shmmeee
Well-Known Member
What do you think did?
How much will we spend in the summer? (29 Viewers)
- Thread starter DawlishSkyBlue
- Start date
What do you think did?
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Yep and all the other Midlands clubs that i'd barely ever seen mentioned outside of Midlands News started getting promoted just as the big money came in. What a time to be a City fan that was.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Are people claiming we overspent in the Prem and that caused Sisu to put us into admin twenty years later??
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Well we clearly did overspend, and that lead to us losing the ground that was supposed to be ours and the 'white knights' of sisu coming to our 'rescue'.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
It was a chain of events, we wouldn't have needed them to stop us going into admin when they first arrived if we hadn't overspent.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
That is true, but the finances of top flight football are such that a promoted club really can spend £100 million on transfers quite safely.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Yeah, that deal collapsing just compounded everything.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Again, I'm not disputing that, the initial outlay isn't the problem, but that comes with a huge wage bill that can become unsustainable in the event of relegation.
That has to be guarded against.
It was before parachute payments as well.
So long as you buy well and don't dish out stupid contracts whilst spending the money.
QPR, for example, had useless players on over £100k per week and couldn't shift them after being relegated.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Yep, which will be where relegation release and wage drop clauses would come in.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I'd imagine so, but I think there's quite a lot of players, if they're of proven quality, who won't sign up to a wage drop clause, that's where the club have to hold their ground and say no deal then.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think that’s debatable and “getting a new owner” isn’t actually a football club being destroyed.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I think we have to trust that King is not the sort of owner to be paying stupid money for crap that we can’t get out of.
HadjiChippo
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure one of those relegation seasons they had Rio Ferdinand, Wright-Phillips and Joey Barton all on £50,000/£60,000+ per week. The exact profile type of player we need to avoid if we go up, well past it with injury problems picking up premium wages. Just throwing big money away, with no potential of a transfer fee at the end of it.
I think agents target newly promoted clubs with players/offers like that.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
No, but it lead to years of misery for us supporters.
I don't think we'll see that scenario again, (the fact we now own the CBS should ensure that), but never say never, which is why I'm guarded against thinking one promotion to the PL means we can start spending like its going out of fashion again.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
When did we do it in the first place?
the collapse of ITV Digital hit us more than anything and yes we could get another cataclysmic event where say Sky pull out of football but you can’t plan for that stuff.
The fact is even if you think we were doing a Derby or whatever we didn’t go out of existence. We got a crap owner. Lots of clubs get a crap owner without nearly entering admin and lots get a decent owner too.
The risk with your strategy is you do a Luton. You get so used to losing by not trying to stay up that you drop down again and we’re back to square one where staying in the Champ/going up requires an overspend of millions each year and sitting in L1/2 means an albatross of a stadium round your neck. The course to a sustainable CCFC in a 32k stadium goes through being a PL club I’m afraid. There’s no safe option where we sit at this level without losing so much we’re eventually in the same place.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
But you can pick and choose teams to suit what you want to say.
Why not choose Sunderland, who have spent a fair bit and are doing well? Forest spent big when they went up and it worked for them that season, even if their owner is a basket case. Or Luton, who didn't and are now in L1?
Fact is if we don't spend money we're definitely coming straight back down as our squad is not good enough. We're then likely to lose our best players that show they might be capable at the higher level and need to rebuild, adding uncertainty and the need for the squad to gel along with the negative mindset from getting beaten regularly.
If we do, we've potentially got a chance of staying up. Sadly, in the modern PL spending £100m isn't really a lot. It might get you four or five decent players or one big name superstar. It's all about HOW you spend that money. Hopefully we'd get it right, but there are obviously no guarantees.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
The collapse of ITV Digital didn't hit us more than anything.
The banks, specifically the CO-OP deciding to stop bank rolling badly run football clubs hit us harder, the collapse of ITV Digital just compounded it.
But it wouldn't have mattered anywheee near as much if we'd had our finances in some sort of order.
As for 'my strategy' I haven't outlined one.
All I've said is we need a solid contingency for coming straight back down.
Given how many clubs that happens to, regardless of spend, I'm jot sure that that's too controversial.
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure Ipswich and Kompanys Burnley both spent over £100 million and were comfortably relegated. We need to get our transfer strategy correct more than anything, Ipswichs' strategy was honking tbf. Sunderland seem to be a good example of spending big and getting it right but its far from a sure thing. Wouldn't use Forest as an example, half the money they spent was on players they never used and they were incredibly lucky to stay up and would have been totally fucked if they didn't.
I wouldn't be overly surprised if we hit around the £100 million mark tbf but if it stops at around £80 million i'm not going to be wailing on here calling for Kings head.
I wouldn't be overly surprised if we hit around the £100 million mark tbf but if it stops at around £80 million i'm not going to be wailing on here calling for Kings head.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
Yes
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
Lots of talk about Luton. It’s fairly obvious we wouldn’t follow that model. It doesn’t have to be spend nothing or spend 200m. There is a sustainable middle ground. By and large fans have 0 clue about football club finances and you could argue that’s exactly as it should be. What I am fairly certain of is that we can’t spend enough to guarantee prem football. So we’ve got to find the middle ground.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Not in the same way as years gone by. Parachute payment teams have a structural advantage as their premiership spending is subsidised for 1-2 seasons post-relegation.
In reality, we've spent £55m over the past 3 summers so it's not really a stretch to bump that up to £100m to stay up in the Prem. Promotion itself is worth about £200m so the club definitely needs to spend money to compete.
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
We obviously won't do a Luton anyway, its just taking it to the extreme to make a point. Pretty sure the summer Luton won the play offs at our expense, we actually spent more on transfers than Luton as a Championship club. The 2 teams that managed to finish below them should be ashamed of themselves and banned from ever entering the Premier League.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Luton didn't really spend anything and their big project was the stadium and the feeling was that they were never going to establish themselves, so why bother?
With Coventry, it's a populous one-club city so establishing Premiership status could attract significant investment to grow as a club in the way Forest, Leicester and others have.
You can't go up, not spend and expect things to go well.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Where have I said we don't need to spend money?
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
What do you define as 'sensible'. Spending £100-120m in a summer window isn't exactly profligate. Look at Ipswich, they went back to back promotions, spent a lot and their squad is now comfortably the strongest in the league. My critique of their transfer policy is that they've created a Championship 'super-team' that probably isn't good enough to stay up but if they get promoted again, they will have another stab at staying up and reinvesting Prem money.
You have to willing to sink over £100+ million to stay up this league as a newcomer.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
One of the things king was clear about was if you want the best players in the league you have to pay them the going rate
I think the latest accounts will show that all the increase turnover and more will be being spent on wages
I think the latest accounts will show that all the increase turnover and more will be being spent on wages
Grendel
Well-Known Member
We were about to go into administration when they came in. We’d sold every single asset we had virtually to try and stave off the inevitable as soon as we went down.
The only reason we didn’t was the board didn’t want an administration when the bidders would come in. We filed for it in 2007
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
We've been through exactly the same pain. Relegated in my final year at school.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Again, it's not the spend, it's having a contingency in place for relegation.
But the more you spend the more your wage bill rises, can we service that wage bill in the Championship if the worse happens is the question?