An Update

[Agu the Rebel]

An update from the board of directors | The Official website of Slough Town FC - latest news, photos and videos

[Sir Rebel1965]

Status quo.

[GlenSTFC]

Am I the only one who found the last part of this sentence alarming!

“To put our supporters’ minds at rest, the club is debt-free and players will continue to be paid in full next week.”

[GlenSTFC]

Not enough meat on the bones in that statement. Has/will the budget be cut? Hopefully the FA Trophy win plus a couple more will keep the wolf from the door. Interesting there are ‘investors’ in talks now and in the summer especially as there are no assets as such so not sure any money put into the club can be guaranteed to be paid back.

[Reading Rebel]

Plainly obvious from the statement that we have the money to pay the players in full in the short term but unless more money comes into the club via higher attendances or investors/sponsors the budget will have to be cut to avoid getting into debt.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Reading Rebel

[SloughFlyer]

7 hours ago, GlenSTFC said:

Am I the only one who found the last part of this sentence alarming!

“To put our supporters’ minds at rest, the club is debt-free and players will continue to be paid in full next week.”

Totally agree Glen, the only bit that is really concerning and could do with some clarification. Really its the last 4 words that really point to potential issues moving forwards

[SloughFlyer]

4 hours ago, Reading Rebel said:

Plainly obvious from the statement that we have the money to pay the players in full in the short term but unless more money comes into the club via higher attendances or investors/sponsors the budget will have to be cut to avoid getting into debt.

Agreed RR, fairly obvious that things could be really tight really soon. The trohpy money from the last round must have helped a bit (even if its just a weeks wages) as the statement confirms the cup money isn't budgeted for.

[SloughFlyer]

My take on the statement:

1st 3 paragraphs are to be expected "thanks fans, money is tight etc" apart from the line discussed above.

I'm not sure I would be looking at pre-pandemic numbers as a measure of season ticket sales. I wonder what the drop is from last year as surely any budgets set would have been based on last season, not pre-pandemic numbers? Attendance drop is a major issue and has been discussed at length thus far. 12% basic and then the additional revenue from those 12% hurts as well. Compound pain!!!!

100% knew the crypto thing was a mistake from the off and only a matter of time before there were issues with that. Bit of an oversite IMO (don't know what other options there were on that front of course, but I hope the board have learnt from that error in pinning the main sponsorship off the club on things like that). Good to know that the Verus Group have replaced the income lost though and is a positive moving forwards.

"Difficult decisions" to me speaks to reducing the playing budget further than currently as I can't see any other area that is within the boards control.

It seems to me to be sensible to not ask directly to supporters to contribute further to funding etc, HOWEVER, sometimes needs must and I'm sure that given the choice, perhaps supporters (as I think Glen mentioned in the future thread) maybe interested in helping the club in some way financially. Add that to potential "investment" and cost control, between the club we might just be onto something.

The external investment and ownership over the summer and currently isn't something I think should be focused on at all. If those things happen, they happen but until something is signed, in place and the money is in the bank, its all words and pie in the sky so no point wondering or discussing further.

I'm not sure the "reduction" in outgoings not being popular is entirely accurate. The infurance from that part is that you reduce the playing budget and the team becomes worse. That IMO isn't the case (see North v Forster as I assume an example of a reduction in wages from North but a better keeper in Forster. I must add I've no idea if thats the case financially and am nore than happy to be corrected just an assumption). If we have to release some of the higher earners from Neil and Jon's squad to replace them with lower earners, younger up and coming talent, loans from clubs wanting players to play so covering expenditure or ex-players with an love for the club, there is no reason these players have to be worse in ability than we currently have. in addition, I'd be speaking (which I'm sure the board along with Scott and Lee are) to all the players and trying to see about reviewing contracts etc to ensure that everyone is on the same page. If the 12% figure above is a good indicator of the budgetary shortfall, would players be happy to help, like the board and fans in a reduction of 15% (give some wiggle room) on salary? Would someone on £200 per week from the club really worry too much to lose £30 per week for the rest of the season to ensure the team stays together (which we hear is the mainstay of this squad)?

I think it is totally obvious that the board have the best interests of the club at heart. I mean, who else is going to give up with these guys and girls do week in week out for Slough Town FC?!?!?!?!? I also agreed that we want to try and stay at Step 2, however, if we do go down and have to rebuild again, hey, its happened before, it'll happen again and I'm sure we will all still be here and the real core of 300-400 STFC fans will not be going anywhere.

Its very encouraging to hear the board are speaking with SBC. Might be a waste of time given the council's current position, BUT, you don't win a raffle if you dont buy a ticket. No harm in speaking to them to see what can be achieved.

Fairly standard rest of the statement, encouraging etc.

All in all I think the statement went as far as could be expected and gave a good update on the current position of the club (anyone expecting a full and complete financial breakdown of week on week, players wages etc was diluded). It will be interesting to see moving forwards the shape of the squad moving forwards and most importantly, the level of performance from those in the current squad in the coming weeks. 

Keep up the hard work board et al, as without you we don't have a club. Thanks for the update and I think something like this on a month to month basis (maybe more often if there are things to say) might be an excellent way forwards from the board to keep everyone informed of the wider club issues, initiatives the club is looking at, squad developements, financial issues / resolutions etc. Many clubs do this (Dorking and Chesham spring to mind immediately) and I'm sure their fans appreciate the coms, much as I do.

[SloughFlyer]

8 hours ago, GlenSTFC said:

Not enough meat on the bones in that statement. Has/will the budget be cut? Hopefully the FA Trophy win plus a couple more will keep the wolf from the door. Interesting there are ‘investors’ in talks now and in the summer especially as there are no assets as such so not sure any money put into the club can be guaranteed to be paid back.

Depends on who and what has been discussed Glen. I agree currently anyone wanting to buy STFC are basically buying a bag of balls, some cones and kits and potentially a whole lot of outgoings, BUT, we all know the SBC issues currently and I'd say a decent but lower end offer to buy the ground from them would be discussed at the very least. All of a sudden you have an owner of the club with an appreciating asset in the land and the potential income already in place from all the users of the ground, with the potential to expand that in an ongoing basis.

We all hear about the rich getting richer in times like this, well someone with an eye for longer term investment and a few quid, might just see the purchase of the club with the option to buy the ground from a failing and bankrupt council as a good opportunity for longer term investment.

[Reading Rebel]

3 hours ago, SloughFlyer said:

Depends on who and what has been discussed Glen. I agree currently anyone wanting to buy STFC are basically buying a bag of balls, some cones and kits and potentially a whole lot of outgoings, BUT, we all know the SBC issues currently and I'd say a decent but lower end offer to buy the ground from them would be discussed at the very least. All of a sudden you have an owner of the club with an appreciating asset in the land and the potential income already in place from all the users of the ground, with the potential to expand that in an ongoing basis.

We all hear about the rich getting richer in times like this, well someone with an eye for longer term investment and a few quid, might just see the purchase of the club with the option to buy the ground from a failing and bankrupt council as a good opportunity for longer term investment.

Just as a proviso on any investor wanting to buy the club with an option to buy the ground from the council.

We all know there are investors/buyers out there who's sole intention is not to own a football club but to worm their way into a club with the sole intention of making a killing by eventually buying the land and then building houses on it.

Something to be very wary of if the club want a long term future at Arbour Park.

 

[Reading Rebel]

3 hours ago, SloughFlyer said:

My take on the statement:

1st 3 paragraphs are to be expected "thanks fans, money is tight etc" apart from the line discussed above.

I'm not sure I would be looking at pre-pandemic numbers as a measure of season ticket sales. I wonder what the drop is from last year as surely any budgets set would have been based on last season, not pre-pandemic numbers? Attendance drop is a major issue and has been discussed at length thus far. 12% basic and then the additional revenue from those 12% hurts as well. Compound pain!!!!

100% knew the crypto thing was a mistake from the off and only a matter of time before there were issues with that. Bit of an oversite IMO (don't know what other options there were on that front of course, but I hope the board have learnt from that error in pinning the main sponsorship off the club on things like that). Good to know that the Verus Group have replaced the income lost though and is a positive moving forwards.

"Difficult decisions" to me speaks to reducing the playing budget further than currently as I can't see any other area that is within the boards control.

It seems to me to be sensible to not ask directly to supporters to contribute further to funding etc, HOWEVER, sometimes needs must and I'm sure that given the choice, perhaps supporters (as I think Glen mentioned in the future thread) maybe interested in helping the club in some way financially. Add that to potential "investment" and cost control, between the club we might just be onto something.

The external investment and ownership over the summer and currently isn't something I think should be focused on at all. If those things happen, they happen but until something is signed, in place and the money is in the bank, its all words and pie in the sky so no point wondering or discussing further.

I'm not sure the "reduction" in outgoings not being popular is entirely accurate. The infurance from that part is that you reduce the playing budget and the team becomes worse. That IMO isn't the case (see North v Forster as I assume an example of a reduction in wages from North but a better keeper in Forster. I must add I've no idea if thats the case financially and am nore than happy to be corrected just an assumption). If we have to release some of the higher earners from Neil and Jon's squad to replace them with lower earners, younger up and coming talent, loans from clubs wanting players to play so covering expenditure or ex-players with an love for the club, there is no reason these players have to be worse in ability than we currently have. in addition, I'd be speaking (which I'm sure the board along with Scott and Lee are) to all the players and trying to see about reviewing contracts etc to ensure that everyone is on the same page. If the 12% figure above is a good indicator of the budgetary shortfall, would players be happy to help, like the board and fans in a reduction of 15% (give some wiggle room) on salary? Would someone on £200 per week from the club really worry too much to lose £30 per week for the rest of the season to ensure the team stays together (which we hear is the mainstay of this squad)?

I think it is totally obvious that the board have the best interests of the club at heart. I mean, who else is going to give up with these guys and girls do week in week out for Slough Town FC?!?!?!?!? I also agreed that we want to try and stay at Step 2, however, if we do go down and have to rebuild again, hey, its happened before, it'll happen again and I'm sure we will all still be here and the real core of 300-400 STFC fans will not be going anywhere.

Its very encouraging to hear the board are speaking with SBC. Might be a waste of time given the council's current position, BUT, you don't win a raffle if you dont buy a ticket. No harm in speaking to them to see what can be achieved.

Fairly standard rest of the statement, encouraging etc.

All in all I think the statement went as far as could be expected and gave a good update on the current position of the club (anyone expecting a full and complete financial breakdown of week on week, players wages etc was diluded). It will be interesting to see moving forwards the shape of the squad moving forwards and most importantly, the level of performance from those in the current squad in the coming weeks. 

Keep up the hard work board et al, as without you we don't have a club. Thanks for the update and I think something like this on a month to month basis (maybe more often if there are things to say) might be an excellent way forwards from the board to keep everyone informed of the wider club issues, initiatives the club is looking at, squad developements, financial issues / resolutions etc. Many clubs do this (Dorking and Chesham spring to mind immediately) and I'm sure their fans appreciate the coms, much as I do.

Just to add that at this present time I've been told by someone who would know the facts that the budget has currently not been reduced.

On the bit about replacing our higher earners with younger cheaper players/loans and still survive at this level is of course possible but highly unlikely at such short notice. 

Not the end of the world if we were to be relegated but something for obvious reasons we should try to avoid at all costs.

[Ian g f]

Good job for the money from Pruti transfer!

[SloughFlyer]

31 minutes ago, Reading Rebel said:

Just to add that at this present time I've been told by someone who would know the facts that the budget has currently not been reduced.

On the bit about replacing our higher earners with younger cheaper players/loans and still survive at this level is of course possible but highly unlikely at such short notice. 

Not the end of the world if we were to be relegated but something for obvious reasons we should try to avoid at all costs.

I don't think by any means its a short term fix RR, but a reinvention of the squad over the next 18 months I think is vital to try and improve longer term. Jackman, Wells, Hollis, Togwell, Davies, Lench, Goddard, Harris and Benyon - none of these players is finished by any stretch at all, however, none of them are getting any younger so moves will need to made mid-to-longer term and I think from what Scott has said so far (specifically after the Hanwell game) this seems to be his vision so if some of those moves come sooner / now, then so be it.

[SloughFlyer]

55 minutes ago, Reading Rebel said:

Just as a proviso on any investor wanting to buy the club with an option to buy the ground from the council.

We all know there are investors/buyers out there who's sole intention is not to own a football club but to worm their way into a club with the sole intention of making a killing by eventually buying the land and then building houses on it.

Something to be very wary of if the club want a long term future at Arbour Park.

 

Totally agree RR and thats something to be wary of no doubt. I think though, we would need to take a potential investor on face value and I'm sure there would be caviats put into any sale from the council to ensure the longer term "safety" of Arbour Park as whilst a sale gets them £££ now, the building and specifically community and school usage of the facilty is also important to them in maintaining the seats and control politically of the area. I'm not sure how the community in Slough would react if someone was to buy the facility to get the bankrupt council out of a jam for a while only to then see the stadium built for the town knocked down and turned into houses.

[SloughFlyer]

17 minutes ago, Ian g f said:

Good job for the money from Pruti transfer!

I agree Ian. The initial saving of Edon's wages from the budget by Neil and Jon, the potential of a good influx of money if Edon performs well / for the first team and as an added bonus the encouragement of younger players to come to Slough and see them helped to meet their own dreams and goals for the future is a great piece of work by the club.

Thats what you meant, right?

[3spirit]

I agreed with most of SloughFlyer's long post except for his obsession about Jonathan North being an inferior goalkeeper. Also when he says about players having a pay cut for the good of our club, as much as it's a noble idea I think it is flawed, in the fact that these same players are going to have to up their game and try their utmost in the games between now and the end of the season to just keep Slough in the division.To me expecting them to take a pay cut in this situation is not the way to do it [this season].

Reading Rebel is right about selling the ground to a supposed new owner, as this could easily lead to the demise of the football club if it fell into the hands of an unscrupulous businessman,which we know exist and are plentiful in the world of money making. Take Basingstoke as an example.

Slough fans need to make up their minds what they want. To me we can all criticize what is happening but it isn't constructive in helping OUR club. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by 3spirit

[Reading Rebel]

4 minutes ago, SloughFlyer said:

I don't think by any means its a short term fix RR, but a reinvention of the squad over the next 18 months I think is vital to try and improve longer term. Jackman, Wells, Hollis, Togwell, Davies, Lench, Goddard, Harris and Benyon - none of these players is finished by any stretch at all, however, none of them are getting any younger so moves will need to made mid-to-longer term and I think from what Scott has said so far (specifically after the Hanwell game) this seems to be his vision so if some of those moves come sooner / now, then so be it.

Sorry SF I thought you meant that if we had to reduce the budget now we could replace the highers earners with younger, cheaper players and still maintain the quality in the squad.

Of course if your looking at the playing side medium to long term the club have got to look at getting younger players in.

[SloughFlyer]

3 minutes ago, 3spirit said:

I agreed with most of SloughFlyer's long post except for his obsession about Jonathan North being an inferior goalkeeper. Also when he says about players having a pay cut for the good of our club, as much as it's a noble idea I think it is flawed, in the fact that these same players are going to have to up their game and try their utmost in the games between now and the end of the season to just keep Slough in the division.To me expecting them to take a pay cut in this situation is not the way to do it [this season].

Reading Rebel is right about selling the ground to a supposed new owner, as this could easily lead to the demise of the football club if it fell into the hands of an unscrupulous businessman,which we know exist and are plentiful in the world of money making. Take Basingstoke as an example.

Slough fans need to make up their minds what they want. To me we can all criticize what is happening but it isn't constructive in helping OUR club. 

You know me 3spirit, I want to keep it consistant . North v Forster was more about, IMO, downgrading on wages whilst upgrading on a player and was the most recent example of what could be achieved.

I think its more to do with exploring as many avenues as possible to ensure the club continues to function at the best level possible and that this season the squad that we have can stay together to perform our way out of a potential jam the we are in currently. You may well be right in looking to balance the whole books on just the players heads v performance and expectation. I do wonder though if for the players it might be more about coming together as a group and keeping everyone, rather than removing 1/2/3 of their numbers, bring in new talent and team members vs a loss in money.

Totally agree about the bottom line  

[Curtis]

This update doesn’t really make things any clearer to me.

In the joint statement when resigning Jon & Neil said:-

“Most supporters will know that the club is in a difficult place financially at the moment and as managers we have done all we can to support this. We have always kept to our agreed budget and made proactive decisions to minimise spend wherever possible, but we now feel in the current climate that competing in the way we want to at this level has become incredibly difficult. We understand the need for the club to make difficult decisions as the long-term future of the club has to be the priority and we fully support this.’

Is anybody any wiser now about what these difficult decisions the Board have made are? And why Jon & Neil felt that these would prevent the club from continuing to be competitive in the National South.

I thought we were or were trying to be a Community football club, but this Board update doesn’t appear to me to be providing much detail & I really don’t understand the reluctance to ask for help from the Community (other than attending matches) if they are in difficulty.

[Sir Rebel1965]

I see the board in the situation of being "caretakers" of the club, without the finances to take the club forward, trying to pay the daily bills, unsure where or how much money will be coming in. 

Yet acting as gatekeeper to ensure a new backer will take the club in the right direction going forward.

Hence Status quo (lower case q as the band are Q) as they are trying to keep things going as before.

I feel that for the board to do this successfully they need the fans fully on board and engaged, and this will only happen if they are correctly communicated with and there is no secret squirrels, or a them and us between the board and fans.

So yesterdays statement was a good starting point, but more frequent and more detailed communications are needed to the full fan base (the trust only has a small fraction of the fan's as members so will only reach those in that limited circle) what is needed is communications to as broad group of fans and potential fans to find a suitable backer and get more into the ground.

We are all fighting the same battle and none of us want to return to the dark days of the mid/late 2000's prior to the arrival of Steve.

I hope everyone is doing the Euromillions tonight!