Pot calling the kettle black arse .

Yet another thread complaining about the club's 'lack of ambition', about why transfers aren't signed, sealed and delivered in preseason, and about how Brighton, Brentford or whoever are showing us up for the comparatively poorly run club we are.

I would treat these posts with more respect if they addressed the realities of football life.

None of these posts ever include the club accounts, even though they are published yearly. The extent of the club's spending is dictated by its income, and we are generally maxed out, having previously required the sale of wan bissaka to balance the books and loans from the owners to operate following covid. All the 'Yeah, but' stuff is childish nonsense unless it addresses the recorded facts and figures.

Some argue the owners 'Should put their hands in their pockets, or sell to someone who will', but never seem to address FFP, which dictates that an owner cannot spend their personal money on players, only the club's money. It wouldn't matter if Bill Gates bought Palace in that respect, the transfer and wage budget would be the same.

I'm baffled by those who say that other clubs seem to get away with ignoring FFP. Look at the state of Wolves and Everton, two big clubs with rich owners, who know they have relegation-fodder squads but haven't brought in reinforcements. Why? Because, and this is very clear in the recorded facts and figures, they have spent too much in the recent past and now cannot spend any more. It is real, and we must operate accordingly. Very few critical posts address that.

Within the above framework it is of course possible to take more risks. Chelsea have mortgaged their own long term future by giving eight year contracts to players to offset their huge capital spending. If those players don't fly to the very top then Chelsea will be saddled with them, and with a vastly reduced transfer budget, for a very long time.

Brighton have just made their own little bit of history by qualifying for Europe. Good luck to them but it should be clear that they have gambled significantly in how they run their club, and that European qualification will not take them to some 'next level'. Often the opposite is true. On the first point, look at Brightons transfer spend and FFP figures. They need to sell big every year to stay afloat because they speculate so much on so many unknown players. They certainly arent making a profit, or even breaking even, without the big clubs buying their best players for huge fees, something that cannot be guaranteed. Secondly, the europa league doesn't generate significant income, in fact it often stretches your resources further than they can go. Ask Burnley, or Fulham, or Leicester. It isn't a base camp from which you can plot your assault on the top four, it's a reward in itself in sporting and memorable terms , but not in economic terms. We are not waving at the dockside whilst Brighton sail away to sunnier lands. They still live in our neighbourhood, and always will.

The difference between ambition and risk is minimal in football.
I've seen my fill of big-shots, gamblers and dreamers running football clubs. The primary objective is to ensure the club remains for future generations, and Parish has done more than most on that front.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (28 Aug 2023 2.38pm)

Is arse your specialist subject?.

Yet another thread complaining about the club's 'lack of ambition', about why transfers aren't signed, sealed and delivered in preseason, and about how Brighton, Brentford or whoever are showing us up for the comparatively poorly run club we are.

I would treat these posts with more respect if they addressed the realities of football life.

None of these posts ever include the club accounts, even though they are published yearly. The extent of the club's spending is dictated by its income, and we are generally maxed out, having previously required the sale of wan bissaka to balance the books and loans from the owners to operate following covid. All the 'Yeah, but' stuff is childish nonsense unless it addresses the recorded facts and figures.

Some argue the owners 'Should put their hands in their pockets, or sell to someone who will', but never seem to address FFP, which dictates that an owner cannot spend their personal money on players, only the club's money. It wouldn't matter if Bill Gates bought Palace in that respect, the transfer and wage budget would be the same.

I'm baffled by those who say that other clubs seem to get away with ignoring FFP. Look at the state of Wolves and Everton, two big clubs with rich owners, who know they have relegation-fodder squads but haven't brought in reinforcements. Why? Because, and this is very clear in the recorded facts and figures, they have spent too much in the recent past and now cannot spend any more. It is real, and we must operate accordingly. Very few critical posts address that.

Within the above framework it is of course possible to take more risks. Chelsea have mortgaged their own long term future by giving eight year contracts to players to offset their huge capital spending. If those players don't fly to the very top then Chelsea will be saddled with them, and with a vastly reduced transfer budget, for a very long time.

Brighton have just made their own little bit of history by qualifying for Europe. Good luck to them but it should be clear that they have gambled significantly in how they run their club, and that European qualification will not take them to some 'next level'. Often the opposite is true. On the first point, look at Brightons transfer spend and FFP figures. They need to sell big every year to stay afloat because they speculate so much on so many unknown players. They certainly arent making a profit, or even breaking even, without the big clubs buying their best players for huge fees, something that cannot be guaranteed. Secondly, the europa league doesn't generate significant income, in fact it often stretches your resources further than they can go. Ask Burnley, or Fulham, or Leicester. It isn't a base camp from which you can plot your assault on the top four, it's a reward in itself in sporting and memorable terms , but not in economic terms. We are not waving at the dockside whilst Brighton sail away to sunnier lands. They still live in our neighbourhood, and always will.

The difference between ambition and risk is minimal in football.
I've seen my fill of big-shots, gamblers and dreamers running football clubs. The primary objective is to ensure the club remains for future generations, and Parish has done more than most on that front.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (28 Aug 2023 2.38pm)

We are struggling to sign players because they know RH is only going to be here for a year. Any players coming in want say a 3 year contract but are thinking whoever the new manager is next Summer might not want them so are getting cold feet.

Blame our poser chairman for getting old Roy back for a year. Should have appointed a manager for at least a couple of seasons so any new signings know where they stand.

There has been some silly statements, but yours takes the biscuit