Broken Algorithms Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Begs the question if these were the figures why didn't we sell Baird. And why did we give contracts to Kevin McBride and Gary Wales at the tail end of last season? Wales was due to a lack of striking options. Weir still wasn't scoring, we were too reliant on Baird and Tade. McBride was more a hope that he could make an impact due to experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Gary Wales was a complete and utter waste of money, though admittedly that couldn't have been foreseen. If we have lost £80k, then that's a poor show from the board. I doubt Gary Wales and Kevin McBride make up the remaining £50k that we seem to have lost (minus the estimate lost from the ref strike). If they do, then we've been paying them too much. As if to add to our woes, Ross Laidlaw is apparently injured and McGlynn is contemplating bringing in short-term cover. Edited September 15, 2011 by Michael W 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ding Dang Doo Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 No need for short term cover. Promote a youth goal keeper as cover. Completely pointless to bring in someone else on wages as "cover". This should only be done if both keepers were injured. Wales was a total waste of money. I'd be surprised if he played the equivalent of 90 minutes in the entire time he was with us. The problem is we have a complete lack of commercial unawareness at the club. They do nothing to encourage people to invest in the club or to just attend matches. We also have a stadium that is living in the past. It is only used on average once every two weeks between August and April with no outside income being generated during mid-week, on away days and during the summer. My other worry is what would have happened if we didn't have that cup run. We would be in hundreds of thousand of pounds worth of debt. We all know we are living in a tough financial climate and we will not be the only club that has lost money. However, the stark reality (excuse the pun) is that we cannot continue on the current path as it will only lead one way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Pretty much. Their sole method of promoting matches last season was to issue a series of doomsday prophecies about imminent cuts to the playing budgets because of attendances. Thankfully, people haven't been so stupid as to completely ignore the fact our attendances were well up on the previous season. I'm fed up of saying this, but we need to go back to the way we were when we first came up - a mixture of full-time and part-time football. This move to a solely full-time team isn't helping our already stretched finances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ding Dang Doo Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 The way the game is structured and heading in Scotland there is no way team's in the first division can be fully full time. It's just not financially viable in the current climate. Being full time isn't always the best choice and won't necessarily attract the best players. One of our best players is McGurn who is part time and i'd rather have a part timer like Mark Ferry than a useless full timer like McBride. Again whose decision was it to go fully full time when every other team in the league is acknowledging that they will soon become a mix of both? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CALDERON Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Mcglynn wanted a full time squad if I remember correctly, I'm sure he said he'd get more value for money. To be honest, I dont think our wages would be that much higher with a threadbare ft squad than a larger mixed one as we have had previously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ding Dang Doo Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Mcglynn wanted a full time squad if I remember correctly, I'm sure he said he'd get more value for money. To be honest, I dont think our wages would be that much higher with a threadbare ft squad than a larger mixed one as we have had previously. My point is that if we are going to be spending a certain amount on wages then we should be utilising it much better than we currently are. Just because we get full time players doesn't automatically make them better than a part time alternative, e.g. i'd rather have Ferry back than pay full time wages for McBride. But the fact is that we as a club are not generating nearly enough income and are losing money every season, even though we had some huge gates last season and the average attendance was up. As I said previously what state would we be in if we hadn't reached the semi final and overachieved last season? The directors have already shown this season that their estimates and budgets are completely wrong. Was it roughly 1000 less than expected v Falkirk and i'm sure it will be about the same for Dundee. Putting the price up doesn't always guarantee you'll bring in more money. How many fans have actually decided to stay away from the games since the prices went up? It may turn out to be completely counter productive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Wales was due to a lack of striking options. Weir still wasn't scoring, we were too reliant on Baird and Tade. McBride was more a hope that he could make an impact due to experience. I know the football reasoning. I meant the financial reasoning. If the Board are seeing we are heading towards an £80,000 loss or similar them why pay out more money even if only on short term contracts? And why not sell Baird for roughly that amount and a player who is poorer admittedly but at least we'd have cleared last years loss 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistle Blower Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Re Baird, on the face of it, it doesn't add up, if cash was offered then take it, there must have been issues re payment terms and how the deal was structured. I would suggest a fair whack of the £50K (£80K loss - £30K ref strike ) was from paying more win bonus, and league position bonus etc, and if it was who could have expected or planned for that *Whistle Blower in shock cutting board some slack post* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I would suggest a fair whack of the £50K (£80K loss - £30K ref strike ) was from paying more win bonus, and league position bonus etc, and if it was who could have expected or planned for that Good to see you addressing that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whistle Blower Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Good to see you addressing that I'm glad you guys were here to help 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I'm glad you guys were here to help We can afford the odd one but we won't be going daft 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_rover Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I know the football reasoning. I meant the financial reasoning. If the Board are seeing we are heading towards an £80,000 loss or similar them why pay out more money even if only on short term contracts? And why not sell Baird for roughly that amount and a player who is poorer admittedly but at least we'd have cleared last years loss Maybe because the offer for Baird was nowhere near that amount? With the goalkeeping scenario, what I don't understand is why we can't bring in a trialist rather than getting a player in on wages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scary Bear Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Look at that structure. Mental. That's a lot of different pie charts. http://www.raithtrust.org.uk/?p=304 I hope the news at this meeting isn't bad cause I really can't be arsed fannying about trying to scrape together funds again. Edited September 15, 2011 by Scary Bear 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Look at that structure. Mental. That's a lot of different pie charts. http://www.raithtrust.org.uk/?p=304 Not so much a venn diagram,but a venn hernia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 It really is a mindfuck of a structure. One question - Penman Kirkcaldy went into liquidation did it not? If so, what happened to the shares? Are they now owned by Penman in his personal capacity? That information is out of date now, though. I'm sure Hutton/Caira now have more shares as reward for soft loans or something like that. Could be wrong, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 It really is a mindfuck of a structure. One question - Penman Kirkcaldy went into liquidation did it not? If so, what happened to the shares? Are they now owned by Penman in his personal capacity? That information is out of date now, though. I'm sure Hutton/Caira now have more shares as reward for soft loans or something like that. Could be wrong, though. I think it was just the house building company that went into liquidation, the Penman Kirkcaldy mentioned will be a seperate entity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) I think it was just the house building company that went into liquidation, the Penman Kirkcaldy mentioned will be a seperate entity. I'm not sure, I think Penman Kirkcaldy was the subsidiary that went into liquidation. A quick google appears to back me up in that the company has been dissolved: http://opencorporate...ies/gb/SC292817 Alex Penman (Builders) Ltd still exists from what I can see. Edited to add: I see Penman Kirkcaldy was only incorporated in November 2005. When was it that Reclaim the Rovers started? Edited September 15, 2011 by Michael W 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I'm not sure, I think Penman Kirkcaldy was the subsidiary that went into liquidation. A quick google appears to back me up in that the company has been dissolved: http://opencorporate...ies/gb/SC292817 Alex Penman (Builders) Ltd still exists from what I can see. Edited to add: I see Penman Kirkcaldy was only incorporated in November 2005. When was it that Reclaim the Rovers started? Fair point, it's probably fair to say that AP still has a romoured interest, whether it be direct or otherwise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) My other worry is what would have happened if we didn't have that cup run. We would be in hundreds of thousand of pounds worth of debt. Added to the hundreds of thousand of pounds of existing debt Edited to add: I see Penman Kirkcaldy was only incorporated in November 2005. When was it that Reclaim the Rovers started? 2005 Interesting article http://www.clubsincrisis.com/raith_rovers.html Edited September 16, 2011 by Rovers_Lad 0 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.