Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Can't NOT sign players on the basis that they *might* get injured though, can we ? Anyway, doesn't seem to have been a factor in the Turi and Dodd signings.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Worrying lack of scrutiny at Brighton and Hove Albion
- Thread starter Brighton Breezy
- Start date
Bromley shrimp
New member
Tom Hark said:
Relegation we can and will have to accept. It's the "going down to the Third without a whimper" which grates and is so alien.
Father Jack
New member
- Aug 21, 2005
- 1,708
Well said Richie
attila
1997 Club
Rochdale, I most certainly didn't 'chair Bellotti round the North Stand' (whatever that means) and saw through Stanley
after that Concorde meeting - as we all did. The point now is that I choose to trust DK and co, believe they are doing their best, and am sure that the people we should be really going for now are LDC.They are the enemy, the new Archer/Bellotti/Stanley if you like. People are perfectly entitled to think differently
of course - I don't think disunity among our fans is a good idea, but if that's what people want, it's their prerogative...
after that Concorde meeting - as we all did. The point now is that I choose to trust DK and co, believe they are doing their best, and am sure that the people we should be really going for now are LDC.They are the enemy, the new Archer/Bellotti/Stanley if you like. People are perfectly entitled to think differently
of course - I don't think disunity among our fans is a good idea, but if that's what people want, it's their prerogative...
Lord Bracknell said:
There was a statement put out many eons ago that the cost of Planning Permission and the Public Inquiry was being met not by the running costs of the football club, but by outside funds.
i.e. there was no need to sell players etc. to fund this cost. There might still be a need to sell players to cover the operating costs on the football side.
Thats was what I heard and I did not make it upI expect it came from DKs mouth.
Has anything changed?
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
perseus said:
I think that one passed everyone by. Certainly the club will have budgeted for the planning permission costs seperately to the playing budget - but that isn't the same as what you are suggesting
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Black Country Seagull said:
I know the "Withdean conspiracy of silence" gag was subtle, but I didn't expect to snare anyone with it.
Gilliver's Travels
Peripatetic
It's just occurred to me what a reasonable and measured debate this has turned out to be. Not enough threads on NSC are like this any more.
Have to say, it's always funny to see our more volatile "fans" demanding that board members inject whatever money they may possess into the club, as if this was some sort of unquestionable, immovable obligation. Those same "fans", of course, would wish to limit their own financial exposure to the price of fortnightly admission to the stadium.
"My £500 a year entitles me to demand that you, Mr Director, throw everything you've ever earned into this club."
Have to say, it's always funny to see our more volatile "fans" demanding that board members inject whatever money they may possess into the club, as if this was some sort of unquestionable, immovable obligation. Those same "fans", of course, would wish to limit their own financial exposure to the price of fortnightly admission to the stadium.
"My £500 a year entitles me to demand that you, Mr Director, throw everything you've ever earned into this club."
What I asked before, was:
1) is the gate money we pay and the merchandise income etc. going entirely for the operation of the football and entertainment side of things.
2) and the separately budgeted Planning costs coming out of the pockets of the Directors (and included in the final cost of the stadium).
I understood it was, then.
Costs of escalated since then.
The implication is that the sale of Currie, Virgo, Zamaro etc. is going to offset the operating losses, which are probably about a £1 million a year (wild guess). Could be more?
i.e. the black hole is staying at Withdean?
I don't know. The Accounts will show but they are always a year plus behind.
1) is the gate money we pay and the merchandise income etc. going entirely for the operation of the football and entertainment side of things.
2) and the separately budgeted Planning costs coming out of the pockets of the Directors (and included in the final cost of the stadium).
I understood it was, then.
Costs of escalated since then.
The implication is that the sale of Currie, Virgo, Zamaro etc. is going to offset the operating losses, which are probably about a £1 million a year (wild guess). Could be more?
i.e. the black hole is staying at Withdean?
I don't know. The Accounts will show but they are always a year plus behind.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
It was undoubtedly the case - three years ago - that there was a budget for "getting the planning permission".
But we've overspent that budget by a considerable amount - mainly because of the costs of the second Inquiry, which required the Club to commit vast sums of money to employing planning, environmental and transport consultants (and others) to complete a detailed analysis of why every single one of eight or so "alternative sites" wouldn't work. The conclusions reached were exactly the same that had been reached more cheaply at the earlier stage in the process, when the sequential site analysis had concluded that Falmer was the only site.
But it cost hundreds of thousands of pounds more - because Lewes District Council, the Regency Society and others persisted with their fallacious arguments that other sites were possible.
Now we have the costs of preparing for the Judicial Review to bear as well.
At the end of the day, the preparatory costs can be recouped from the loans that will be brought in to pay for the construction costs. But - at the moment - we are screwed by cashflow difficulties.
And those cashflow challenges are biting into the gate money and constraining any plans the Club might wish to have to buy our advancement up to mid-table in the Championship.
The Board have had no choice - however much sympathy they might have with the view expressed by THPP that survival in the Championship would be a good investment.
But we've overspent that budget by a considerable amount - mainly because of the costs of the second Inquiry, which required the Club to commit vast sums of money to employing planning, environmental and transport consultants (and others) to complete a detailed analysis of why every single one of eight or so "alternative sites" wouldn't work. The conclusions reached were exactly the same that had been reached more cheaply at the earlier stage in the process, when the sequential site analysis had concluded that Falmer was the only site.
But it cost hundreds of thousands of pounds more - because Lewes District Council, the Regency Society and others persisted with their fallacious arguments that other sites were possible.
Now we have the costs of preparing for the Judicial Review to bear as well.
At the end of the day, the preparatory costs can be recouped from the loans that will be brought in to pay for the construction costs. But - at the moment - we are screwed by cashflow difficulties.
And those cashflow challenges are biting into the gate money and constraining any plans the Club might wish to have to buy our advancement up to mid-table in the Championship.
The Board have had no choice - however much sympathy they might have with the view expressed by THPP that survival in the Championship would be a good investment.
So, Lord B, what you seem to be saying is that all the stories about the money not being available (despite what various club spokesmen have said to the contrary) is true?
In that case, is it also true that they deliberately made offers for players that they knew weren't going to be accepted, just so they could announce that they'd made a bid but been turned down?
Do I detect the hand of someone well used to placing stories to maximum effect - someone with the initials of D and K?
In that case, is it also true that they deliberately made offers for players that they knew weren't going to be accepted, just so they could announce that they'd made a bid but been turned down?
Do I detect the hand of someone well used to placing stories to maximum effect - someone with the initials of D and K?
Lord Bracknell
On fire
Not at all.Jim D said:
The fact that there's a cashflow problem doesn't mean that no money can be found for the playing budget.
All it means is that the Club can't suddenly find resources for extra spending over and above that.
Something I would like to scrutinise if I was a member of the Board, what was the full story behind the signings of Paul Kitson and Argie Turienzo?
First time is a mistake (or a calculated risk*), second time is a bad error, the third duff we sign I would want to ask questions.
I suspect agents were selling duffs and somebody fell for the speel
As we haven't signed anybody, it doesn't matter.
(*Molango was that?)
Not every signing is success, perhaps just one in three, but Kitson was spectacularly useless (worst player ever to wear the Albion shirt since 1961 since I first watched them).
First time is a mistake (or a calculated risk*), second time is a bad error, the third duff we sign I would want to ask questions.
I suspect agents were selling duffs and somebody fell for the speel
As we haven't signed anybody, it doesn't matter.
(*Molango was that?)
Not every signing is success, perhaps just one in three, but Kitson was spectacularly useless (worst player ever to wear the Albion shirt since 1961 since I first watched them).
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
attila said:
You were still trusting Stanley right up to the last minute even when everyone else wanted to lynch the wanker, so having made one monumental error of judgement what is to say you haven't made another one with the present chairman ?
Bromley shrimp
New member
Lord Bracknell said:
Not having a go, but this response coupled with your previous one stating that the board have sympathy with THPP's (whoever he is) view that investment to keep us up would be a good idea, to me raises more questions than it answers.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
What are you insinuating that Dick Knight is up to then Ernest ?
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Easy 10 said:
I'm not insuating anything about Dick Tight, we'll leave that to Saturday.
perseus said:
Really good argument this. Kitson may have got injured and turned out [in hindsight] to be a crock, but was he not EXACTLY the kind of experienced forward that you same people have been demanding we get in recently.
