Smurf Tweet

[BobIng21]

I'm disappointed to hear that we're potentially losing money. But let's put it in some perspective here. Norm putting £1m into the club this season doesn't mean the club is losing £1m. Far from it, as Smurf has sanctioned several projects to improve the stadium and the infrastructure of the club. Following Admin, the club would have had **** all in the bank, and someone would have needed to stick some cash in to give it some cashflow. Following what we heard about PW, I'm guessing Norm was the man to do that.

 

I'm sure he has has to stick a fair bit of money during the 1st 12 months. 99% of businesses that are acquired need immediate investment, and football clubs probably need it more than most. I'm glad to hear he's not going to put money in forever, as that is just a ridiculous and unsustainable business model. A club needs to live within its means which is what I hope we are heading towards. I don't want to be in a race every season for 'worst financial performance' with some of the idiotic clubs out there in our league (Brentford, Rotherham, Crawley). Scaremongering because the chairman has put some money in over the 1st 12 months is strange. Even stranger, the chairman started it!

 

I totally agree with this. As ever with Vale fans - perspective is required. We've come such a long way in such a short space of time that there are always going to be associated costs. We should sit back, be patient and trust in Mr Smurthwaite to turn things around. He's made mistakes and will make many more but let him get on with the job.

 

In all honesty was anybody seriously expecting that we would be competitive in League One AND turning a profit just two years since taking us out administration? If they were they are living in cloud cookoo land. This isn't Football Manager - it's not that simple.

 

Perspective & patience.

[Fosse69]

We can only spend 60% of turnover/income on players, but are spending more than 40% on other things. Norman is making up the difference.

Putting some figures to that as an example, and ignoring one off costs like the pitch and shop(£500k). A forecast turnover of £4M gave a player budget of £2.4M (60%), whereas if the actual turnover at the end of the season was only £3M (just an example) the player budget would be £1.8M (60%), thus an overspend of £600k. As the season progresses it is only sensible to review achievement, indeed the FL can impose a transfer embargo where clubs are overspending on players if their forecast was too ambitious. Lets us hope for a good cup run, and commercial improvements as the business is overhauled, but that does not happen overnight,

[robf]

I was under the impression that football club owners weren't allowed to bankroll their clubs any more under the financial fair play rules?

 

You can do. The Brentford owner does this which is why their player budget is so much bigger.

 

See this article here and the phrase "Matthew agrees with the board annually how much he is willing to inject"...

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/brentford-grateful-for-owners-15m-investment-8472303.html

[robf]

The Dev squad (the production line) costing 300k a year = its got to average a sale worth that much every year to break even....not a chance!!! Would be better off networking with prem clubs and utterlising their tallent imo

 

I don't think it needs a sale necessarily, but it's whether it can bring through quality players into the first-team to replace current players but on cheaper wages.

 

So, let's say for example Hughes (so I'm led to believe) is probably one of our highest earners. I would imagine Hugill, if given a professional deal, would not be one of the top earners, at least initially.

 

If Hugill comes through to eventually replace him then the club will have saved the difference in Hugill's and Hughes' salaries.

 

So, if the club were saving £2/3k a week (a guess but perhaps possible) through replacing Hughes with Hugill that alone would equate to a saving of around £150,000 per year.

 

So, I would say that roughly, it needs two players to come through and replace current squad members to pay back its outlay.

[melv]

Well done Smurthwaite. I do wish the miserable sods who claim they know something we don't know would stop trying I cause upset. People do wallow in misery and it indeed loves company!

 

He's been nothing less than honest and I'm sure like any sensible businessman he will want to reduce overheads, hopefully we will be able to do this sensibly without damaging the clubs ongoing success.

 

 

Who has claimed they know what????

[robf]

I'm disappointed to hear that we're potentially losing money. But let's put it in some perspective here. Norm putting £1m into the club this season doesn't mean the club is losing £1m. Far from it, as Smurf has sanctioned several projects to improve the stadium and the infrastructure of the club. Following Admin, the club would have had **** all in the bank, and someone would have needed to stick some cash in to give it some cashflow. Following what we heard about PW, I'm guessing Norm was the man to do that.

 

I'm sure he has has to stick a fair bit of money during the 1st 12 months. 99% of businesses that are acquired need immediate investment, and football clubs probably need it more than most. I'm glad to hear he's not going to put money in forever, as that is just a ridiculous and unsustainable business model. A club needs to live within its means which is what I hope we are heading towards. I don't want to be in a race every season for 'worst financial performance' with some of the idiotic clubs out there in our league (Brentford, Rotherham, Crawley). Scaremongering because the chairman has put some money in over the 1st 12 months is strange. Even stranger, the chairman started it!

 

I would totally agree with the statement. If it's one-off costs on things that needed doing and that will benefit the club in the long-term, rather than the club losing money and it having to be put in to offset the loss then that is laudable and commendable.

 

I would imagine it's somewhere in between - some of the money has been for the pitch, the cashless system, the initial work on the Lorne St etc while perhaps some of it has been because the attendances don't match NS's predictions and he wanted to keep the squad together and not have to sell someone off.

 

But I would personally question (again) the merit of being on Twitter and trying to explain this through Twitter. Due to its character limit, only the bare basics can be given out and thus I don't think it's easy to convey the full picture. I still think it's best for a club owner to not be on Twitter and just let the official club Twitter account inform fans of press releases, news and so on.

[cheshirevaliant]

Stupers sums up my views on this pretty well. Without the full facts to hand, his view seems the most logical one, as NS is unlikely to continue to prop up a company that is likely to make the sort of losses being stated on this thread.

[Eddie Hitler]

So you want to blame the person that has single handedly rescued us and pushed us on and is currently bank rolling the club.

 

If I was him I would be dismayed with getting abuse for helping the club in no other way financially than anyone I can remember has.

 

I hardly think it's likely that he's going to put more money in to pay for more staff such as CEO's when the current staff aren't doing their jobs. I keep hearing wonders about people like Chris Shaw but obviously he isn't all that and don't get me started on those incompetent idiots in the club shop. It's time he had a massive overhaul of the commercial and sales team, reducing costs and finding better people who can generate an income and work meticulously to do so on reasonable wages.

 

He paid for a debt-free business with sizeable assets and he's now bleating about the gates being too low.

 

He should have sorted out his admin team 12 months ago.

 

My only question is whether all of his money is in the form of loans and if so we could be ****ed. Ask him, I dare you.

[Eddie Hitler]

Stupers sums up my views on this pretty well. Without the full facts to hand, his view seems the most logical one, as NS is unlikely to continue to prop up a company that is likely to make the sort of losses being stated on this thread.

 

"Prop up." Christ, he's only had it for 12 months!

[Bells_Biscuit_Tin]

I don't think it needs a sale necessarily, but it's whether it can bring through quality players into the first-team to replace current players but on cheaper wages.

 

So, let's say for example Hughes (so I'm led to believe) is probably one of our highest earners. I would imagine Hugill, if given a professional deal, would not be one of the top earners, at least initially.

 

If Hugill comes through to eventually replace him then the club will have saved the difference in Hugill's and Hughes' salaries.

 

So, if the club were saving £2/3k a week (a guess but perhaps possible) through replacing Hughes with Hugill that alone would equate to a saving of around £150,000 per year.

 

So, I would say that roughly, it needs two players to come through and replace current squad members to pay back its outlay.

 

Yeah I get that and in theory that would work providing the development squad were replacing the yearly bench warmers (Taylor, Dodds, shuker) as there wage would be higher than a dev squad player. But if were still handing contracts out to these types of players AND still paying the same for the development squad then this is a real drain on resources

[stupers]

You can do. The Brentford owner does this which is why their player budget is so much bigger.

 

See this article here and the phrase "Matthew agrees with the board annually how much he is willing to inject"...

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/brentford-grateful-for-owners-15m-investment-8472303.html

 

Rob, I would assume he's only bankrolling it at this stage because he knows he can turn the club into a decent investment if he can get them into the Championship and into a new ground. If the new ground doesn't happen, I can only imagine the cash dries up when he sees that he's just pumping money into a black hole. Would you assume the same?

[stupers]

I would totally agree with the statement. If it's one-off costs on things that needed doing and that will benefit the club in the long-term, rather than the club losing money and it having to be put in to offset the loss then that is laudable and commendable.

 

I would imagine it's somewhere in between - some of the money has been for the pitch, the cashless system, the initial work on the Lorne St etc while perhaps some of it has been because the attendances don't match NS's predictions and he wanted to keep the squad together and not have to sell someone off.

 

But I would personally question (again) the merit of being on Twitter and trying to explain this through Twitter. Due to its character limit, only the bare basics can be given out and thus I don't think it's easy to convey the full picture. I still think it's best for a club owner to not be on Twitter and just let the official club Twitter account inform fans of press releases, news and so on.

 

Rob, I agree with that. Norm doesn't help himself by going on Twitter and trying to explain himself in 140 characters. If he's truly interested in explaining the situation, he'd be better writing a statement then posting a link on twitter.

 

As for the some of the comments on this thread about scrapping the development squad and spending it on the 1st team or just scrapping it and saving the money, well it's absolutely ridiculous. The development squad has already bore fruit this season (Hugill and more to come I would assume). People are saying we should bring our own players through. I am sure we are trying to do that (Johnson being one) but this takes time after years of under-funding. Due to us also being the catchment area for several Premier League teams and Crwho, I would imagine that recruiting to our youth system is tough work as well so we already have our hands tied behind our back with the youth system before we start.

 

The development squad bridges the gap between the youth system at our club, and players from other clubs who have been let go for one reason or another. It is vital we start making use of the young players that sometimes slip through the net, to see if we can acquire any rough diamonds that develop late on. To get rid of this after one season because it costs the suggested £300k per season is ludicrous. If we have those players as back up to first team players, then we save on having some journeymen on the squad list that are just turning up for the cash. I'd rather have 10 lads who are willing to work hard to achieve their dream, than having 3 lads on £100k a year who don't add anything to the squad and might not be any better than what we have in the development.

 

The short-termist approach of some people on here is what got the club into the almighty trouble we've found ourselves in for several years. Act now, think about the consequences later. I appreciate what Norm has done for this club and I appreciate he has put in his own money to try and sort it. His PR could be better, but he obviously doesn't think that bringing a CEO in would be worth it (You'd be paying £100k+ for that, shall we take that out of the player budget?) What Norm is hopefully trying to do is establish the foundations for a successful club in the long-term but some people jump all over him and think they know best. Let him get on with it and we'll break even and eventually turn a profit.

[Woakesy]

I don't for one second believe that Smurf, a non footballing man and not a Vale supporter (prior to owning the club) would put in millions of his own money out of the goodness of his heart. Anyone who thinks so is deluded.

 

Smurf obviously believes he will get an investment on his money, one way or another. Either way I can't understand how we can be losing the money quoted. Gates are decent, match day takings on beer etc must be phenomenal judging by the amount I see being drunk. Add the shop & commercial activities and it shouldn't be too difficult to balance the books. 95% of the normal outlay must be on wages and Smurf has control over who signs and what they get paid, so if the Vale are losing money hand over fist then I know who Smurf should be looking at.

[robf]

Rob, I would assume he's only bankrolling it at this stage because he knows he can turn the club into a decent investment if he can get them into the Championship and into a new ground. If the new ground doesn't happen, I can only imagine the cash dries up when he sees that he's just pumping money into a black hole. Would you assume the same?

 

Definitely - it's a dodgy thing to do. If anything goes wrong (he loses his fortune for instance) then the club are into admin. I'd far rather have a sustainable system.

[cheshirevaliant]

"Prop up." Christ, he's only had it for 12 months!

 

EH, you may be right with your cynicism. If Smurthwaite was to leave, where do we go then? Do you believe there would be a huge queue of people wanting to put in an equivalent amount of money to NS, whilst achieving the success he has done? I suspect 2 who would be interested, Messrs Bratt and Chaudry, would not want to/do not have that sort of money.