Carnero Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 2 hours ago, McLovin said: If we are in trouble, we have no-one to blame but ourselves. Norwich want 30 million for Maddison, we should have been more pushy when teams wanted Ince and Hughes. Teams didn't want them though did they! You do the "math". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inglorius Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 2 hours ago, McLovin said: If we are in trouble, we have no-one to blame but ourselves. Norwich want 30 million for Maddison, we should have been more pushy when teams wanted Ince and Hughes. Effectively we sold Ince and Hughes to carry on being able to afford Johnson and Butterfield, not the best trade in the world was it by any account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 7 minutes ago, Carnero said: Teams didn't want them though did they! You do the "math". Ince was probably a price as high as he will ever go for,,, Hughes we may have got more for him earlier in his time with us but the truth is if players need/want a move and we need/want to let them go then you are governed by what the market will pay for them , if we have a sell on with Hughes then that helps so I agree with carnero and can’t understand why it’s some just can’t see that you can only get what people will pay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, Inglorius said: Effectively we sold Ince and Hughes to carry on being able to afford Johnson and Butterfield, not the best trade in the world was it by any account. Very very doubtful we could have moved on Johnson and Butterfield though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inglorius Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 37 minutes ago, archied said: Very very doubtful we could have moved on Johnson and Butterfield though Agreed but effectively we traded Ince and Hughes for Johnson and Butterfield. A transaction that hardly drips with financial acumen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab a dab doo Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 What did flouting FFP rules ever do for Leicester, Bournemouth and QPR ? Oh only get them promoted to the Premier league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Inglorius said: Effectively we sold Ince and Hughes to carry on being able to afford Johnson and Butterfield, not the best trade in the world was it by any account. Who said that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 3 hours ago, Inglorius said: Effectively we sold Ince and Hughes to carry on being able to afford Johnson and Butterfield, not the best trade in the world was it by any account. That makes it worse for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistaram Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 23 hours ago, plymouthram said: Could be worse, we could be £100m in debt like Cardiff are. Yes and only last week their owner turned £30million of debt into equity According to Cardiff's web site they have debt of £115 million But Warnock still going on about wages of other clubs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 11 hours ago, Rab a dab doo said: What did flouting FFP rules ever do for Leicester, Bournemouth and QPR ? Oh only get them promoted to the Premier league. Can’t deny that but it’s a big gamble if you don’t go up and don’t forget this is derby and the powers that be would cane us big style in a way that clubs like the above seem to get away with SCOT free , look at Leicester and their knock everybody then rise from the ashes stunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 On 3/13/2018 at 11:43, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said: Just because we can spend it doesn't mean we will. Mel might not be willing to have his fingers burned again? Fair point. Mel has probably got accustomed to the way things are. Can't see him throwing big money at the problem, having already seen that approach tried and failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 hour ago, europia said: Fair point. Mel has probably got accustomed to the way things are. Can't see him throwing big money at the problem, having already seen that approach tried and failed. It’s not spending big money but who it’s spent on - we’d probably get our money back on Vydra but not on Anya. Will Wolves get their big spends back if they go up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: It’s not spending big money but who it’s spent on - we’d probably get our money back on Vydra but not on Anya. Will Wolves get their big spends back if they go up? If Wolves are promoted. Their objective is achieved and spending strategy justified. They no doubt have a plan for when they are in the PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said: It’s not spending big money but who it’s spent on - we’d probably get our money back on Vydra but not on Anya. Will Wolves get their big spends back if they go up? Fortunately we'd likely get Anya's money back on Vydra too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Carnero said: Fortunately we'd likely get Anya's money back on Vydra too. Not sure about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 For a sustainable championship model, how much can we realistically afford to spend on players per annum.? Nil? £2m? £5m? we should have known what the figure was before spending £9m on thorne, ince and weimann, £10m on johnson and butterfield; £3-4m on Blackman and camara; and £12m on anya and vydra. we recovered a chunk of that by selling hughes, hendrick and ince. Christie paid for wisdom. gary spent another £9.5m so overall i assume we are approx £20m down over 4 seasons. Do we have any choice but to sell vydra at the end of the season if we don't go up? i anticipate a few senior players moving on for negligible fees wherever there is interest. From hereon we have to live within our means and the level of spending will surely be more clough than clement unless we fluke promotion. Eventually the u23s will inevitably plug a few gaps in the squad, and we will interpret that as the sign of a thriving academy whether or not the players are good enough for a championship team with ambitions of playing in the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCG Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 17 minutes ago, RamNut said: For a sustainable championship model, how much can we realistically afford to spend on players per annum.? Nil? £2m? £5m? we should have known what the figure was before spending £9m on thorne, ince and weimann, £10m on johnson and butterfield; £3-4m on Blackman and camara; and £12m on anya and vydra. we recovered a chunk of that by selling hughes, hendrick and ince. Christie paid for wisdom. gary spent another £9.5m so overall i assume we are approx £20m down over 4 seasons. Do we have any choice but to sell vydra at the end of the season if we don't go up? i anticipate a few senior players moving on for negligible fees wherever there is interest. From hereon we have to live within our means and the level of spending will surely be more clough than clement unless we fluke promotion. Eventually the u23s will inevitably plug a few gaps in the squad, and we will interpret that as the sign of a thriving academy whether or not the players are good enough for a championship team with ambitions of playing in the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, KCG said: Another poster with nothing to contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 Not much of a 'holiday' for me after all. Having seen Cardiff& gumps accounts being mentioned, I looked at both purely to see what they were saying about RVs in relation to intangibles/players' regs. No mention whatsoever of them,and they both seem to be treating amortisation the way that we did prior to 15/16 (unless they were applying RVs without stating it,but that doesn't seem likely to me). I need this like I need a hole in the head,because I'll have to look at a few others when they come out,as 3 from 24 is hardly a representative sample. Although I'd looked at this several times,I started wondering if I'd got our 15/16 position wrong,but that's not so. RVs are clearly mentioned,along with the fact that values are looked at every year to make sure they're still representative. The amortisation for that year was very low in relation to the total,all inclusive,purchases and this figure may include a bit carried forward from previous years. This would be in line with allocated RVs which could be fairly high,on average. The upshot is:- 1) My contention that other clubs might be spending big,yet staying within FFP can be put on hold (not scrapped..........yet) 2)My suggestion that this could be inflationary in terms of transfer fees and wages - ditto above. I'm starting to really dislike 15/16 for several reasons. Please don't ask questions about other aspects of other clubs' accounts, as I've no intention of looking at them,because I'm not up to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 hour ago, RamNut said: For a sustainable championship model, how much can we realistically afford to spend on players per annum.? Nil? £2m? £5m? Depends what you mean by sustainable.If you're talking completely self sufficient,then forget it. Even under the Americans,with the relative austerity of the Clough years, they were still having to cover fairly significant cash losses on operations. I think 'sustainable' in our case will just relate to the amounts Mel would be prepared to put in on an ongoing basis,should we fail to be promoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.