Frampton's Contract Extension Signed - Comments

[The H]

blah!!

"Jim's view's are Jim's views"... fair enough..... same as "Larry's Interviews are Larry's Interviews"


grand stuff.......

i'm glad that this 'factual' column is picked up my many Brentford fans


maybe the Chron could detail the 9m debt that it proclaims to hammer home...

i won't be buying it any more though

 

[beehead]

A bit of a mixed opinion on Frampton's new deal then!
I have to say that he's been one of our better players and certainly one of the most consistant players over the past 2/3 seasons.
I'm happy that we've managed to agree a deal that will keep him playing for us.
Top Defender!!

 

[rebus]

And why does this only go in the Chron? How would we know this if Tim Street hadn't asked Joe? Can we have our Q & A feature back on the OS so we can ask the board what's going on?

One of Keith Dickens's first job is to ensure all external comms go through him and not non-exec Directors bar the Chairman. Do you hear any non Execs spouting off to the media from Prem clubs.

Improved could be 3 year as opposed to 2 year?

Framps told me it was a three-year deal back in July.

F
Which seems to me to say that we have had a bit of cash in and have extended the budget to pay Frampton, and will do the same to pay O'Connor if he signs

Budget, what budget - it's a load of b***ocks. Doesn't BU have to vet this sort of shabby behaviour?

 

[The H]

we do want Framps and O'Connor to sign though don't we Mark.....

shouldn't the marketing and sponsorship of the club be better, so that we have more money to spend on the wage budget...

 

[rebus]

we do want Framps and O'Connor to sign though don't we Mark.....

I don't want BFC held to ransom.

Shouldn't that extra cash go towards paying off debt?

 

[The H]

why do we have the 'lowest budget in the division'... are all the other clubs mad or are we just crap at raising money thru sponsorship.

 

[rebus]

why do we have the 'lowest budget in the division'... .

We don't, it's Cheltenham on 600k per season.

 

[The H]

is that a preparatory statement if you are elected?? ...

are there any other clubs lower than us? :thetruth:

 

[Les Beeavinu]

I don't want BFC held to ransom.

Shouldn't that extra cash go towards paying off debt?

A successful season would pay off the debt far more than than saving a few quid on wages - a poor season will see it rise far quicker. I'm sure the football club isn't going to suddenly blowing huge amounts on wages a la Noades but if it's their judgement that some windfall can be used to increase the playing budget in the hope of generating income, that's fine by me just so long as it's sensibly small and doesn't impinge on any other budgetted costs.

 

[rebus]

is that a preparatory statement if you are elected?? ...

are there any other clubs lower than us? :thetruth:

No idea but how many other clubs owe 9 million quid (apart from Gillingham and Forest ).

 

[Streetboy]

"Jim's view's are Jim's views"... fair enough..... same as "Larry's Interviews are Larry's Interviews"


grand stuff.......

i'm glad that this 'factual' column is picked up my many Brentford fans


maybe the Chron could detail the 9m debt that it proclaims to hammer home...

i won't be buying it any more though

Well I'm very sorry to hear that, but your posting just confirms to me that your not seperating personal opinion from fact. Leader columns, as in every newspaper, are not supposed to be taken as fact, but opinion. Have you also read my columns saying the debts come first and budget should be adhered to? I hate to lose a reader, but I thought your criticism was inaccurate and got my goat up.

 

[The H]

dunno, i'm just asking some 'probing questions'....

 

[Les Beeavinu]

Well I'm very sorry to hear that, but your posting just confirms to me that your not seperating personal opinion from fact. Leader columns, as in every newspaper, are not supposed to be taken as fact, but opinion. Have you also read my columns saying the debts come first and budget should be adhered to? I hate to lose a reader, but I thought your criticism was inaccurate and got my goat up.

Really? You couldn't tell.

 

[rebus]

A successful season would pay off the debt far more than than saving a few quid on wages - a poor season will see it rise far quicker. I'm sure the football club isn't going to suddenly blowing huge amounts on wages a la Noades but if it's their judgement that some windfall can be used to increase the playing budget in the hope of generating income, that's fine by me just so long as it's sensibly small and doesn't impinge on any other budgetted costs.

I'm not ones of these types that thinks "pile it all on wages and the dream will come true", because 9 times out 10 it doesn't.

 

[The H]

Well I'm very sorry to hear that, but your posting just confirms to me that your not seperating personal opinion from fact. Leader columns, as in every newspaper, are not supposed to be taken as fact, but opinion. Have you also read my columns saying the debts come first and budget should be adhered to? I hate to lose a reader, but I thought your criticism was inaccurate and got my goat up.

yes, i think you should do more columns...

people only listen to what they want to hear, which is generally only the good stuff, the message isn't getting across, the matchday programme and the local papers have ALL the responsibilty on their shoulders.... one misleading story, letter or personal view undoes all the previous weeks' messages...

 

[Les Beeavinu]

I'm not ones of these types that thinks "pile it all on wages and the dream will come true", because 9 times out 10 it doesn't.

But it's happening now.

Last week we got 5400 through the gate. After our good start, I expect that to increase as word gets around about the footie we're playing and summer closes. If we were 21st without a win, I reckon we'd be at about 4500 and looking downards. A defence without O'Connor, Frampton and Heywood is likely to see the latter scenario and that would cost us far, far more than a smallish increase in the wage cost.

It's not always about saving money; increasing income is a factor as well and God forbid we ever get promoted, the income generated will see us reduce the debt far quicker than any cost-cuttting or cake sale ever would. Not that I'm suggesting we mortgage the house on that happening.

 

[rebus]

But it's happening now.

Last week we got 5400 through the gate. After our good start, I expect that to increase as word gets around about the footie we're playing and summer closes. If we were 21st without a win, I reckon we'd be at about 4500 and looking downards. A defence without O'Connor, Frampton and Heywood is likely to see the latter scenario and that would cost us far, far more than a smallish increase in the wage cost.

It's not always about saving money; increasing income is a factor as well and God forbid we ever get promoted, the income generated will see us reduce the debt far quicker than any cost-cuttting or cake sale ever would. Not that I'm suggesting we mortgage the house on that happening.

It is very early days, I would prefer monies to be used for GP improvements. Leroy knew what budget he was working with. Tuesday's home crowd minus the Swans will be interesting.

Don't forget we are 900 down on our budgeted average too.

 

[Banana]

Don't forget we are 900 down on our budgeted average too.

Indeed!

My surprise is that we are increasing the playing budget rather than increasing our contingency amount for the budgetted attendance being below 6,500.

However we don't know where the income is against the budget/forecast.

 

[rebus]

Indeed!

My surprise is that we are increasing the playing budget rather than increasing our contingency amount for the budgetted attendance being below 6,500.

However we don't know where the income is against the budget/forecast.

Yes, but it's only a piece of paper with figures on so what's the big deal.

 

[jlove]

However we don't know...

Never a truer word!

 

[Streetboy]

yes, i think you should do more columns...

people only listen to what they want to hear, which is generally only the good stuff, the message isn't getting across, the matchday programme and the local papers have ALL the responsibilty on their shoulders.... one misleading story, letter or personal view undoes all the previous weeks' messages...

In the absence of a column this week, the last personal view expressed in the paper was markbfc's
I accept what you're saying about responsibility, but I feel we have done our bit in trying to get the real message about the club's situation to Bees fans. Some readers have even suggested I have taken too radical a stance and the club board are great. The last few weeks have contained critiques of BU from the election candidates, as with Rod Gowers, who we interviewed when he left. I accept maybe we should have waited until after speaking to all the election candidates before printing Steve Cowans' letter, but Mark wrote an excellent one in reply. When we have done wrong, I have rightly accepted criticism from PJ, abee and perhaps a few others. Maybe I went OTT, but I took exception to the suggestion that we have ignored the club's financial problems.