|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 3, 2015 9:56:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Sept 3, 2015 9:57:32 GMT
Do I trust a miners son from Goldenhill who transformed his life to become one of the richest most successful businessmen in the UK, running a global business to do what's right or keyboard experts? Hmmm let me think.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 3, 2015 10:00:10 GMT
I don't see the relevance of figures over 10 years when half the clubs (including us) haven't been in the Prem for 10 years.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 10:00:44 GMT
Swansea went to a 'buy foreign, they're cheaper' policy several seasons before Stoke. The problem is, most other clubs have a bigger income than £140m and in a competitive enviroment, it's your buying power that counts. So, the argument £140m is a lot of money is irrelevant. It isn't necessarily just your buying power that counts. How wisely you spend your money counts for just as much if not more. There were many clubs who earned more and spent more than us in the last two seasons, who finished below us last season. Can anyone remember when Sunderland or Villa last earned less or spent less than us? Can anyone remember when they last finished above us? Villa during the whole 'Prem era' have been in the top tier. There's a hell of a lot of those seasons they were above us! Of course, it's true spending money wisely is extremely important and I've always said so. The problem is L-P is it's only subsequently you find out if they were good or bad buys. No different with managers? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.If we take this window, say half of 'castle's spending is wasted i.e. about £17m. The issue is can Ashley afford the loss? 2. Does he think the other £17m was well spent. Take Mitrovic and Wijnaldum. One might be a complete bummer whilst the other a fantastic signing that gets 'castle into the top half of the table. You make a judgment in the round about these issues.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 3, 2015 10:03:34 GMT
The Coates family said, I think about a year or two before TP left, that their aim was to make the club self sufficient. To me self sufficient means break even or not making a loss if you prefer to look at it that way. No one at the time on this board moaned and said we should not be trying for self sufficiency or that we should be happy with continual losses. Yet, now we appear to be close (or have reached) self sufficiency, the moaners have surfaced. In the just over two years since Hughes arrived we have improved our points position in both seasons and finished 9th twice - and we appear to be close to break even. To me that is a reason for pride in the way the club is being run - because it is sustainable - unlike continual losses. The first team we played after promotion to the Prem was Bolton. They were posting regular losses but, no doubt their fans were happy because those losses were sustaining a place in the Prem. We lost that game and it was clear we had to learn fast. Since then, under two managers, we have cemented our place in the Prem and have now, apparently, eliminated our annual losses. Bolton on the other hand have managed to: # lose 5-1 to us in an FA Cup semifinal # get themselves relegated # and now have accumulated debt of well over £100 million and rising. And people on here moan about the way WE are being run! For what it is worth - I DO think the money is there for further player purchases even at the cost of breaking our transfer record again. But I think the board and the manager have reached a point where their bigger purchases have to be the right ones. We'll no doubt bring in more bargains, but the big money is kept in reserve for the big purchases. That pleases me - even if it doesn't please some on here. I look at some of the other clubs in the Prem who have spent vastly more than us, and whilst some have spent well, others don't seem to have bought much for their money. Sorry, Lakeland you're wrong about the moaners not complaining about the aim for self-sufficiency. I did because I don't see how one of the lowest income clubs in the EPL could stay in the top tier without a degree of subsidy from 'the owners'. Yes, Bolton has got into a mountain of debt because the owners aren't prepared to write it off! That's why Portsmouth got into trouble too. But,many owners want the power and status of football but ultimately they don't want to pay for it! Now, Stoke aren't that different. The Coates family investment of ca. £120m will be recouped 1. if we are relegated by parachute payments, player sales OR 2. if we stay in the EPL by the sale of the club. The real reason 'the family'has stopped putting more money in is they wouldn't get any of it back e.g. parachute payments aren't increasing on a par with debts of clubs! It isn't because the money is not being made by bet365, it is! This is a personal, political decision. Fine but I think it is too risky! I have always said this and I've said so! It's alright for you! You can continue to salivate over that female Chelsea doctor whilst the rest us will end up watching lower tier football! Continuity & Stability keeps you in the top league. Money pushes you into the top 10 if it's spent correctly or down in the championship saddled with debt if it's wasted.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Sept 3, 2015 10:04:13 GMT
It isn't necessarily just your buying power that counts. How wisely you spend your money counts for just as much if not more. There were many clubs who earned more and spent more than us in the last two seasons, who finished below us last season. Can anyone remember when Sunderland or Villa last earned less or spent less than us? Can anyone remember when they last finished above us? Villa during the whole 'Prem era' have been in the top tier. There's a hell of a lot of those seasons they were above us! Of course, it's true spending money wisely is extremely important and I've always said so. The problem is L-P is it's only subsequently you find out if they were good or bad buys. No different with managers? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.If we take this window, say half of 'castle's spending is wasted i.e. about £17m. The issue is can Ashley afford the loss? 2. Does he think the other £17m was well spent. Take Mitrovic and Wijnaldum. One might be a complete bummer whilst the other a fantastic signing that gets 'castle into the top half of the table. You make a judgment in the round about these issues. True and you and I are obviously making very different judgements. So come back and take me to task if/when we get relegated - oh and bring Benjie along for moral support!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 10:08:24 GMT
Do I trust a miners son from Goldenhill who transformed his life to become one of the richest most successful businessmen in the UK, running a global business to do what's right or keyboard experts? Hmmm let me think. As I understand it, Peter owns shares in bet365 but his daughter runs bet365(and very successfully too). Of course, Uncle Peter isn't a "keyboard expert", he was on talksport this morning, so he's a radio expert instead.
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 3, 2015 10:08:44 GMT
I may be a bit dim but I'm not sure what each of the figures represents for each club ..... And I don't see the relevance of figures over 10 years when half the clubs (including us) haven't been in the Prem for 10 years. The grid didn't copy properly. It shows Gross spent, received, net spend and average per year over 10 years. Just shows that despite recent low spending we've still spent heavily when put up against others.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 10:10:53 GMT
Villa during the whole 'Prem era' have been in the top tier. There's a hell of a lot of those seasons they were above us! Of course, it's true spending money wisely is extremely important and I've always said so. The problem is L-P is it's only subsequently you find out if they were good or bad buys. No different with managers? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.If we take this window, say half of 'castle's spending is wasted i.e. about £17m. The issue is can Ashley afford the loss? 2. Does he think the other £17m was well spent. Take Mitrovic and Wijnaldum. One might be a complete bummer whilst the other a fantastic signing that gets 'castle into the top half of the table. You make a judgment in the round about these issues. True and you and I are obviously making very different judgements. So come back and take me to task if/when we get relegated - oh and bring Benjie along for moral support! Is it true all you happy clappers get a free jar of Vaseline from Uncle Peter for your chapped hands? Frankly, I'm not sure I would want to meet any of your fellow travellers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2015 10:17:38 GMT
True and you and I are obviously making very different judgements. So come back and take me to task if/when we get relegated - oh and bring Benjie along for moral support! Is it true all you happy clappers get a free jar of Vaseline from Uncle Peter for your chapped hands? Frankly, I'm not sure I would want to meet any of your fellow travellers. i personally prefer the term "Realist" to "Happy clapper"....i suppose in the same way that i prefer the term "knicker wetting,knee-jerk merchant who's happy to write off the whole season on the basis of just 4 games" to the term "moaning fucker" (although both are probably quite accurate in the latter case) trust a board/transfer/management setup who have given us 2 record breaking seasons despite a low "net spend" or trust someone who doesn't know business or how football works anywhere nearly as well as they do and has already decided we'll be slipping down the football tiers after less than a month of the season....no brainer isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 10:22:58 GMT
Is it true all you happy clappers get a free jar of Vaseline from Uncle Peter for your chapped hands? Frankly, I'm not sure I would want to meet any of your fellow travellers. i personally prefer the term "Realist" to "Happy clapper"....i suppose in the same way that i prefer the term "knicker wetting,knee-jerk merchant who's happy to write off the whole season on the basis of just 4 games" to the term "moaning fucker" (although both are probably quite accurate in the latter case) I haven't written off the whole season at all. But, with a defence leaking goals, it's likely to be a rough and difficult ride. Incidentally, I usually wear jogger bottoms and no under-garments at all! Couldn't be a knicker-wetter if I tried.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 3, 2015 10:30:06 GMT
We can play with stats all day and still debate the issues. Spending is only good if done wisely. Rogers is obviously trying to play catch up with Liverpool's owners money.
What interests me from the above table is how low Arsenal's net spend per season is; a fraction more than Stoke. That tells me you don't have to spend massively to stay in the top ten, but you do if you want to win competitions.
I have said on here many times, when PC says he will back MH with purchases, I believe him. If the "right man" to replace N'Zonzi was in the market place, at reasonable price (not >£20m), willing to come to Stoke for a sensible wage, etc. I'm sure we would find the money to buy him. We have been very lucky to get Shaqiri, otherwise we could be looking at a big revenue from sales this summer, not net spend. The alternative is to revert to spending large fees on circa 30 year old players.
We have bought well; we have enough talent in the squad to do well, they just need organizing. We have invested for the future with young talent who we could sell if they don't make the grade, and I suspect MH has done quite a bit of ground work to acquire further players in January. Time will tell which of us is right.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 11:30:20 GMT
i personally prefer the term "Realist" to "Happy clapper"....i suppose in the same way that i prefer the term "knicker wetting,knee-jerk merchant who's happy to write off the whole season on the basis of just 4 games" to the term "moaning fucker" (although both are probably quite accurate in the latter case) I haven't written off the whole season at all. But, with a defence leaking goals, it's likely to be a rough and difficult ride. Incidentally, I usually wear jogger bottoms and no under-garments at all! Couldn't be a knicker-wetter if I tried. Despite the points gained being disappointing at the moment, how can a team that has conceded more then one goal on only one occasion this season and equaled its Premier League record low goals conceded last season be described as leaking goals? You're trying to twist the facts to suit your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 11:43:42 GMT
The players are contracted, in the unfortunate even of relegation letting many first teamers go would make sense, get their high wages out and most of them wouldn't want to play in the Championship. The young players are likewise contracted, they're on low wages, have good pedigree and potential and would probably be delighted with a chance to cement a first team role alongside some senior pro's we'd inevitably keep. Relegation nobody involved with the club wants it but given the right foundations its survivable and recoverable because you retain the tools to return. Only playing anti football with a squad packed with ageing pro's with no resale value and no youth set up worth talking about is it Armageddon. The young players may be contracted but how many would want to stay? I doubt any of them would? Are you going to hold a gun to their heads and say you're stuck here, tough luck!? I don't believe for a minute you'd have to. The prospect of regular first team football and an opportunity to cement their place whilst returning the club to the Premier League would be enough to convince them. Do you really think they'd opt to move into the youth system of a Premier League club over that. Doubt that very much. Under the old regime I feared relegation as I saw nothing to suggest we'd bounce back. Now we have strength financially and in terms of contracted players with their future in front of them I'd back us to bounce straight back if the worst were to happen. It seems you'd be happier if we returned to pissing money away on has beens. You're entitled to your opinion it's just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 11:46:38 GMT
The young players may be contracted but how many would want to stay? I doubt any of them would? Are you going to hold a gun to their heads and say you're stuck here, tough luck!? I don't believe for a minute you'd have to. The prospect of regular first team football and an opportunity to cement their place whilst returning the club to the Premier League would be enough to convince them. Do you really think they'd opt to move into the youth system of a Premier League club over that. Doubt that very much. Under the old regime I feared relegation as I saw nothing to suggest we'd bounce back. Now we have strength financially and in terms of contracted players with their future in front of them I'd back us to bounce straight back if the worst were to happen. It seems you'd be happier if we returned to pissing money away on has been. You're entitled to your opinion it's just wrong. Frankly, I think the young, foreign players would want to return home. Who knows? Perhaps, we'll never know(hopefully).
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 11:53:34 GMT
I haven't written off the whole season at all. But, with a defence leaking goals, it's likely to be a rough and difficult ride. Incidentally, I usually wear jogger bottoms and no under-garments at all! Couldn't be a knicker-wetter if I tried. Despite the points gained being disappointing at the moment, how can a team that has conceded more then one goal on only one occasion this season and equaled its Premier League record low goals conceded last season be described as leaking goals? You're trying to twist the facts to suit your point of view. Well we leaked goals in Cologne, Koln should have scored a couple more, Oporto should have scored far more, Spurs tactically messed up otherwise they'd scored more, Butland saved us from a Norwich goalfest!, West Brom didn't need to score any more as 1 goal against 9 men was going to be enough. No, I'm not twisting the facts as the teams we played against had cricket score chances against us. I dread the Arsenal match! I bet Arsene has got his abacus out as I post?!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 12:19:28 GMT
Despite the points gained being disappointing at the moment, how can a team that has conceded more then one goal on only one occasion this season and equaled its Premier League record low goals conceded last season be described as leaking goals? You're trying to twist the facts to suit your point of view. Well we leaked goals in Cologne, Koln should have scored a couple more, Oporto should have scored far more, Spurs tactically messed up otherwise they'd scored more, Butland saved us from a Norwich goalfest!, West Brom didn't need to score any more as 1 goal against 9 men was going to be enough. No, I'm not twisting the facts as the teams we played against had cricket score chances against us. I dread the Arsenal match! I bet Arsene has got his abacus out as I post?! Pre season results are an irrelevance. You've tried to move the goalposts, now we're not leaking goals we're leaking chances. Second half v Norwich has been the only time that's held true either. He'll obviously need double figures at the weekend with us being so bad, we used to concede 3 or 4 down there with a full strength defence of nine players. Against Spurs Peccorino tried to put the game to bed and it backfired, they weren't missing chance after chance at all. WestBrom profited from Cameron going in for his half time orange before the ref had blown the whistle, they were lucky he did as their performance was embarrassing against nine men. They did attempt to score more goals but they were fucking shit. Hope you've enjoyed your chance to slag you're own team off, it won't last long until you have to crawl back under your rock. Use your real name next time you phone praise and grumble Nicholas is a nice name much less boring than Dave.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 13:01:47 GMT
Well we leaked goals in Cologne, Koln should have scored a couple more, Oporto should have scored far more, Spurs tactically messed up otherwise they'd scored more, Butland saved us from a Norwich goalfest!, West Brom didn't need to score any more as 1 goal against 9 men was going to be enough. No, I'm not twisting the facts as the teams we played against had cricket score chances against us. I dread the Arsenal match! I bet Arsene has got his abacus out as I post?! Pre season results are an irrelevance. You've tried to move the goalposts, now we're not leaking goals we're leaking chances. Second half v Norwich has been the only time that's held true either. He'll obviously need double figures at the weekend with us being so bad, we used to concede 3 or 4 down there with a full strength defence of nine players. Against Spurs Peccorino tried to put the game to bed and it backfired, they weren't missing chance after chance at all. WestBrom profited from Cameron going in for his half time orange before the ref had blown the whistle, they were lucky he did as their performance was embarrassing against nine men. They did attempt to score more goals but they were fucking shit. Hope you've enjoyed your chance to slag you're own team off, it won't last long until you have to crawl back under your rock. Use your real name next time you phone praise and grumble Nicholas is a nice name much less boring than Dave. I've not talked on P&G for ages! Pundit after pundit including Danny Higginbotham has pointed out how vulnerable our defence looks. Mike Pejic said on Radio Stoke before West Brom scored that Cameron looked vulnerable to the dinked in ball! I suppose because two ex-players( I admire greatly) have criticised Stoke, they're slagging the team off? No, I think a lot of us have genuine concerns. How anyone watching Stoke play Norwich or play Luton can think we don't have problems is beyond me!
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 3, 2015 13:04:46 GMT
Pre season results are an irrelevance. You've tried to move the goalposts, now we're not leaking goals we're leaking chances. Second half v Norwich has been the only time that's held true either. He'll obviously need double figures at the weekend with us being so bad, we used to concede 3 or 4 down there with a full strength defence of nine players. Against Spurs Peccorino tried to put the game to bed and it backfired, they weren't missing chance after chance at all. WestBrom profited from Cameron going in for his half time orange before the ref had blown the whistle, they were lucky he did as their performance was embarrassing against nine men. They did attempt to score more goals but they were fucking shit. Hope you've enjoyed your chance to slag you're own team off, it won't last long until you have to crawl back under your rock. Use your real name next time you phone praise and grumble Nicholas is a nice name much less boring than Dave. I've not talked on P&G for ages! Pundit after pundit including Danny Higginbotham has pointed out how vulnerable our defence looks. Mike Pejic said on Radio Stoke before West Brom scored that Cameron looked vulnerable to the dinked in ball! I suppose because two ex-players( I admire greatly) have criticised Stoke, they're slagging the team off? No, I think a lot of us have genuine concerns. How anyone watching Stoke play Norwich or play Luton can think we don't have problems is beyond me! Yes, but you didn't say the defence looks vulnerable, you said that the defence is leaking goals when it clearly is not.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 13:08:05 GMT
I've not talked on P&G for ages! Pundit after pundit including Danny Higginbotham has pointed out how vulnerable our defence looks. Mike Pejic said on Radio Stoke before West Brom scored that Cameron looked vulnerable to the dinked in ball! I suppose because two ex-players( I admire greatly) have criticised Stoke, they're slagging the team off? No, I think a lot of us have genuine concerns. How anyone watching Stoke play Norwich or play Luton can think we don't have problems is beyond me! Yes, but you didn't say the defence looks vulnerable, you said that the defence is leaking goals when it clearly is not. Thanks Dave, sorry for saying Dave is a boring name. Alan is too.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 3, 2015 13:11:36 GMT
I've not talked on P&G for ages! Pundit after pundit including Danny Higginbotham has pointed out how vulnerable our defence looks. Mike Pejic said on Radio Stoke before West Brom scored that Cameron looked vulnerable to the dinked in ball! I suppose because two ex-players( I admire greatly) have criticised Stoke, they're slagging the team off? No, I think a lot of us have genuine concerns. How anyone watching Stoke play Norwich or play Luton can think we don't have problems is beyond me! Yes, but you didn't say the defence looks vulnerable, you said that the defence is leaking goals when it clearly is not. Now, 'The Adjudicator of Truth' steps in! Where have you been all day? So, the defence is not leaking goals? West Brom was a very bad goal! Luton's goal was a very poor goal! Mysteriously none of the dreadful defending in Cologne is allowed to count! Listening to the radio commentary on the Brentford match, another very bad defensive effort. I don't think the two Spurs goals were exactly good from our point of view. If some people want to bury their heads in the sand, fine! It's a free country!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Sept 3, 2015 13:16:44 GMT
Pre season results are an irrelevance. You've tried to move the goalposts, now we're not leaking goals we're leaking chances. Second half v Norwich has been the only time that's held true either. He'll obviously need double figures at the weekend with us being so bad, we used to concede 3 or 4 down there with a full strength defence of nine players. Against Spurs Peccorino tried to put the game to bed and it backfired, they weren't missing chance after chance at all. WestBrom profited from Cameron going in for his half time orange before the ref had blown the whistle, they were lucky he did as their performance was embarrassing against nine men. They did attempt to score more goals but they were fucking shit. Hope you've enjoyed your chance to slag you're own team off, it won't last long until you have to crawl back under your rock. Use your real name next time you phone praise and grumble Nicholas is a nice name much less boring than Dave. I've not talked on P&G for ages! Pundit after pundit including Danny Higginbotham has pointed out how vulnerable our defence looks. Mike Pejic said on Radio Stoke before West Brom scored that Cameron looked vulnerable to the dinked in ball! I suppose because two ex-players( I admire greatly) have criticised Stoke, they're slagging the team off? No, I think a lot of us have genuine concerns. How anyone watching Stoke play Norwich or play Luton can think we don't have problems is beyond me! I'm not arguing that point though for me Cameron is full of mistakes. I'm actually surprised how few he's made. I'd replace him with Wilson who I think is a better CB but is still prone to errors and lapses of concentration. I prefer Huth to either of them. I'm not saying we're as solid as we were under Pulis, we defend in a way by not being under the cosh all the time like we were in many games. We're not quite as solid, we're not quite as organised and we don't defend by keeping nine men behind the ball. Yet we still don't leak goals. The end result has been better and its much better to watch, what's not to like?
|
|
|
Post by stokemark on Sept 3, 2015 13:19:33 GMT
My Dad made a good point to me the other day about the fact that the only alternative to what we have today is foreign ownership (again)and the reality that unless they are worth mega bucks the only real purpose of foreign owners is either milking the club or inflating their ego's.
Imagine having a Tann or Allam ?
Whilst I am disappointing we havent invested in a real Zonz replacement it is what it is. TBH I wuld have been delighted with Jedinak as I think he would have not only brought prsence but also leadership to the team and I think its a real shame we missed out on him so late in the day.
Anyway, it is what it is and will never ever be pefect as if it was it wouldnt be Stoke !
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 3, 2015 14:13:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by baystokie on Sept 8, 2015 12:08:27 GMT
A FIFA report for 2014 apparently shows that whilst transfer fees amounted to £2.6bn, salaries, over the term of contracts, amounted to £3.9bn. Salaries rose by 33% in 2014.
The report went on - 'whilst most of the transfers where there was significant media coverage involved large transfer fees, only 13% of ALL worldwide transfers involved payment of a fee. Salaries, however, were a large part of all contracts'
Does this suggest 'net spend', if based solely on 'media reported transfer fees', is a red herring as far as the actual total financial cost to which clubs have committed themselves?
|
|
|
Post by slpmarc on Sept 8, 2015 13:43:39 GMT
A FIFA report for 2014 apparently shows that whilst transfer fees amounted to £2.6bn, salaries, over the term of contracts, amounted to £3.9bn. Salaries rose by 33% in 2014. The report went on - 'whilst most of the transfers where there was significant media coverage involved large transfer fees, only 13% of ALL worldwide transfers involved payment of a fee. Salaries, however, were a large part of all contracts' Does this suggest 'net spend', if based solely on 'media reported transfer fees', is a red herring as far as the actual total financial cost to which clubs have committed themselves? Ask Benjamin Biscuit, he loves a good net spend, which is all twaddle as transfer fee's can be paid in instalments or as one lump sum. So in theory our net spend could be massive in a season we don't buy any one just because of a previous years instalment being paid out
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 8, 2015 14:16:12 GMT
A FIFA report for 2014 apparently shows that whilst transfer fees amounted to £2.6bn, salaries, over the term of contracts, amounted to £3.9bn. Salaries rose by 33% in 2014. The report went on - 'whilst most of the transfers where there was significant media coverage involved large transfer fees, only 13% of ALL worldwide transfers involved payment of a fee. Salaries, however, were a large part of all contracts' Does this suggest 'net spend', if based solely on 'media reported transfer fees', is a red herring as far as the actual total financial cost to which clubs have committed themselves? Ask Benjamin Biscuit, he loves a good net spend, which is all twaddle as transfer fee's can be paid in instalments or as one lump sum. So in theory our net spend could be massive in a season we don't buy any one just because of a previous years instalment being paid out True, but after six transfer windows of very low net spend, you've got to have had a hell of a lot of net spend in the earlier years for it to be a significant burden. Burden is the operative word as income has increased considerably since the Crouch-Palacios deal!
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 8, 2015 14:32:13 GMT
Ask Benjamin Biscuit, he loves a good net spend, which is all twaddle as transfer fee's can be paid in instalments or as one lump sum. So in theory our net spend could be massive in a season we don't buy any one just because of a previous years instalment being paid out True, but after six transfer windows of very low net spend, you've got to have had a hell of a lot of net spend in the earlier years for it to be a significant burden. Burden is the operative word as income has increased considerably since the Crouch-Palacios deal! And I imagine our wage bill has increased considerably since the Crouch-Palacios deal. Transfer fees aren't the be all and end all. We've simply gone from paying hi transfer fees with lowish wages to low fees but hi wages. If N-zonzi hadn't of wanted out and Shawcross not been injured everyone would be happy as larry with our squad.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Sept 8, 2015 14:45:43 GMT
True, but after six transfer windows of very low net spend, you've got to have had a hell of a lot of net spend in the earlier years for it to be a significant burden. Burden is the operative word as income has increased considerably since the Crouch-Palacios deal! And I imagine our wage bill has increased considerably since the Crouch-Palacios deal. Transfer fees aren't the be all and end all. We've simply gone from paying hi transfer fees with lowish wages to low fees but hi wages. If N-zonzi hadn't of wanted out and Shawcross not been injured everyone would be happy as larry with our squad. From the data supplied by posters, this window saw no increase in overall wages! Several players left including Palacios on high wages! 'Lakeland's' analysis indicates we're self-sufficient so we're not spending too high on either transfers or wages!
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Sept 8, 2015 15:00:32 GMT
And I imagine our wage bill has increased considerably since the Crouch-Palacios deal. Transfer fees aren't the be all and end all. We've simply gone from paying hi transfer fees with lowish wages to low fees but hi wages. If N-zonzi hadn't of wanted out and Shawcross not been injured everyone would be happy as larry with our squad. From the data supplied by posters, this window saw no increase in overall wages! Several players left including Palacios on high wages! 'Lakeland's' analysis indicates we're self-sufficient so we're not spending too high on either transfers or wages! Until the official accounts are released nobody really knows. I'd imagine there was quite a jump last season and as you say the level kept similar this year. I don't think we've been ambitious with our spending, more consolidated.
|
|