It wasn't that subtle!He did also remind us of the awfully low promotion percentage over the years as a subtle reminder that we do not get too carried away!
Clearly Financial Fair Play went out of the window a long time ago. With the money they spend on transfers, wages and travelling expenses, they must be running up substantial losses. Gates are up and they probably get a lot of sponsorship, but that can hardly cover all the costs. Are the Hollywood stars willing to bankroll them indefinitely?Talking about being carried away! Wrexham flew to eight away games last season, the only NL team to do so. They clearly operate on a different planet to other lower league teams!
Not sure they will be running up losses.... I read that they were budgetting for turnover this year of up to £20m. By contrast our last accounts said turnover was £5.5m.Clearly Financial Fair Play went out of the window a long time ago. With the money they spend on transfers, wages and travelling expenses, they must be running up substantial losses. Gates are up and they probably get a lot of sponsorship, but that can hardly cover all the costs. Are the Hollywood stars willing to bankroll them indefinitely?
In addition, the environmental impact is huge and the BBC report on this is damning.
Wrexham regularly flew to non-league matches
Wrexham's glamorous pre-season playing Premier League clubs in the US has caught the eye, but BBC Sport found they were also flying to domestic National League fixtures last season.www.bbc.co.uk
Yes, precisely. Because in the medium term at the very least their approach is not sustainable via a conventional business model, which is the point I was making.The resultant losses and the net liabilities incurred to 6/22 are underwritten by the owners, who can easily cover them and who themselves are clearly committed to the long term.
God knows where you’ve imagined I’ve made that assertion.I don't accept your assertion that there is no ethical dimension to the excessive levels of debt and spending in the game, whether at PSG, Man City, Wrexham or anybody else.
It is the clear implication of everything you have argued. Wrexham's level of debt and spending at this level is equivalent to that of PSG or Man City at higher levels. The principles are the same.God knows where you’ve imagined I’ve made that assertion.
I’ll leave you to your stewing.
Yes, so the supporters of any indebted club have to assume their owner is acting in good faith and will be actually be in a position to write-off the debt at some unforeseen point in the future ?The points is, owners’ debt is easily converted to owners’ equity and, in Wrexham’s case, if they need to do that to meet EFL requirements, either current or under any future regulator, I‘m sure they both can and will at the appropriate time. This is not another Southend, Bury, Macc in the making here.
Yes, six million pounds of debt accrued over 27 years, compared to four million pounds of debt accrued in twelve months at Wrexham.As Tranmere used debt to secure two of our seven(?) ever promotions, before PJ graciously agreed to write it off.
I’ve no need imply anything, the principles are as I’ve explained. Significant initial up front investment was/is needed, with paybacks coming later. Those investments are still being made and initial paybacks are apparently starting to come through. But, at this stage in proceedings, the exact mix of financing behind that upfront expenditure between owner debt and owner equity is largely moot.It is the clear implication of everything you have argued. Wrexham's level of debt and spending at this level is equivalent to that of PSG or Man City at higher levels. The principles are the same.
No. Supporters don’t “have to assume“ anything, they can and should scratch the surface.Yes, so the supporters of any indebted club have to assume their owner is acting in good faith and will be actually be in a position to write-off the debt at some unforeseen point in the future ?
Nobody knows the future with absolute certainty - sorry for any confusion. But you don't have to scratch the surface too deep to be able to dismiss comparisons with Ron the Con or a naive San Francisco wannabe who was shown to be out of his depth within weeks (if not days!).How do you know Reynolds or any other club chairman is not another Ron Martin or Bruce Osterman in the making ? Most owners have good intentions when they acquire a club.
I agree. Unlike in the VNL, the boundaries around what is and isn’t “sufficiently strong” are currently defined by the EFL - albeit probably inadequately - and hopefully, in the not too distant, more robustly defined by an independent regulator. I don’t know how well that currently does, or will, align with your idea of “sufficiently strong”. But I’m as sure as I can be (that better?) that neither the EFL or any new requirements brought in by a regulator will pose any significant problems for Wrexham in the foreseeable.My point is that the balance sheet of a club should be sufficiently strong - or at least, not so weak - that the supporters are not dependent on the goodwill of a single individual who may, or may not, be of sufficient wealth and goodwill to meet his commitments.
It’s at least as much a question of industry inflation too. Which, in football’s case, has far exceeded inflation in normal life. The days of a hamper man bankrolling a club to the brink of the EPL, signing a world class striker for whatever the current going rate of £250k is in normal life, for example, are long gone.Yes, six million pounds of debt accrued over 27 years, compared to four million pounds of debt accrued in twelve months at Wrexham.
It is a question of degree.