norm on radio stoke

[stan the man]

He said he would cut the players down to 18 and cut their wages by 30-40 per cent, good incentive for promotion push and of course season tickets sales

[fairportnick]

The accounts say that there is a directors loan , so its come from the director, either directly or indirectly. If it had come from another company it would say so in the accounts and not say directors. If it has come from the commercial company , he would have to withdraw it first and either have to have to have paid any tax due on the withdrawal or taken out cash that he had previously put in. As all the companies are his whats the problem?

[Alkie]

Have I missed something here.

This wouldn't be the first time Smurf has publicly stated that he won't spend a penny more, just before spending some more pennies.

With a current squad of about 33 players, surely it makes sense to trim it down (there's a good few we didn't think were good enough to keep anyway but for some reason they were offered contracts at the end of last season). Looking through the squad, I'd suggest that there's double figures who would only make the first team if an outbreak of some virus was to sweep through the club. So 10 out of 33 players shown the door would leave a squad of about 23 and a sizeable wage reduction. Surely to god Smurf isn't dumb enough to alienate the two things he need most, a) players

B) supporters

 

I'm just wondering if he's using the media to scare some players into accepting a lower wage than they were on previously.

If so, then he is playing a very dangerous game....

[Spunk Trumpet]

Regarding attendances.......

 

Normans constant blaming supporters not turning up is not necessarily true.

I could understand if the club has lost thousands of supporters in recent times but it hasnt.

A breakdown of average attendances since 04-05...........

 

4973

4666

4726

4417

5522

4939

5533

4820

5727

6249

5290

4856 Present season which will improve should we have a real chance of playoffs with 10 games left.

 

So we are actually averaging MORE than 10 years ago in the same division.

 

The 6249 was our first season back in league 1. Wolves and Coventry sold out that season.

In real terms a dip of 1000 supporters is not massive and certainly nowhere near the numbers some think wehave lost.

Normans greatest and only PR he has benefits him. And that is from day 1 he has drummed so called "lost fans" into peoples heads.

He is making fans rewrite our history.

For Port Vale to be getting average crowds of 5000 in league 1 is, historically, correct and decent i honestly believe.

 

Now, as an owner of our club why does he continue to slag off his customer?

Why hasnt a special day against Fleetwood been organised? 20 years on Sunday since the great Everton cup win. Get the players back.

Get Rudgey back.

20 years. 20 quid. Only a 3 quid drop but market it. Fans would love seeing the old players and Rudgey again.

Even if they couldnt get the old players, do SOMETHING!

Do something to get fans in.

Not some half baked half season ticket for nearly 200 quid a month before christmas!!!

 

The potential with the right marketing is there at this club.

Sadly, Norman either hasnt the acumen to achieve this or simply has no intention whatsoever of doing so because he has his own agenda.

And the way he is conducting his business publically to supporters, i know what i think.

[Jacko51]

The accounts say that there is a directors loan , so its come from the director, either directly or indirectly.

 

As Santa has said though, how is he able to loan cash to the club at this level and still stay within the FFP regulations of wages being 60% of turnover?

[robf]

I'm a bit sceptical.

 

Do FFP and Salary Cap rules allow him to put his own money in to cover a shortfall in the wage budget?

 

I'm not sure the rules allow him do it as a gift, let alone as a loan.

 

I actually contacted the Football League about that ruling on the 11th December and they replied as follows:

 

Director loans are not permitted. The Relevant Turnover figure used in the SCMP calculation includes cash invested into the club in the form of equity or donation but does not include money injected into the club through loans. It is, for example, 60% (for League 1) of allowable turnover on a budget/forecast basis. Equity is accepted where it is a pure cash injection into the club. We don’t allow the conversion of loans to equity in any form. I’m afraid we cannot comment on the specific finances of any of our member clubs.

 

So either -

 

1. The Football League person I spoke to is wrong and there is some way that this can be a loan

2. The loans to Vale are not due to meeting shortfalls in wages to add new players (which probably begs the question what were they for)

3. The club were not aware of the FL regulations on Fair Play and have declared them loans when they shouldn't

4. Or perhaps there's some other explanation

[fairportnick]

Why cant loans be converted to equity? Its acceptable business procedure and banks sometimes require it.

[Bea Smith]

On the flip side of that we havent had a decent cup run in years, we have a massive squad and a playing budget far more than V2001 gave topped with probably lower attendances.

 

Many of that 'massive playing squad' took big pay cuts - and unless you can quote accurate figures about budgets in seasons you are (as usual) talking through your -25 rated rear end. No doubt you can explain the exact nature and conditions and terms of the loans involved here too ?

[robf]

Why cant loans be converted to equity? Its acceptable business procedure and banks sometimes require it.

I presume because adding to your squad by adding debt is the antithesis of financial fair play. The FPP is there to restrict club squads to what the club can afford. That's my simplistic view anyhow.

[sunny boslem]

Spunky u have made a very serious allegation regarding smurf putting commercial money into the club as his loans and his so called "masterplan" with them from solutions a lot of fans will read what u wrote I really hope your 100% correct before coming on here acting like I'm in the know because **** like that will drive fans away I already after reading what u put don't trust these solutions and I have never heard of them jacko has said that the owner is a vale fan so why would this masterplan interest them?

[Fosse69]

Smurf "donated" an amount of money to the club within the rules, but as he expects to get all his money back from the buyer of the club, would this not be a "loan" as far as his bank account is concerned?

[fairportnick]

I presume because adding to your squad by adding debt is the antithesis of financial fair play. The FPP is there to restrict club squads to what the club can afford. That's my simplistic view anyhow.

Equity is not debt , that's the point.

[fairportnick]

Smurf "donated" an amount of money to the club within the rules, but as he expects to get all his money back from the buyer of the club, would this not be a "loan" as far as his bank account is concerned?

 

If he's loaned it its not a donation.

[robf]

Equity is not debt , that's the point.

But if the FL don't allow it then that's that isn't it?

 

Whether it is standard practice elsewhere is irrelevant as we have to comply with FL rules that say loans cannot be used under FFP.

[old sage]

I take no pleasure in saying I never warmed to the guy from the off. The whole standing on a bar stool in the local boozer with your tie around your head chanting football songs with the fans routine lasts for about 5 minutes (I believe Massimo Cellini did a similar thing at Leeds as a comparison) before you have to get down to the serious business of running the club.

 

Some lauded him for wearing his heart on his sleeve, I felt he was unprofessional and worse than that patronising and undermining to the very fans who put money through the turnstiles week after week. The whole "I always get my money back" speech on here was cringeworthy along with all the E-Type Jag analogies to prove just what a successful businessman he was. Well football's not like any other business, you can put as much or as little into a club as you desire but when the players cross the white line you have ZERO influence.

 

I have my doubts that he's even worth £80m but of course I could be completely wrong on that one, his Companies House history seems to list one 2-bit business venture after another. Definitely more Ratner than Rockerfeller. I might appear harsh and some will tell me to wind my neck in, but I strongly feel he has been rude and obnoxious at times to the fans (the JFH racism story and his so-called attack were just weird!) and has now thrown his toys out of the pram.

 

I hope for the sake of all Vale fans he doesn't dig his heels in or play silly games, I'd like to see him take a fair price, walk away and forget the last few years have happened, and give someone more stable a chance to move the club forward....

A good and I believe it to be an accurate assessment of the club's present owner.

Sometimes an outsider can see more than people who are close to the club.