Block34 Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 (edited) OK, here's something for discussion..... Picture this, a boardroom, moreover the boardroom of an 'un-named' Premier League football club. Gathered around are the owner, the Director of Football, the CEO, the CFO and the Accountants. The subject for discussion, the next 3 years..... Owner: So, do we have the assets to get us a factor higher than we are now, to increase revenue, the maximise profit? I'd like to see some operational profit if nothing else. DOF: Not with the full range of assets we currently have, it's too limited. However, we could acquire sufficiently skilled assets that with guidance could take us to where we want to be financially. We would need to sell though Owner: Sell which ones? The lower end or upper? DOF: Upper, gives us maximum ROI. Owner: But that leaves us with ****? DOF: No, relatively speaking they're still PL quality. But we will need to invest, probably with 'foreign' skills - cheaper, need honing over a season or two, but good natural skills. Owner: And how much more will this cost me? DOF: Realistically? Not a lot, possibly nothing. Sales => purchases if planned well, even if not, no more than you were planning to invest anyway. Essentially non-UK players are 50% cost-wise, so 2 for one - a case of BOGOF in effect. This builds the squad as opposed to just the team, which is much more than we have been used to, so allows us, with this depth of skills, to consider competing in the Europa League - Champs League is a few years off yet but with the Academy and some good fortune maybe not so many seasons away. Owner: CFO - any questions? CFO: Only the FFP perspective - are there any adverse considerations we need to take into account? DOF: Since all the costs are, in effect, self contained, no. Owner: So performance wise, over the nest 3 years, what should I see? DOF: Mid-table next season, Europe League the following couple of seasons, but maybe, just maybe, challenging for CL in the third. Owner: Is our new manager up to it? DOF: Perfomance to date suggests he is Owner: CFO, any objections? CFO: Providing we can be as near as possibly self-sustaining, then with the Sky money etc and no more unexpected Staplewood costs, no, no objections Owner: Accountants: any objections, comments? Accountants: Only that from a personal perspective, cash injections into the company, unless in the form of a loan, albeit an interest free one, should be kept to a minimum where possible. Owner: But I could go mad if I wanted to? Accountant: Don't go there, please! Owner: OK, in that case - COF - Make it happen Edited 28 June, 2014 by Block34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 I couldn't get through this sorry too many TLAs (Three letter abbreviations!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block34 Posted 28 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 28 June, 2014 (edited) I couldn't get through this sorry too many TLAs (Three letter abbreviations!) CFO - Chief Financial Officer (so in charge of the companies purse strings, theoretically) DOF - Footballing director - various titles available Edited 28 June, 2014 by Block34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 CFO - Chief Financial Officer (so in charge of the companies purse strings, theoretically) COF - Footballing director - various titles available - wine-addled fingers allowed for COF only What was the point of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 Sorry, this is far too optimistic an assessment. It assumes that the board is competent, that the club will buy wisely and that the new manager is capable. It also assumes the board are not going to trouser all the transfer cash. I have read all the threads and it obviously ain't gonna happen. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 What was the point of this thread? What is the point of this board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block34 Posted 28 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 28 June, 2014 Sorry, this is far too optimistic an assessment. It assumes that the board is competent, that the club will buy wisely and that the new manager is capable. It also assumes the board are not going to trouser all the transfer cash. I have read all the threads and it obviously ain't gonna happen. :-( Ah well., takes all sorts, f*ckwits included. Your assessment also presumes you know what you're talking about - you obviously think you do - bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 OK, here's something for discussion..... Picture this, a boardroom, moreover the boardroom of an 'un-named' Premier League football club. Gathered around are the owner, the Director of Football, the CEO, the CFO and the Accountants. The subject for discussion, the next 3 years..... Owner: So, do we have the assets to get us a factor higher than we are now, to increase revenue, the maximise profit? I'd like to see some operational profit if nothing else. DOF: Not with the full range of assets we currently have, it's too limited. However, we could acquire sufficiently skilled assets that with guidance could take us to where we want to be financially. We would need to sell though Owner: Sell which ones? The lower end or upper? DOF: Upper, gives us maximum ROI. Owner: But that leaves us with ****? DOF: No, relatively speaking they're still PL quality. But we will need to invest, probably with 'foreign' skills - cheaper, need honing over a season or two, but good natural skills. Owner: And how much more will this cost me? DOF: Realistically? Not a lot, possibly nothing. Sales => purchases if planned well, even if not, no more than you were planning to invest anyway. Essentially non-UK players are 50% cost-wise, so 2 for one - a case of BOGOF in effect. This builds the squad as opposed to just the team, which is much more than we have been used to, so allows us, with this depth of skills, to consider competing in the Europa League - Champs League is a few years off yet but with the Academy and some good fortune maybe not so many seasons away. Owner: CFO - any questions? CFO: Only the FFP perspective - are there any adverse considerations we need to take into account? DOF: Since all the costs are, in effect, self contained, no. Owner: So performance wise, over the nest 3 years, what should I see? DOF: Mid-table next season, Europe League the following couple of seasons, but maybe, just maybe, challenging for CL in the third. Owner: Is our new manager up to it? DOF: Perfomance to date suggests he is Owner: CFO, any objections? CFO: Providing we can be as near as possibly self-sustaining, then with the Sky money etc and no more unexpected Staplewood costs, no, no objections Owner: Accountants: any objections, comments? Accountants: Only that from a personal perspective, cash injections into the company, unless in the form of a loan, albeit an interest free one, should be kept to a minimum where possible. Owner: But I could go mad if I wanted to? Accountant: Don't go there, please! Owner: OK, in that case - COF - Make it happen LOL like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 Ah well., takes all sorts, f*ckwits included. Your assessment also presumes you know what you're talking about - you obviously think you do - bless. Oscar Wilde once said that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence," Both have obviously passed you by... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 (edited) I couldn't get through this sorry too many TLAs (Three letter abbreviations!) These TLAs are three letter acronyms, not abbreviations.......but apart from that I agree. Edited 28 June, 2014 by kpturner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxon Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 Haha, interesting read we can bit only hope it pans out like this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Majestic Channon Posted 28 June, 2014 Share Posted 28 June, 2014 Oscar Wilde once said that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence," Both have obviously passed you by... He also said ' do me *****, christen my chocolate starfish ' Sent from my C1905 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 I've considered... You have too much time on your hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stud mark of doom Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Interesting ideas. Robert maxwell used to bug his competitors meetings. Just saying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 OK, here's something for discussion..... Picture this, a boardroom, moreover the boardroom of an 'un-named' Premier League football club. Gathered around are the owner, the Director of Football, the CEO, the CFO and the Accountants. The subject for discussion, the next 3 years..... Owner: So, do we have the assets to get us a factor higher than we are now, to increase revenue, the maximise profit? I'd like to see some operational profit if nothing else. DOF: Not with the full range of assets we currently have, it's too limited. However, we could acquire sufficiently skilled assets that with guidance could take us to where we want to be financially. We would need to sell though Owner: Sell which ones? The lower end or upper? DOF: Upper, gives us maximum ROI. Owner: But that leaves us with ****? DOF: No, relatively speaking they're still PL quality. But we will need to invest, probably with 'foreign' skills - cheaper, need honing over a season or two, but good natural skills. Owner: And how much more will this cost me? DOF: Realistically? Not a lot, possibly nothing. Sales => purchases if planned well, even if not, no more than you were planning to invest anyway. Essentially non-UK players are 50% cost-wise, so 2 for one - a case of BOGOF in effect. This builds the squad as opposed to just the team, which is much more than we have been used to, so allows us, with this depth of skills, to consider competing in the Europa League - Champs League is a few years off yet but with the Academy and some good fortune maybe not so many seasons away. Owner: CFO - any questions? CFO: Only the FFP perspective - are there any adverse considerations we need to take into account? DOF: Since all the costs are, in effect, self contained, no. Owner: So performance wise, over the nest 3 years, what should I see? DOF: Mid-table next season, Europe League the following couple of seasons, but maybe, just maybe, challenging for CL in the third. Owner: Is our new manager up to it? DOF: Perfomance to date suggests he is Owner: CFO, any objections? CFO: Providing we can be as near as possibly self-sustaining, then with the Sky money etc and no more unexpected Staplewood costs, no, no objections Owner: Accountants: any objections, comments? Accountants: Only that from a personal perspective, cash injections into the company, unless in the form of a loan, albeit an interest free one, should be kept to a minimum where possible. Owner: But I could go mad if I wanted to? Accountant: Don't go there, please! Owner: OK, in that case - COF - Make it happen Mmm.....???? ...how many " un-named " Premier League clubs have a training facility called Staplewood? " Should we start to guess, or do you want a poll ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 These TLAs are three letter acronyms, not abbreviations.......but apart from that I agree. Not really. An acronym should form a new word in its own right, like RADAR. These are abbreviations, maybe initialisms if the letters are pronounced individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS1980 Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 I think in an ideal world that is what we hope happens. Trust in Koeman that we buy well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Not really. An acronym should form a new word in its own right, like RADAR. These are abbreviations, maybe initialisms if the letters are pronounced individually. That's a palindrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Site Agent Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 OK, here's something for discussion..... Picture this, a boardroom, moreover the boardroom of an 'un-named' Premier League football club. Gathered around are the owner, the Director of Football, the CEO, the CFO and the Accountants. The subject for discussion, the next 3 years..... Owner: So, do we have the assets to get us a factor higher than we are now, to increase revenue, the maximise profit? I'd like to see some operational profit if nothing else. DOF: Not with the full range of assets we currently have, it's too limited. However, we could acquire sufficiently skilled assets that with guidance could take us to where we want to be financially. We would need to sell though Owner: Sell which ones? The lower end or upper? DOF: Upper, gives us maximum ROI. Owner: But that leaves us with ****? DOF: No, relatively speaking they're still PL quality. But we will need to invest, probably with 'foreign' skills - cheaper, need honing over a season or two, but good natural skills. Owner: And how much more will this cost me? DOF: Realistically? Not a lot, possibly nothing. Sales => purchases if planned well, even if not, no more than you were planning to invest anyway. Essentially non-UK players are 50% cost-wise, so 2 for one - a case of BOGOF in effect. This builds the squad as opposed to just the team, which is much more than we have been used to, so allows us, with this depth of skills, to consider competing in the Europa League - Champs League is a few years off yet but with the Academy and some good fortune maybe not so many seasons away. Owner: CFO - any questions? CFO: Only the FFP perspective - are there any adverse considerations we need to take into account? DOF: Since all the costs are, in effect, self contained, no. Owner: So performance wise, over the nest 3 years, what should I see? DOF: Mid-table next season, Europe League the following couple of seasons, but maybe, just maybe, challenging for CL in the third. Owner: Is our new manager up to it? DOF: Perfomance to date suggests he is Owner: CFO, any objections? CFO: Providing we can be as near as possibly self-sustaining, then with the Sky money etc and no more unexpected Staplewood costs, no, no objections Owner: Accountants: any objections, comments? Accountants: Only that from a personal perspective, cash injections into the company, unless in the form of a loan, albeit an interest free one, should be kept to a minimum where possible. Owner: But I could go mad if I wanted to? Accountant: Don't go there, please! Owner: OK, in that case - COF - Make it happen I see your point, worthwile but slightly glass half full. I think circumstances have forced this rather than planned action. And don't worry about those with the attention of a goldfish, good way to try and get your point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Interesting ideas. Robert maxwell used to bug his competitors meetings. Just saying.... I'm now beginning to see why everyone at Saints gets given a special watch!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colehillsaint Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 So selling your best players, (and lots of them by the way), is a good plan to ultimately ascend in the world of football? I'm not getting that bothered because it's inevitable and I will still enjoy watching Saints, but I do find it hard to read twaddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmacian_saint Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 I have a better one: Les Reed: Please write the following team onto a canvas so we can put it up in the board room. Boruc Clyne Fonte Lovren Shaw Wanyama Steven Davis Schneiderlin Lallana Lambert Rodriguez KL/Ralph Krueger: Nice team, great season! But why treat it as art? Les Reed: Well it's not going to get any better so we might as well have some nice memories around! Secretary: Sorry to interrupt, I have Arsenal FC on the phone. They say they want an urgent meeting, they don't want to dicuss any transfer matters over the phone but it's about Morgan and Dejan, and 45 mill... LR/KL/RK: SOLD!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simples Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 That's a palindrome. I believe its an acronym first, and just a coincidence its also a palindrome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 I believe its an acronym first, and just a coincidence its also a palindrome. Not a coincidence - it simply (sorry) is. And it's meaningless to say the acronym is 'first'. An acronym can also be a palindrome, just as any word can - but we don't say the word came first. These is a deep philological issue. But with this sorted, we should be free and clear to win at Anfield. Don't thank me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simples Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 I won't thank you! Do you think they came up with the acronym RADAR so it could be a palindrome? No. It just happened that way because they used the word RADAR, rather than saying RAdio Detection And Ranging each time they discussed that piece of equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 What a munch of bongs. (Spoonerism) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 What a munch of bongs. (Spoonerism) Sure it's not a Roonerspism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 That's a palindrome. Yeah, that too. Perhaps I should have used laser or quango or scuba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 (edited) Not really. An acronym should form a new word in its own right, like RADAR. These are abbreviations, maybe initialisms if the letters are pronounced individually. Yes really. DOF is an acronym. "Etc" would be an abbreviation. QED (not sure about that one). Edited 29 June, 2014 by kpturner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 You guys are tasting my wime. (I have very tasty wime though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 is this one of those completely made up scenarios? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 is this one of those completely made up scenarios? You sluralised a pingular there. Dot a whimwit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Yes really. DOF is an acronym. "Etc" would be an abbreviation. QED (not sure about that one). Oh, all right, but only if you pronounce it 'doff'. I can't see CFO ever being anything other than an abbreviation though. QED is an abbreviation of 'Quod Erat Demonstrandum' which is Latin for 'which is what was to be demonstrated' and should only be used properly at the conclusion of a mathematical proof, although a lot of people use it as 'therefore' these days. Anyway, back to the footy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Oh, all right, but only if you pronounce it 'doff'. I can't see CFO ever being anything other than an abbreviation though. QED is an abbreviation of 'Quod Erat Demonstrandum' which is Latin for 'which is what was to be demonstrated' and should only be used properly at the conclusion of a mathematical proof, although a lot of people use it as 'therefore' these days. Anyway, back to the footy I can't believe you've never said "KEFOW" for a CFO! Where have you been?? PS I did really know what QED stood for but am happy to have provided you with a quick excuse to look it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Yeah, that too. Perhaps I should have used laser or quango or scuba. None of those are TLAs (nor is RADAR) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 I can't believe you've never said "KEFOW" for a CFO! Where have you been?? PS I did really know what QED stood for but am happy to have provided you with a quick excuse to look it up You must have realised by now that I am of the old school and in my day Latin was almost the Lingua Franca (never quite worked that out?) of the scientific community and indeed I have an O-Level from 1965 gathering mildew in a draw somewhere. I knew you knew but my comments are partly aimed at the wider community. One day my sort will have died out and then you'll all be able to say what you like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 None of those are TLAs (nor is RADAR) Sorry, didn't know we were limited to three. ( 'None of those is a' ? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 You must have realised by now that I am of the old school and in my day Latin was almost the Lingua Franca (never quite worked that out?) of the scientific community and indeed I have an O-Level from 1965 gathering mildew in a draw somewhere. I knew you knew but my comments are partly aimed at the wider community. One day my sort will have died out and then you'll all be able to say what you like Whose is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Sorry, didn't know we were limited to three. ( 'None of those is a' ? ) A TLA is defo limited to three, otherwise it would just be an A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 A TLA is defo limited to three, otherwise it would just be an A Wouldn't an A be a one letter abbreviation and therefore a OLA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 June, 2014 Share Posted 29 June, 2014 Whose is it? Canicula! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now