Made a few notes while reading through - overall, I don't think the club has convinced anyone that there's a plan or strategy at play here, other than the one we all know about - minimise costs, stay in the Championship, keep getting the Prem/EFL cash.
Well done to all attendees for making the meeting possible - just because the result is disappointing doesn't mean the engagement wasn't worthwhile, or that it shouldn't be repeated on a regular basis - in addition to those fans forums that CH doesn't seem keen on.
p. 4: The obvious conclusion from the discussion on the summer budget is, it must have been too small, if "Lowe" (funnily enough absent from the meeting and copping a lot of the blame here) used it all up on those few players we did sign, after we had got rid of so many,
freeing up so many wages.
Taking money for paying off the likes of Harrop, Earl and Bayliss out of the transfer budget seems a dubious approach to building a squad - those costs, ultimately the result of failed signings made by the club under previous managers, need to borne by the club as exceptional costs, not skimmed off the top of the transfer budget of a new manager with squad places to fill.
p. 7: The authorship of the minutes is betrayed when you see purely subjective terms popping up in what should be a neutrally-toned document: "PR outlined the six Academy players now getting
valuable loan experience" is a classic among many examples.
p. 7: "CH questioned where the funds would come from to increase the yearly cost of the Academy and the £5m investment to just get to Category 2" - well, from the club owners of course! That's precisely the sort of thing club owners should be investing in. How were they going to fund the Ingol development and corresponding Academy, to be opened August 2018
as originally planned?
p. 8: Enjoyed the nonsensical strategy outlined by CH that suggests we'll be in a position to improve our squad, infrastructure and Academy in order to get to the Prem, just as soon as we receive the money that we'll get following our promotion to the Prem!
p. 10: "PR stated that the Premier League will aim to implement a maximum wage to turnover ratio in every Championship club should the [proposed new Prem] redistribution happen" - yep, and that will leave us, with our piss-poor turnover, in the clarts, but will leave the owners in the clear, as they won't be able to bolster the wage bill ahead of turnover.
For us, I think the new Prem distribution will mean extra austerity for the club, but less for the Hemmings to put in each year, which is presumably why they're such big fans of it.
This point needs to be pushed at future meetings, because at the moment the new Prem distribution is being painted as a big win-win - but it won't be a win for us, with our lame turnover compared to our peers, and clearly no impetus from the owners to improve that turnover (see p. 9 for their complete complacency there).
It's not a question of the "net profit achieved" from improved retail offerings etc. adding to our player budget either, as suggested by PR on p. 9 - we will need increased turnover
regardless of whether it turns a profit, just to be entitled to a healthy Championship wage budget, so we need to bring things like retail and catering in-house to improve those turnover numbers
regardless of profit, not leave everything outsourced as it is now, with all the associated turnover sitting in other companies' accounts, not the football club's.
And if we do all this and it makes a loss, well - that's where the owners need to step in and contribute, right? But at least we'd be maximising our chances on the playing side, by maximising our turnover.
p. 10: "PR stated that any changes made will make it easier rather than harder for PNE to compete in the future" - again, that point needs to be explored further in future, because the new Prem distribution seems more likely to bake in current disparities between the top 44 clubs, with us likely to be baked firmly into the bottom 6 of those.
pp. 11-12: The section on Ingol is predictably laughable and insulting - "CH stated that nobody was lied to about the plans for Ingol, the circumstances simply changed and an opportunity came up". That sort of bullshit simply isn't going to wash.
Creates a new meme though, emblematic of this ownership: "nobody was lied to, circumstances simply changed".
p. 12: "CH highlighted that the funds that would have gone on developing the training ground have already gone into the club over the years" - see, there was never any intention of building the bloody thing, over and above what we were already spending on club running costs. It was always hot air to get those houses built. And if any profit ever materialises from the house building, it won't be heading anywhere near the club because, as CH says here, we've "already" had it.
p. 12: LMAO at the club's apparent readiness to welch on the Fanzone project too - "it has been costed in a few different locations and forecasts show it doesn't make any money". No shit! Maybe these owners are no fucking good at making money on anything that isn't just real estate.
Maybe that's why they prefer car park spaces to fanzones.
Maybe they don't understand the concept of adding value beyond merely turning a profit. Making something better for the fans simply because better is preferable to shitty.
Curious to know what their new plans for the Invincibles eyesore are - maybe that's the new candidate for the Fanzone!
