Beveree Chat

Again we are all guessing and only will be able to get a feel for the budget once we see a few signings. If we are indeed back to the Gary Mc playing budget levels then remember that this was not sustainable and that is why we needed new investors in the first place. In the meantime basic overhead costs will have jumped significantly. Plus don’t know where we’re are with all the additional staffing, will that continue? If we are at the wrong end of the league next season match day revenue will likely be lower. And at the moment no paying shirt sponsor or financial contribution from the Trust. So not quite back to where we were I would reckon.

No supporter knows the budget of any club, I find it bizarre people speculate at budgets "ours is bigger than theirs" etc.
The only people that know are those in the boardroom, and it's not information supporters know, nor should they.
Lots of clubs have other side deals, sponsors for certain players, little extras put in with cash off the books, managers who top things up.

Players will often say they are on more than what they were for their own ego or to push for more at another club.

We have all seen teams in the past assembled with smaller budgets who over achieve, it's not always those with the biggest budget, some managers have a great knack of attracting players through the way the work and pitching their vision.

Alan Julian I expect will have some useful contacts, and well regarded and like through who he's played with and worked with before.

Gary McCann budget was apparently topped up with the Jamal Lowe sell on clauses, which I never truly understand as gives a false representation of what a club can afford. When getting such a windfall I always feel smaller clubs like Hampton should invest such money in other areas, not chucking at players to chase short term higher league positions.

As I said at the time of the proposed takeover, I'd much rather the club work on a sustainable budget, even if that means the club playing at a lower level. Its about still having a club in 5, 10, 20, 50 years time. No point chucking money at players if cannot afford it.

Well said, Jamie. Winning is better than losing, but existing is so much better than not existing.

Sustainability should absolutely be the priority. Unfortunately, it's rather looking like the brothers 'playbook' consisted of spending all the money they raised in one season.

We have been home and local friendlies supporters since about 2000,newbies compared to many. Been lucky to have seen many great games and lot
of very good players, Jamal,Orsi,Moone,Tarpey,Dean and many more, plus a lot of not so good. From what I understand if the brothers had not taken over a good chance we would have folded.I thought the pitch last season was a great improvement, the food outlets good and the general atmosphere around the ground very good.
Hopefully Alan can get a decent team for next season ,we will certainly be there season ticket sorted,looking at other teams in the league we should be seeing a few decent teams and players. Could be worse we could be Dartford or Havant supporters, let's hope we don't join them.

shaunden wrote: Wed May 15, 2024 7:29 pm From what I understand if the brothers had not taken over a good chance we would have folded.

Genuine question, do we know to what extent this is true? Was there really imminent danger of the club folding in 2022? I know the Petruzzo brothers made the claim in one of their videos, but they’re obviously inclined to boast and exaggerate at every opportunity.

I can well believe the finances weren’t in a great state, the floodlight issues must have been a big concern, but were things really THAT dire?

Personal view here, but if there had been no viable new investment then the club had the option to significantly downsize on costs but this would not have been easy to execute and would almost certainly have led to relegation, maybe more than one, loss of management, players, volunteers, staff etc. The problem was that the negotiations took several months to complete which meant that the such drastic action was not deemed appropriate whilst a viable investment was still achievable. I don’t think the “no investment” was ever seriously explored so hard to say whether it could have worked but I think it might. I should also add the club had no debt which probably meant it was an attractive target for investors. Look at Torquay which had £5m debt and you can see why they went into administration.

Why were the club deemed worth investing in then and not now. What has changed!

tones wrote: Wed May 15, 2024 10:10 pm Why were the club deemed worth investing in then and not now. What has changed!

The brothers sold a story of what they saw as possible whereas now investors can probably see more of the reality.

The only ones who can really answer that question are Jaques and other board members at the time.

The clowns were certainly peddling the narrative that without them stepping forward the club was doomed and they were the heroes to come and not only save it but take it forward. Hence the constant self congratulatory posts telling everyone how attendances had grown etc etc.
What seems clear is that they loaded the club with non playing staff costs having dispensed with volunteers who were doing it for less and brought in outside food business who were taking a large chunk of the revenue.

The only tangible evidence of the infrastructure investment is a load of scaffolding and they binned off the supporters trust as they weren’t prepared to be held to account for their running of the club
.

I said at the time it had echoes of our near neighbours at Staines Town and how the supporters were left with nothing due to the ego of a big time Charlie.

The only difference here is two big time Charlie’s who can’t fund it themselves and are reliant on other people’s money.

I should have also added that the 3G pitch was viewed as key to making the club financially sustainable. This was the club’s plan before the new investors came on the scene but had not been possible due to the pandemic and soaring costs of borrowing. The new owners agreed to fund the 3G themselves but as we now know the cost of installing a 3G has increased significantly making it a less viable plan. I don’t know if the 3G plan is ever going to be a viable option but if not then I guess we are left with left with a more conventional plan whereby investors shoulder the burden of running costs whilst trying to improve revenue and profitability through increased attendances, sponsorships etc. Somewhere in that plan is how much you are prepared to spend on the playing squad to get promotion. And if you get promoted can you sustain yourself at that level where we know the costs are significantly greater. Clearly some clubs of our size have found investors prepared to take on that risk and be successful/sustainable eg Bromley, Sutton Utd, Maidenhead, Wealdstone. But there are plenty of other examples where clubs have crashed and burned, Torquay being the most recent example. So I imagine the recent cut to the budget must be seen in this light. What supporters are not clear on is the attitude of current investors to support a plan without a 3G at its core. It is the new shareholders who must hold club management to account and perhaps that is what we are seeing.

Tony wrote: Thu May 16, 2024 6:04 am I should have also added that the 3G pitch was viewed as key to making the club financially sustainable. This was the club’s plan before the new investors came on the scene but had not been possible due to the pandemic and soaring costs of borrowing. The new owners agreed to fund the 3G themselves but as we now know the cost of installing a 3G has increased significantly making it a less viable plan. I don’t know if the 3G plan is ever going to be a viable option but if not then I guess we are left with left with a more conventional plan whereby investors shoulder the burden of running costs whilst trying to improve revenue and profitability through increased attendances, sponsorships etc. Somewhere in that plan is how much you are prepared to spend on the playing squad to get promotion. And if you get promoted can you sustain yourself at that level where we know the costs are significantly greater. Clearly some clubs of our size have found investors prepared to take on that risk and be successful/sustainable eg Bromley, Sutton Utd, Maidenhead, Wealdstone. But there are plenty of other examples where clubs have crashed and burned, Torquay being the most recent example. So I imagine the recent cut to the budget must be seen in this light. What supporters are not clear on is the attitude of current investors to support a plan without a 3G at its core. It is the new shareholders who must hold club management to account and perhaps that is what we are seeing.

Good insights.