Incredible isnt it.....ours doenst look as bad especially as they only went through all this a couple of years ago.....there just seems to be several sets of rules.....Hereford etc incuded....
Brilliant - they're openly acknowledging that they can't sustain the current expenditure to compete at this level, before moaning that they can't satisfy conditions to get into League Two?!? How about getting your accounts in order and consolidating your position here first?!? Madness.
Their average league crowd of 1,011 is higher than ourselves, Braintree, Tamworth, Alfreton, Gateshead and Hyde this season. A few of those clubs have managed to sustain themselves at this level for a number of years. If you can't sustain it - guess what? Spend less on the pitch! Relegation is/should be a minor sacrifice compared to saving the club.
The poor players not being able to train right next to the ground. Boohoo, pass the tissues.
Spooky how this coincides with two other recent threads on this forum i.e the Hereford thread and 'falling attendances'.
As their appeal highlights, having crowds of less than 1,000 consistently is not sustainable in this league. Although the budget seems to be okay at the moment, this should serve as a warning to ourselves as well as virtually every club in this league.
More and more clubs down this end of the league are going bust, and that trend is going to continue whilst the finance management of this league remains akin to that of a casino....
I was deemed harsh for my comments on Hereford, Salisbury, take note, same applies to you. No sympathy. Especially as you aren't even recognising your errors but begging for money and/or dreaming of things like League Two.
To think they are even considering League Two when they are new to the Conf Prem this season, and a million miles away from being financially sound and/or a football league club. A joke.
I suspect they went into admin and CVA's where people they owed money to got 10p on the pound or whatever the usual token gesture is by football clubs, only for them to raise through the league rapidly again and bank some decent crowds, bar takings, etc in the process, only for them to splash out AGAIN more than they can afford. When will clubs like this learn?
We are far from perfect, but we bailed ourselves out 99%, and we haven't re-offended. Salisbury and Hereford have. God knows what would have happened had Salisbury not won promotion last season, and if Hereford, as seems almost certain, go down this season.
I sympathise with the innocent long standing fan, I do not sympathise with the mouthy bandwagon jumpers, the directors, owners and or manager/players who allow this to happen right before their eyes.
It is better, and fairer, that clubs like this are punished, and disappear if need be, for the integrity of the competition they take part in. How can Salisbury, Hereford, Chester and/or Aldershot stay up this season, only for Tamworth, Southport and Hyde to go down. Not right.
If you have spare funds to give, give it to Welling, or the latter on the list I mention, not those that don't play by the rules. Otherwise what is the point? It's cheating. You may as well pick the ball up and run with it otherwise, or play with 12 men, or fix games like those recently accused.
Again, sympathy to the innocent fan, if it were Welling I would be devastated, but something must change or it'll be another two/three/four next season.
Oh and Russ, I assume you have re-written the name of the weblink
If they can't sustain things at this level on a average crowd of 1000, then go back to your/a level that you can, the lower regional leagues will be happy to have such a "massive" club as Salisbury of League Two gracing their division.
having crowds of less than 1,000 consistently is not sustainable in this league.
Really? There are probably eight teams in this league averaging under 1000. How many are in financial strife?
Doesn't it rather depend on what your budget it and how good you are commercially / how rich your chairman is, although I accept that teams will struggle to compete if they are relying primarily on their crowds as the main source of revenue.
having crowds of less than 1,000 consistently is not sustainable in this league.
Really? There are probably eight teams in this league averaging under 1000. How many are in financial strife?
Doesn't it rather depend on what your budget it and how good you are commercially / how rich your chairman is, although I accept that teams will struggle to compete if they are relying primarily on their crowds as the main source of revenue.
The rich chairman scenario is the most dangerous. They offer big money and long contracts then hit financial hardship and the club is left in the mire having to honour them.
I love the way the statement blames the fans for not supporting the club, rather than the chairman looking at him and his colleagues for spending money they have never had, or spending on the assumption of unrealistic attendances. If they have budgeted for X and can't meet it, even after two recent promotions, TV games, an FA Cup run and being in and around the play-offs until a month ago, then they are living in complete dreamland.
Salisbury, what a bunch of losers. How can they have generated debts of £750,000 at this level? Have not learn't their lesson so deserve no sympathy. What wages do they pay out to their star strikers? I am sick of clubs such as these who can't manage their books. No sympathy, should be voted out of the league for making an appeal like this, maybe Southern League is their correct sustainable level.
...but they are a charter standard community club sanctioned by the FA!!
There is a big difference between calculated risk / gamble and casino football. Really aren't they just advertising for a new rich sugar daddy? Basically trying to grow the club too quickly which is not sustainable.
Meanwhile, can we do all that is possible to increase matchday revenues ourselves and open a second bar / restaurant?
1) I believe the £750,000 loss was last time round. There was considerable moaning that they got relegated at all given they considered they had done nothing against the rules with the process they went through but the league saw differently.
2) '1000 is not a sustainable crowd in this league'. It might be if one third of the clubs weren't externally financed and a load more running at more they can obviously afford.
3) I seem to recall we were the 'smaller club' and didn't deserve to win the League according to a lot of popular thought down Wiltshire way. Apparently our failing is that most of us know exactly what size club we are, that the monetary aspect is rarely straightforward (and\or opaque) and we are currently blessed with a damned good manager. It does not take us six digits of someone else's money to work out what we actually are. Generally, if after 140 years of organised football you haven't already been higher than you already are, based on the natural income you create, without a backer you have probably found your natural historical level by now, give or take a division or two swing either way due to the quality of your management. The obvious exceptions to this would appear to be that you play in a new town with a major population influx, you get paid silly money for hosting mobile phone masts or you get a sell on of someone like Les Ferdinand. No one seems to be making much out of ground sale and rebuilding these days.
