@Fan of Big Tone

No one's complaining. It's ok to make a point and foster debate. The owners reconstructed the pitch & improved the infrastructure of the ground, before the beginning of last season at considerable expense, which was out of sight compared to the cost of the players they bought in.

So it was already apparent that the owners prioritised off the field improvements last season when it came to expenditure.

As I said I understand their reasoning for completing the improvements & I am pleased they did, but I believe there should be a fine balance between on field and off field expenditure, & that is open for debate.

22 minutes ago, Robbie said:

No one's complaining. It's ok to make a point and foster debate.

Well I think a lot of @Wheelbarrow repair man posts are complaining but that’s fine he has a right to his opinion, I respect that, I’m just putting the other side of the argument.

To answer the question on the title of this discussion “Where has all the money gone”, some of it has gone on improvements as I mentioned before, training pitch, the nest, safe standing etc., some may be spent on players later, some may have gone into the back pocket of the owners who knows but it’s their money, they are ploughing it into the club so they can spend as they think fit and hopefully they are doing what they think is best for the club.

What I'm trying to ask is Where's All The Money Gone? Due to the fact that C.E.O. Joe Palmer stated The Club is Maintainable and Comfortable to get to Championship Level , in Terms of Finance. Which means (in my mind) the money is there so If that's a fact Why haven't better players been brought in to help push the Magpies Forward? Why have the Club sold their Top Players, only to be replaced with players who are Not at the departed players Standard. ? I would have thought to enable the Club to move forward, like for like players need to come in, but the Brothers have got the Balance Wrong, between the Infrastructure and New Players arriving. That is where the question of Lack of Ambition comes in and I'm Not the only Notts fan asking that question.

Infrastructure wise the Condition of the Stadium and Safety of the Fans is Paramount. Was the Nest a Top Priority ? Wouldn't that money have been better spent on Players to bring success to the Magpies, and Promotion to League 1, which on it's own would have brought in more money to swell the Club's Coffers. The Pitch was laid to stop matches being called off and is up to Premier League Standard then surely the Club need to advertise the fact and get more for their outlay why not approach the F.A. to see if the Club could host International Matches? And No I Don't Mean England Men's Team, but what about matches at Under 19 and Under 21 Level and maybe even the Lionesses? The Location of Meadow Lane is ideal, it's in the Midlands so Fans won't have to fork out the vast amount of Money when they go down to London.

I have been accused of Complaining, I would say No, I'm being Realistic everything in the Notts Garden isn't Rosey, but neither is it a Waste Land. If you ask the Notts Fan Base what is the Most Important thing to them most would say Success On The Pitch. Now the Club is on a Financial Even Keel. So what can be taken from the C.E.O's announcement, was he telling the Truth? Or has all the Money Gone, on the Pitch the Nest the New Training Ground and the Structure of the New Notts Model, which has left the Brothers with the only choice of relying on Lower Standard Players, Free Agents and Loanees?

@Wheelbarrow repair man

I've done some research on Hybrid SIS type pitches. Do you know 19 out of the 20 PL teams have hybrid SIS pitches. There is no info about how many league 2 sides have them. We know Notts has one.

Another massive club, Barcelona, has a Hybrid SIS type pitch. It's great to have the best pitch money can buy & I can understand Notts wanting to have a pitch such as this, but why do it before the club has been promoted up the football pyramid?

I also learned that Wrexham, at this very moment, are installing a similar pitch, but Wrexham have had two consecutive promotions.

Of course we know they have more available funds for players than Notts have at this time, however it appears they made the judgement that the playing side should have the priority for a couple of seasons.

For all the talk about making the club sustainable, we're clearly not (yet at least). The owners are having to put in a seven-figure sum every year to cover our losses. That, along with the infrastructure investments mentioned above, is where the money has gone.

Some of it will no doubt be reinvested in the team. The squad now is undoubtedly significanly more expensive than the one we had in the NL (McGoldrick alone was said to be on 5k a week), we've signed players for fees in the last year or so and there are surely more signings to come in the next month. Whether that money is spent wisely is another question entirely, but it's too early to judge.

@DangerousSausage

If the club’s not sustainable at the moment, that’s worrying and it doesn’t seem to match what we’ve heard before from the CEO. I think a bit more clarity would help fans feel reassured. Honest updates from the board could go a long way in building trust between the club and supporters.

I think the club has to be in a sustainable place financially for several reasons.

The Club has spent a substantial amount of money on the Ground infrastructure including the Hybrid SIS pitch.

They've spent money converting a Warehouse into the Nest.

They are improving the training facilities & are reportedly laying a Hybrid SIS pitch in conjunction with Nottingham University.

I think the club are trying to be sustainable in the best possible way they can. Spending beyond our means for players demanding top wages doesn’t always work and could land us in trouble as has happened in the past. I do agree that more could be done by communicating with the supporters more than they do at present.

8 hours ago, Wheelbarrow repair man said:

@DangerousSausage

If the club’s not sustainable at the moment, that’s worrying and it doesn’t seem to match what we’ve heard before from the CEO. I think a bit more clarity would help fans feel reassured. Honest updates from the board could go a long way in building trust between the club and supporters.

This is what he said when we took over the Nest last year: "as a business we want to aim to be sustainable". That means we are not sustainable YET but are working towards it, and as far as I'm aware he's never said anything to the contrary.

Nothing about this is unusual or controversial, the number of professional football clubs that break even can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

The best way to become sustainable is to play in a higher division, so targeted investments in the right players are needed.

The difficulty for owners is that fans don’t measure “success” by off field investment. The only factors that matter are results and performances, which are significantly impacted by the quality of player recruitment.

As a fan for 60 years I’m not bothered about padel courts or The Nest but I understand that they are helpful as income generators. The Club infrastructure and back room appointments are of little consequence to me either - but if they aid player fitness and development that’s good too.

I’m not sure how you equate all the variables and assess which are working effectively & which are not. That is some conundrum.

I, like most fans I believe, will judge on performances, results & league position. The rest, to paraphrase Sir Jimmy, is gossip.

Edited July 29Jul 29 by YoopEyes
Typo

I quoted Joe Palmer’s words from The Magpie Circle podcast, and I made sure to check them before sharing this topic on here. If what he said wasn’t accurate, then I suppose it could be seen differently. I think it would help if the club gave a bit more clarity on this.

As a league 2 club this will be relevant to Notts.👇

League Two clubs can spend a maximum of 50% of their relevant turnover on player-related expenditure, which includes wages and transfer fees.

Relevent turnover includes income from various sources like matchday sales, TV revenue, and advertising, but excludes certain costs like dividends. 

This is part of the EFL's Financial Fair Play regulations. 

To increase turnover & as a result be able to put more revenue into players wages & transfers, Notts could invite significant investment through a third party investor by using the investor's capital for player acquisitions, stadium improvements, commercial ventures, while also potentially benefiting from the investor's network & expertise.

This could lead to increased revenue from player sales, matchday income, & sponsorship deals.

@Wheelbarrow repair man, there's no need to be confrontational. You quoted him as saying the club is maintainable, which it is with our current owners as they're investing in the club and covering its losses. Being sustainable would mean the club can cover its own costs without the owners having to dip into their pockets, and that's where we're aiming to be financially. I see no contradiction and nobody is telling porkies.

Every football club looks to work towards sustainability; Notts is doing much better at this, but it will continue to come at the cost of selling players. A promotion when not ready could result in this being harder, but when club officials speak about sustainability, they are often talking about cutting down on losses at the end of each season. It doesn't generally mean they are breaking even or making a profit; in football, this is hard for a professional football club to do.

Spending money on the training ground could be a waste, especially if UoN decides to kick us off its facilities.

Without knowledge of the agreement, I wouldn't be able to say, and therefore it is only speculation. I wouldn't imagine there's an agreement which the club is happy with, and that is for a fair duration.

Having an identically sized pitch is a good idea on the principle of making routine training, especially matches held on the training ground, easier, and when we play intra-squad practice games. We will be playing on the exact dimensions as Meadow Lane, which will make it easier for the players to work on training-ground drills to put into practice with the first team. I think Manchester City has one the same size as the Etihad, with the exception of having several other different-sized training ground pitches.

You would believe that this would help make Meadow Lane a fortress at home, as it allows us to replicate more closely what visiting sides might try to pull off. Better preparation does tend to lead to bigger things.

There were silly comments on social media from some fans suggesting that our owners were asset-stripping and priming the club for sale.

I do wonder if it is so hard to believe that the ambitions of our owners, the work that they have done, and the desire they repeatedly show deserve such nonsense? Similar to the absurdity found in the frantic comments regarding the Reedtz family supposedly losing interest simply because they acquired Viborg FF.

This can be a healthy discussion, provided we approach things respectfully and considerately. There are several intriguing points, making this topic particularly engaging.

The club really needs money so it can buy good players and pay off the money it owes. If we keep losing money, that’s not something the club can keep doing.

If we spend money wisely and only pay the right amount for players, I’m fine with signing free players too. They can still help the team.

We can't spend loads of money every season, like £300,000 or £500,000. Some years we have to be more careful.

I always took Joe Palmer's comments to mean that the club will be able to operate and sustain itself up to Championship level, as opposed to we have the money to compete in the Championship now, which we clearly don’t. I always thought it meant that if we do get to League 1 and even the Championship our structure, strategy, plan whatever you want to call it will still work. And when you do get promoted more financial opportunities become available like better sponsorship deals, more tv money and higher attendances, which with our stadium size means we won’t miss out on like some clubs do.

I think teams spending massive sums but with owners who are just happy to finance the losses does skew the way we look at modern football, but the reality is it isn’t the norm in the lower leagues. Most teams at this level are losing money and that means for some clubs selling a player is a necessity at times. I don't think we always want to sell our players either, I'm sure the Bros wanted to keep Crowley and Bass, but what can you really do if a club comes in and offers much better wages that we can't compete with?

Just because we've not spent a fee doesn't mean we've not invested the money either, the new signings aren't playing for free, all these wages soon add up. And the window isn't shut yet, whose to say we aren't working on a deal right now?

Excellent points @menzinho @Chris @DangerousSausage

Sustainability is knowing that an annual loss of say, £1m to £1.2m is "sustainable" with the funding from the Bros. in place

The risk of not being ready for EFL1 can be shown by Carlisle. Promoted at Wembley then successive relegations to the National League.

We are long overdue a cup run, the dream of Old Trafford away in the FA Cup may yield a £1m bonus... I remember I think Exeter City saying it funded them for 3 years on the back of it.

The Bros have been the best owners for Notts in donkey's years. All this nonsense that monies should be directed to the team.... well it was under Hardy and looked what happened, we fell into the National League.

Furthermore, I never thought in my remaining lifetime, that we would be getting a base of 10k crowds every home game. I remember Scardino's "8(k) through the Gate" was a pipedream then.

Investments like the Nest carry perhaps zero risk, as the land could revert to industrial use quite easily. The income boost of the Nest really does help #Notts overall.

18 hours ago, Robbie said:

Notts could invite significant investment through a third party investor by using the investor's capital for player acquisitions, stadium improvements, commercial ventures, while also potentially benefiting from the investor's network & expertise.

This is perhaps too simplistic in the scheme of things, especially when applied to football. Either it means diluting the Bros shareholding or if as a 3rd party loan, what security is asked for in case the Club cannot pay it back.

On 29/07/2025 at 21:48, Ash said:

The club really needs money so it can buy good players and pay off the money it owes. If we keep losing money, that’s not something the club can keep doing.

If we spend money wisely and only pay the right amount for players, I’m fine with signing free players too. They can still help the team.

We can't spend loads of money every season, like £300,000 or £500,000. Some years we have to be more careful.

The club has spent £millions over the last few seasons on off the field projects including laying a SIS Hybrid Premier League Pitch.

I was talking about transfer fees, and I think we’re doing okay.

Some fans think not spending money means we’re not trying hard or it’s a bad thing, but that’s not true. Sometimes saving money is smart.