Where's Peterborough? QPR were a premier league team last season and Preston and Sheffield were in division one weren't they?
Crystal palace and derby are another two aren't they?
Palace had been in administration so cannot have had a big budget.
Everyone makes mistakes, shall we judge everyone who makes a mistake?
Accoring to Orange Ken, our wage bill heading into the 2011 to 12 season was circa. £5m:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/co...y-s-darkest-hour-has-passed-92746-29752398/2/
Barnsley reduced theirs from £7.5m to £6.2m during the season:
http://www.insidermedia.com/insider...elp-barnsley-fc-score-small-profit/index.html
John Ryan bought in Willie McKay, to reduce their £8m bill:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15483154
I'm just looking for Millwall now, but given they had players such as Darius Henderson and could afford Keogh from Wolves; I think their structure would have been greater than ours.
Still, I don't need to bother do I? Point proven, eh?
running out of arguments hay Grendel, you always have to resort to name calling when you have run out or people prove you wrong. Put little you away and debate like the adult you claim to be.
"A mistake is always forgivable, rarely excusable and always unacceptable."
Come on, that's impossible. To have information to hand that cites in real time what every club are paying? I took information from their last set of audited accounts, and assumed that if the clubs were stable, without changing league position or gates that they would be pretty stable with regads salary structure. Most players aren't on one year contracts, are they? Their contarcts would span a few year's accounts. meaning massive fluctuations would be improbable.
And I never stated THE lowest. I stated within the bottom three
Derby had ben cited in the link I'd already provided and you'd responded to. I didn't think you'd needing reminding so soon as it was only an hour ago. I over-estimated you. Here you go again:
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/15047-How-big-does-a-squad-need-to-be?highlight=wage+bill
Like the famous statement that you made about "Undisclosed Transfer Fees" being "ESTIMATED FACTS"!:facepalm:
You account hacked was it?
"Newcastle's position is a function of a friendly fixture list. See where they are at Christmas. Like it or not, a club's finances has the most profound effect upon the players they can attract, and the number they can sustain.
Allow me to turn this on it's head, I am telling you that we have signed fewer players than any other team, we have no loan players - unlike any other team in the league, our wage structure is the lowest in the league and we have sold or failed to retain our most high profile quartet of players from last season.
What did you expect? "
running out of arguments hay Grendel, you always have to resort to name calling when you have run out or people prove you wrong. Put little you away and debate like the adult you claim to be.
Do you actually read your links? Suspect not.
The first one where you state that Orange Ken says he has reduced the wage bill to £5million is nowhere in the article.
He said he'd cut it by a million from around £8million.
The rest of the article is nothing more than speculation and supposition.
Did you write it? It's your style of "research" after all.
No because as usual nome of these facts are quite what they seem.
They are the previous years not the year we were relegated include 3 teams not even in our league. One if the lowest it seems is Barnsley who escaped relegation as of course did Peterborough who strangely appear to be missing altogether.
If as alleged our wage bill for the season in hand was £7 million that means the 9 players we list that summer saved the club only £2 million in wages. Given that some of them such as Marlon king and Kieran Westwood would have been big earners I find it difficult to accept the average wage the departed were on was around £4,000 a week.
This facts are mostly conjecture.
No one has accepted, nor made excuses for their mistakes, neither has SISU themselves.
If you mention rent, that's just to improve the situation, not excusing or accepting their mistakes.
Arn't yours as well. And when prove is shown you it becomes erelvant
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
"I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect".... Edward Gibbon
Of delete this post if I was you. MMM has run into some difficulty with his facts that are now by his own admission balance if probability.
He's got less credibility than nick clegg,
"There are all kinds of stupid people that annoy me but what annoys me most is a lazy argument." - Christopher Hitchens
Oh yes my estimates are conjecture. MMM however tried to portray them as facts bit like the time he claimed Northampton had played a game at the Ricoh (they hadn't) and may take up residence on a more permenant basis overlooking the little fact they are extending their ground.
He accuses sisu of poor due dillegence but them does not even check some of the data he himself has previously produced.
Well you would certainly know about that wouldn't you!
Well, it's fairly easy to adopt your style of posting. To offer nothing, yet scoff and tear apart anything as conjecture. The fact is, none of us sit in any rooms or read contracts. We can use the best information available to us.
The Telegraph states that the wage structure was £8m, from which the board claims tha £1m has been saved; netting at £7m. It also talks in terms of pay-offs to Coleman and Bothroyd and then goes on to extrapolate the influence of these contracts, players coming and going and establishes the £5m figure.
In the ansence of anything else, or that being challenged - which it wasn't - that's fine science by me
Continue to cling to your imperfections, they are what make you unique!Indeed I do, from numerous of people.
Urhm. No. It was us looking to sign him on a permanent basis at the time he signed for Ipswich. A long term contract running for a few seasons - I presume - and therefore running into a term when FFP gets even more punitive.
He's out of contract with Forest in the summer, so I don't think they'd be iinclined to help us out moving forward; do you?
Yet on this basis, we can sign a player - or at least try to do so - on a salary level higher than anyone esle in the division but unless things change with regards revenue, we 'can't compete'?
With regards the £10K sum; widely discussed on here, and elsewhere, and at a time when you seemed to participate without quarrel:
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/26385-With-and-Without-DMC/page6
Oh yes my estimates are conjecture. MMM however tried to portray them as facts bit like the time he claimed Northampton had played a game at the Ricoh (they hadn't) and may take up residence on a more permenant basis overlooking the little fact they are extending their ground.
He accuses sisu of poor due dillegence but them does not even check some of the data he himself has previously produced.
Two quotes for you Grendel. Jus tell me where I state that Northampton have ever played a league game at the Ricoh, or where I state that they might be interested in playing anything other than 'one offs'. These were just examples, I hasten to add, of potential additional income streams for the Ricoh. I equally wasn't staing that this was the answer:
'Let me expand on the above. We've seen matches at the Ricoh, such as Cardiff Blues against Northampton Saints, or Saracens against Munster that have drawn big crowds - the latter being over 28K for example. In fact so much hospitality was needed, the exhibition hall had to be opened to accommodate eaters/drinkers. Now look at what Harlequins are doing with their 'Big Games' Over Christmas, they moved to Twickers for the London Irish game, and sold out 82,000. Their 'normal' gates are closer to 14K as that's the stadium capacity.
Think about Northampton - just down the road. Still a top half Premiership rugby team. What if they played all of their Premiership games at Franklin Gardens, at 13.5K capacity, but played one or two 'big games' at a re-branded Ricoh a season? Let's say the Leicester Tigers game, as an example. And what if they played their Heineken Cup (European) games at the Ricoh?
I'm sorry old boy, I then see 6 to 8 gates of 25K+ a season at the 'Home of Northampton Rugby'. Doesn't sound nice, does it?'
Or again on 10th January:
'Rugby Union clubs often share. Saracens at Watford; Wasps at Loftus Road, etc. The MK stadium is being used - both by Saracens and Saints when it suits them. However, these are 'shares'.
If ACL's claims are correct, and they're either profitable, or borderline profitable without CCFC; then it takes precious few rugby games to give them the additional revenue to puish them into clear profitability. And given the uniqueness of their position, they could give exclusivity to a local club such at Northampton. That's obviously of interest as they wouldn't have to schedule their most high-profile league games, or European games around a football club's games.'
Continue to cling to your imperfections, they are what make you unique!
Why on earth would Northampton want to come to The Ricoh to play games against Leicester?
Last season they played Leicester away in the play-off semi-final and there was only a 20,000 crowd in a ground with a 25,000 capacity.
Would stop clutching at those straws now, every assertion you make just shows you to be already drowned.
Again, it's not an assertion. It was an example. An example of what might be possible. I'm not the Marketing Manager for ACL, but I was giving an example of something that may work.
As AJ cites above, the expansion is far from a done-deal; and just as Saracens have used the MK stadium; this could - just could - have been an option open to Saints. This was only within the context of discussing the ACL profitability issue.
Again, another example of at least throwing something out there for discussion and it being twisted ahead of being shot down by mis-representation
Again, it's not an assertion. It was an example. An example of what might be possible. I'm not the Marketing Manager for ACL, but I was giving an example of something that may work.
As AJ cites above, the expansion is far from a done-deal; and just as Saracens have used the MK stadium; this could - just could - have been an option open to Saints. This was only within the context of discussing the ACL profitability issue.
Again, another example of at least throwing something out there for discussion and it being twisted ahead of being shot down by mis-representation
They had 1 game, I doubt 1 game would be a financially viable alternative to a long term tenant in CCFC.
Crystal palace and derby are another two aren't they?
Palace had been in administration so cannot have had a big budget.
The whole crux of the matter is you stated that we had the lowest wage budget in the Championship last season and you have nothing even close to any proof that it is, in fact, the case.
Do you not agree?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?