 2023, 3:55 pm

Chepstow'sFine wrote: November 5th, 2023, 6:19 pm

Are you 12? We're in League Two in the EFL. They're in the National League which is a league below us. Regardless of their form I think they might just about be bothered about playing us at home. I imagine it'll be close too but to suggest they'd be slight favourites at the bookies is beyond mental.

Not really sure what the first sentence has to do with the rest, but the point I'm making is it's not an easy game at all. They'll fancy their chances.

But as has been said elsewhere, it's as good an opportunity to progress as we could have hoped for.

All eggs in this basket for me, one win and a bit of luck and we could find ourselves being bailed out by the cups again.

We weren't bailed out by the cup runs, they provided money for the club to spend.

Likewise when HJ talks about an investment of £500k, in terms of signing players with two years contracts for experienced players who can make a difference, that's only 2 or 3 permanent signings.....

Of course we were bailed out by it. We were perennial relegation candidates before the cup runs, and promotion contenders after them.

Where are we in the league now the cup money is gone?

Without those cup runs we'd already be non league again. To suggest otherwise is fanciful.

To bail something out you have to be taking on water, we were not in debt. The cup money was not used to pay back money that had already been spent, it was used to try to attract better players, which it did. The club were still at the bottom spending wise though, and have always punched above their weight.

If you don't think continually hovering around the bottom and finishing in 22nd place constitutes "taking on water", then I'm not sure what planet you're living on.

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

rncfc wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 9:35 pm

rncfc wrote: November 6th, 2023, 8:46 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 5:23 pm

rncfc wrote: November 6th, 2023, 3:55 pm

Not really sure what the first sentence has to do with the rest, but the point I'm making is it's not an easy game at all. They'll fancy their chances.

But as has been said elsewhere, it's as good an opportunity to progress as we could have hoped for.

All eggs in this basket for me, one win and a bit of luck and we could find ourselves being bailed out by the cups again.

We weren't bailed out by the cup runs, they provided money for the club to spend.

Likewise when HJ talks about an investment of £500k, in terms of signing players with two years contracts for experienced players who can make a difference, that's only 2 or 3 permanent signings.....

Of course we were bailed out by it. We were perennial relegation candidates before the cup runs, and promotion contenders after them.

Where are we in the league now the cup money is gone?

Without those cup runs we'd already be non league again. To suggest otherwise is fanciful.

To bail something out you have to be taking on water, we were not in debt. The cup money was not used to pay back money that had already been spent, it was used to try to attract better players, which it did. The club were still at the bottom spending wise though, and have always punched above their weight.

If you don't think continually hovering around the bottom and finishing in 22nd place constitutes "taking on water", then I'm not sure what planet you're living on.

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

rncfc wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 9:35 pm

rncfc wrote: November 6th, 2023, 8:46 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 5:23 pm

We weren't bailed out by the cup runs, they provided money for the club to spend.

Likewise when HJ talks about an investment of £500k, in terms of signing players with two years contracts for experienced players who can make a difference, that's only 2 or 3 permanent signings.....

Of course we were bailed out by it. We were perennial relegation candidates before the cup runs, and promotion contenders after them.

Where are we in the league now the cup money is gone?

Without those cup runs we'd already be non league again. To suggest otherwise is fanciful.

To bail something out you have to be taking on water, we were not in debt. The cup money was not used to pay back money that had already been spent, it was used to try to attract better players, which it did. The club were still at the bottom spending wise though, and have always punched above their weight.

If you don't think continually hovering around the bottom and finishing in 22nd place constitutes "taking on water", then I'm not sure what planet you're living on.

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

rncfc wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 9:35 pm

rncfc wrote: November 6th, 2023, 8:46 pm

Of course we were bailed out by it. We were perennial relegation candidates before the cup runs, and promotion contenders after them.

Where are we in the league now the cup money is gone?

Without those cup runs we'd already be non league again. To suggest otherwise is fanciful.

To bail something out you have to be taking on water, we were not in debt. The cup money was not used to pay back money that had already been spent, it was used to try to attract better players, which it did. The club were still at the bottom spending wise though, and have always punched above their weight.

If you don't think continually hovering around the bottom and finishing in 22nd place constitutes "taking on water", then I'm not sure what planet you're living on.

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

rncfc wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:11 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 6th, 2023, 9:35 pm

To bail something out you have to be taking on water, we were not in debt. The cup money was not used to pay back money that had already been spent, it was used to try to attract better players, which it did. The club were still at the bottom spending wise though, and have always punched above their weight.

If you don't think continually hovering around the bottom and finishing in 22nd place constitutes "taking on water", then I'm not sure what planet you're living on.

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

rncfc wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:11 am

If you don't think continually hovering around the bottom and finishing in 22nd place constitutes "taking on water", then I'm not sure what planet you're living on.

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

Taunton Iron Cider wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

Let’s not worry about the past, but focus on the future as our Club is now barely operating. How many games recently have gone without match sponsors, how many times has hospitality failed to operate, and we barely had any adverts for the Oldham game, indeed none were showing above the Compeed?
If this takeover should fall at the last fence, then the current lack of commercial activity is certain to hasten the Club’s demise.

wattsville_boy wrote: November 9th, 2023, 10:22 pm Let me put forward a theory. Perhaps during the negotiations for HJ taking over the Trust were told to only take sponsorships, hospitality etc up until when the decision was due. And the sponsorship packages, hospitality etc won't recommence until HJ is deemed a "fit and proper person". Why? Well it'll all help to pay off his initial investment while he makes the changes required to take the club forward.

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 9:52 am

I guess that all comes back to whether or not you believe the line about a structural deficit. If you do then it clearly needed to be bailed out in some form, if you don;t then it didn't.

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

Amberexile wrote: November 10th, 2023, 9:19 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 10:22 am

The structural deficit was about spending money to have more cup/league success. But as time goes on the opposition financial status changes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to put out a competitive side.

8 years ago, financially most teams were middle of the road. As GC said this season, there are 15 teams that are financially aloof from the rest. That affects availability of L2 players for us, and thus players who have baggage of some sort become those in our price range. We have always had to give opportunity to younger players from higher status teams, to see if they sink or swim, or sometimes shine. That's nothing new, but the experienced players alongside them should help them. If those experienced players are also finding their feet, it is more of a problem. We simply don't have the money to secure the experienced players that can provide a backbone of consistency.

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

We were in debt. The cup money was more than the debt. It bailed us out of that debt and gave us a surplus to cover future losses.

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 10th, 2023, 10:29 am

Amberexile wrote: November 10th, 2023, 9:19 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:28 pm

It doesn't mater what the structural deficit was about. If it existed, it would eventually need filling.

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

We were in debt. The cup money was more than the debt. It bailed us out of that debt and gave us a surplus to cover future losses.

In the 2016 accounts is a note relating to profit and loss
2014-15 operating loss of £677k
2015-16 operating profit of £340k

The reason for the £1million turnaround was the sale of Regan Poole and Aaron Collins and sell on fees related to Connor Washington's transfer to QPR. That exceptional windfall income totalled £723k, so greater that our opperating loss the previous year.

It was management policy set up by the Les Scadding board which was the basis of the trust run clubs sustainability. It was the former Academy Manager Flynn, who decided that the supply of talent was not going to sustain the club, and then given free reign for a different approach.

Amberexile wrote: November 10th, 2023, 11:57 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 10th, 2023, 10:29 am

Amberexile wrote: November 10th, 2023, 9:19 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 2:38 pm

Which it was via the cup money, but that doesn't last forever, and with no recent cup run or player sales, the future structural deficit has to be met by the then, or future owners, or decide not to run with one.

I don't remember a single person indicating that their preferred option would be for the trust not to run with a structural deficit by seasons end...........

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

We were in debt. The cup money was more than the debt. It bailed us out of that debt and gave us a surplus to cover future losses.

In the 2016 accounts is a note relating to profit and loss
2014-15 operating loss of £677k
2015-16 operating profit of £340k

The reason for the £1million turnaround was the sale of Regan Poole and Aaron Collins and sell on fees related to Connor Washington's transfer to QPR. That exceptional windfall income totalled £723k, so greater that our opperating loss the previous year.

It was management policy set up by the Les Scadding board which was the basis of the trust run clubs sustainability. It was the former Academy Manager Flynn, who decided that the supply of talent was not going to sustain the club, and then given free reign for a different approach.

I agree we were bailed out initially by transfers and later by cup runs and without both of which we'd be right in the shite.

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 10th, 2023, 12:12 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 10th, 2023, 11:57 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 10th, 2023, 10:29 am

Amberexile wrote: November 10th, 2023, 9:19 am

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 7:22 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 6:39 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 9th, 2023, 2:26 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 9th, 2023, 1:29 pm

Bangitintrnet wrote: November 7th, 2023, 4:57 pm

Amberexile wrote: November 7th, 2023, 3:34 pm

Hence we were bailed out by the cup runs i,e. that is how the structural deficit was filled.

It's a choice that the trust made to try and get more income. Now, today, its an enforced change, due to the other clubs spending ability. If you choose to do something to build up cash, it's simply a management decision.

The key thing is that the owners made the decision for the trust, when it was evident that there would be a structural deficit at the end of the season that couldn't be met. It was not the case that existing debt was the driver as has been continually suggested. The proof is in the fact we are not in court battling for survival, a full six months on from those telling us that the club were liars, and we were in debt.

Whether that is true or not, it still says that the finances were bailed out by the cup runs. You may remember us having a negative balance sheet in each of 2016, 2017 and 2018 which then needed bailing out. The cup runs did that and more before who knows what happened in 2022 because nobody has been able to or willing to tell us.

Let's put it this way, the directors of the club realised that the club could not go up automatically, as we didn't have the finances to compete. Flynn had shown that he could run the team in a way that might not be successful over a full season, but over 10 games could treat each as a cup game.

Now I know you don't think that Padraig Amond signed late in the window due to co opted directors underwriting his contract, but to me that was the gamble that the club had to take. It was a management policy decision and they left everything up to Flynn.

Obviously that worked very successfully to start with, but hit the buffers in Covid. We know we lost money as did all clubs, but what we didn't have, that other clubs have, is backers that will absorb losses. Its clear that those losses happened before the 2022 accounts, but weren't shown. As the accounts passed through a number of professionals, that is more **** up than anything else.
There is no beneficiary in these situations, so blaming serves no purpose. The simple fact is that by gambling on a cup mentality that the club needed to progress via the playoffs, brought with it cup success and money. That's a change in management style that delivered, and then ultimately failed to deliver and replace the rapidly dwindling pot.

When GC states in the Argus that he doesn't have a strong enough squad to compete in the league and the cup, you understand why. He is stating the clubs priority is purely the league, and we all understand why.

Lots of words that equate to the cup runs bailed out the club

If you believe that the club shouldn't ever run a deficit by the end of the season, as you seem to do, then we would be playing non league football.

If we were in substantial debt before the cup runs then we wouldn't have made any money, as then the cup money would have paid off the debt. That is bailing out, but we made lots of money, simple as.....................

We were in debt. The cup money was more than the debt. It bailed us out of that debt and gave us a surplus to cover future losses.

In the 2016 accounts is a note relating to profit and loss
2014-15 operating loss of £677k
2015-16 operating profit of £340k

The reason for the £1million turnaround was the sale of Regan Poole and Aaron Collins and sell on fees related to Connor Washington's transfer to QPR. That exceptional windfall income totalled £723k, so greater that our opperating loss the previous year.

It was management policy set up by the Les Scadding board which was the basis of the trust run clubs sustainability. It was the former Academy Manager Flynn, who decided that the supply of talent was not going to sustain the club, and then given free reign for a different approach.

I agree we were bailed out initially by transfers and later by cup runs and without both of which we'd be right in the shite.

Both were management decisions........

Your appraisal of management decisions is probably why I don't think that the trust can step up to the plate when HJ moves on, or be equal partners...........

As HJ himself said, "I know Newport in general is known for its negativity, I believe I can change that"