Summary Of The MYFC Document

[Stu M]

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

Why didn't we "invest" in our best assets, ie players such as MacDonald, by giving longer contracts?

What I will expect is the usual unwitty comments, head in the sand attitude that can be found on here so often

Unwitty perhaps, but we discussed this one till we were blue in the face. JP made the completely wrong comment some weeks ago that FGR had offered Fleetwood a better contract than we'd offered MacDonald. Which was complete rubbish.

Anyway Gary, on the one hand you're moaning about a board blowing money at a level at which we can't compete, on the other you're demanding better contracts for players like MacDonald when the reality was, short of breaking the bank, he'd only ever have agreed 12 months at a time.

Now shovel that sand over my head.

[John Pearce]

Originally Posted By: Stu M

Unwitty perhaps, but we discussed this one till we were blue in the face. JP made the completely wrong comment some weeks ago that FGR had offered Fleetwood a better contract than we'd offered MacDonald. Which was complete rubbish.

Far from being rubbish.

Forest Green look like they will either cash-in on Fleetwood at some vast profit, on a player may I remind you that previously was injury prone and could certainly be considered a risk. Forest Green cannot be one of the more wealthy clubs in the BSP but they still had the foresight to take a risk with Fleetwood and get him on a decent contract.

As was usual nobody was prepared to take a risk on Macdonald and offer him an extended contract from day one, as is the case at FGR. Some might say we couldn't afford to at the time, he wasn't worth breaking the bank for......but that is precisley what this joke of a board have done with the clubs overall finances. From what I can remember, when Macdoanld signed it was publicised as being a major signing, the word 'risk' was never even mentioned.

[Hempstead Gaz]

Fine. Any club director in the UK would have realised that Mac was a once in a decade player who was always going to move upwards. Money should have been spent on offering CM a rolling 1 year contract, instead of the cash that was and has been thrown at name changes and Fleet Leisure.

 

[Stu M]

Originally Posted By: John Pearce

Far from being rubbish.

Forest Green look like they will either cash-in on Fleetwood at some vast profit, on a player may I remind you that previously was injury prone and could certainly be considered a risk. Forest Green cannot be one of the more wealthy clubs in the BSP but they still had the foresight to take a risk with Fleetwood and get him on a decent contract.

Erm... sorry, but that's still rubbish. FGR's offered Fleetwood a one-year contract. We offered MacDonald a one-year contract. No difference. They had no more foresight than we did. The ONLY difference is that league clubs are prepared to shell out for Fleetwood now, they weren't with MacDonald.

[Yorkfox]

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

but unless the real money eanrer - gates, are substantially increased, MyFC will lose patience being a sponsor to a loss making club and pull out.

I dont think that its an option from what I have read, although I may be wrong. From my point of view, when we are finally involved with you, that is it for aslong as anyone can see in the future , we are with you.

[Stu M]

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

Fine. Any club director in the UK would have realised that Mac was a once in a decade player who was always going to move upwards.

Gary, your reaction had we given him a four-year contract and his up-until-then fairly common injuries had prevented him playing for two or three of those would have been very different I suspect.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[thatguy]

So we will also have that money next season as well then.

[John Pearce]

Originally Posted By: Stu M

Originally Posted By: John Pearce

Far from being rubbish.

Forest Green look like they will either cash-in on Fleetwood at some vast profit, on a player may I remind you that previously was injury prone and could certainly be considered a risk. Forest Green cannot be one of the more wealthy clubs in the BSP but they still had the foresight to take a risk with Fleetwood and get him on a decent contract.

Erm... sorry, but that's still rubbish. FGR's offered Fleetwood a one-year contract. We offered MacDonald a one-year contract. No difference. They had no more foresight than we did. The ONLY difference is that league clubs are prepared to shell out for Fleetwood now, they weren't with MacDonald.

We will have to agree to disagree then won't we!

[Hempstead Gaz]

Originally Posted By: Stu M

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

Fine. Any club director in the UK would have realised that Mac was a once in a decade player who was always going to move upwards.

Gary, your reaction had we given him a four-year contract and his up-until-then fairly common injuries had prevented him playing for two or three of those would have been very different I suspect.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Of course it would Stu. Non league players of CM's talent rarely stay non league for long.
I would have liked CM to have at least been offered a contract that exteded past the summer break, or a rolling 1 year contract.

[Stu M]

Originally Posted By: John Pearce

We will have to agree to disagree then won't we!

I guess so, but I'm still wondering how one can disagree with a fact not an opinion!

[Harry J Allstars]

Originally Posted By: John Pearce

Originally Posted By: Stu M

Originally Posted By: John Pearce

Far from being rubbish.

Forest Green look like they will either cash-in on Fleetwood at some vast profit, on a player may I remind you that previously was injury prone and could certainly be considered a risk. Forest Green cannot be one of the more wealthy clubs in the BSP but they still had the foresight to take a risk with Fleetwood and get him on a decent contract.

Erm... sorry, but that's still rubbish. FGR's offered Fleetwood a one-year contract. We offered MacDonald a one-year contract. No difference. They had no more foresight than we did. The ONLY difference is that league clubs are prepared to shell out for Fleetwood now, they weren't with MacDonald.

We will have to agree to disagree then won't we!

What's to disagree with? We offered Macdonald a one year contract, FGR offered Fleetwood a one year contract. This time last year teams were not coming in with the £250,000 offers for Macdonald that teams are currently coming in from Legaue clubs for Fleetwood. Have I missed something? Fleetwoods contract expires this summer as Macdonalds ended last summer.

Gary how would you feel if we had offered Macdonald a three year deal and then had been tackled that ended his career? That's not a risk then?

[doheochai]

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

I reckon we are VERY fortunate that MyFC have stepped in to save us from oblivion, but unless the real money eanrer - gates, are substantially increased, MyFC will lose patience being a sponsor to a loss making club and pull out.

At this stage (assuming the vote goes as expected) the only way MyFC will 'pull-out' will be if the MyFC membership drops too low to make the whole project viable. MyFC will not lose it patience - this is one 'worry' existing supporters shouldn't have.

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

I suppose it boils down to being run by MyFC and having a club which is in danger of losing it's homely identity,

Hopefully this will not happen - I certainly will do everything in my power to prevent it and will take advice from any existing supporter on how I could help.

Originally Posted By: Chatham Gary

Part of me wants success, but a bigger part of me still has a soft spot for G&N FC, regardless of the league and opposition.

Only natural and I fully understand this sentiment.

[Riverview Red]

It's interesting that after the DD, most of what I have been predicting for a few years is proved to be very true - unfortunately!

 

I was accused of being a doom and gloom monger when I stated the club was operating above its station and outside its budget to the extreme

 

We never could afford to compete with a full time team and its associated wage bill, nor pay the army of full-time admin staff etc around the club now.

 

The current Board should stand up and publically say sorry for bankrupting the club.

 

The extra sponsorships etc over the past few years have purely kept the wolves from the door and the club has lurched into more and more debt.

 

What a stroke of luck the MFC.com guys turned up and saved the club - like the idea or not, they have saved us.

 

The other extra expense they will have to deal with however, will be the cost of a new carpet in the board room, as I am sure the current one will be covered in scorch marks as the current board run for the exit door!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Unrecognized Genius]

Some credit though to Brian's negotiating skills in persuading MyFC that we were the best club for them, when we weren't the cheapest by a long way & for Roly's decision not to dismiss it when he first heard of the scheme last spring. Also to whoever secured the Eurostar deal.

 

I think we can see how the full time decision was arrived at: Slarti has given a pretty credible version of that elsewhere; at the time it wasn't a crazy idea. We were well supported despite struggling to stay well clear of the drop zone. Also, if what Roly said at the recent forum is correct, it is trying to compete in the Conference National with unforseen falling gates that has been so draining, not going full time per se. He was adamant that in itself it was no more expensive than staying part time in terms of payments to players.

 

I accept that without MyFC stepping in we would either have gone to the wall, or more likely have had to downsize & re-group in a way as dramatic & draconian as that required when Lionel Ball returned. However, given the proven negotiating skills of our interim chairman to be, I still wouldn't be surprised to see a really good new stadium deal secured eventually.

 

Maybe I'm just a deranged happy clapper.

 

EC

 

 

[Uncle Urchin]

Originally Posted By: Unrecognized Genius

Maybe I'm just a deranged happy clapper.

I don't think so... there is no doubt that brooks and co have worked this all out to suit themselves and that in itself almost certainly guarantees a stable future as long as the mugs keep paying up..I just don't like the way its all been done under the guise of a democratic brave new footie world and transparency...the opposite in fact as the rules have been changing from day one and still are as the moonies high command seek to justify it all and their heavies beat all forum dissenters up by shouting them down and aiming abuse at them.....

hobsons comes to mind to be honest and having sussed all the figures out for myself with a little help from a few learned friends..its a good word..

[American FLEET FAN No1]

Quote:

Maybe I'm just a deranged happy clapper.
EC

It's the bells, you know!

[Stu M]

Given the operating losses of £26k a month, one wonders whether the goal of League football is worth it for most clubs. I don't know the income figures for another step up (Unc?), but would they really be worth it bearing in mind the outlay to get there in the first place? And then to try and stay there?

 

Many clubs must be bleeding themselves dry just to finish in mid-table in the Conference.

[DA11]

Surely any questions we have unanswered can be directed to Jason in the bar at the next home game.

[Riverview Red]

As for your comments on the Board's good negotiating skills, you make me laugh

 

They might have spent their time better of the past few years buying a calculator or slide rule (or gone back to junior school to do basic addition and subtraction sums) to see that you can only spend out to a level that is the same or lower than what is coming in.

 

The £700K + debt never just crept up on them overnight did it!

 

The statements from MFC.com are also quite concerning and very naive, where they state that their business plan for development is based on higher gates, more sponsorship etc etc. We all know it won't happen, we are what we are "A very small Conference Club with a definitive fan base of 900 to 1,500 on a good day"

 

But anyway at least we still have a club to watch on Saturday !

 

 

[Uncle Urchin]

Originally Posted By: Stu M

Given the operating losses of £26k a month, one wonders whether the goal of League football is worth it for most clubs. I don't know the income figures for another step up (Unc?), but would they really be worth it bearing in mind the outlay to get there in the first place? And then to try and stay there?

Many clubs must be bleeding themselves dry just to finish in mid-table in the Conference.

thats a whole new thread Stu which I haven't got time for at the mo but it is scary when you dig into it...