Daniels....your position is both a non sequitur and illogical. Just because TH owns the club doesn't mean to say that he has to put anything into it beyond what is required to meet legal obligations ...in fact he has now put more into it than it is worth (based on the Shef Utd v Prince case heard recently in the High Court in which the Judge commented on the Expert Witness valuations of a Championship club I would not place the open market value of PNE any higher than the £32 to £40m range|). Secondly his wealth is very unlikely to be disposable wealth. There is zero obligation to subsidise our entertainment to the extent he does. Ticket prices would need to be in the £60 to £70 a match range for the club to break even, assuming the same level of attendance. However as the owner TH cannot legally walk away,. He has a legal obligation to manage the club solvently. Fans can walk away any time they feel like it. Many of those fans are also home owners..and if you are going to refer to wealth you need to include this..in the same way you have referred to TH wealth. Disposable income and wealth are different matters and you cannot mix the two. Jakeshake is correct in what he says.
Bayside your figs are old...seemingly many based on 2018/9 side, even refer to likes of Ipswich in the Champ. The issuing of shares is not a means of getting around FFP..if it was every club falling foul of FFP across Europe would do it. FFP is based on money injected into a club no matter the source, whether it comes from selling the ground (at an inflated price) or a capital injection from shares (that only dilute the shareholding). Doing it the latter way does stop the debt spiralling though.
Whilst FFP has been relaxed allowing owners to inject more during Covid to cover losses (not to spend in the transfer market) it has always been the case that the total input of £13m a season can be exceeded if the money is spent on specified exceptions, an Academy and womens' football being two examples.
I'm still waiting for an answer from TH critics as to
a) what they would have him do given what he already puts in and FFP rules and penalties
b) what difference (and why) it would make any difference to prospects going to the limit in view of the spending power/turnover of over half the clubs in the Championship?
Whilst the odds are so financially stacked against a club PNE's size the name of the game is staying in the Champ and enjoying it. The notion that money received from incoming transfers (£10m for Hugill) should have been 'invested ' in players is bonkers on two accounts. Firstly transfer money is not paid in lump instalments but over a period (the amortisation of a player value to which someone refers) , secondly, it is quite apparent (or should be) that in PNE's case the money has been needed to pay wages, NI and pension contributions..in other words to keep going.
Perhaps surprisingly I am not a TH fan but for other reasons than the fact he keeps the club going..that I very much appreciate.
Bayside your figs are old...seemingly many based on 2018/9 side, even refer to likes of Ipswich in the Champ. The issuing of shares is not a means of getting around FFP..if it was every club falling foul of FFP across Europe would do it. FFP is based on money injected into a club no matter the source, whether it comes from selling the ground (at an inflated price) or a capital injection from shares (that only dilute the shareholding). Doing it the latter way does stop the debt spiralling though.
Whilst FFP has been relaxed allowing owners to inject more during Covid to cover losses (not to spend in the transfer market) it has always been the case that the total input of £13m a season can be exceeded if the money is spent on specified exceptions, an Academy and womens' football being two examples.
I'm still waiting for an answer from TH critics as to
a) what they would have him do given what he already puts in and FFP rules and penalties
b) what difference (and why) it would make any difference to prospects going to the limit in view of the spending power/turnover of over half the clubs in the Championship?
Whilst the odds are so financially stacked against a club PNE's size the name of the game is staying in the Champ and enjoying it. The notion that money received from incoming transfers (£10m for Hugill) should have been 'invested ' in players is bonkers on two accounts. Firstly transfer money is not paid in lump instalments but over a period (the amortisation of a player value to which someone refers) , secondly, it is quite apparent (or should be) that in PNE's case the money has been needed to pay wages, NI and pension contributions..in other words to keep going.
Perhaps surprisingly I am not a TH fan but for other reasons than the fact he keeps the club going..that I very much appreciate.