Herbie6590

Thanks for the heads up...techies on it 👍🏻 @StubbsUK is I believe actively wrestling with Google...😳

We don’t know what has prompted Google to make the change...phased rollout of a new strategy by them I presume ?

Thanks...they DO support the site, especially if folks click through but we are always considering options.

It’s not our choice...Google just changed...we are trying to work out why/how & whether there is anything we can do about it...including potential Patreon type offerings...

Our techies are aware...it seems to be the way that Google are presenting their ads now. As you rightly surmise, this effectively pays for the site so we need to be careful in making any changes that block them...unless you all fancy paying a monthly membership fee ? 🤔 @StubbsUK feel free to add some expertise to the thread...😁

Open to gain information, closed to confirm the conclusion...so no, not never...but some say never say never...🤦‍♂️

Never ask a closed question...😉

It’s been said repeatedly on this thread but it bears repeating...do the thing that your “opponent” least wants you to do... Waggott needs planning consent. Without it, everything else is moot.

Based on Friday’s video, the thing that Waggott fears most is objections from the residents. That is the most powerful tactic that can be deployed to prevent planning being approved.

Give peas a chance

The options are stark: 1. Cut your cloth accordingly - reduce outgoings to match income 2. Increase income to allow continued investment 3. Ask owners to invest to make good the shortfall

Yes, but players are current assets & can be more easily traded/replaced than training grounds...

Precisely....I’ve worked on a number of sale & leaseback transactions in my career - businesses that need to unlock capital from their fixed assets in order to carry on trading. If the funds raised are then used to generate additional income then absolutely it could turn that business around. Essentially therefore, we are being asked to buy in to the premise that a smaller site, with fewer facilities (though possibly improved) will be better at producing young footballers - to save paying transfer fees & to sell on to generate income. I’m sceptical...

They might choose to walk away with a £200m loss; simply because this is as good as it is likely to get. Pumping in c.£17m p.a. to keep the business ticking over is throwing even more money into a black hole. The only positive way out for them is promotion & a sustained spell in the PL. No other scenario gives them their money back.

People do this all the the time when they downsize their houses to free up equity. But you can only do it once & it’s called downsizing for a reason. Once it is gone it is gone & JW put those covenants in for a reason. Not addressing this point is disingenuous at best.