Available Strikers

[Comrade 86]

10 hours ago, oodledoodle said:

Rather snog my own dad.

Other options are available.

[hintonsboots]

6 hours ago, Ram1988 said:

We neee an attacking midfielder with pace and drive.

He would end up with a dead leg in training.

[MadAmster]

When we all know we aren't going to pay transfer fees, why bother to suggest Posh's JCH?

[SKRam]

Apologies if previously asked…

Is there a cap on spend for one player? What is THE maximum we could spend on any one player? Hearing figures of 350k mentioned (Smith Sheff Wed, apparently dead in the water). 
Ladapo Ipswich totally ruled out? 

[Ambitious]

1 minute ago, SKRam said:

Apologies if previously asked…I 

Is there a cap on spend for one player? What is THE maximum we could spend on any one player? Hearing figures of 350k mentioned (Smith Sheff Wed, apparently dead in the water). 
Ladapo Ipswich totally ruled out? 

There isn't a cap, a player budget has been agreed (I would assume £10m for the year as a round figure) and I feel that we're trying to keep that as a wage budget, taking out of the wage budget gives us some transfer fee room but I would assume that we're somewhere around the £9m mark at the moment, finger in the air guess. Enough for two more at £10k a week or three more at £6.5k a week - which is where I feel roughly where we are based on Warne's comments. You sign a player for £300k then you essentially have £6.5k a week for two players - no room for a third. 

I feel the £3m (roughly) brought in for Bielik and Knight is inconsequential as it doesn't increase our player budget to £13m (for example) but does help pay towards the running costs of the agreed budget. 

I believe our player budget was around £9.5m in the Championship under Rooney, believed to be £8m last season, so I think £10m is about right.  

[Dartmouth Ram]

10 hours ago, Ambitious said:

He’s a physical presence, to be sure, but goalscoring record is beyond horrific - at every level. 

136 apps in League One and Championship - 22 goals. 11 in 72 in League One. Not to mention coming off an ACL injury. 

Was going to mention him until I checked his stats on Wikipedia, awful for a forward and a bit of journeyman to boot.

Would rather have either Sharp or a young Prem / Champ loan over this chap...

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

There isn't a cap, a player budget has been agreed (I would assume £10m for the year as a round figure) and I feel that we're trying to keep that as a wage budget, taking out of the wage budget gives us some transfer fee room but I would assume that we're somewhere around the £9m mark at the moment, finger in the air guess. Enough for two more at £10k a week or three more at £6.5k a week - which is where I feel roughly where we are based on Warne's comments. You sign a player for £300k then you essentially have £6.5k a week for two players - no room for a third. 

I feel the £3m (roughly) brought in for Bielik and Knight is inconsequential as it doesn't increase our player budget to £13m (for example) but does help pay towards the running costs of the agreed budget. 

I believe our player budget was around £9.5m in the Championship under Rooney, believed to be £8m last season, so I think £10m is about right.  

I undertand it was £9.5m in the Championship, excluding tax, NI, etc

[Ambitious]

5 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I undertand it was £9.5m in the Championship, excluding tax, NI, etc

I did see the documents uploaded on companies house and clocked the £9.5m - wasn't sure if that was any different to a normal accounting. I considered between: Bielik, Byrne, Lawrence, Bird, Sibley, Knight, Shinnie and Jozwiak that we were probably looking at roughly £7-8m alone. 

[vonwright]

44 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I feel the £3m (roughly) brought in for Bielik and Knight is inconsequential as it doesn't increase our player budget to £13m (for example) but does help pay towards the running costs of the agreed budget. 

Not sure I fully understand this. If we agreed a budget of say £10m before those sales, then why wouldn't they affect the budget? Eg a new signing on a £10k a week, two year contract = roughly £1m committed + any transfer fee. Why couldn't this come out of a transfer windfall? What are these additional 'running costs' that suddenly appear when we sell a player and swallow the money? Yes it's not as simple as saying 10m + 3m = 13m (because wages tend to be a multi-year commitment) but it's also not completely separate.

Edited August 11, 2023 by vonwright

[Ambitious]

21 minutes ago, vonwright said:

Not sure I fully understand this. If we agreed a budget of say £10m before those sales, then why wouldn't they affect the budget? Eg a new signing on a £10k a week, two year contract = roughly £1m committed + any transfer fee. Why couldn't this come out of a transfer windfall? What are these additional 'running costs' that suddenly appear when we sell a player and swallow the money? Yes it's not as simple as saying 10m + 3m = 13m (because wages tend to be a multi-year commitment) but it's also not completely separate.

That's the common sense approach, of course, but reading between the lines (based on Warne's comments) we have an agreed budget with the EFL which was signed off before any sales. He stressed we couldn't reinvest that money but it would go towards the running costs and pointed to agreeing this budget with the EFL being made prior to any sales. 

My interpretation of it is that we've agreed £10m and regardless of what we bring into the club in terms of transfer fees, additional revenue, etc, it means we can't go above and beyond that £10m fee without further sanctions. It's a bit daft, of course, but tends to stand up with our transfer approach and the corner we have so very annoyingly painted ourselves into now.