Jump to content

Brian McDermott's Big City Team League


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 706
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Yeah.... I'm the one that waffles on. ?

If you and Grubrats want my advice for your new club, DM me and I'll happily provide my rate card.

But I'll give you my first piece of advice for free - don't start an SL club in Timbuktu.

Cost wise probably not much difference to Toronto ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

If TWP are a massive failure then God only knows what it makes most of the other clubs with a 100 year head start.

In truth probably none ( maybe just one perhaps ) of those clubs have run anything like that level of debt up over those 100 years , so it depends how you are looking at it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

In truth probably none ( maybe just one perhaps ) of those clubs have run anything like that level of debt up over those 100 years , so it depends how you are looking at it 

What level of debt? Argyle putting money into a club does not equate debt. Hughes has put £20 million+ into London but they are not in that much debt.

Any new business that is looking for strong growth will make a large investment initially and this will mean that it will run at a loss initially, its quite normal. I'm sure TWP could have chosen a different path which would have meant far less investment, far less growth and generally a completely different type of club. A club set up like a Toulouse or London would have meant far less success and would have been far less appealing to fans. It also probably wouldn't have worked in the North American sporting landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

What level of debt? Argyle putting money into a club does not equate debt. Hughes has put £20 million+ into London but they are not in that much debt.

Any new business that is looking for strong growth will make a large investment initially and this will mean that it will run at a loss initially, its quite normal. I'm sure TWP could have chosen a different path which would have meant far less investment, far less growth and generally a completely different type of club. A club set up like a Toulouse or London would have meant far less success and would have been far less appealing to fans. It also probably wouldn't have worked in the North American sporting landscape.

I agree , I used the word ' debt ' which is perhaps as you suggest wrong , and was a response to what I saw as a criticism of historic clubs that have survived and prospered ( and struggled ) for over a century , why did you feel the need to do that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Damien said:

What level of debt? Argyle putting money into a club does not equate debt. Hughes has put £20 million+ into London but they are not in that much debt.

Any new business that is looking for strong growth will make a large investment initially and this will mean that it will run at a loss initially, its quite normal. I'm sure TWP could have chosen a different path which would have meant far less investment, far less growth and generally a completely different type of club. A club set up like a Toulouse or London would have meant far less success and would have been far less appealing to fans. It also probably wouldn't have worked in the North American sporting landscape.

You think he doesn't want that money back ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I agree , I used the word ' debt ' which is perhaps as you suggest wrong , and was a response to what I saw as a criticism of historic clubs that have survived and prospered ( and struggled ) for over a century , why did you feel the need to do that ?

Parky is saying they are a massive failure and I don't see how he can arrive at that conclusion. The only comparison can be made with existing clubs and TWP stack up pretty well to most, including several Super League ones. Therefore if they are a failure what does it make many of the other RL clubs? It's a pretty fair question I feel in the context of the statement that was made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

You think he doesn't want that money back ???

Do you think he's put the money in thinking he can't get it back? The only way he can get it back, if he so desires, is by Toronto being a success. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Damien said:

Do you think he's put the money in thinking he can't get it back? The only way he can get it back, if he so desires, is by Toronto being a success. I don't see that as being a bad thing.

So it's debt then. 

All be it on low interest, long term and highly flexible terms. 

Yes, He thinks he can get it back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

So it's debt then. 

All be it on low interest, long term and highly flexible terms. 

Yes, He thinks he can get it back. 

How do you know its debt? You are jumping to conclusions. For me it's irrelevant anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Damien said:

Parky is saying they are a massive failure and I don't see how he can arrive at that conclusion. The only comparison can be made with existing clubs and TWP stack up pretty well to most, including several Super League ones. Therefore if they are a failure what does it make many of the other RL clubs? It's a pretty fair question I feel in the context of the statement that was made.

That depends on your criteria , crowds ? , Positive ( very in fact ) , financially ?, Negative ( very ) , the declared player production ? Well both negative on the conversion claim ( not surprisingly ) and obviously The long term development which is a silly argument ( although will need ' something ' fairly soon IMO ) and shouldn't be brought into the discussion yet 

I don't really compare to any other club as any comparison is daft really , there issues are fairly clear , as are our traditional clubs , the answers to both are very very different IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

He will get the money back by a) taking a cut of any TV deals or b) selling TWP at a price to cover his costs. 

Or not at all if a TV deal doesn't happen ( and even then he won't if it does as all that will do is pay for future running costs ) , only if the fabled massive NA expansion happens , which again isn't a given 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Or not at all if a TV deal doesn't happen ( and even then he won't if it does as all that will do is pay for future running costs ) , only if the fabled massive NA expansion happens , which again isn't a given 

Yes a TV Deal would pay towards future running costs, 20% or 25% may go to repaying the owners out of pocket costs? Or he may just sell up to get back his money once TWP are at break even point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Smudger06 said:

Yes a TV Deal would pay towards future running costs, 20% or 25% may go to repaying the owners out of pocket costs? Or he may just sell up to get back his money once TWP are at break even point. 

Its his ' pocket money ' , what do you spend yours on ? , Do you get it back ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Erm the debate is TWP's admission via their coach they have not been able to deliver any players or TV deals and are unlikely to do that. These were the success criteria their founder set the club, plus in failing to do that they ran up a £10,000,000 debt and continue to run that higher as they enter Superleague. Oddly enough their coach excuses this total failure of their  business plan on the other clubs for not being "big city's".

Parksider, I'm going to ask you direct questions, in order to provide the debate you so cherish.

1. Could you please provide your source for this number? I've seen you post it more than once, so you must have one.

6 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Just admit TWP far from being a massive success are a massive failure, and we can call it a day?? Having a go at me is the usual cheap trick tried literally more than a thousand times. Trying to hound someone out of a debate isn't grown up is it? 

2. Is it "grown up" to repeatedly demand debate, but then ignore me when I've civilly engaged you here, here, and here?

6 hours ago, The Parksider said:

1. 123 years on and the model still works, only in the last 23 years the success has risen a level with the game stepping up from semi-pro to Professional. We have done pretty good and continue onwards with a new SKY deal waiting.

2. You have your one opinion, thousands of fans have theirs - as a democrat I'll accept the majority vote. TWP are now pointless by their own admission no players, no TV deals and one of the biggest trading debts ever in the history of the game.

3. I don't see it at all because you woffle on from post to post claiming your a marketing genius, but never actually set out your cunning plan. Please let myself and my business advisor Mr. Gubrats know what it is. We may start our own club in Timbuktu with this plan. 

Just a general wondering here, but why would anyone give that to you for free?

 

I'll leave it at 2 direct questions, since as demonstrated you seem to have problems with replying to more than that, despite clearly no being averse to typing long posts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheReaper said:

Parksider, I'm going to ask you direct questions, in order to provide the debate you so cherish.

1. Could you please provide your source for this number? I've seen you post it more than once, so you must have one.

2. Is it "grown up" to repeatedly demand debate, but then ignore me when I've civilly engaged you here, here, and here?

Just a general wondering here, but why would anyone give that to you for free?

 

I'll leave it at 2 direct questions, since as demonstrated you seem to have problems with replying to more than that, despite clearly no being averse to typing long posts. 

I'll answer the first one , 3 years paying out at or as close as matters at SL Salary Cap of 2 million , plus coaching staff , added to costs for training venues and transport within the UK , and then accomodation in Canada , so if it's not 10 , it's 8 or 9 , but what's a couple of million between friends ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

I'll answer the first one , 3 years paying out at or as close as matters at SL Salary Cap of 2 million , plus coaching staff , added to costs for training venues and transport within the UK , and then accomodation in Canada , so if it's not 10 , it's 8 or 9 , but what's a couple of million between friends ?

Sure, you could get pretty close in expenditures. Now, add ticket income,  concession income, sponsorship, merch, etc.

Without knowing those numbers,  it's all hypothetical, but let's assume the income doesn't cover the expenses so far. We're now at a negative profit, or a loss.

That still isn't debt. Debt implies an obligation to repay. We don't know, and have no proof, of what DA's and his other partners' financial arrangements are, are startup or today.  Perhaps it was $20 million startup fund and they haven't gone through half of it yet. Perhaps (more likely) they provide ongoing cash injections as needed. This happened at least once.

But, unless someone has proof otherwise, there is no indication of debt. EVERY startup requires investment. It's the "rule" , not the "exception" , that almost every business will spend money and be negative while getting established, until profits make up for start up costs. Most investments are made with the acceptance that they could be lost, and not repaid. Unless proof is provided, there is no reason to believe that TWP is different from any other startup, with the owners understanding the risks of their investment.

When the startup in question is a professional sports team, figures in the millions, or even tens of millions, are perfectly normal.

Making a loss as a start-up is not of itself a negative point when considering the merits of TWP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

Parksider, I'm going to ask you direct questions

There's your first error.

 

1 hour ago, TheReaper said:

when I've civilly engaged you here, here, and here?

And there's the rest.

Was there something about this post of his in particular that made you think this time would be different?

It's called an interior monologue and Parky is TGG's James Joyce.

2 warning points:kolobok_dirol:  Non-Political

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Parksider said:

Erm the debate is TWP's admission via their coach they have not been able to deliver any players or TV deals and are unlikely to do that. These were the success criteria their founder set the club, plus in failing to do that they ran up a £10,000,000 debt and continue to run that higher as they enter Superleague. Oddly enough their coach excuses this total failure of their  business plan on the other clubs for not being "big city's".

Just admit TWP far from being a massive success are a massive failure, and we can call it a day?? Having a go at me is the usual cheap trick tried literally more than a thousand times. Trying to hound someone out of a debate isn't grown up is it? 

1. 123 years on and the model still works, only in the last 23 years the success has risen a level with the game stepping up from semi-pro to Professional. We have done pretty good and continue onwards with a new SKY deal waiting.

2. You have your one opinion, thousands of fans have theirs - as a democrat I'll accept the majority vote. TWP are now pointless by their own admission no players, no TV deals and one of the biggest trading debts ever in the history of the game.

3. I don't see it at all because you woffle on from post to post claiming your a marketing genius, but never actually set out your cunning plan. Please let myself and my business advisor Mr. Gubrats know what it is. We may start our own club in Timbuktu with this plan. 

School on Monday Parky.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.