Alan Pace

[NewClaret]

Not sure about that.
I’ve seen The Green Mile, Bronson and McVicar and it was full of criminals who had not filed their confirmation statements. The ones in Green Mile were really really late of course.

Brilliant

[ClaretPete001]

I suppose there could theoretically be real question marks legally then in terms of the 90mill overseas investment. Surely this is something that would get scrutinised by the powers that be after the City shenanigans.

As CP alludes my scepticism relates to whether it is new money that can be used by the football club to alleviate debt or invest in playing assets as opposed to whether it exists or to suggest there is anything untoward about it.

[Mixedkompany]

Thanks to Chester and CPete for their insightful analysis of our complex corporate governance.
He may be a nice guy but I am concerned about his legacy and where we go when he takes his money and disappears.

[ClaretPete001]

Kompany who’s sitting top of the Bundesliga

Ancelloti had hundreds of millions to spend at Everton and is generally regarded as the best manager currently in the game and yet he did less well at Everton than Sam Allardyce. It's horses for courses.

24 points in 38 games in the PL does not even match Owen Coyle/Brian Laws. And they didn't spend over a Eur100 million to boot.

[louieollie]

clueless

You may well be but the topic is Alan Pace.

[TPClaret]

Ancelloti had hundreds of millions to spend at Everton and is generally regarded as the best manager currently in the game and yet he did less well at Everton than Sam Allardyce. It's horses for courses.

24 points in 38 games in the PL does not even match Owen Coyle/Brian Laws. And they didn't spend over a Eur100 million to boot.

Premier league has moved on ten fold from the Coyle/Laws days. £100 million is a drop in the ocean compared to what other clubs spend.

[ClaretPete001]

Premier league has moved on ten fold from the Coyle/Laws days. £100 million is a drop in the ocean compared to what other clubs spend.

It isn't, I think it was the 11th biggest spend that season along with Villa. The top 6 spend silly money but most other clubs don't...!

Luton didn't spend as much as us and got more points. Also Coyle went up with a squad that came 5th in the Championship and let's be honest played out of their skins to achieve that.

24 points was a very poor return in the PL. The squad was much better than that and I think Vincent Kompany has now become synonymous with manager's who put their own agendas before the interests of their club. I did notice his name was mentioned by a number of pundits when Southampton sacked their manager recently.

So, it's not just one or two on here that are saying it.

[NewClaret]

Premier league has moved on ten fold from the Coyle/Laws days. £100 million is a drop in the ocean compared to what other clubs spend.

£100m is just about the bare minimum I’d say you need to spend to give yourself half a chance of staying up, such has the gulf become.

Could we have spent it better? Yes.

Was it spent pretty well given our ability to sell a number of players signed at a substantial profit and more very high value assets still on the books? Yes.

I think we need to get over talking of the spend like it’s a huge amount. All three of the promoted clubs spent similar or more in Ipswich’s case, this summer and all equally struggling.

If we get up I’d expect us to spend more this time.

[NewClaret]

It isn't, I think it was the 11th biggest spend that season along with Villa. The top 6 spend silly money but most other clubs don't...!

Luton didn't spend as much as us and got more points. Also Coyle went up with a squad that came 5th in the Championship and let's be honest played out of their skins to achieve that.

24 points was a very poor return in the PL. The squad was much better than that and I think Vincent Kompany has now become synonymous with manager's who put their own agendas before the interests of their club. I did notice his name was mentioned by a number of pundits when Southampton sacked their manager recently.

So, it's not just one or two on here that are saying it.

I think you need to look at what promoted clubs spent this season if you’re going to provide an objective view Pete. And also 5 year views of spend by premier league clubs because clearly any promoted team is playing substantial catch up.

I also think Luton are an extremely poor example of a team to use for a convincing argument of a better approach when they got relegated anyway, had no real assets to sell/profit from on relegation and are now in free fall.

But besides those points, we really need to get over Kompany. It’s so mind numbingly boring keeping talking about him.

We’re second in the league, a point off top, we’ve just beaten the B*stards, we have a great young manager in Parker, a young team with the best defensive record in Europe, character ang growing football IQ… and we’re still talking about Kompany!

He gave us a great season and a **** season. It’s no more complex than that. He’s not the first manager to take us up and get relegated. He won’t be the last.

Like a number of our previous managers, Kompany will go on to have a good career. Possibly much better than them, who knows? But we need to move on because he is but the smallest of chapters in our great history.

[ClaretPete001]

£100m is just about the bare minimum I’d say you need to spend to give yourself half a chance of staying up, such has the gulf become.

Could we have spent it better? Yes.

Was it spent pretty well given our ability to sell a number of players signed at a substantial profit and more very high value assets still on the books? Yes.

I think we need to get over talking of the spend like it’s a huge amount. All three of the promoted clubs spent similar or more in Ipswich’s case, this summer and all equally struggling.

If we get up I’d expect us to spend more this time.

Some things are a matter of opinion and some are fact. Owen Coyle/Brian Laws gained 30 points in the PL. The latter is regarded as one of the worst manager's in the club's history. The team they had scraped into the PL via the play offs after a number of years in the Championship.

The question was it spent well is a matter of opinion. You could say we sold what we could at a profit but it's less clear whether we will sell other costly playing assets at a profit - we just don't know.

I think it unlikely we will spend the same again this summer unless we can sell those costly assets at a profit or at least not a loss.

Jury's out but I still think Owen Coyle/Brian Laws 30 points represented a better performance in the PL than VK achieved.

VK is an elite manager not right for us - in my opinion.

[ClaretPete001]

£100m is just about the bare minimum I’d say you need to spend to give yourself half a chance of staying up, such has the gulf become.

Could we have spent it better? Yes.

Was it spent pretty well given our ability to sell a number of players signed at a substantial profit and more very high value assets still on the books? Yes.

I think we need to get over talking of the spend like it’s a huge amount. All three of the promoted clubs spent similar or more in Ipswich’s case, this summer and all equally struggling.

If we get up I’d expect us to spend more this time.

I don't talk about Kompany unless someone mentions him. History will judge him as it will ALK.

Let's see, my feeling is that his season in the PL will be judged to have been one of self-indulgence and as I say above he is oft quoted as an example of someone who dogmatically pursued a principle at the expense of results.

But yes - VK is yesterday's news and I am enjoying seeing the team progress under SP.

[Walt]

£100m is just about the bare minimum I’d say you need to spend to give yourself half a chance of staying up, such has the gulf become.

Could we have spent it better? Yes.

Was it spent pretty well given our ability to sell a number of players signed at a substantial profit and more very high value assets still on the books? Yes.

I think we need to get over talking of the spend like it’s a huge amount. All three of the promoted clubs spent similar or more in Ipswich’s case, this summer and all equally struggling.

If we get up I’d expect us to spend more this time.

100m is an eye-watering amount for us though. We didn't have it to spend, we borrowed it against the club's assets.

[ecc]

To make a judgement upon someone, based upon a TV show and a couple of interviews without reference to the financial shenanigans at the club is silly. History will judge ALK but the business model, which he cited to to buy the club is dead. And to anyone with an IQ in double figures it was palpable nonsense anyway.

I am uncertain as to the reality of the £80/90 million investment from overseas. I am sceptical about it and therefore base most of this on an assumption that the finances are those in the last set of published accounts. Saying that I do not cast doubt upon CPs assertion rather I want to see something more solid as to the nature of it.

The one thing that has saved ALK is the financial legacy left by the previous board and the huge financial gulf between the PL and the Championship. It has meant we have been able to operate on a wholly different business model to other Championship clubs and for that reason ALK are still in the game.

That said, the appointment of Parker was an astute one and the team looks set fair to battle it out for the top two spots, which will give us another chance to re-construct the finances.

But ALK cannot be as reckless and incompetent as they have been so far. The financial advantage offered by the PL is in ever decreasing circles as the incredible debt free financial legacy left by the last board is replaced by significant debt.

As well as resolving an over bloated 35 man or so squad including over Eur50 million worth of talent that barely plays whether by injury, because they are not good enough or simply because ...well not even Alan Pace seems to know either has to deliver on the pitch or be sold without significant loss.

To put it into context the value of our injury/not good enough/can't be @rsed/on loan list was more expensive to purchase than Rovers' whole squad.

It's a very significant challenge but the generously proportioned lady is far from singing - I think that is about as fair as I can call it.

Hi ClaretPete001,

Re the later part of your post:

"As well as resolving an over bloated 35 man or so squad including over Eur50 million worth of talent that barely plays whether by injury, because they are not good enough or simply because ...well not even Alan Pace seems to know either has to deliver on the pitch or be sold without significant loss.

To put it into context the value of our injury/not good enough/can't be @rsed/on loan list was more expensive to purchase than Rovers' whole squad."

At the risk of being lynched virtually, I do think some (many?) posters forget the difference between the cost of our squad and all the Championship clubs bar DL and, to a lesser extent, Sheffield United.

I don't have the financial knowledge to begin to form an opinion about Alan Pace/ALK. The number of Clarets who DO understand financial statements and who are "concerned" about our club's finances does worry me. However, there seem to be so few clubs who have been "well run" for a long period. The English game is financially sick in both senses of the term i.e. "sick" in the PL with the free market anything goes attitude and then "sick" in the EFL where virtually every club is in debt and dependent on loans from higher-placed clubs and/or clever recruitment from lower-league/non-league clubs or from abroad.

Right now, we have a sensible manager/coach who is proving he can develop players. Scott Parker is a genuine coach in this sense. We have to hope we get promoted because what's the point of playing otherwise? However, it means going back to the madness of the PL. It just might work with Parker at the helm IF he's allowed to recruit who he wants but that's a big IF.

[ClaretPete001]

Hi ClaretPete001,

Re the later part of your post:

"As well as resolving an over bloated 35 man or so squad including over Eur50 million worth of talent that barely plays whether by injury, because they are not good enough or simply because ...well not even Alan Pace seems to know either has to deliver on the pitch or be sold without significant loss.

To put it into context the value of our injury/not good enough/can't be @rsed/on loan list was more expensive to purchase than Rovers' whole squad."

At the risk of being lynched virtually, I do think some (many?) posters forget the difference between the cost of our squad and all the Championship clubs bar DL and, to a lesser extent, Sheffield United.

I don't have the financial knowledge to begin to form an opinion about Alan Pace/ALK. The number of Clarets who DO understand financial statements and who are "concerned" about our club's finances does worry me. However, there seem to be so few clubs who have been "well run" for a long period. The English game is financially sick in both senses of the term i.e. "sick" in the PL with the free market anything goes attitude and then "sick" in the EFL where virtually every club is in debt and dependent on loans from higher-placed clubs and/or clever recruitment from lower-league/non-league clubs or from abroad.

Right now, we have a sensible manager/coach who is proving he can develop players. Scott Parker is a genuine coach in this sense. We have to hope we get promoted because what's the point of playing otherwise? However, it means going back to the madness of the PL. It just might work with Parker at the helm IF he's allowed to recruit who he wants but that's a big IF.

I agree. Football finances are a big problem probably only solved by a breakaway of the top 6 or 8. We need to go up this season not doing so would cause another fire sale and reduce our ability to compete in this division.

On the upside, Parker is a more pragmatic coach and we have an excellent defensive base of players the club owns, which will mean a lot in the PL.

In many ways, I am far more optimistic with Parker as the head coach than VK albeit like everyone else it can ebb and flow based upon the 0-0 draws and our lack of a genuine centre forward.

Unlike others, I think if we go up we are far better placed this time than last when we had a base of ageing PL players and loanees.

[Goliath]

I agree. Football finances are a big problem probably only solved by a breakaway of the top 6 or 8. We need to go up this season not doing so would cause another fire sale and reduce our ability to compete in this division.

On the upside, Parker is a more pragmatic coach and we have an excellent defensive base of players the club owns, which will mean a lot in the PL.

In many ways, I am far more optimistic with Parker as the head coach than VK albeit like everyone else it can ebb and flow based upon the 0-0 draws and our lack of a genuine centre forward.

Unlike others, I think if we go up we are far better placed this time than last when we had a base of ageing PL players and loanees.

Another fire sale?
Apart from the obvious in Trafford, Esteve and Tresor then I doubt it and that's only because none of them would want another year at this level. Who else do we really have to sell?

How much did we bring in this summer in loan fees and transfer fees (presumably not all upfront). Approximately 108 mill based of the below approximates. Plus parachute payment of about 40 mill I think, feel free to correct me on that and an approx 6m merit payment as well so in total about 150 million. There must also have been a huge reduction in the wage bill this season even compared to 2 seasons ago.

Berge 25m
Amdouni - loan fee (2m)
Weghorst - 5m
Kompany - 10m
Vitinho - 7m
O'Shea - 12m
JBG - 2m
Al Dakhil - 7m
Odobert - 30m
Muric - 8 mill

[NewClaret]

100m is an eye-watering amount for us though. We didn't have it to spend, we borrowed it against the club's assets.

I’m not sure we even did that as I don’t think we have any assets. We certainly don’t have £100m worth.

But there was simply no other choice if we wanted to have a ‘shot’ at survival.

We sold £70m of talent on relegation, but also lost Mee and Tarks for free (probably another ~£40-50m of talent if someone wanted to buy those players in the open market at the time).

So we’d lost £100m+ of talent to begin with, before even considering the loss of Pieters, Lowton, etc and the players with a lot of premier league experience even if they were approaching the end of their careers.

We’ve done the same again this year with another £100m of sales not counting Amdouni at another £20m when his option is triggered, so we’ll need to spend the same just to stand still if we go up again.

Whether £100m is a lot to us is somewhat irrelevant. It’s a huge amount to Leicester, Southampton and Ipswich too, but they all spent similar or more this summer. If we want to dine at the top table you have to be prepared to pay the bill.

In the end it’s a good investment because we have made big profits on players bought that summer. That’s why we went for young players we felt confident we could sell on over experienced/older players we weren’t sure we could.

[Spijed]

I’m not sure we even did that as I don’t think we have any assets. We certainly don’t have £100m worth.

But there was simply no other choice if we wanted to have a ‘shot’ at survival.

We sold £70m of talent on relegation, but also lost Mee and Tarks for free (probably another ~£40-50m of talent if someone wanted to buy those players in the open market at the time).

So we’d lost £100m+ of talent to begin with, before even considering the loss of Pieters, Lowton, etc and the players with a lot of premier league experience even if they were approaching the end of their careers.

We’ve done the same again this year with another £100m of sales not counting Amdouni at another £20m when his option is triggered, so we’ll need to spend the same just to stand still if we go up again.

Whether £100m is a lot to us is somewhat irrelevant. It’s a huge amount to Leicester, Southampton and Ipswich too, but they all spent similar or more this summer. If we want to dine at the top table you have to be prepared to pay the bill.

In the end it’s a good investment because we have made big profits on players bought that summer. That’s why we went for young players we felt confident we could sell on over experienced/older players we weren’t sure we could.

How many lower league players are in the first team at Ipswich?

[Walt]

I’m not sure we even did that as I don’t think we have any assets. We certainly don’t have £100m worth.

But there was simply no other choice if we wanted to have a ‘shot’ at survival.

We sold £70m of talent on relegation, but also lost Mee and Tarks for free (probably another ~£40-50m of talent if someone wanted to buy those players in the open market at the time).

So we’d lost £100m+ of talent to begin with, before even considering the loss of Pieters, Lowton, etc and the players with a lot of premier league experience even if they were approaching the end of their careers.

We’ve done the same again this year with another £100m of sales not counting Amdouni at another £20m when his option is triggered, so we’ll need to spend the same just to stand still if we go up again.

Whether £100m is a lot to us is somewhat irrelevant. It’s a huge amount to Leicester, Southampton and Ipswich too, but they all spent similar or more this summer. If we want to dine at the top table you have to be prepared to pay the bill.

In the end it’s a good investment because we have made big profits on players bought that summer. That’s why we went for young players we felt confident we could sell on over experienced/older players we weren’t sure we could.

Aren't Turf Moor and Gawthorpe the assets?

The clubs you've mentioned have wealthy owners and presumably don't have loans like ours. Not loans that could cripple them very swiftly if things dont go well. I'd consider it relevant.

I accept we got good returns on players but it only takes a few bum deals and we're staring down the barrel. Spending 100m is a far riskier strategy compared to the aforementioned clubs in my view.

The we have to spend to dine at the top table is a mindset that has got many clubs into trouble. A mindset that is a big problem in the game, with clubs throughout the leagues not managing finances and expectations accordingly. Of course a bigger spend is going to give us a greater chance of survival but as we saw last season it's far from a given.

Leeds, for instance, tried that and spent 16 years out of the Premier League as a consequence of spending beyond their means. Fine, if it all works out. Doesn't sit comfortably with me though, guess it depends whether you're speculate to accumulate, or risk averse.

[Cooclaret]

Kompany who’s sitting top of the Bundesliga

And?

[LincsWoldsClaret]

How many lower league players are in the first team at Ipswich?

5

[ClaretPete001]

Another fire sale?
Apart from the obvious in Trafford, Esteve and Tresor then I doubt it and that's only because none of them would want another year at this level. Who else do we really have to sell?

How much did we bring in this summer in loan fees and transfer fees (presumably not all upfront). Approximately 108 mill based of the below approximates. Plus parachute payment of about 40 mill I think, feel free to correct me on that and an approx 6m merit payment as well so in total about 150 million. There must also have been a huge reduction in the wage bill this season even compared to 2 seasons ago.

Berge 25m
Amdouni - loan fee (2m)
Weghorst - 5m
Kompany - 10m
Vitinho - 7m
O'Shea - 12m
JBG - 2m
Al Dakhil - 7m
Odobert - 30m
Muric - 8 mill

Transfermarket quotes the figures at Eur107 million received and Eur53 million spent, which is around £48 million received. The last set of accounts had our creditors at around £230 million.

It's impossible to know the current financial situation. All I can say is that I had interminable argument on the same subject with posters including accountants and NewClaret (who is marvellous but somewhat overly optimistic in my view) and in the event the club seemingly sold whoever they could.

I think the same would apply this season because without PL parachute payments the clubs turnover would fall below £20 million and the wage structure likely fall to something less than £15 million.

So, I would guess the squad would be trimmed one way or another from 35 or so to around 24 and anyone on a decent contract likely to expire after 25/26 would be up for sale.

The organic revenue generated by the club is so small it would risk ALKs investment entirely if they took too big a risk on season 2 after relegation.

[ClaretPete001]

I’m not sure we even did that as I don’t think we have any assets. We certainly don’t have £100m worth.

But there was simply no other choice if we wanted to have a ‘shot’ at survival.

We sold £70m of talent on relegation, but also lost Mee and Tarks for free (probably another ~£40-50m of talent if someone wanted to buy those players in the open market at the time).

So we’d lost £100m+ of talent to begin with, before even considering the loss of Pieters, Lowton, etc and the players with a lot of premier league experience even if they were approaching the end of their careers.

We’ve done the same again this year with another £100m of sales not counting Amdouni at another £20m when his option is triggered, so we’ll need to spend the same just to stand still if we go up again.

Whether £100m is a lot to us is somewhat irrelevant. It’s a huge amount to Leicester, Southampton and Ipswich too, but they all spent similar or more this summer. If we want to dine at the top table you have to be prepared to pay the bill.

In the end it’s a good investment because we have made big profits on players bought that summer. That’s why we went for young players we felt confident we could sell on over experienced/older players we weren’t sure we could.

I think the 100m was partially secured on future PL revenues and playing assets but it's got so opaque it's getting harder to track it all.

It is debatable whether it was a good investment because we got 24 points in the PL and have more than half of it is not playing regularly.

[Goliath]

Transfermarket quotes the figures at Eur107 million received and Eur53 million spent, which is around £48 million received. The last set of accounts had our creditors at around £230 million.

It's impossible to know the current financial situation. All I can say is that I had interminable argument on the same subject with posters including accountants and NewClaret (who is marvellous but somewhat overly optimistic in my view) and in the event the club seemingly sold whoever they could.

I think the same would apply this season because without PL parachute payments the clubs turnover would fall below £20 million and the wage structure likely fall to something less than £15 million.

So, I would guess the squad would be trimmed one way or another from 35 or so to around 24 and anyone on a decent contract likely to expire after 25/26 would be up for sale.

The organic revenue generated by the club is so small it would risk ALKs investment entirely if they took too big a risk on season 2 after relegation.

Wouldn't it be our last season with parachute payments? If so then it'd be basically the last chance for us to take a risk really.
It worries me slightly that our recent business has been so heavily weighted towards experienced players with little sell on value as we are now.getting to the point where we don't have many assets left to sell for big money after the 3 I mentioned above are gone.

[ClaretPete001]

Aren't Turf Moor and Gawthorpe the assets?

The clubs you've mentioned have wealthy owners and presumably don't have loans like ours. Not loans that could cripple them very swiftly if things dont go well. I'd consider it relevant.

I accept we got good returns on players but it only takes a few bum deals and we're staring down the barrel. Spending 100m is a far riskier strategy compared to the aforementioned clubs in my view.

The we have to spend to dine at the top table is a mindset that has got many clubs into trouble. A mindset that is a big problem in the game, with clubs throughout the leagues not managing finances and expectations accordingly. Of course a bigger spend is going to give us a greater chance of survival but as we saw last season it's far from a given.

Leeds, for instance, tried that and spent 16 years out of the Premier League as a consequence of spending beyond their means. Fine, if it all works out. Doesn't sit comfortably with me though, guess it depends whether you're speculate to accumulate, or risk averse.

Good points - you put the Walt into NewClaret's Disney.

Apologies NewClaret, like Flemming I couldn't resist nodding in the cross.

[ClaretPete001]

Wouldn't it be our last season with parachute payments? If so then it'd be basically the last chance for us to take a risk really.
It worries me slightly that our recent business has been so heavily weighted towards experienced players with little sell on value as we are now.getting to the point where we don't have many assets left to sell for big money after the 3 I mentioned above are gone.

It would be our last season with parachute money but you are taking a huge risk if you finish the end of that season with 35 or so players on the books hoping they are all going to be bought at good prices in one summer.

Best for all concerned if SP and the boys get the job done.

[NewClaret]

How many lower league players are in the first team at Ipswich?

I’m not sure of your point? There’s a few that have gone up with them but Ipswich made massive changes to their squad in summer, spent more than we did on promotion and (critically, I think) up to 5m more on a couple of individual players.

[TPClaret]

And?

And what?

[ClaretPete001]

I’m not sure of your point? There’s a few that have gone up with them but Ipswich made massive changes to their squad in summer, spent more than we did on promotion and (critically, I think) up to 5m more on a couple of individual players.

Ipswich are not a fair comparison because they were not an established PL club.

I don't think Southampton and Leicester have net spends as high as we had and to be fair Southampton have just sacked their manager who was cited by a number of pundits as having the same issue as VK.

[NewClaret]

Ipswich are not a fair comparison because they were not an established PL club.

I don't think Southampton and Leicester have net spends as high as we had and to be fair Southampton have just sacked their manager who was cited by a number of pundits as having the same issue as VK.

It’s definitely true that Ipswich needed to spend more than the others as they’d never been in the premier league before or had any players that had played at that level. They spent €126m.

But I see no difference whatsoever to us on promotion and them. I see them as the perfect comparator actually because we completely cleared out in that summer after relegation. We were at ground zero, as were they. The fact we were previously an established premier league club is irrelevant because of said clear out of staff who made us a premier league club.

I think we had 15 or so established premier league players leave for £70m (only 4 drawing a fee!!) and a similar amount in for £20m, none of which had played at that level - nor have gone on to.

So we went up with pretty much zero premier league experience - Browny, Charlie and Jay, the latter who didn’t feature much - in the whole squad.

It was as close to the Ipswich scenario as you’ll get, bar they spent more both in total and individually.

Leicester spent €80m, so less than us, but they’d manage to hang on to a a core-ish of players in the CB’s, CM and Vardy who were experienced premier league players.

Southampton spent €117m, so more than us again.

What it boils down to, in my view, is you can’t sell all your premier league talent on relegation and then not replace it on promotion and expect to be anywhere near competitive. Or, in Ipswich’s case, since they had none to begin with, they had to go even harder than the others to catch up. I don’t really even see how it’s a topic for discussion, it’s just common sense?

Three professional football clubs took that approach this year so you have to ask, with all their collective resources and football knowledge and data, would they all do the same if it weren’t necessary? Yet none really look competitive.

The outcome of this season remains to be seen, but there’s every chance all three will end up being unsuccessful with similar or greater spends to us. Southampton are looking like spending more and delivering less. I honestly think it’s getting to the point you’ll need a £200m spend just to compete.

I am not saying a team couldn’t fluke it with a different approach. Luton were a way off in the end and looking at them in free fall now it makes me think even if they’d performed a miracle it’d only have secured another season, which is kind of not what I’d like us to achieve.

So in summary, I think if we are promoted you have to expect that kind of spend if the aim is to survive. Or we could just take the Luton approach and not bother. I wouldn’t be dead set against this as if it cleared all our debts and made all the fiscally nervous fans feel more content. Genuinely - it would achieve something in my view, even if it meant watching a worse season than the one just gone. You could then have another ‘yo’ at it with a strengthened balance sheet. But you also have to look at Luton as an example of how that can otherwise turn out.

P.S. I’m still not entirely convinced our ‘group’ finances are as bad as the ‘club’ accounts reflect but since we don’t and will never know the true picture, I shan’t attempt to Disneyfy that particular debate.

[Big Vinny K]

Not sure we have the resources or type of investors to throw another £130m on the team.
What the last few years have shown with the new owners is that whilst some people point to AP’s financial experience and background what has invariably happened is a lot of short termism.

Taking advances on tv money and also doing the same on a number of our player sales. Factoring debt like this is probably the most expensive way of raising finance. When you add this to the kind of interest rates we are paying on our loans (significantly higher than other companies of this size would pay in the normal commercial lending world) then it does not paint a picture to me of owners with deep pockets or with a medium or long term strategy either.

I’m not at the extreme of some who think we will be in big trouble if we do not go up this season. But if we do not go up by the time the parachute payments finish then I think we will go the way of many other so called “yo-yo” clubs. And history shows us that could also mean spending time in division one.

I don’t think we have the right custodians of the club right now. But for me the last 15 years or so have been a totally unexpected period of success. We have been very fortunate when you look at other clubs who are much bigger than us traditionally and have had nowhere near the amount of success as us. As well as the fantastic experiences this has given us as supporters we also have a legacy in the training ground which will last for decades to come. If we have to spend a number of years outside of the EPL it’s just back to the normality for us a club of our size and lack of resources. No biggie for me personally as long as the club ends up with good owners after the current owners eventually leave (which they 100% will)

[ClaretPete001]

It’s definitely true that Ipswich needed to spend more than the others as they’d never been in the premier league before or had any players that had played at that level. They spent €126m.

But I see no difference whatsoever to us on promotion and them. I see them as the perfect comparator actually because we completely cleared out in that summer after relegation. We were at ground zero, as were they. The fact we were previously an established premier league club is irrelevant because of said clear out of staff who made us a premier league club.

I think we had 15 or so established premier league players leave for £70m (only 4 drawing a fee!!) and a similar amount in for £20m, none of which had played at that level - nor have gone on to.

So we went up with pretty much zero premier league experience - Browny, Charlie and Jay, the latter who didn’t feature much - in the whole squad.

It was as close to the Ipswich scenario as you’ll get, bar they spent more both in total and individually.

Leicester spent €80m, so less than us, but they’d manage to hang on to a a core-ish of players in the CB’s, CM and Vardy who were experienced premier league players.

Southampton spent €117m, so more than us again.

What it boils down to, in my view, is you can’t sell all your premier league talent on relegation and then not replace it on promotion and expect to be anywhere near competitive. Or, in Ipswich’s case, since they had none to begin with, they had to go even harder than the others to catch up. I don’t really even see how it’s a topic for discussion, it’s just common sense?

Three professional football clubs took that approach this year so you have to ask, with all their collective resources and football knowledge and data, would they all do the same if it weren’t necessary? Yet none really look competitive.

The outcome of this season remains to be seen, but there’s every chance all three will end up being unsuccessful with similar or greater spends to us. Southampton are looking like spending more and delivering less. I honestly think it’s getting to the point you’ll need a £200m spend just to compete.

I am not saying a team couldn’t fluke it with a different approach. Luton were a way off in the end and looking at them in free fall now it makes me think even if they’d performed a miracle it’d only have secured another season, which is kind of not what I’d like us to achieve.

So in summary, I think if we are promoted you have to expect that kind of spend if the aim is to survive. Or we could just take the Luton approach and not bother. I wouldn’t be dead set against this as if it cleared all our debts and made all the fiscally nervous fans feel more content. Genuinely - it would achieve something in my view, even if it meant watching a worse season than the one just gone. You could then have another ‘yo’ at it with a strengthened balance sheet. But you also have to look at Luton as an example of how that can otherwise turn out.

P.S. I’m still not entirely convinced our ‘group’ finances are as bad as the ‘club’ accounts reflect but since we don’t and will never know the true picture, I shan’t attempt to Disneyfy that particular debate.

We'll have to agree to disagree but to be honest you make good points about the cost of playing in the PL.

We spent a significant amount in the season prior based upon some of the PL funds, which Ipswich didn't so we started with a much stronger base. Even so I see Ipswich getting over 30 points.

We had a net spend of around Eur108 million. Saints had a net spend of around Eur76 million but their manager got sacked. And Leicester around Eur45 million.

In terms of the finances, I just go on the evidence. Clearly, ALK may have funds we know nothing about or things may have improved dramatically since the last set of accounts or the accounts posted.

My opinion is that VK put his own football philosophy ahead of what was best for the club. An accusation also aimed at Saints manager before he left.

As you say above, we have a new manager, a fantastic defence and perhaps some of the money you keep seeing in the ether will buy us a striker and we can achieve promotion this season. It's looking good so far and with our defensive record I think we would have a better shot at the PL.

As I say above, the generously proportioned lady is far from singing.

[Walt]

It’s definitely true that Ipswich needed to spend more than the others as they’d never been in the premier league before or had any players that had played at that level. They spent €126m.

But I see no difference whatsoever to us on promotion and them. I see them as the perfect comparator actually because we completely cleared out in that summer after relegation. We were at ground zero, as were they. The fact we were previously an established premier league club is irrelevant because of said clear out of staff who made us a premier league club.

I think we had 15 or so established premier league players leave for £70m (only 4 drawing a fee!!) and a similar amount in for £20m, none of which had played at that level - nor have gone on to.

So we went up with pretty much zero premier league experience - Browny, Charlie and Jay, the latter who didn’t feature much - in the whole squad.

It was as close to the Ipswich scenario as you’ll get, bar they spent more both in total and individually.

Leicester spent €80m, so less than us, but they’d manage to hang on to a a core-ish of players in the CB’s, CM and Vardy who were experienced premier league players.

Southampton spent €117m, so more than us again.

What it boils down to, in my view, is you can’t sell all your premier league talent on relegation and then not replace it on promotion and expect to be anywhere near competitive. Or, in Ipswich’s case, since they had none to begin with, they had to go even harder than the others to catch up. I don’t really even see how it’s a topic for discussion, it’s just common sense?

Three professional football clubs took that approach this year so you have to ask, with all their collective resources and football knowledge and data, would they all do the same if it weren’t necessary? Yet none really look competitive.

The outcome of this season remains to be seen, but there’s every chance all three will end up being unsuccessful with similar or greater spends to us. Southampton are looking like spending more and delivering less. I honestly think it’s getting to the point you’ll need a £200m spend just to compete.

I am not saying a team couldn’t fluke it with a different approach. Luton were a way off in the end and looking at them in free fall now it makes me think even if they’d performed a miracle it’d only have secured another season, which is kind of not what I’d like us to achieve.

So in summary, I think if we are promoted you have to expect that kind of spend if the aim is to survive. Or we could just take the Luton approach and not bother. I wouldn’t be dead set against this as if it cleared all our debts and made all the fiscally nervous fans feel more content. Genuinely - it would achieve something in my view, even if it meant watching a worse season than the one just gone. You could then have another ‘yo’ at it with a strengthened balance sheet. But you also have to look at Luton as an example of how that can otherwise turn out.

P.S. I’m still not entirely convinced our ‘group’ finances are as bad as the ‘club’ accounts reflect but since we don’t and will never know the true picture, I shan’t attempt to Disneyfy that particular debate.

You make good points relating to where it's going with spend that's seen as required. I'm not dismissing that at all. If you dont spend, then it is far more likely as you say we, or anyone else go back down. As disappointing as that would be I have no issue with spending less.

What I would have issue with is getting anywhere near the 200m you're quoting. Again, I dont disagree with you it is heading towards that kind of outlay. In my opinion it would be absolute madness for us to consider that sort of spend. If that means we're making up the numbers over going seriously pear shaped then so be it.

I dont think we're far away from it being virtually impossible to get promoted and stay there. It's already pretty damn hard to do it right now.

[Walt]

Additionally, the media dont really help either. Norwich were continuously slated for not spending in recent seasons when they went up. Why? I saw it as a sensible approach.

Why risk it all when in all likelihood there's a very high chance you'll be relegated anyway. Football finances and how they're viewed and mismanaged are stark raving bonkers.

[FeedTheArf]

Thanks to Chester and CPete for their insightful analysis of our complex corporate governance.
He may be a nice guy but I am concerned about his legacy and where we go when he takes his money and disappears.

Pace doesn't have any money. Never has.

He's exceptionally good at borrowing money, but has invested minimal amount personally.

[aggi]

I will add that the false information in the Admission Statement for Asset Match is also a crime under financial law - though neither he or Asset Match appear to bothered about that either.

It does appear that the clubs legal advisors were sufficiently concerned to enforce the restatement of the 2023 Confirmation Statement with Companies House and as far as I am aware there remain question marks over a previous Confirmation Statement too.

I noticed we got a new in house counsel not so long ago which may have contributed to some of the cleaning up. Previously head of legal at Everton.

the more interesting question, given that there are various outlets that specialise in these stories, is why those who comment on football finance in the media have never mentioned any of this - for instance Kieran Maguire is fully aware of all these issues across football and will cheerfully talk about them on his pod and with the media in regards to many clubs but not a peep when it concerns our club - and I have been told he looks at the takeover thread from time to time

The easy but dull answer is that it's not that exciting a story. It's not the football club, it's not even the holding company. It's some kind of related companies but to understand what the relationship is you need to go into a lot of detail on company structure and ownership transactions.

It's not easy to get across quickly and not interesting enough (to most) to spend the time on.

Maguire isn't a fan of how Pace runs the club and has said that publicly (more than once) so he's not holding back on our ownership

[ClaretOfMancunia]

Not sure I get the criticism about Pace only being here to make money. Isn't that the case with pretty much every owner of a club in the top tiers of football? They're a business, and businesses need to make money in order to survive. It's a good thing.

What I will say is that the bloke has moved his entire family to the region, his daughter has married a local lad and Pace himself is at almost every home game (and some aways) with his missus. He does a lot of stuff in the community too. To me he seems as emotionally invested in the club as he is financially. That's far better to me than absent owners of many other clubs who don't give a monkeys about what happens at the game - could name you dozens of those.

[Chester Perry]

I noticed we got a new in house counsel not so long ago which may have contributed to some of the cleaning up. Previously head of legal at Everton.

I know why it has happened and this is not it - I just cannot say more on here at this time

one of these days I will have to email you with the added information I have - I always value your opinion and it would be good to bounce things off you when I have something new to share

[ClaretPete001]

Not sure I get the criticism about Pace only being here to make money. Isn't that the case with pretty much every owner of a club in the top tiers of football? They're a business, and businesses need to make money in order to survive. It's a good thing.

What I will say is that the bloke has moved his entire family to the region, his daughter has married a local lad and Pace himself is at almost every home game (and some aways) with his missus. He does a lot of stuff in the community too. To me he seems as emotionally invested in the club as he is financially. That's far better to me than absent owners of many other clubs who don't give a monkeys about what happens at the game - could name you dozens of those.

It's not clear how financially invested in the club he is and how much he could cover the clubs debts: if required- that's the problem....!

I think it's clear he is invested in the club in terms of time and commitment.

[ChorltonCharlie]

I don't think any promoted team should think they have to spend fortunes unless you're bankrolled. I think the main thing is spending well and there's still examples from recent years of teams doing that. If anything, I think spending fortunes is a bad thing, and I think we showed that. It was like we'd had success in the European market the year before and became like a kid in a sweet shop. We had a really good balanced team. Our problem was replacing the two key loans of Maatsen and Tella. If we'd have done that well and kept the nucleus of the team together from the promotion season, we may have had a chance. Players like Tella with his adaptability don't grow on trees, but we spent enough to have brought someone in who got have offered similar pace and directness. Arguably Odebert could have been that player, but wasn't used in a Tella type role until relegation was a formality. In the case of Maatsen, we didn't need like for like but we did need to find a young left back better than Taylor and failed miserably. Ultimately we got relegated because of Kompany's naivety and destroying the good dressing room spirit he'd built up.

On the flip side Luton were an average championship side that hit a purple patch and snook through the play offs. They did as 'well' as they did because they spent well. If they'd spent £15m on a midfielder they probably wouldn't have entertained signing Barkley. What history tells us is that sides who expect to fight relegation can waste a lot of money on over-priced players in a desperate attempt to keep up with the Jones'. Tresor is a great example of that. ~£15m for a player who other PL clubs showed barely any interest in, and now we can see why. Luton didn't make that mistake and I think their issues this season are more down to the summer of 2024 transfer window than 2023.

[Walt]

I know why it has happened and this is not it - I just cannot say more on here at this time

one of these days I will have to email you with the added information I have - I always value your opinion and it would be good to bounce things off you when I have something new to share

You do some excellent research into the finances and it is appreciated given the time it must take up.

Why post this on here though if you can't say? Just email him, or her as you suggested.

[NewClaret]

You make good points relating to where it's going with spend that's seen as required. I'm not dismissing that at all. If you dont spend, then it is far more likely as you say we, or anyone else go back down. As disappointing as that would be I have no issue with spending less.

What I would have issue with is getting anywhere near the 200m you're quoting. Again, I dont disagree with you it is heading towards that kind of outlay. In my opinion it would be absolute madness for us to consider that sort of spend. If that means we're making up the numbers over going seriously pear shaped then so be it.

I dont think we're far away from it being virtually impossible to get promoted and stay there. It's already pretty damn hard to do it right now.

Yes, I started writing you a reply last night Walt. Much of it has been covered in my post to Pete now so I shan’t repeat, but the gist of it was that I agreed with your point about the risk involved if you end up with some ‘bum signings’.

Which conversely, I think at least in part explains why we took the strategy we did that summer. We, in my opinion, signed too many, too cheaply.

We had a load of £12-15m signings in Berge, Odobert, Trafford, Ramsey, Amdouni, etc. then a whole load in the £3-7m like Koleosho, O’Shea, Delacroix. We sort of spread ourselves too thinly, I thought.

That did have the advantage of spreading the risk a lot though. We did make bum signings but we never needed them all to work out to make a success of the strategy.

Still, I think buying 5x £20m players would’ve yielded better results on the field. But that brings me on to my second point about risk…

The financial risks the board are taking are not just based on the fees we spend but the wages and the terms they commit to. If you look at what the players signed were allegedly earning last year compared to our previous premier league seasons it’s far lower. We are also told they all accepted terms for 50% pay cuts.

So, in summary, whilst I agree £100m spend comes with significant risks, I think the way the board chose to invest that was more savvy and considered than people give credit for.

It was unsuccessful in terms of outcome on the field but successful in not crippling us financially. In that sense, I’d trust them again but I’d hope for a number of tweaks in what we look for in a premier league player and I trust Parker to have a better eye for that.

The £200m is indeed a bridge too far for us, but I do think it’s what you need to spend to give yourself a really good shot - because you’re competing against teams with established premier league experience and years of squad investment. Outside of promoted teams there’s not a single squad worth less, I’d bet, and you have Everton spending £500m to barely survive, Bournemouth signing £25m players like they’re shelling peas (plus a £40m striker) and in the summer we were promoted WHU spent nearly our spend on two players. It’s ridiculous.

I’d be quite happy not spending a penny and investing any proceeds in Turf Moor and particularly Academy facilities. I’d certainly much prefer that than signing Johnny-come-lately’s like Tresor, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the vast majority of fans would be incredulous if we’re fortunate enough to go up again and didn’t spend.

[Walt]

Yes, I started writing you a reply last night Walt. Much of it has been covered in my post to Pete now so I shan’t repeat, but the gist of it was that I agreed with your point about the risk involved if you end up with some ‘bum signings’.

Which conversely, I think at least in part explains why we took the strategy we did that summer. We, in my opinion, signed too many, too cheaply.

We had a load of £12-15m signings in Berge, Odobert, Trafford, Ramsey, Amdouni, etc. then a whole load in the £3-7m like Koleosho, O’Shea, Delacroix. We sort of spread ourselves too thinly, I thought.

That did have the advantage of spreading the risk a lot though. We did make bum signings but we never needed them all to work out to make a success of the strategy.

Still, I think buying 5x £20m players would’ve yielded better results on the field. But that brings me on to my second point about risk…

The financial risks the board are taking are not just based on the fees we spend but the wages and the terms they commit to. If you look at what the players signed were allegedly earning last year compared to our previous premier league seasons it’s far lower. We are also told they all accepted terms for 50% pay cuts.

So, in summary, whilst I agree £100m spend comes with significant risks, I think the way the board chose to invest that was more savvy and considered than people give credit for.

It was unsuccessful in terms of outcome on the field but successful in not crippling us financially. In that sense, I’d trust them again but I’d hope for a number of tweaks in what we look for in a premier league player and I trust Parker to have a better eye for that.

The £200m is indeed a bridge too far for us, but I do think it’s what you need to spend to give yourself a really good shot - because you’re competing against teams with established premier league experience and years of squad investment. Outside of promoted teams there’s not a single squad worth less, I’d bet, and you have Everton spending £500m to barely survive, Bournemouth signing £25m players like they’re shelling peas (plus a £40m striker) and in the summer we were promoted WHU spent nearly our spend on two players. It’s ridiculous.

I’d be quite happy not spending a penny and investing any proceeds in Turf Moor and particularly Academy facilities. I’d certainly much prefer that than signing Johnny-come-lately’s like Tresor, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the vast majority of fans would be incredulous if we’re fortunate enough to go up again and didn’t spend.

A lot of sense in what you're saying.

Ultimately, without labouring the point as it's been covered many times. I dont like the way the club was purchased and never will. Far too much risk attached to it for me. I hope their strategy pays off longer term but I'm sceptical.

That's not to say ALK haven't done good things in my view and approached some things sensibly, the wage bill being one as you've said.

I'll leave it at that, there's no need to regurgitate lengthy discussions on their pros and cons.

As a brief side note on Everton. If ever there's a handbook on how to waste 500m then this is it.

[Stonehouse]

It’s definitely true that Ipswich needed to spend more than the others as they’d never been in the premier league before or had any players that had played at that level. They spent €126m.

But I see no difference whatsoever to us on promotion and them. I see them as the perfect comparator actually because we completely cleared out in that summer after relegation. We were at ground zero, as were they. The fact we were previously an established premier league club is irrelevant because of said clear out of staff who made us a premier league club.

I think we had 15 or so established premier league players leave for £70m (only 4 drawing a fee!!) and a similar amount in for £20m, none of which had played at that level - nor have gone on to.

So we went up with pretty much zero premier league experience - Browny, Charlie and Jay, the latter who didn’t feature much - in the whole squad.
Ipswich had 5 years in the Prem long before we did.
It was as close to the Ipswich scenario as you’ll get, bar they spent more both in total and individually.

Leicester spent €80m, so less than us, but they’d manage to hang on to a a core-ish of players in the CB’s, CM and Vardy who were experienced premier league players.

Southampton spent €117m, so more than us again.

What it boils down to, in my view, is you can’t sell all your premier league talent on relegation and then not replace it on promotion and expect to be anywhere near competitive. Or, in Ipswich’s case, since they had none to begin with, they had to go even harder than the others to catch up. I don’t really even see how it’s a topic for discussion, it’s just common sense?

Three professional football clubs took that approach this year so you have to ask, with all their collective resources and football knowledge and data, would they all do the same if it weren’t necessary? Yet none really look competitive.

The outcome of this season remains to be seen, but there’s every chance all three will end up being unsuccessful with similar or greater spends to us. Southampton are looking like spending more and delivering less. I honestly think it’s getting to the point you’ll need a £200m spend just to compete.

I am not saying a team couldn’t fluke it with a different approach. Luton were a way off in the end and looking at them in free fall now it makes me think even if they’d performed a miracle it’d only have secured another season, which is kind of not what I’d like us to achieve.

So in summary, I think if we are promoted you have to expect that kind of spend if the aim is to survive. Or we could just take the Luton approach and not bother. I wouldn’t be dead set against this as if it cleared all our debts and made all the fiscally nervous fans feel more content. Genuinely - it would achieve something in my view, even if it meant watching a worse season than the one just gone. You could then have another ‘yo’ at it with a strengthened balance sheet. But you also have to look at Luton as an example of how that can otherwise turn out.

P.S. I’m still not entirely convinced our ‘group’ finances are as bad as the ‘club’ accounts reflect but since we don’t and will never know the true picture, I shan’t attempt to Disneyfy that particular debate.

Ipswich we’re in the Premier league long before us .

[Stonehouse]

Sorry if I’ve posted this twice NewClaret but Ipswich Town had 5yrs in the Prem long before us.

[BigGaz]

Blackpool did it similar to Luton. Went up, bought a few players that would make them more competitive at the level below and then banked the cash. Unfortunately lashers had Oyston at the helm and he had earmarked the money for other off pitch matters shall we say

[NewClaret]

Ipswich we’re in the Premier league long before us .

Yes but that was a long time ago, way before the influx of money and the discussion was about what you need to spend to survive in the premier league after promotion.

ClaretPete made a point about us/Leicester/Southampton being established premier league clubs prior to our promotions whereas Ipswich weren’t - having been out of it for some time.

[NewClaret]

A lot of sense in what you're saying.

Ultimately, without labouring the point as it's been covered many times. I dont like the way the club was purchased and never will. Far too much risk attached to it for me. I hope their strategy pays off longer term but I'm sceptical.

That's not to say ALK haven't done good things in my view and approached some things sensibly, the wage bill being one as you've said.

I'll leave it at that, there's no need to regurgitate lengthy discussions on their pros and cons.

As a brief side note on Everton. If ever there's a handbook on how to waste 500m then this is it.

I don’t think any fan likes the way the takeover was structured Walt. It’s impossible to say we were in a better place financially than we were prior and therefore it’s a frustration for everyone.

My perspective, which I’m sure ClaretPete would describe as blindly optimistic, is that club accounts that get discussed on here don’t represent the group accounts and that money probably exists in the group structures somewhere. For example, nobody has yet to properly explain the £88m and £80m capital injections to the parent companies. With so few of jigsaw pieces available to us, I refuse to draw any firm conclusions on the picture. Or spend too much time worrying about it. That doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to the risks.

But even if things were proven to be as dire as is often assumed on here, my view would still be that it took two to tango. Was our previous perceived secure financial position really as secure as we thought when the prior self-proclaimed custodian allowed the takeover to be financed in the way it was? Definitely not, it was a false perception. So I just see it as we are where we are.

For me though, I can disconnect a dislike for how the takeover was financed with the ongoing business decisions. I think significant investment on promotion is both what is needed, therefore good management, and not necessarily risky if executed in a savvy way - as it was last time.

I also like what appears to be a growing focus of investing in youth. Signing what we consider to be the best young talent and developing it is probably the best way to become a sustainable premier league club again. That’s why I’d love to see more investment in the Academy - facilities, coaches, qualifications, cat status, etc - as I think that’s ultimately our best chance.

As you say, no point regurgitating old arguments but have enjoyed the discussion.

[ClaretPete001]

I don’t think any fan likes the way the takeover was structured Walt. It’s impossible to say we were in a better place financially than we were prior and therefore it’s a frustration for everyone.

My perspective, which I’m sure ClaretPete would describe as blindly optimistic, is that club accounts that get discussed on here don’t represent the group accounts and that money probably exists in the group structures somewhere. For example, nobody has yet to properly explain the £88m and £80m capital injections to the parent companies. With so few of jigsaw pieces available to us, I refuse to draw any firm conclusions on the picture. Or spend too much time worrying about it. That doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to the risks.

But even if things were proven to be as dire as is often assumed on here, my view would still be that it took two to tango. Was our previous perceived secure financial position really as secure as we thought when the prior self-proclaimed custodian allowed the takeover to be financed in the way it was? Definitely not, it was a false perception. So I just see it as we are where we are.

For me though, I can disconnect a dislike for how the takeover was financed with the ongoing business decisions. I think significant investment on promotion is both what is needed, therefore good management, and not necessarily risky if executed in a savvy way - as it was last time.

I also like what appears to be a growing focus of investing in youth. Signing what we consider to be the best young talent and developing it is probably the best way to become a sustainable premier league club again. That’s why I’d love to see more investment in the Academy - facilities, coaches, qualifications, cat status, etc - as I think that’s ultimately our best chance.

As you say, no point regurgitating old arguments but have enjoyed the discussion.

I would cite the reluctance of yourself and others to predict a real firesale in the summer as one reason to operate on the basis of what we know and not conjecture of what could be true.

Thus far, I don't think there is a shred of evidence of any external investment in the playing side of the group other than the mystery transactions at Companies House uncovered by our resident master sleuth CP.

I guess we are all keen to move on from this and all points are represented, which is good for the forum and allows others to make up their own minds.

[jojomk1]

It's not clear how financially invested in the club he is and how much he could cover the clubs debts: if required- that's the problem....!

I think it's clear he is invested in the club in terms of time and commitment.

And he pays himself a salary for his time and commitment

[Chester Perry]

And he pays himself a salary for his time and commitment

He may well pay himself a salary - but, as has always been the case at our club, no director is directly paid a salary by the club.

We do know that the ownership group, is paid a management fee, but not if that fee is then paid to Pace (or indeed Smith and Hunt) in the form of a salary