Baldwin money

tripledecker · **Joined:** Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1938

I mentioned this on another thread but probably worth mentioning here

I don't get hodcrofts explanation on why the money can't be used next year

I believe he said we got 200k of the money up front, 100k of which immediately went to VAT

The remaining 300k we get incrementally next season but we 'account' for it this season so it can't go to next years playing budget ?

So what is it allowed to go to ? Covering our non-playing debts ? What if we didn't have any, would it have to sit there , or be used to hire a bunch of non-playing staff?

What if we sold a player for 2 mil with only 100k up front ?

Trying to understand what I am missing

misterb2001 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:09 am

It's allowed to be spent on this years budget, but the transfer window is closed.

unruly poolie · **Joined:** Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:12 pm **Posts:** 1015

The thing is I am sure Ken is right in what he says in theory, however there is a hundred ways around these FFP rules and it depends on your desire to get round them as to what spin you put on in. At this current point it suits IOR to say our hands are tied. If we were dropping towards relegation and had no fit strikers or we are sitting with a chance to go into the Championship in next seasons window would the same rules apply maybe not....

Spender · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:02 pm

unruly poolie wrote:

however there is a hundred ways around these FFP rules and it depends on your desire to get round them as to what spin you put on in.

Can you give us just ten, or maybe a dozen?? At present there's 100k in the pot to offset the losses for the last 7 1/2 months as far as I can see.

alienlife · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 4:09 pm

unruly poolie wrote:

The thing is I am sure Ken is right in what he says in theory, however there is a hundred ways around these FFP rules and it depends on your desire to get round them as to what spin you put on in. At this current point it suits IOR to say our hands are tied. If we were dropping towards relegation and had no fit strikers or we are sitting with a chance to go into the Championship in next seasons window would the same rules apply maybe not....

Why don't you buy the club or ask for a seat on the board if you're such an expert.

I love your 'It suits IOR' line, its like saying they've given us some of the best years we've ever had but its not enough.

Pathetic.

Ritchies birthmark · **Joined:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:31 am **Posts:** 5637

The old "why don't you buy the club" still as cringeworthy as ever.

What time does the youthy start and is brinky still the place to go??

Fetish_Bob · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:01 pm

Ritchie the old "why don't you buy the club " is an old retort. But the fact is that everyone who questions the motives behind IOR spending or lack of it never actually give an answer to where the money should or can come from. Their answer is always for IOR to get their hands in their pockets. The retort of "buy the club" is telling them to do the same. I suppose when people stop telling IOR to put more money in then people will stop with the buy the club reply.

unruly poolie · **Joined:** Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:12 pm **Posts:** 1015

Where have I said that the club should put their hand in their pocket? If the club want to reinvest the money they could, clubs like Fleetwood manage to spend more than they get through the gate as there are ways around the FFP rules. I f the club want to pocket the Baldwin fee and use it to keep the club going fair enough I will forever be grateful for the years they have bankrolled us. However my point was Ken's article is a bit rich saying how we want to spend the fee but cant.

tripledecker · **Joined:** Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1938

Taken Hodcrofts statement to its logical conclusion we could get 20million for a player, but if we only got enough to cover the vat up front then that 20mil would have to sit in our accounts ad infinitum while we wouldn't be allowed to strengthen our teAm

Spender · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:53 pm

unruly poolie wrote:

Where have I said that the club should put their hand in their pocket? If the club want to reinvest the money they could, clubs like Fleetwood manage to spend more than they get through the gate as there are ways around the FFP rules. I f the club want to pocket the Baldwin fee and use it to keep the club going fair enough I will forever be grateful for the years they have bankrolled us. However my point was Ken's article is a bit rich saying how we want to spend the fee but cant.

But the money hasn't been paid. Just the first 100k. Can you give us some examples of how you can get around the rules? You say there's hundreds, just a few will do.

Ritchies birthmark · **Joined:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:31 am **Posts:** 5637

So pools sell there beat player and lets be honest he was to the 1st bidder and then tell the fans that a chunk of the money was vat and the rest is in installments. This comes after selling him with 2 minutes left of the window.

Bob can you please explain why it was better to take this offer than waiting till the summer and seeing how many clubs came who better deals. The way kh words it was a shit deal so surely waiting till the summer would have been the solution wether Baldwin wanted to go or not.

If I was the chairmen (ill play alien life's game) I would factor in vat and all the other bullshit and do what was best for the club and not myself.

That deal was bound to piss people off and kens comment hardly helped the situation.

unruly poolie · **Joined:** Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:12 pm **Posts:** 1015

Stadium naming rights
Buy more hospitality

How do you think other clubs get round it?

Like I said Fleetwood have a far bigger budget than us on smaller crowds and no obvious extra income stream other than a rich investor.

Ritchies birthmark · **Joined:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:31 am **Posts:** 5637

Chip Fireball wrote:

Spender wrote:

unruly poolie wrote:

however there is a hundred ways around these FFP rules and it depends on your desire to get round them as to what spin you put on in.

Can you give us just ten, or maybe a dozen?? At present there's 100k in the pot to offset the losses for the last 7 1/2 months as far as I can see.

I will start you off with a few of the most obvious and commonly used ones :

Rename your stadium

Shirt sponsorship

Match sponsorship.

There probably are 100. As long as its money that goes in and doesn't have to be repaid. All Fair Play does, and quite rightly, is sto clubs borrowing money and then spewing it on players.

We've been down this road so many times on here and people still don't understand it. Which is staggering really.

Kit sponsorship is the most obvious and could easily be done, ad twice a year, 1 on home and 1 on away. Infact even on the 3rd kit. Some clubs have different sponsors on training gear aswell. The fpps can be bent over easier than a fucking hooker.

Ken will use them though as there are far too many people who won't open there eyes to see differently

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Stomping your feet because the owners aren't in a position right now to write off more cash is cringeworthy as well. This is the way the club is being run right now, in a more self sufficient way than in the past and that's the way it is and we have to accept that. Hartlepool United are a stable solid footing and are in a far better position than a lot of other clubs.

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Financial fair play is a bit of smokescreen to what's really going on in my opinion.

I suppose only time will tell if that's really the case.

klinger · **Joined:** Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 1589

Ritchies birthmark wrote:

So pools sell there beat player and lets be honest he was to the 1st bidder and then tell the fans that a chunk of the money was vat and the rest is in installments. This comes after selling him with 2 minutes left of the window.

Bob can you please explain why it was better to take this offer than waiting till the summer and seeing how many clubs came who better deals. The way kh words it was a shit deal so surely waiting till the summer would have been the solution wether Baldwin wanted to go or not.

If I was the chairmen (ill play alien life's game) I would factor in vat and all the other bullshit and do what was best for the club and not myself.

That deal was bound to piss people off and kens comment hardly helped the situation.

Like has been explained before, Baldwin wanted to go and Pools were happy with the deal.
Waiting till summer might have resulted in the player getting injured playing for us and the deal not happening.

Ritchies birthmark · **Joined:** Tue Dec 20, 2011 10:31 am **Posts:** 5637

klinger wrote:

Ritchies birthmark wrote:

So pools sell there beat player and lets be honest he was to the 1st bidder and then tell the fans that a chunk of the money was vat and the rest is in installments. This comes after selling him with 2 minutes left of the window.

Bob can you please explain why it was better to take this offer than waiting till the summer and seeing how many clubs came who better deals. The way kh words it was a shit deal so surely waiting till the summer would have been the solution wether Baldwin wanted to go or not.

If I was the chairmen (ill play alien life's game) I would factor in vat and all the other bullshit and do what was best for the club and not myself.

That deal was bound to piss people off and kens comment hardly helped the situation.

Like has been explained before, Baldwin wanted to go and Pools were happy with the deal.
Waiting till summer might have resulted in the player getting injured playing for us and the deal not happening.

I'd have settled for that!

klinger · **Joined:** Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 1589

You know how it is with big Ken, you got to read between the lines!

Bilcliff · **Joined:** Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 329

There's nothing big about Ken apart from his mouth

Spender · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:01 pm

Yes. Sponsors. Stadium, shirt, match, kit, players. Totally true.

Which means outside investors, which in his article KH said they needed. None coming forward.

Or, IOR putting the hand down. Or, borrowing, against a non-guaranteed appearance/sell on clause which as an investor I wouldn't touch with a shitty stick, and the interest incurred.

They could probably borrow on the basis of the stage payments, but the interest would eat it away as I'm not convinced that the banks would see it in a good light and it's not the IOR way, and, the window is shut. What would be the point?

We're doing OK, I'll stick me neck out and say the seasons gone, maybe a pop at the play offs, but realistically we're playing for seventh, why go mental now?

returnofaido · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:06 pm

yeah, 'fack off' IOR !!!! anyone would think you'd put money onto the club ya pack of bounders !!!!!

sheesh, some well-run benefactors just take the piss, innit !!

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

So the Baldwin fee is being used on keeping the club going, if we had no bids for him then were was the money coming from?

klinger · **Joined:** Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 1589

Tree_With_Hamster wrote:

So the Baldwin fee is being used on keeping the club going, if we had no bids for him then were was the money coming from?

IOR maybe?

PJPoolie · **Joined:** Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 15342

Who has suggested that the Baldwin money will 'keep the club going?'

It will lessen the loss the club makes this year.

The club didn't need to sell him, but the offer was good and the player wanted to go. He has a bairn on the way in the South do you think once the kid had been born he 'd have been happy up here? We've seen how much Compton has struggled this season with the same thing. As his contract got closer to it's end what way is his value going to go?

That doesn't mean to say we're going to see a fire sale of players it's just this was the right deal for both parties.

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

Based on the way we've sold structured the deal we may aswell have sold him for 200k n had the full 200k to spend this summer than the way we've done it, yes?

Or then again let him go for bugger all for all it's really benefitted the playing squad.

If they don't wanna put in cos they big dogs went to jail then fine but blaming FFP is as daft as blaming the council as they have done in the past.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yubep · **Joined:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:35 pm **Posts:** 25266

Or the same time a few other things changed, bout 2011 was it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

klinger · **Joined:** Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 1589

Chip Fireball wrote:

Spender wrote:

Yes. Sponsors. Stadium, shirt, match, kit, players. Totally true.

Which means outside investors, which in his article KH said they needed. None coming forward.

It doesnt have to mean outside investors. As has been explained many,many , times on here previously, its a way for owners to invest money into their own football clubs to allow them to spend it on players.

Mike Ashley owns Newcastle, he also owns Sports Direct, he also named St James Park the Sports Direct Arena, which was a way of putting more money into his own football club. Loads of clubs have done it.

We dont know who owns Hartlepool United. When Ken talks of having to justify his decisions to " the owners " he never actually says who they are. We can only speculate.

It may just be co-incide that Larsens spot of bother happened at the same time his companies stopped sponsoring the shirts, and the chairman told us the club now had to be self -sufficent.

Mike Ashley also likes to sell his best players to put money back into his pocket.

alienlife · **Posted:** Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:55 pm

klinger wrote:

Mike Ashley also likes to sell his best players to put money back into his pocket.

So?

Unless the club belongs to the fans why shouldn't the owners get a return on their investment or some respite from losses year on year?

I'm happy with things at Pools at the minute, and if the sale of Baldwin helps balance the books then its better that than more losses.

We've got a good crop of young players and if we sell one or two a season to sustain decent football then its a decent model IMO. We're never going to attract a multi-national sponsor or 50,000 paying fans like other clubs are we?

tripledecker · **Joined:** Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1938

I have no issue with IOR not putting money they don't have in, or of using Baldwin money to offset losses
But this we can't put money in because of FFP mantra gets a bit tedious, and when he stretches it to say we can't spend the Baldwin money it starts taking the piss

klinger · **Joined:** Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:27 pm **Posts:** 1589

alienlife wrote:

klinger wrote:

Mike Ashley also likes to sell his best players to put money back into his pocket.

So?

Unless the club belongs to the fans why shouldn't the owners get a return on their investment or some respite from losses year on year?

I'm happy with things at Pools at the minute, and if the sale of Baldwin helps balance the books then its better that than more losses.

We've got a good crop of young players and if we sell one or two a season to sustain decent football then its a decent model IMO. We're never going to attract a multi-national sponsor or 50,000 paying fans like other clubs are we?

Which is the point I'm making.
Unless you've got something like Man City going on every club will try to keep a decent balance sheet one way or another.

Bilcliff · **Joined:** Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:21 pm **Posts:** 329

tripledecker wrote:

I have no issue with IOR not putting money they don't have in, or of using Baldwin money to offset losses
But this we can't put money in because of FFP mantra gets a bit tedious, and when he stretches it to say we can't spend the Baldwin money it starts taking the piss

Exactly. I fail to understand why so many fans fall for his Ffp flannel. If he doesn't want to or can't bring himself to spend the money fair enough but don't blame something else for not doing it. He sold Baldwin at a time when there was no time to buy a replacement and now it seems he can't even afford a loanee to replace him.

tripledecker · **Joined:** Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1938

We were actually under an embargo at the start of Danny Wilson's promotion season but IOR 'restructured' the financing to create headroom, so talk it can't be done doesn't chime when they have done it themselves previously
Again I have NO issue with them not doing it, just with them claiming its impossible

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

Agree entirely. Kens little article was nothing
To do with being more open etc it was simply another article having a dig at someone (poshs chairman) and more hiding behind ffp.

tripledecker · **Joined:** Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:25 pm **Posts:** 1938

In fairness the posh chairman is a twat

tREE_wiTH_hAMStER · **Joined:** Sat May 19, 2007 11:00 am **Posts:** 20758

Agreed.

Baldwin money

Gadgies online