Fair Game 2023

Walsall: 5th in the table (in league 2):

I’d take that at the end of this league season!

Interesting. Rochdale scored well across the categories but it didn’t transfer to results. Nor with Wimbledon.
It was the other way round with Stockport and Mansfield.

So, according to that, the dreadful, useless board that we supposedly have, seem to be doing OK when measured against their peer group.

Surely can’t be true….can it? :stuck_out_tongue:


Also, look how well Mansfield fared … :joy:

Obviously they have become my most hated club for the new season, DJ fill your boots and then lace them up…


Newport County - financial stability of 0 out of 40! But a governance score of 15.89 out of 30? How does that work? Transfer dealings are around 5 players in / 12 players out. Get the impression that it could be a challenging season for them.

It would have shown very similar results for Bonser’s tenure

Makes him a great chairman, does it?

Evidence or is that just your opinion? Fan engagement? Equality? Certainly moved on in those two categories since he sold up.

Our fan engagement score is the lowest in the top 7, our equality lowest in the top 10. The reason we are in that position is the financial sustainability score, which is exactly what Bonser provided year on year.

As someone as pointed out, Rochdale are above us and went down.

Not saying I am not happy with the way things are going, Trivela are on course to deliver the incremental progress they promised imo, but this table means diddly squat

What it shows is a comparison with our peer group, and shows us in a positive light. Even more positive is that we are now being managed for the benefit and development of Walsall FC, rather than to preserve one family’s interests. The current board should be credited for that.
As a number of us have said, if Trivela deem the executive team to be lacking, then they will be replaced. Clearly that’s not the case, more than a year into their ownership. This report would suggest that they are doing a decent job, as they probably were before, but are now being steered in a more positive direction by the new owners.

As for the Rochdale comment, this report is about off field activities for the most part.


That table shows none of that :joy::joy: thats all I am saying. You are just using it to push your narrative.

In fact, the above post is nothing more than clear bating based on my professional opinions :fishing_pole_and_fish: poor form from you

I listen to Simon Jordan most mornings and have resisted the temptation to post regarding his comments every time there is a takeover regarding CEO’s. You know, real football business insight on how things work. Maybe tune in?

Also, we have seen some improvement but lets remember how carried away some got during LPs reign. Positive signs, yes.

So, it doesn’t show a comparison with our peer group? I must have misunderstood then.
So, a complete waste of time then in your view? Wonder if you would have said the same if we were bottom of the pile? :thinking:

1 Like

Your post suggested our CEO’s and board are wonderful because of this table.

I said we would have been in a very similar position under Bonser as its mainly about financial sustainability.

End of point really. Your the one going round the houses. I had a brunch at Poms last week - it was bloody marvellous.

Nowhere did I suggest anyone was wonderful. I merely suggested that they aren’t the useless people that they are often made out to be and that they deserve some credit when positive things happen.

Not everything has to be extremes, there is lots of middle ground.

Oh, and it was you that kicked off this discussion

1 Like

This table doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

Carlisle are second in the table for financial sustainability, yet they have a £2.4m debt to Purepay Retail Limited, which is a legacy of loans from Philip Day’s Edinburgh Woollen Mill before it went into administration.
They seem to acknowledge that they don’t have a plan to pay it down and Purepay won’t talk to the club about settling the debt.
I can’t see how anyone could interpret that as being financially stable


It looks to be weighted by financial stability which is a ranking of how well you present as a “well run club”. That’s basically been the club strategy for decades. Whilst others had a strategy to present a football team that competes ours has to be present as financially sensible. As a clarion call for growing support and representation in the community (the equality score in such a diverse town as Walsall appears really poor) it isn’t great. Doesn’t scan into a chant either

“We’re by far the most financially prudent club the world has ever seen - and it’s Walsall FC etc etc”

it’s interesting but it really is a “pinch of salt” thing. Certainly not something to measure the merits of the recent board by.

1 Like