Babylon Posted 6 November 2005 Posted 6 November 2005 the money recieve for connolly is extra cash, bills etc... are payed for with the revenue the club receives. the way the club pays the bills would of continued as it was before the connolly deal, therefore the extra 800,000 looks as if its a surplus. Did you even read my post? I will say it again... "gates are down on what the club had budgeted for". Basicly what that means is that the club will not receive enough money to cover the costs of wages/general running of the club. The money they lost from the gates being down has to be found somewhere!!!!!!!
davieG Posted 6 November 2005 Posted 6 November 2005 Can anyone confirm that yah or nay? I wonder if wigan would give us say £800,000 in mid jan, if they have 30 - 35pts or so. "Apart from your the assumption that the money hasn't gone to pay some necessary bills - I'm amazed at how black and white people see business and life in general." Are you assuming it has gone to necessary bills, explain futher davieg? No, but I'm not assuming, unlike SirFoot that we have £800,000 for players. I'll keep an open mind until someone who knows the facts let's us know.
davieG Posted 6 November 2005 Posted 6 November 2005 the money recieve for connolly is extra cash, bills etc... are payed for with the revenue the club receives. the way the club pays the bills would of continued as it was before the connolly deal, therefore the extra 800,000 looks as if its a surplus. Err no it doesn't, it's income like any other cash they receive, they can choose to make it available to CL for tranfers, they could pay off some bills to reduce interest on all the money they owe, they could give the staff a bonus in fact pretty much anything legal you could think of.
lush Posted 6 November 2005 Author Posted 6 November 2005 The "extra 800,000" as you call it went to pay off existing club debts. The club has loans and payment commitments to various institutions at various rates of interest. Thus, not all the money from Connolly's sale went into the transfer kitty, but went on repaying principal so that our interest payments fall. Wigan will not advance the money to us in January, not unless we offer to renegotiate the transfer so that we receive a smaller advance payment now rather than in the summer if Wigan stay up. I for one would be against this short term fix proposed by Lush, as I do not believe we will get promotion this season, so there is little point accepting less money on the premise that we have an outside chance of promotion. The club could get take a loan based on the potential payment from Wigan, but again, there are no guarantees (which I admit looks unlikely Wigan will be relegated) and more importantly, I do not see why we should take on more interest repayments for a January transfer when we are unlikely to get promotion with or without. The fact is, if you owned Leicester City, and it was your money, would you saddle yourself with more debt in the unlikely event that we might get promotion this season. Sadly these are the facts. How do you know the "800k" went on paying loan debts? But were talking about mid jan time. You dont know where we`ll be come then, or even jan 1st. If we are 4th - 8th, and theres a striker worth upto what wigan would pay us, then its worth the gamble. Thats the beauty of it, its not more debt. Your only spending what you have. It seems unlikely 2 months before, but we`ll play for some 42pts between now and jan 21st (including plymouth away), so its not fact, its just your pesimist opinion. I bet any money, that come 5pm on jan 21st, if wigan have 35pts or more, and were 6th, and if wigan say, here you are Leicester, were willing to give you 800k now, and we could buy and pay the wages of someone for 2 seasons, in any position i may add, to help us even clinch top six, they`ll be the cry to do it!! The chant will be, **spend the weeirgan money, spend the weeirgan money**. Because its money that can only help our cause.
Manwell Pablo Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 How do you know the "800k" went on paying loan debts? But were talking about mid jan time. You dont know where we`ll be come then, or even jan 1st. If we are 4th - 8th, and theres a striker worth upto what wigan would pay us, then its worth the gamble. Thats the beauty of it, its not more debt. Your only spending what you have. It seems unlikely 2 months before, but we`ll play for some 42pts between now and jan 21st (including plymouth away), so its not fact, its just your pesimist opinion. I bet any money, that come 5pm on jan 21st, if wigan have 35pts or more, and were 6th, and if wigan say, here you are Leicester, were willing to give you 800k now, and we could buy and pay the wages of someone for 2 seasons, in any position i may add, to help us even clinch top six, they`ll be the cry to do it!! The chant will be, **spend the weeirgan money, spend the weeirgan money**. Because its money that can only help our cause. We may disagree on where the money should be used, and who the money should replace. But we agree on the fact the money must be used. Not nessca the money from Wigan directly. But I assume we can use our own money... plus a bit extra from the good cup run weve had plus a bit extra from the near enough guranteed premiership status of Wigan I dont know what Crag Levien will do with his $$$ in Jan. But its could be his second to last chance of making an impact.
Michael Doyle Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 From memory we got Hammond for $750,000 I will stand corrected on this. Most posters believe he is not worth it and continually are on his back for lacking basic skills. I have only watched him play three times so cant really comment. Going on the view of most posts $750,000 does not get you a lot. Will $800,000, even if we spent it now? I don't think so.... I can say this with some authority that when a business is considered for administration one of the priorities in the business plan going forward is to honour its existing debts (once negotiated with the debtor) I would doubt that the full amount of the incoming transfer fee was able to go on any outgoing transfer fees, as would any potential income as part of the same deal. Meaning if we were to get another Million Its doubtful that 100% would be released for further transfer fees. Levein could be looking at pooling his transfer money i.e. a possible $800,000 (have now) + another $800,000 (potential) = $1,600,000 would that get us any more of a player than the $800,000? Maybe he goes for a number of players. Either way he's the man like it or like it not. A comment on the previous post was valid. The balloon payments for getting relegated stop and that confirms IMO that we need to be stable on the pitch so we don't have to panic otherwise we could do a Forrest. We need to leave it to Levein. If we had $800,000 it wouldn't get us much. We probably don't (all though I don't know) so the chances are we will get less. Wouldn't it be great to be a billionaire oil tycoon............whose from Leicester. Our prayers and problems would be solved over night and we could all go an celebrate.................but looking at it realistically, its just not going to happen. Oh by the way for those asking for Levein out who would you put into his place starting next Monday say? Bear in mind the clubs inability to pay absorbent salaries. MadMick
Manwell Pablo Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 From memory we got Hammond for $750,000 I will stand corrected on this. Most posters believe he is not worth it and continually are on his back for lacking basic skills. I have only watched him play three times so cant really comment. Going on the view of most posts $750,000 does not get you a lot. Will $800,000, even if we spent it now? I don't think so.... I can say this with some authority that when a business is considered for administration one of the priorities in the business plan going forward is to honour its existing debts (once negotiated with the debtor) I would doubt that the full amount of the incoming transfer fee was able to go on any outgoing transfer fees, as would any potential income as part of the same deal. Meaning if we were to get another Million Its doubtful that 100% would be released for further transfer fees. Levein could be looking at pooling his transfer money i.e. a possible $800,000 (have now) + another $800,000 (potential) = $1,600,000 would that get us any more of a player than the $800,000? Maybe he goes for a number of players. Either way he's the man like it or like it not. A comment on the previous post was valid. The balloon payments for getting relegated stop and that confirms IMO that we need to be stable on the pitch so we don't have to panic otherwise we could do a Forrest. We need to leave it to Levein. If we had $800,000 it wouldn't get us much. We probably don't (all though I don't know) so the chances are we will get less. Wouldn't it be great to be a billionaire oil tycoon............whose from Leicester. Our prayers and problems would be solved over night and we could all go an celebrate.................but looking at it realistically, its just not going to happen. Oh by the way for those asking for Levein out who would you put into his place starting next Monday say? Bear in mind the clubs inability to pay absorbent salaries. MadMick We Signed Elvis Hammond for a fee that could rise to £350,000
lush Posted 7 November 2005 Author Posted 7 November 2005 But we agree on the fact the money must be used. Only if it makes business sense.
Manwell Pablo Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 Only if it makes business sense. Well im sure we must have somthing lying about! I think Williams will be gone any way so that should raise some extra £
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 Well im sure we must have somthing lying about! I think Williams will be gone any way so that should raise some extra £ and thats a mistake!
lush Posted 7 November 2005 Author Posted 7 November 2005 Well im sure we must have somthing lying about! I think Williams will be gone any way so that should raise some extra £ yeah atleast £1.73p
Manwell Pablo Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 yeah atleast £1.73p Dont get carried away!
Sly Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 Before we get to January why don't we at least LOOK at Chambers. I'm beginning to wonder how many people who post on these threads have ever seen him play. Cos if they had they wouldn't be so dismissive of the idea of using him instead of Hammond. No-one is suggesting he is the final answer. But used sparingly why not? I've seen him lots of times and against fast, strong opponents. Given the four or five excellent chances we had in the first half Chambers would certainly have threatened a goal. He really does send a buzz through the crowd when he gets the ball - just like Gold-Smith. Twice in recent reserve games I saw him gather the ball outside the box with two/three defenders around him and nothing really on. Twice he crafted the faintest of openings and curled his shots into the net. On another occasion in one of those matches he made awonderful 40-yard run, gathered a diagonal path and in one movement fed Levi Porter who bent in a stunning left footer. Vision/effect/ruthlessness .. key qualities of a striker which Chambers has and Hammond doesn't.. We should see how he goes. Is Chambers old enough to play in the league?
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 Is Chambers old enough to play in the league? Yes the league allows players from 8 year old upwards!
Ric Flair Posted 7 November 2005 Posted 7 November 2005 We defended well, but not exceptionally. No craig, he made 3 fantastic saves in the video you watched previous to todays game. He got in the way of a close range shot, because thats all he could do. Craig, its VERY difficult to win ANY game with only one striker. Why am i telling you this, your getting paid thousands of pounds to KNOW it. You have to be fair with critsism, and his only plausable excuse is his young squad. True, we are looking difficult to beat, but do we look like winning? Are you building us a fortress base on which to eventually win? We are a difficult animal, we scored 4 v stoke, 2 v crewe sheff wed, now zero v depreston, plymouth and southampton. we havnt scored a league goal in 2 half games. Can we just get rid of dubs and de lump please, pretty please, and use the forthcoming £1M from wigan to secure better? Bloody Burnley are making a habit of it and that one striker they play is also the worst striker i've seen at Leicester in years!
lush Posted 7 November 2005 Author Posted 7 November 2005 Bloody Burnley are making a habit of it Yes but they have 5 in midfield.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.