Nick
Administrator
Doesn't every manager work to a budget? Especially in the lower leagues? The same budget he agreed to work with?
Doesn't every manager work to a budget? Especially in the lower leagues? The same budget he agreed to work with?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
[QUOTEits "dongonzalos, post: 1123029, member: 3633"]Sorry. Still reads the same way to me but if you're saying that's not what it means then fair enough.[/QUOTE]
What I am saying is.
In reality TM should be able to keep one of his best players and still make the signings he wants.
Less than 100k is not a massive transfer fee.
If TM was given the same budget as last summer. We have released far more than we have signed and some such as fleck would have been on good wages.
There is also the Maddison money so he should have a healthier budget this time round. So we should have been able to come up with that 50-100k without him having to make this choice.
My point is yes he made the choice, however I don't feel he should be put in the position to make the choice in the first place. With the sale of Maddison we should have been able to hold onto RV and TM still be able to make the signings he has targeted at this level.
Last season prior to the sale of Maddison we had a top 8-6th budget. TM got us 8th.
This season after the sale is Maddison I expected us to have a top 6th-3rd budget.
Yet here we are selling our best player for less than 100k so TM can sign the players he feels he needs.
So yes it is his decision. A decision he is forced to make due to the budget decisions by our owners. IMO.[/QUOTE]
Maybe Its a case of not breaking the wage structure if its true vincelot was offered double your money.
We know sisu aren't going to fund a promotion push unfortunately.
What I am saying is.
In reality TM should be able to keep one of his best players and still make the signings he wants.
Less than 100k is not a massive transfer fee.
If TM was given the same budget as last summer. We have released far more than we have signed and some such as fleck would have been on good wages.
There is also the Maddison money so he should have a healthier budget this time round. So we should have been able to come up with that 50-100k without him having to make this choice.
My point is yes he made the choice, however I don't feel he should be put in the position to make the choice in the first place. With the sale of Maddison we should have been able to hold onto RV and TM still be able to make the signings he has targeted at this level.
Last season prior to the sale of Maddison we had a top 8-6th budget. TM got us 8th.
This season after the sale is Maddison I expected us to have a top 6th-3rd budget.
Yet here we are selling our best player for less than 100k so TM can sign the players he feels he needs.
So yes it is his decision. A decision he is forced to make due to the budget decisions by our owners. IMO.[/QUOTE]
Maybe Its a case of not breaking the wage structure if its true vincelot was offered double your money.
We know sisu aren't going to fund a promotion push unfortunately.
stevefloyd
Well-Known Member
Lets look at it logically or maybe hypothetically, lets say 2 players become available on frees, players that our management team both admire but to get them they will cost £2k a week in wages, hmmmm dilemma, we can only afford one BUT we would love both of them..... so we sell one of slightly better but not world beating players for say around £100k...result we save £2k or maybe more on said players wages so we can afford 1 of the players and our budget takes care of the other player so in fact we get both players for only £00k outlay...good business or not ????? you decide !!!
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
What I am saying is.
In reality TM should be able to keep one of his best players and still make the signings he wants.
Less than 100k is not a massive transfer fee.
If TM was given the same budget as last summer. We have released far more than we have signed and some such as fleck would have been on good wages.
There is also the Maddison money so he should have a healthier budget this time round. So we should have been able to come up with that 50-100k without him having to make this choice.
My point is yes he made the choice, however I don't feel he should be put in the position to make the choice in the first place. With the sale of Maddison we should have been able to hold onto RV and TM still be able to make the signings he has targeted at this level.
Last season prior to the sale of Maddison we had a top 8-6th budget. TM got us 8th.
This season after the sale is Maddison I expected us to have a top 6th-3rd budget.
Yet here we are selling our best player for less than 100k so TM can sign the players he feels he needs.
So yes it is his decision. A decision he is forced to make due to the budget decisions by our owners. IMO.[/QUOTE]
Maybe Its a case of not breaking the wage structure if its true vincelot was offered double your money.
We know sisu aren't going to fund a promotion push unfortunately.[/QUOTE]
That's the bit that gets me.
SISU don't get what they have in TM.
To have him plying his trade for us at this level. It really is our chance.
The Maddison money plus our normal break even budget IMO shouldn't mean we need to sell RV in order to get others in.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Or an alternative logic.
We have a top 8 budget before we sell a player for 2-3 million.
We are told the 2-3 million is going back into the club.
We release a load of players freeing up lots of wages from that already boosted budget and we only sign 3-4 players.
Yet we still have to make the tough decision you mention above?
stevefloyd
Well-Known Member
But maybe the rest of that budget is for a more expensive player... We get 2 players for the price of one and 1 higher quality/better player.. Obviously I am looking on the optimistic side here or maybe the mythological side ...but I live in eternal hope that our dear hedge fund chums have finished bleeding the life and soul out of the club
Nick
Administrator
You do realise we probably won't get all of the 2-3 mill straight away.
Going back into the club doesn't always mean its going to mean the budget is much higher, it might mean the budget is the same but no loans need to be put in like last year to keep it going.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The Maddison money isn't being used to support the playing budget.
Anderson has stated this - why you then choose to ignore it in not sure.
If vincelot was offered double wages he had to go unless we matched the wages.
That would cause unrest among players.
Also it would be a waste of money as he's not great and would be a high earning substitute - what's the point.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
sales from players going back into the club doesn't mean into the transfer budget, how many times does this need to be said. We own nothing and to keep us afloat we need to pay bills, like rent because a rugby club own our stadium. Since nobody bothers to turn up to games depriving us of our only source of income how is anybody surprised we're not in a position to invest in players.
Brylowes
Well-Known Member
Wasn't our average gate north of 12.000 last season.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Isn't that nearly half of Sheffield Utd who also own their own stadium and attached revenue and our fans believe we should be financially competing with?
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Yes I do, I take it you do realise we will get a portion of the 2-3 million straight away.
How much do you think they loaned us last year?
How much in wages have we freed up compared to what we have added on so far this summer?
With the sale of Maddison TM shouldn't be in a position where he must weaken the squad in order to strengthen the squad.
I understand the sale of players for 500k or your million pound sales. However having to sell someone for double figures. Especially when another little windfall is in the pipeline for us as well
Makes no sense
Last edited:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They loaned around £600,000 wasn't it?
The windfall statement shows an abject failure to understand what had been said about the Maddison fee.
You still fail to address the issue that the player was offered more money and that's why Mowbray let him go. The fee wasn't relevant other than it may induce a sale or two from clubs holding onto players.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
The next windfall I was referring to wasnt about Maddison so it's as usual it's an abject failure to understand on your part.
So the deal was purely because Vincelot was offered more money. I missed that explanation anywhere other than in your head. Which is why I probably failed to explain it.
The bit about freeing up cash for a transfer is very much my point that we should not be in a position where we need to sell our best player for double figures in order to do so.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Easy solution don't read, let alone waste your time commenting
stupot07
Well-Known Member
I just can't help myself.....call it a form of self harm.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He's in WUM mode.
We know one thing. You will be at the first game and all others at home. We know another thing - so will I.
We know a third thing.
He won't be and as soon as the march day threads start he will crawl back into the hole he belongs in.
Broken Hearted Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
So he'll be staying at least till February?
