Be careful what you wish for

[Donny Exile in York]

Well no.
If they stopped tomorrow we would be ok, we wouldn’t go bankrupt.

Nobody is suggesting they do anything different than what they’ve always done, the problem at the minute may not even be down to them.
But the point is we have recouped a lot of money these last couple of seasons by releasing a lot of players and selling our most valuable player but at the moment we haven’t used these funds.
Nobody is suggesting they should be splashing the cash

Well if you want a top league 1 proven goal scorer on a permanent in January then we will need to splash the cash won’t we. Please tell me who is going to let their best players leave for very little when they are under contract in the middle of the season. No one is.
Why you and others don’t get that is totally beyond me. I must be thick or something.   

Well given that exact point and it would of  been known in the full month or more from Moore being appointed, why the hell didnt we strengthen in the summer window, knowing how notoriously difficult the January window is... instead we let the window slam shut woefully short, covered four months with a loan 20 year old winger, another who played a game and half from Spurs before crying off, and Thomas and Bingham.. and lo and behold here we are 20 days into the next window and no signings and now were out of order for expecting a striker or two in the January window with our unrealistic expectations! Surely you can see the frustration..

[Campsall rover]

Here we go again round and round in circles..

Do you not think the club has been trying to sign players.?

IDM we are banging our heads against a very thick wall.

Sometimes i really wonder why we get involved on here. The same none sense just keeps getting repeated over and over again.

Think for my own sanity i should just turn up home and away and support my team the way we are all supposed to do.

The forum has become a bit addictive and that’s not healthy. Far too many arguments on here and i get drawn far too easily into them when all i want to do is have a sensible discussion.
It’s very sad. I used to enjoy posting but it has now become toxic. Far too many people with their own poisonous agendas to be an enjoyable experience at the moment.

Campsall, you take any post that you don’t like or disagree with as a personal insult.
Not everyone has those rose tinted specs and you have to accept that on any forum there are differences of opinion.
Not all the things that you disagree with are nonsense.
You don’t have a divine right to be right all of the time.
Chill out a bit. 👍

I am not right all the time. When have i said i am?
Probably wrong more than i am right. What on Earth are you talking about hound.

Please tell me whether you think the criticism of our transfer situation is fair given the circumstances of GM’s sudden departure and the situation that DM inherited.
I am just stating my opinion on it. There are no right or wrongs and i haven’t said there are.
Every one is entitled to an opinion but you are telling me i can’t disagree with other people’s?

[dickos1]

Well no.
If they stopped tomorrow we would be ok, we wouldn’t go bankrupt.

Nobody is suggesting they do anything different than what they’ve always done, the problem at the minute may not even be down to them.
But the point is we have recouped a lot of money these last couple of seasons by releasing a lot of players and selling our most valuable player but at the moment we haven’t used these funds.
Nobody is suggesting they should be splashing the cash

Well we're getting there in baby steps.

There are two points.

The first, (and it shouldn't really need to be pointed out, but there you go) is that the Board subsidise your and my hobby, to the tune of something like £15-20m over a decade.

We take that as a given.

And then we moan like entitled brats when they don't also spend the transfer money that we get.

The second point is that the long term aim is for us to be a successful AND self-financing club. That requires us to be able to be self-sufficient without the Board subsidies. Because they will not be there forever. So, if, in one season, we make a net profit of £1-2m, that SHOULD go to eliminating the Board's subsidy.

What you seem to be saying is that we should get that subsidy AND spend transfer income on top of that.

I know they subsidise the club to the tune of that amount, they do this to make us competitive not to keep us above water.

Therefore if we make a profit we don’t need to eliminate the subsidy they do this by choice not by necessity.

I’m certainly not suggesting we spend money on top of this extra money as I’ve reiterated numerous times they would just be re-investing the money they’ve made.

Gavin has said for years that all extra income will be spent on the first team, so I’m not really sure of the point you’re trying to make

[drfchound]

Here we go again round and round in circles..

Do you not think the club has been trying to sign players.?

IDM we are banging our heads against a very thick wall.

Sometimes i really wonder why we get involved on here. The same none sense just keeps getting repeated over and over again.

Think for my own sanity i should just turn up home and away and support my team the way we are all supposed to do.

The forum has become a bit addictive and that’s not healthy. Far too many arguments on here and i get drawn far too easily into them when all i want to do is have a sensible discussion.
It’s very sad. I used to enjoy posting but it has now become toxic. Far too many people with their own poisonous agendas to be an enjoyable experience at the moment.

Campsall, you take any post that you don’t like or disagree with as a personal insult.
Not everyone has those rose tinted specs and you have to accept that on any forum there are differences of opinion.
Not all the things that you disagree with are nonsense.
You don’t have a divine right to be right all of the time.
Chill out a bit. 👍

I am not right all the time. When have i said i am?
Probably wrong more than i am right. What on Earth are you talking about hound.

Please tell me whether you think the criticism of our transfer situation is fair given the circumstances of GM’s sudden departure and the situation that DM inherited.
I am just stating my opinion on it. There are no right or wrongs and i haven’t said there are.
Every one is entitled to an opinion but you are telling me i can’t disagree with other people’s?

You see, there you go again.
I was simply trying to point out that you take stuff as a personal insult and then you jump back aggressively at me.
Is criticism of our transfer situation fair?
I have given my thoughts on that elsewhere and you may have read what I was told today by someone who is a friend of mine and of DM.
Finally, to answer your last question.
Of course you can disagree with whoever you like, as I just said, this is a forum.
But you are wrong to dismiss so many opinions that you don’t like as nonsense.

[Campsall rover]

Here we go again round and round in circles..

Do you not think the club has been trying to sign players.?

IDM we are banging our heads against a very thick wall.

Sometimes i really wonder why we get involved on here. The same none sense just keeps getting repeated over and over again.

Think for my own sanity i should just turn up home and away and support my team the way we are all supposed to do.

The forum has become a bit addictive and that’s not healthy. Far too many arguments on here and i get drawn far too easily into them when all i want to do is have a sensible discussion.
It’s very sad. I used to enjoy posting but it has now become toxic. Far too many people with their own poisonous agendas to be an enjoyable experience at the moment.

Campsall, you take any post that you don’t like or disagree with as a personal insult.
Not everyone has those rose tinted specs and you have to accept that on any forum there are differences of opinion.
Not all the things that you disagree with are nonsense.
You don’t have a divine right to be right all of the time.
Chill out a bit.

I am not right all the time. When have i said i am?
Probably wrong more than i am right. What on Earth are you talking about hound.

Please tell me whether you think the criticism of our transfer situation is fair given the circumstances of GM’s sudden departure and the situation that DM inherited.
I am just stating my opinion on it. There are no right or wrongs and i haven’t said there are.
Every one is entitled to an opinion but you are telling me i can’t disagree with other people’s?

You see, there you go again.
I was simply trying to pint out that you take stuff as a personal insult and then you jump back aggressively at me.
Is criticism of our transfer situation fair?
I have given my thoughts on that elsewhere and you may have read what I was told today by someone who is a friend of mine and of DM.
Finally, to answer your last question.
Of course you can disagree with whoever you like, as I just said, this is a forum.
But you are wrong to dismiss so many opinions that you don’t like as nonsense.

Ok maybe i should not have used the word nonesence. Apologies.

Crikey this forum though is bloody hard work at the moment. Seems as though all the i’s need dotting and the t’s need crossing or someone is going to jump on you.

[drfchound]

It has been the same over all the time I have been a member.
No difference really to be fair.

[Dagenham Rover]

Well no.
If they stopped tomorrow we would be ok, we wouldn’t go bankrupt.

Dickos ffs if the Directors stopped putting in aprox 2million a year we wouldn't go bankrupt!  What bloody planet are you on.

 We would go bankrupt  we might have a dirty great overdraft but we would end up with the banks/taxman pulling the plug and we would be bankrupt   unless of course we had some dodgy hedgef und floating about   Dickos get real a company cannot keep losing about 2 milion a year and stay in business football club or not 

[dickos1]

I’m sorry but you’re wrong!

Gavin has stated it himself, if the owners stopped putting in this 1-2 million a year the club would be sustainable but we would have a lower midtable budget.

So I suggest you get real

[Dagenham Rover]

I’m sorry but you’re wrong!

Gavin has stated it himself, if the owners stopped putting in this 1-2 million a year the club would be sustainable but we would have a lower midtable budget.

So I suggest you get real

So a company loses 2 million a year and it won't go bust  hmnn  a midtable budget in what league to make the club sustainable it won't be league 1 or the championship no doubt not League 2 get friggin real

[dickos1]

You get real

After you’ve read this I’ll accept your apology.

We're in a situation whereby hopefully the owners' funding is a pleasure rather than a necessity,” Baldwin told the Free Press.

“If they were to, for want of a better analogy, be run over by a bus, the club would survive without them.

“But their funding means that we are hopefully compeititve and we can maintain this top six budget that we keep talking about that gives us the best chance of the play-offs.



“That's what gives them pleasure as well.

“They want us to be competitive on a Saturday. They come to virtually every game, particularly the home games, and they want to enjoy their football as much as everyone else.

“So they give us a chance by choosing to put the money in now rather than having to put the money in.

“The club would be midtable League One without it.


“They choose for us to be competitive.

“We would still have the club. I'm not saying it wouldn't be tough at times but we would be here.

“They still choose to put the money in because they want it to be competitive and hopefully reach the Championship as we always speak about.”

With growing revenues from the Keepmoat Stadium site and the burgeoning Club Doncaster project, Rovers are becoming self-sustainable.


“That is through revenues such as having a national sponsor like LNER, iFollow has grown and is a far better product than it has been, revenues from all over which means financially the club is in a very good position and hopefully the funding for the owners is a pleasure not a chore,” Baldwin added.

“We can go to them specifically and say we would like to buy this player for this reason, rather than can we have some money but we're not sure if it's to pay the electricity bill or to maintain the car park or players.

“It's very specific now - they can choose to fund what they want to fund.”

 

[Dagenham Rover]

So the owners get run over by a bus the same owners that put 2 million a year in errrm who's going to put the 2m in   Cant be bothered if a company any company loses 2m a year it cuts its cloth to suit or it goes bust

[dickos1]

What on earth are you talking about??
Gavin is saying they put the money in by choice to make us competitive we’re not losing 2 million a year?

[Dagenham Rover]

Dickos just go back to kin Mansfield

[dickos1]

I think you’ve had a few too many tonight

What does kin Mansfield mean

[BillyStubbsTears]

Well no.
If they stopped tomorrow we would be ok, we wouldn’t go bankrupt.

Nobody is suggesting they do anything different than what they’ve always done, the problem at the minute may not even be down to them.
But the point is we have recouped a lot of money these last couple of seasons by releasing a lot of players and selling our most valuable player but at the moment we haven’t used these funds.
Nobody is suggesting they should be splashing the cash

Well we're getting there in baby steps.

There are two points.

The first, (and it shouldn't really need to be pointed out, but there you go) is that the Board subsidise your and my hobby, to the tune of something like £15-20m over a decade.

We take that as a given.

And then we moan like entitled brats when they don't also spend the transfer money that we get.

The second point is that the long term aim is for us to be a successful AND self-financing club. That requires us to be able to be self-sufficient without the Board subsidies. Because they will not be there forever. So, if, in one season, we make a net profit of £1-2m, that SHOULD go to eliminating the Board's subsidy.

What you seem to be saying is that we should get that subsidy AND spend transfer income on top of that.

I know they subsidise the club to the tune of that amount, they do this to make us competitive not to keep us above water.

Therefore if we make a profit we don’t need to eliminate the subsidy they do this by choice not by necessity.

I’m certainly not suggesting we spend money on top of this extra money as I’ve reiterated numerous times they would just be re-investing the money they’ve made.

Gavin has said for years that all extra income will be spent on the first team, so I’m not really sure of the point you’re trying to make

Has Baldwin said that all extra income will be spent ON TOP OF a subsidy?

The key thing here is what the word "extra" means. You, and many others on here are making a very entitled assumption here. You are assuming that the subsidy is a given, fixed, discounted. And then any income which is extra over that is also to be re-invested in the club.

I don't read it that way at all. I read it that there is a target expenditure for the club each year. There is also an expected income, which, usually, will be lower than the expenditure. Then, one of four things can happen:

1) If our income and expenditure are as expected, the Board makes up the difference and will have assumed this was going to be the situation before the season started.

2) If our income is lower or expenditure higher than expected, the Board will have to make a bigger subsidy. That should only happen if there is rank bad management of the club and there's been no sign of that since The Experiment.

3) If our income is still less than, but much closer to the expenditure, we make a smaller loss and the Board doesn't have to put in as big a subsidy.

4) If (Hallelujiah!) our income is bigger than our expenditure, the Board needs make no subsidy at all and the excess income over expenditure can be ploughed back into the club.

And I suspect that's where your misunderstanding and evident frustration come in. You are assuming that in the Scenario 3, the income that we've generated above expectation is ploughed back into the club and the subsidy stays at the same level as in Scenario 1. In other words, you are assuming that this would give us the thumbs up to increase expenditure to the point where the gap between income and expenditure was the size that it was predicted to be at the start of the season. THAT is what I mean by you having an entitled attitude to this issue.

On the contrary, I'm assuming that the club only gets the extra income if it actually exceeds the planned expenditure. In other words, the first call on any extra income is, and should be to reduce (and hopefully, remove) the Board's subsidy.

[dickos1]

I understand these points yes,
But if you read what gavin states in the article. The club doesn’t need this subsidy the owners do so by choice to make us more competitive.
It’s not a necessity just their choice

[bpoolrover]

Is think dickos is right what he is saying is they would not put the 2 million in leaving us not with a top 6 budget but a average one, so we would not be losing 2 million a year?

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Dickos1 for chairman!?

[no eyed deer]

Dickos1 for chairman!?

Going back 5 years Dickos1 was one of the most optimistic of fans, so something has changed.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Dickos1 for chairman!?

Going back 5 years Dickos1 was one of the most optimistic of fans, so something has changed.

Aye. It has.

We're a much better side with a much better manager, playing much better football.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I understand these points yes,
But if you read what gavin states in the article. The club doesn’t need this subsidy the owners do so by choice to make us more competitive.
It’s not a necessity just their choice

That's irrelevant. They make that subsidy to give us a baseline expenditure. Which makes us competitive. But what YOU have been saying is that they should give us more expenditure because we sold a player for big bucks.

And I've explained my take on why that doesn't follow, logically.

If you start from accepting points 3 and 4 that I posted above, you'd be a lot calmer and more realistic about our situation. You might enjoy it too. This is going to sound odd to the people complaining in here, but I actually enjoyed a lot of our performance yesterday. I can see what we have coming together. And I'm not going to lose sleep about the Board not indulging my fantasies about what extra investment might do.

[dickos1]

No I’m not suggesting that at all.

As I keep saying gavin has always said that any money generated from the football club will be reinvested into the first team.
It’s not the case that any extra money we earn means the subsidy is then reduced.

If you asked gavin the question he would reiterate to you that any extra money made by the football club will be put back into the first team.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Like I say Dickos. It's all about the interpretation you put on the word "extra".

[dickos1]

I’m just interpreting it as anything other than the usual revenue streams,
Gate receipts, money from the efl, etc
They’ll have a budget for the usual income, but gavin has always maintained that any other revenue from player sales, cup runs etc will be put straight back into the first team to make it stronger.

[silent majority]

I’m just interpreting it as anything other than the usual revenue streams,
Gate receipts, money from the efl, etc
They’ll have a budget for the usual income, but gavin has always maintained that any other revenue from player sales, cup runs etc will be put straight back into the first team to make it stronger.

Yes, but what he really means is that any extra moneys raised from cup runs won't be clawed back, it will be utilised in the clubs budget, but not necessarily in the 1st team.

An example would be some of the cup run money from last season was spent on upgrading equipment at Cantley Park.

[dickos1]

Yes that’s what I was trying to say.
This extra money will be spent on the team or as you say facilities.
But it won’t be used to reduce the subsidy

[silent majority]

Yep, that's the current situation, and let's hope it stays that way.

My fear is that with all the baseless criticism aimed in their direction, i.e. back the manager, loosen the purse strings, under JR it was different, Bramall and Watson should be putting their hands in their pockets, invest in the club etc etc they will decide against doing this in the future.

[IDM]

I would have thought that they would be thick skinned enough to brush aside such comments especially if it is really only a small section of the fan base making such comments.?

[DonnyBazR0ver]

I understand these points yes,
But if you read what gavin states in the article. The club doesn’t need this subsidy the owners do so by choice to make us more competitive.
It’s not a necessity just their choice

That's irrelevant. They make that subsidy to give us a baseline expenditure. Which makes us competitive. But what YOU have been saying is that they should give us more expenditure because we sold a player for big bucks.

And I've explained my take on why that doesn't follow, logically.

If you start from accepting points 3 and 4 that I posted above, you'd be a lot calmer and more realistic about our situation. You might enjoy it too. This is going to sound odd to the people complaining in here, but I actually enjoyed a lot of our performance yesterday. I can see what we have coming together. And I'm not going to lose sleep about the Board not indulging my fantasies about what extra investment might do.

I'm on the same page as you Billy. The Owners are choosing to continue with their £1m each commitment, as they have done from the start and before 3 became 2.

Add to that projected income from match day sales & Club Doncaster etc., enables them to set the budget.

If actual income falls short of the projected income than that's where the additional subsidy kicks in.

Again, my understanding is from Gavin at the Meet The Owners is that the increasing income from Club Doncaster plus match day income means the club could self sustain but they choose to continue to put in the same £1m each year.

Basically, the days of significant shortfalls are hopefully behind them as other income is better than it s ever been. You only have to look at the financial summary posted by S_M to see what a success Club Doncaster is. Yet there are those who think it is detrimental to DRFC!

I'm sure GB has his finger on the pulse in keeping DM informed of where we are with spending, bearing in mind every budget has a commitment to existing contracts etc.

I would guess as in any business expenditure as to be agreed and approved, particularly if it involves a fee but I would imagine DM & GB don't need board approval for loans, free transfers etc., but that's just my guess!

On the point of what's just been said about extra income from Cup etc would be added to the budget to support the manager.

I think it was mentioned at the Meet The Owners that they wanted to spend some money on training facilities and DM also wanted to invest more in the youth/development set up.

Please correct me if any of the above is way off.

[silent majority]

I would have thought that they would be thick skinned enough to brush aside such comments especially if it is really only a small section of the fan base making such comments.?

That small minority make a lot of noise though IDM.

And they are human, with families, just like the rest of us.