Sons' sorrow

[O'Kelly Isley III]

I have absolutely no clue how the loan market works - is the figure we pay even related to the weeks we'll have him?  What I mean there is perhaps Killie are just charging a fee for taking the player, rather than saying "you'll have him for 18 weeks and you'll pay X% of 18 weeks wages". So whether we take him this week or in 2 weeks time, the fee may well be the same?
But even if it is related to the weeks we'll have him, it's apparently £5K to keep Thomas for the remaining 16 games if Old Scrotum's earlier post is to be believed.  £312.50 per game he's costing us then. The assertion here is that we'd rather save £625 than give ourselves a better chance of taking 6 points from the next two games, I find that hard to believe. 660 attended last weekends game, if only we'd got them all to throw a quid into a bucket.
Really though, nobody on here has a clue how this works, so all we can really do is take what Duffy says as gospel and we're just waiting on Killie letting us keep him. That seems the much easier and less stressful solution here.

Oh we do know how some of it works. We have players sitting in the stand, some of it on two-year deals, who will probably never kick another ball for us but are quite content to trouser money every week.

The disasters of their signings and others is directly feeding into our dismal league position and the empty seats. Until the woodworm of their presence is eradicated we are headed in a bad direction.

Jim Duffy is now fully aware of the magnitude of the task he has inherited. The Board backed Stevie Aitken, as they should have, and despite his protestations he bequeathed a shitfest.

They will also back Duffy but there is no money of any significance available. We can only hope that we can prise some arses out the door, and quickly.

[pleslie99]

Could DT play as a "trialist" then come back as a loanee?
 

I'm sure trialists need to be free agents.

[Howlin' Wilf]

5 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Do you really think we're that skint that our board would send arguably our best player back to his loan club for two weeks to save some cash? I certainly don't. Nor do I think that we should be using the finances to paint ourselves as some sort of hard luck story.

Well I didn't actually say that but the club is skint. I don't know how skint but reports earlier in the year put debt and contingent debt at about £300,000 which, even on last year's figures, was impossible to trade out of. On top of that we look to be losing around half of our season ticket money and more than half of the SPFL money. How skint do you think that makes us? Let me put it this way, I don't know if you have a house but imagine you're struggling to pay a £150,000 mortgage on £25,000 per year and your employer cuts your hours so that you're earning £12,500 per year. would you sell your car to keep the house?  

Edited January 8, 2019 by Howlin' Wilf

[DumbartonTheSons]

Oh we do know how some of it works. We have players sitting in the stand, some of it on two-year deals, who will probably never kick another ball for us but are quite content to trouser money every week.

The disasters of their signings and others is directly feeding into our dismal league position and the empty seats. Until the woodworm of their presence is eradicated we are headed in a bad direction.

Jim Duffy is now fully aware of the magnitude of the task he has inherited. The Board backed Stevie Aitken, as they should have, and despite his protestations he bequeathed a shitfest.

They will also back Duffy but there is no money of any significance available. We can only hope that we can prise some arses out the door, and quickly.

Maybe it's the boredom of not many rumours, but as I read your first paragraph I'm wondering, are you suggesting that there's more to the players in the stand being injured and therefore not available for selection?

[BallochSonsFan]

1 hour ago, Howlin' Wilf said:

Well I didn't actually say that but the club is skint. I don't know how skint but reports earlier in the year put debt and contingent debt at about £300,000 which, even on last year's figures, was impossible to trade out of. On top of that we look to be losing around half of our season ticket money and more than half of the SPFL money. How skint do you think that makes us? Let me put it this way, I don't know if you have a house but imagine you're struggling to pay a £150,000 mortgage on £25,000 per year and your employer cuts your hours so that you're earning £12,500 per year. would you sell your car to keep the house?  

The club is skint. Fans need to realise that.

Is it that skint that we'd do without Don Thomas for a couple of weeks to try to save money? No.

Is it facing an immediate existential crisis? No.

Does that mean that the club isn't skint? Sadly not. The reduction in revenue and prize money was substantial. We're funding a well paid squad. Take Loy as an example - we need to pay him regardless of his injury and he's on a 2 year deal. Unless he walks away? The club aren't offloading him or his wages any time soon. Then there are guys who are fit and who Duffy would perhaps want to ship out - if we're paying them a fair wage then they're unlikely to be eager to take a drop in wages to leave us. Supposing he wanted to punt Paton. Is Paton going anywhere in either our league or league 2 for a pay cut?

Relegation and the subsequent revenue drop has cost the club at least £150k. There are ongoing legacy issues to deal with from the old board that need cleaned up, further draining resources. People seem to think that we're not skint, that there's a rainy day fund somewhere and that we can make changes. Unfortunately that's not realistic. You can't lose significant prize money, season ticket money, income from away fans and cut walk up ticket prices and expect the budget not to be slashed. Ignoring the financial reality of the past 12 months isn't an option. If every season ticket holder from 16/17 and 17/18 who didn't renew last summer was to buy a half season ticket then Duffy could probably have the money to make serious changes to the squad. That's unlikely to happen.

The current board are trying to put the club on a better financial footing. That means being far stricter with the budget. The days of an Aitken style late signing with no regards to the budget are over. If the board can find a way to fund signings then they will. If they can't then it'll come down to some very creative/lucky loans or other deals.

There's no stash of funds. The club is skint. They're not overplaying things when they describe finances as tight. The previous 2 chairmen left a huge mess for the new board to try to fix, not helped by the squad Aitken has built. How do you plan for your well remunerated striker getting a long term injury? Or your first choice centre half? They still need to be paid even if they're not kicking a ball.

[pleslie99]

The club is skint. Fans need to realise that.
Is it that skint that we'd do without Don Thomas for a couple of weeks to try to save money? No.
Is it facing an immediate existential crisis? No.
Does that mean that the club isn't skint? Sadly not. The reduction in revenue and prize money was substantial. We're funding a well paid squad. Take Loy as an example - we need to pay him regardless of his injury and he's on a 2 year deal. Unless he walks away? The club aren't offloading him or his wages any time soon. Then there are guys who are fit and who Duffy would perhaps want to ship out - if we're paying them a fair wage then they're unlikely to be eager to take a drop in wages to leave us. Supposing he wanted to punt Paton. Is Paton going anywhere in either our league or league 2 for a pay cut?
Relegation and the subsequent revenue drop has cost the club at least £150k. There are ongoing legacy issues to deal with from the old board that need cleaned up, further draining resources. People seem to think that we're not skint, that there's a rainy day fund somewhere and that we can make changes. Unfortunately that's not realistic. You can't lose significant prize money, season ticket money, income from away fans and cut walk up ticket prices and expect the budget not to be slashed. Ignoring the financial reality of the past 12 months isn't an option. If every season ticket holder from 16/17 and 17/18 who didn't renew last summer was to buy a half season ticket then Duffy could probably have the money to make serious changes to the squad. That's unlikely to happen.
The current board are trying to put the club on a better financial footing. That means being far stricter with the budget. The days of an Aitken style late signing with no regards to the budget are over. If the board can find a way to fund signings then they will. If they can't then it'll come down to some very creative/lucky loans or other deals.
There's no stash of funds. The club is skint. They're not overplaying things when they describe finances as tight. The previous 2 chairmen left a huge mess for the new board to try to fix, not helped by the squad Aitken has built. How do you plan for your well remunerated striker getting a long term injury? Or your first choice centre half? They still need to be paid even if they're not kicking a ball.

I totally understand the club is skint and I'm sure every other fan understands and accepts that too. We speak about the drop in prize money, that's part and parcel of being relegated, surely the board took this into consideration when budgets were being planned for this season? We mustve known season ticket sales would be down and away fan revenue would be down? All this surely was taken into consideration when budgets were set this season. If not id be seriously questioning the board!
So we are skint, we've felt skint for years, however, are we really any more skint than other clubs in the league? Every lower league club in Scotland will be playing the "skint" card, they all still sign players and move players on.

[BallochSonsFan]

You can't move somebody who doesn't want to go.

Aitken was given a budget. He had the choice of bringing in numbers on basic wages or spending more money per player and going with a smaller squad. Aitken chose the latter. Great if it works because we'd have a higher quality squad. Unfortunately it didn't and that leaves us with a small squad of well paid players who wouldn't earn the same wages elsewhere. Nobody is walking away from wages they won't earn elsewhere.

The club can budget based on what it knows and what it can reasonably project. That goes out the window if ticket sales don't meet the level needed. Or if they need to adjust budgets to deal with a pressing need. Or if they need to fund compensation for dismissing Aitken. Or any number of things that can happen with little warning. Tight budgets don't allow for wiggle room, contingency funding or a previous manager making a rip roaring mess of squad building.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Maybe it's the boredom of not many rumours, but as I read your first paragraph I'm wondering, are you suggesting that there's more to the players in the stand being injured and therefore not available for selection?

I can't answer that with certainty but I would assert yes, absolutely. No one should be under any misapprehensions; most footballers and their agents are mercenary, with the badge on the jersey merely the meal ticket.

Getting shot of them can prove difficult.

[BallochSonsFan]

I'm going to disagree to a point OK3.  Adam, Barr, Beany and Loy are injured. They're in the stand because they're not fit to play. It's not a case of them being fit but not available for selection.

Unfortunately you can't move an injured player. They have their contract that needs to be honoured. The only way a guy like Rory Loy is leaving is if he accepts a compensation payment. He couldn't sign for another club because nobody would sign him injured. He's not going to walk away from his wages. Andy Little did but it's arguable that his circumstances are different to Loy's.

Very few players will walk away from a contract, especially where there's almost no chance of them getting another deal elsewhere. We can't play them due to injury. We can't find them a new club because of injury. They won't walk away from their wages. The club can't really do anything. Between Mango and Loy we're probably paying enough for 3 decent league one players who could contribute immediately.  Add Adam and Beany and we probably have enough wages sitting injured to fund 5 replacements.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I totally understand the club is skint and I'm sure every other fan understands and accepts that too. We speak about the drop in prize money, that's part and parcel of being relegated, surely the board took this into consideration when budgets were being planned for this season? We mustve known season ticket sales would be down and away fan revenue would be down? All this surely was taken into consideration when budgets were set this season. If not id be seriously questioning the board!
So we are skint, we've felt skint for years, however, are we really any more skint than other clubs in the league? Every lower league club in Scotland will be playing the "skint" card, they all still sign players and move players on.

Correct.

Are we any worse off than Montrose, Forfar, Stenny, Stranraer or Brechin? No. We have a bigger budget than those teams for a start. I just don't really understand the constant reminders of being skint. Most clubs at this level scrape by on a month to month basis, if we're having to scrape by more than others then the solution is fairly simple - don't give the manager a top 4 sized budget to spend.

We were told at the start of the season that Willie Dyer esque players were all we could afford. We were told we couldn't afford to sack Aitken. We were told that we couldn't afford Duffy. It all just becomes rather tedious after a while - I don't think anybody thinks we're flush with cash but to suggest we're worse off than others in the league is wide of the mark. Perhaps "skint" is actually just the norm for the modern day League 1/lower end Championship part-time club?

[Old Scrotum]

I don't read from Duffy's comment that DT is being sent back to Kilmarnock. I think it is more a case of Stevie Clarke wanting him at Rugby Park for a spell before deciding whether to loan him back out.

As Thomas' loan period has ended at DFC - as I understand it as - I can't see how we would be liable to pay any wages until such time as he rejoins. The only time Clarke can make a judgement, unfortunately, is during this month which also coincides with the Premiership break. (I'm not sure if he's taking the squad away for a couple of weeks for warm-weather training at Largs.)

It wouldn't surprise me if Clarke is even contemplating giving him a run-out against, of all teams, Forfar in the Scottish Cup on the 23rd.

One other thought came to me in a surprisingly sober moment: Killie must fancy their chances of a European spot and might be keen to bring an experienced player or two until the end of the season to help with the "push", be it loanees or short-term contracts. They've already sent one loan player through the door marked "do one" so perhaps Clarke might be willing to loan or re-loan out others if whatever that saves on the wage bill makes a contribution.

Normal service will be restored at 11.00. 

[FifeSons]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we never see Rory Loy in a Sons shirt again. He’s been the biggest disappointment for me, especially given the package he’s on and the hype around his signing. Too expensive to keep, too expensive to get rid of.

We shouldn't be dishing out two year contracts to anyone.

Edited January 9, 2019 by FifeSons

[Howlin' Wilf]

2 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Correct.

Are we any worse off than Montrose, Forfar, Stenny, Stranraer or Brechin? No. We have a bigger budget than those teams for a start. I just don't really understand the constant reminders of being skint. Most clubs at this level scrape by on a month to month basis, if we're having to scrape by more than others then the solution is fairly simple - don't give the manager a top 4 sized budget to spend.

We were told at the start of the season that Willie Dyer esque players were all we could afford. We were told we couldn't afford to sack Aitken. We were told that we couldn't afford Duffy. It all just becomes rather tedious after a while - I don't think anybody thinks we're flush with cash but to suggest we're worse off than others in the league is wide of the mark. Perhaps "skint" is actually just the norm for the modern day League 1/lower end Championship part-time club?

I've just had a look at Companies House. To May 2017 Arbroath's entire liabilities were £35,803 and Forfar Athletic's were  £37,432. Dumbarton's were £165,598. In addition to this, Dumbarton owed £183,723 to directors and former directors in loans. I was unable to find the other clubs you mention. This may be because they operate under a different name or a model different to a limited company.   

[FifeSons]

2 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Correct.

Are we any worse off than Montrose, Forfar, Stenny, Stranraer or Brechin? No. We have a bigger budget than those teams for a start. I just don't really understand the constant reminders of being skint. Most clubs at this level scrape by on a month to month basis, if we're having to scrape by more than others then the solution is fairly simple - don't give the manager a top 4 sized budget to spend.

We were told at the start of the season that Willie Dyer esque players were all we could afford. We were told we couldn't afford to sack Aitken. We were told that we couldn't afford Duffy. It all just becomes rather tedious after a while - I don't think anybody thinks we're flush with cash but to suggest we're worse off than others in the league is wide of the mark. Perhaps "skint" is actually just the norm for the modern day League 1/lower end Championship part-time club?

I agree with you to an extent, but I believe a lot of the costs you mention in the last paragraph were paid for with outside help.

[FifeSons]

Back to transfer news, I see Arbroath are about to sign Greig Spence. The kind of player we could've really done with.

[squeezeboxson]

2 hours ago, FifeSons said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if we never see Rory Loy in a Sons shirt again. He’s been the biggest disappointment for me, especially given the package he’s on and the hype around his signing. Too expensive to keep, too expensive to get rid of.

We shouldn't be dishing out two year contracts to anyone.

The last 2 we have signed on 2 year contracts were Rory Loy and Mark Brown. It really doesn't make a good case for 2 year deals.

Not sure if I have missed anyone but before that I remember Chris Turner being on a 2 year contract but he went to Hamilton after that ended if I remember correctly? So there wasn't any value in that either.

[Jan Vojáček]

1 minute ago, squeezeboxson said:

The last 2 we have signed on 2 year contracts were Rory Loy and Mark Brown. It really doesn't make a good case for 2 year deals.

Not sure if I have missed anyone but before that I remember Chris Turner being on a 2 year contract but he went to Hamilton after that ended if I remember correctly? So there wasn't any value in that either.

Mark Stewart was actually the last player before Loy who we signed on a two-year deal...

So aye, I don't think they're worth dishing out at this level - unless we have a highly rated young guy who signs it midway through a good season with bigger clubs no doubt sniffing around (like Kevin Nisbet has at Raith).

[FifeSons]

31 minutes ago, Ross Forbes said:

Mark Stewart was actually the last player before Loy who we signed on a two-year deal...

So aye, I don't think they're worth dishing out at this level - unless we have a highly rated young guy who signs it midway through a good season with bigger clubs no doubt sniffing around (like Kevin Nisbet has at Raith).

Another one who looked as blunt as a discarded Bic under Aitken, who now looks as sharp as a cut throat razor.

Edited January 9, 2019 by FifeSons

[DumbartonTheSons]

Another one who looked as blunt as a discarded Bic under Aitken, who know looks as sharp as a cut throat razor.

Otherwise known as 'The Aitken effect'.

[DumbartonTheSons]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we never see Rory Loy in a Sons shirt again. He’s been the biggest disappointment for me, especially given the package he’s on and the hype around his signing. Too expensive to keep, too expensive to get rid of.
We shouldn't be dishing out two year contracts to anyone.

I see your point but if we never see Rory Loy in a Sons jersey again then that's a big issue.

He's on a two year deal so if he's not going to play, he's going to be spend 18 months of a 24 month contract not playing but being paid handsomely for it. That's not good.

I still hope we can see some good from him at some stage. Who knows when that'll be though, or if. Does anyone know the extent of his injury or what physio or rehab he's going through to try and fix the issue?