Matt Taylor - 2 Years As ECFC Manager...

[The Proper Chap]

Don't thinks its lame just look at what Salford, FGR et al have been doing even before the salary cap was in place. They all have Sugar Daddies in one form or another. UTC

There are a handful of clubs who splash the cash (relatively), the vast majority don't.

 

[Martin Lawrence]

There are a handful of clubs who splash the cash (relatively), the vast majority don't.

The vast majority operate at significant operational losses (based on what is recorded in their published accounts). That suggests to me that the majority are "splashing the cash", albeit with differing degrees of success.

 

[The Proper Chap]

The vast majority operate at significant operational losses (based on what is recorded in their published accounts). That suggests to me that the majority are "splashing the cash", albeit with differing degrees of success.

Don't we often make significant losses ?

For the year ending June 30, 2019, the club posted an operating loss of £702,000.

We had years of losses during most of Tisdale's reign, we couldn't even pay our wages at one point.

 

[Rosencrantz]

For the majority it is not so much splashing the cash as plugging holes whilst trying to remain competitive in the arms race created by those few who pay out large wages for players. That's why the salary cap was voted through in L1 and L2 by the majority.

 

[memoman]

Don't we often make significant losses ?

For the year ending June 30, 2019, the club posted an operating loss of £702,000.

We had years of losses during most of Tisdale's reign, we couldn't even pay our wages at one point.

I think the vast majority of these in recent years have been made up of 'budgeted losses' whereby an extra £500k for instance is put into the playing budget thanks to player sales in the years prior.

 

[IndoMike]

Think it's a bit extreme to talk about getting rid of Matt Taylor if we don't get promoted this season.
Firstly, if you get rid you have to bring in someone who is a better manager and who can adapt to not having an owner who can bring in players at the drop of a hat
Secondly, you need a manager who can adapt to City's philosophy of giving young players a chance and who.in general fits in to the club
Thirdly, you couldn't say Matt has been a failure, having just missed out on playoffs after losing the spine of his team the first season and just missing out on autos in his 2nd.
Unless something goes drastically wrong this season I think we should continue to trust in Matt as he has trusted in City.

 

[SEA Grecian]

There are a handful of clubs who splash the cash (relatively), the vast majority don't.

Last season there were 5 clubs in League 2 (Swindon, Argyle, Mansfield, Forest Green and Salford) whose owners had spent significant amounts of cash and might reasonably be described as sugar daddies. In all 5 cases it seems reasonable to assume that the money that has been 'invested' was considerably larger than the transfer windfalls we have received in recent years. And that's before, as Martin points out, you consider the clubs that are making regular losses without any apparent benefactor to bankroll the debts.

Exeter City (Episode 27)

Face masks, testing, social distancing and the echo of empty stadiums. Many publications and media outlets have spent the past week morbidly claiming this as the new face of football. As Swindon To…

exetercityfc.wordpress.com

 

[SEA Grecian]

Don't we often make significant losses ?

For the year ending June 30, 2019, the club posted an operating loss of £702,000.

We had years of losses during most of Tisdale's reign, we couldn't even pay our wages at one point.

As Memoman says last season's losses were budgeted for as a way of spending our transfer windfall. Unless it has changed in recent years the club are not allowed to borrow money from the bank which is why we had to go to the PFA to pay the player's wages when the financial director of the time infamously admitted to 'taking his eye of the ball'. In fact this inability to borrow money is the biggest concern during the current crisis. Although we have a decent cash reserve, once the money runs out we will be in trouble and can't rely, like Plymouth, for example, on a rich owner providing some money to keep the club going.

 

[SEA Grecian]

For the majority it is not so much splashing the cash as plugging holes whilst trying to remain competitive in the arms race created by those few who pay out large wages for players. That's why the salary cap was voted through in L1 and L2 by the majority.

I'm sorry but personally I think that's just an excuse for businesses being run badly and gambling that they might be successful enough on the pitch to make money in the long-run. Maybe I'm being too cynical but it appears that the reason clubs voted for the new salary cap was to be seen to be doing something so as to avoid the threat of an independent regulator being introduced. And the reason an arbitrary new flat salary cap was chosen was because it is felt it will be easier to police than the previous, far more sensible cap which was linked to club's income. The new cap may have an effect in the long-term but so far it has done nothing to improve sustainability - the clubs who want to spend bought players like crazy before the cap was introduced and the poor and /or sensible clubs like City don't have enough money to reach the salary cap anyway; the reason we are not signing players is not because we are worried about exceeding the cap but because we are rightly concerned about our lack of future income.

 

[Rosencrantz]

I'm sorry but personally I think that's just an excuse for businesses being run badly and gambling that they might be successful enough on the pitch to make money in the long-run. Maybe I'm being too cynical but it appears that the reason clubs voted for the new salary cap was to be seen to be doing something so as to avoid the threat of an independent regulator being introduced. And the reason an arbitrary new flat salary cap was chosen was because it is felt it will be easier to police than the previous, far more sensible cap which was linked to club's income. The new cap may have an effect in the long-term but so far it has done nothing to improve sustainability - the clubs who want to spend bought players like crazy before the cap was introduced and the poor and /or sensible clubs like City don't have enough money to reach the salary cap anyway; the reason we are not signing players is not because we are worried about exceeding the cap but because we are rightly concerned about our lack of future income.

I never said it was a good business model . I probably should have said the "perceived" arms race by the owners of those clubs who may well be using it an excuse to do the spending and then moan about it and use it as an excuse for the salary cap whilst shifting blame onto the likes of Salford, FGR and Mansfield. The new cap was always going to have to go through a transitional stage before it takes effect which did leave the loophole for those who wanted to splash.

As far as City is concerned we should only ever spend what we can afford to which we recently have been doing using the surplus cash previously made to subsidise the budget. Currently though as you say, we must be cautious until our income goes back to as normal as possible and there is some certainty again.