According to AI, they have £81m debt including £70m bank loans. Ouch

Literally told you why I was asking.

2009 via Play-Offs, 2014 2nd in Champ, 2016 1st in C/ship, 2023, 1st in C/ship & 2025 2nd in C/ship

Burnley too. Lost count of how many times they've been promoted to Prem and then relegated rinse repeat. Would be interesting to see their finances. I guess they pay championship wages and every 2-3 years get a Prem TV dividend

Luton is case worth considering. One season in the Prem and their new ground is paid for. They'd rather not be in L1 but they have a fantastic ground to look forward to which will revenue.

Arguably, running a club on a commercial basis would be to invest £100m of shareholder money to get to the premier league and boost your tv revenue by £200m a year. On paper that seems a more sustainable model than sitting in League One spaffing £3m a year on average players and going nowhere. Assuming one gets to the premier league, of course, otherwise it’s just speed-running administration (although we aren’t doing a bad job of getting there ourselves).

OI - good man. :o)

Trigger - I am very good. Why do you ask? Had a very good day business wise.

PP99 is was on my personal pub crawl on Saturday night.

Thx

You ok Laurence?

Postie-all our EFL games start then something to do with youngsters not allowed to play after 9pm

Commercial basis to me means having a strong likelihood of making a profit or at least breaking even from the organisation's business activities themselves. On that definition almost no EFL club is run on a commercial basis, they are all expected to lose money on their main business activities.

Why the early KO tom night?

Laurence - because if it was then we’d have fired Buckley before he hired him.

JG - where or how in your estimation is AFC Wimbledon not run on a commercial basis, please?

JG - fair enough. My real concern is that just removing the DT from ownership (by diluting it down by the sort of massive rights issue that you are suggesting) and running the club on a "more commercial basis" wouldn't make us profitable (no, or almost no, other club in L1 is profitable), so you would still have the question of who covers the losses. The reality is that a rights issue of that kind (if successful) would mean ownership by a small group of wealthy shareholders (your "£2m crew") while the DT got diluted down and the rest of the 5,000 shareholders either put in enough to maintain their existing small stakes or didn't, and got diluted further. It would, though, give the club a big slug of cash, which I agree is not to be sneezed at.

Kind of not interested in watching it now. Edited? Why?

That’s brilliant only five and a half days to put up a video.

@aideen - the meeting footage will be available tomorrow am now

Brighton was the best pub runs he done took over 2 days somewhere on his vlog

Galty has put in £2m? Excellent news - our money worries are over, praise be to Galty!!! 🤪🥳👏😇

Postman he is great,does about 15 pubs in a session .will give it a watch[Link]

When we tried to raise capital through selling more shares during the construction of the stadium it barely reached £2m. It was heavily pushed and incentives were offered depending on the value of the investment, some of which I believe still remain unhonoured. Even the stadium installation with names of subscribers had many missing names because of poor data and to this day I am still chasing the club to put this right. I'd love to be wrong but I simply don't believe the appetite is there. The reason the bonds were successful is investors could see a return and a route to getting their money back. None of these apply with shares.

The great British pub crawl on you tube was in Wimbledon last night you might see yourself if you take a look and was on the sherbet