steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I take it is not a closed vote. The Club will know how each member votes? When is the form to be returned by? i think it's friday. each ballot paper has a reference number on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 500k loss last season with the mighty Rangers and Sky ploughing money into the club. If accurate our financial model is fucked. Sell any assets we have on the park and start again. my thoughts exactly how do we have an operating loss of 500k ,beggars belief 10k a week who's in charge . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 i think it's friday. each ballot paper has a reference number on it. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 we made a £540k profit the season before. over the two year period we made a profit which is good going. the plan was clearly to use the profit from 2010/11 to cover a loss in season 2011/12 with the aim of having a good season, getting europe and hopefully selling a few players. rangers have thrown a rather large spanner in the works. So they spend £500k on investing in a squad that will take us to Europe and then tell us from March onwards, that we are unlikely to make money from CL qualification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 So they spend £500k on investing in a squad that will take us to Europe and then tell us from March onwards, that we are unlikely to make money from CL qualification. it says we'll make minimum £250k from europe. the club have stated many times we need to sell players. it's easier to do that when you have had a bit of success eg paterson, clarkson and quinn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Agreed, hopefully the club can get their act together in selling on players and stop handing out 2 year contracts to players with no sell on value. So sell Randolph to tide us over this season and work on developing a new wage structure for 2013/14. We have to grab the opportunity to play a driving force in a new era of Scottish football and we'll reap the rewards in the years to come. Would love to see some leadership and positivity from our Board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoF Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Scary figures indeed which serve to highlight how fucked the game is up here. Both votes are punts in the dark though however anything other than a no vote means the baw is well and truly burst. We can only hope that after the almost inevitable 'no' vote folk will be buoyed by a bit of positivity and optimism and contribute in some way to making up the short-fall. I'll be buying a season ticket for the first time in years. I can only urge others who are voting no to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 We have to grab the opportunity to play a driving force in a new era of Scottish football and we'll reap the rewards in the years to come. what is going to spark the new era? rangers will be crippled for three or four years then it will be business as usual. the reduced tv income will hurt us more than the city clubs as it is a greater portion of total income. we'll hopefully see the prize distribution changed and the voting structure. i don't believe that will have any tangible effect, the prize money was discussed earlier and even if the voting is changed it's unlikely to lead to much reform. hibs, celtic and aberdeen all want a ten team league and if prize money is reduced we're hardly likely to want to spread it thinner by expanding. splitting gate money is pie in the sky. we are going to pay a high price for sporting integrity. hopefully everyone will be as committed to supporting the club through a tough peroid as they were to forcing rangers out the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoF Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Agreed, hopefully the club can get their act together in selling on players and stop handing out 2 year contracts to players with no sell on value. So sell Randolph to tide us over this season and work on developing a new wage structure for 2013/14. We have to grab the opportunity to play a driving force in a new era of Scottish football and we'll reap the rewards in the years to come. Would love to see some leadership and positivity from our Board. I find it interesting that 'when needs must' players are viewed somewhat as commodities, yet when the shoe is on the other foot there tends to be outrage among fans. Not that I disagree with what you are saying, it's interesting though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Just using Randolph as an example - our biggest asset who would have signed for Morherwell with a view to using the SPL as a stepping stone. Certainly wouldn't push anyway out the door but it makes sense to ignite interest in players that are capable of playing at a higher level. Re the new era, the loosening of the stranglehold that the OF held should be sufficient motivation for fans, clubs and the sfa to unite and show some belief in our game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welldaft Mk1 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Dont think i have seen it mentioned anywhere yet, but if you consider the impact of voting yes with regards to the non OF supporters in the country. I honestly think that most fans will vote with their feet towards any club that votes "YES to Newco". Granted we may lose rangers fans by voting no, but should we vote yes then we will lose a similar amount of fans from Celtic when they come to town. Likewise I would fully expect the away support at every Well home game to at least halve if we vote yes. In this scenario then the loss of the Rangers support will have the lesser impact on us. ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^ I have received my letter and will not be changing my intent on how I will vote. The way I see it is that we will lose approx £275k from gate receipts and hospitality from no Rangers, but we could lose that AND more from away fans boycotting Fir Park if it was a YES vote. We are fortunate this season in that we have guaranteed 2 potentially attractive and lucrative Euro ties. The figure quoted is minimum £250k. I suspect it will be higher than the figure quoted. Even if we lose both games we should get - (depending on opposition) circa 18-20,000 + hospitality + UEFA money + possible TV revenue. That would mean: Gate receipts = £300,000 - taking an average £15 Hospitality = £20,000 UEFA money = 130k Euro x 2 = £220,000 So £550k before expenses such as club travel and player bonus = even if that were to come out at £200k, that would leave circa £350k assuming we only get 2 home games and NO TV revenue. A more equitable split of SPL income should take care of any decrease in the SKY deal, although if they do try to negotiate what is IMHO a p1ssy deal in the 1st place, there may be other suitors. Add into all of that, hopefully a slight increase in attendance (patg), Well society and Season tickets, as the message will be the club needs the fans - then AND I MAY BE WRONG, but it may make little difference this season to the overall budget.... I also suspect that we may still lose a Hutchy, Randolph, Humphrey before the transfer window closes. I woould expect a minimum £500k for each of those 3 players...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Did what I said I would - read and re-read the documentation sent out with the ballot paper. Some interesting, and largely grim, reading - plenty of financial obstacles whether the vote goes one way or the other. However, there was nothing severe enough to sway my vote. No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic2904 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I uderstand the situation the club explains, but i dont understand that esp a club like St.Johnstone is able to come out and say "no" without even speaking to the supporters. Apparently they are ok... What makes them different to us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 No attempt to predict the ramifications of a NO vote in a positive sense going forward? We can all wring our hands and worry but I prefer to view this as an opportunity to sort our game out that's been denied us all these years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 No attempt to predict the ramifications of a NO vote in a positive sense going forward? We can all wring our hands and worry but I prefer to view this as an opportunity to sort our game out that's been denied us all these years. what would you like to see changed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East_Stand_Al Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I'm guessing I'm not the only one who felt that the "Impartial" Guidance document failed to live up to its name, Financial pain either way but heavily weighted in favour of a Yeas vote as the lesser of 2 evils! I read and re-read the document and considered the choice availabe, as there was no "Consign them to history as cheating scumbags " option I had to go for the straight NO option. I could not in all conscience do anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 One thing that's obvious is we will lose out financially either way and we'll just have to get on with it. Our vote is also starting to look academic anyway as there will probably be enough other clubs voting No. We're only voting on whether a newco should be allowed into the SPL - what the SFL do after that is out of our hands. I'm starting to come round to the idea of them going into the first division. While it might not be consistent with what would happen to other clubs, a season out of the SPL is still a significant punishment (on top of whatever else they can get to stick) without leaving us completely hamstrung financially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 We're only voting on whether a newco should be allowed into the SPL - what the SFL do after that is out of our hands. I'm starting to come round to the idea of them going into the first division. While it might not be consistent with what would happen to other clubs, a season out of the SPL is still a significant punishment (on top of whatever else they can get to stick) without leaving us completely hamstrung financially. i think that would probably be the best solution at the moment. it's in line with the punishment of juve over calciopolli, i'd maybe add in a 2 year scottish cup ban as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I uderstand the situation the club explains, but i dont understand that esp a club like St.Johnstone is able to come out and say "no" without even speaking to the supporters. Apparently they are ok... What makes them different to us? it appears that despite years of statements on our club not getting beyond itself and what now seems like lipservice to sound financial planning that we now budget for top six and cup success every year, and it seems that the performance related pay rewards more than the financial prize for success in the league and cup, I hope that is corrected asap if not already I'm surprised at the numbers are presented, and the assumptions in next years budget of top six but as it stands only the threat of a 40% cut in SPL sponsors cash i.e threat of losing from SKY cutting contract is the difference between the votes. and as its a threat that SKY have never made, nothing in the letter changes the fact that a newco has and never should be allowed to waltz straight back in anywhere other than the bottom of Scottish football. I hope financial experts at the club revisit how they are budgeting so that a successful season can put money in the bank instead of declaring losses but that in no way changes the fact that its a No vote from me, Scottish football needs to get back on track and take stock (again) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I'd like to think that when the Well Society gets more involved its first move is to look at how the club budgets for each season. A club the size of Motherwell budgeting for top six and cup runs seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I'm surprised at the numbers are presented, and the assumptions in next years budget of top six i think we'll make top six no problem next year. hearts are cutting back, st johnstone look to be losing sheridan and sandaza, aberdeen are brutal, hibs are brutal, united have lost a good few players and killie are utterly rooked. a 22 point penalty is the only thing that worries me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fergi4 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 We have no influence over the votes of 11 other clubs. Those that have spoken thus far are "No to Newco". The Motherwell vote is unlikely to determine the fate of the Newco. This isn't a political campaign. Old firm suck, and we all know. I've said before in a previous thread, our board need to strategise and come up with something else if the current direction/roadmap is financially unfeasible. the best laid schemes of mice and men.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 There's been talk before of a suspension from the cup for a year being one of the options open to the SFA but that's what they dish out to teams who make a mistake with registration or the like so it would need to be a minimum of 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 A NO from me. I have enquired into the process of increasing my Steel membership to Claret to compensate for the financial implications of my decision. I will also consider buying a pie at home games. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DosserJoe Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I think the chat of Top 6 budgeting is based around the fact that the next set of accounts (after the upcoming loss-making accounts) would post a profit again due to 3rd and Europe. Takes a while for these things to filter through. Also at the last Q&A they spoke of it being essential to flog a player every-other year for a decent fee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.