|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 13, 2008 8:53:15 GMT
its been pointed out that the money spent sice the end of last season - inc the prospective £1m+ for Shawcross is aprox the same amount
as the monies receive for Higgy,Hoef,Russell,Sweeney (!) & Pato.
I'm sure the wage bill will have gone up yet again so I am not saying Coates is penny pinching.
However is it fair to say that PC may still sanction the two/three £1m+ transfers we still need?
Or will TP need to pull off a transfer coup?
Or will i be loan deals only?
|
|
|
|
Post by scfclifer on Jan 13, 2008 9:05:03 GMT
1m shawx 1m cort 300 thous griff 500 thou pugh
that just takes up the money from the higgy deal and leaves a large chunk left from the money we got 4 russell hoef sweeney there is still more to come yet m8
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 13, 2008 9:08:17 GMT
Yes, I agree. Andy Har made a similar point the other day that the transfer fees received roughly equated to the fees spent or committed. As you say, wages will probably be higher and there will have been a goodly sum spent on signing on fees and unfortunately, agents.  But as Andy and you have said the a large proportion of the transfer kitty available in the summer should still be intact. Andy reckoned there could be £2 million left to spend (over and above Shawcross and Cort's fees) and I reckon that is probably correct. Above that we'd probably go for loans. Another point to consider is that a win on Wednesday would give the club another windfall of £750k + from the Emirates game. Whilst that will not be ring fenced and will go into the general income "pot" it should leave a bit more room for manoever on transfer fees or loans - hopefully!! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ted1965 on Jan 13, 2008 9:29:59 GMT
wasn't scholes quoted a while back when the draw was made as saying the money from the cup game wouldn't be used on transfers, maybe I read it wrong
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 9:45:50 GMT
Ted I seem to remember that information being said too. Its not unreasonable to think that some monies coming in still has to run the club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2008 13:17:53 GMT
FA Cup money = Black Hole. Will help pay increased wages (e.g. Fuller, Diao, Griffin) and if we get to the Emirates, then it might also help keep down the level of "loss-covering" that Papa-Coates' initial investment (£5m) has to be used for. And as Forny says above - (Yes that's right, blame me, Forny!!  ) - there should be more money available (up to a couple of million) because current and anticipated transfer spend does not exceed money brought in this season (inc the summer and the sale of Dazza). I hear a few "txters" to radio Stoke, managed to equate that to Papa not investing any of his own money ... True only if: 1) You don't think we'll spend anymore on transfers/agents/signing-on-fees 2) You assume we won't make a loss this season, which some/all of the remainder of the £5m Coates put into the club when he brought it (his "investment") will need to cover (inc the higher wages) 3) You don't think he has "brought the Brit for the club" with more of his own money (and on a technicality, I'll agree with you on this one!! ) If I'm honest, with increases in wages and signing on fees (e.g. Cresswell, Fuller, Diao, Griffin) I reckon that the "Premier League Windfall" might well have already found it's way into the black-hole, but even so, that should still leave the initial budget (£1.5m ish; in order to make it "the largest transfer-kitty a Stoke manager has ever had") which should buy us the last one or two pieces of the jigsaw (a left winger/central midfielder and/or another striker). Good times are still here ... Transfer kitty is still intact ... Can we talk the right players, from the infamous A-List, into signing for us; is the question? (it's still Bobby Zamora or no one, folks!) And for the moaners ... Me included, occasionally - Once upon a time, when transfers made a bit of a profit for Papa, we didn't get to spend any of it on new players ... It all used to mysteriously disappear into the black hole ... So it's difficult to see how anyone can say things haven't improved ... Once upon a time, getting a cup of tea out of Papa was a very difficult task ... nevermind a transfer budget ... ah |
|
|
|
Post by A-teen_six_T3 on Jan 13, 2008 13:31:47 GMT
Thing is, now a days, clubs seem to be spending money on loan fee's I read the other day that when Everton had some one loan, think it was Manuel Fernandes and they hadpay valencia over half a million just loan from January to June
So it is a possability that this tranfer kitty could be used on bringing in "high profile" loan players
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 13, 2008 13:46:42 GMT
To clear up Ted's point. Yes Scholes said that money from last Sunday's cup game would not be used to fund transfers but would go into general income. Let's say that money was £350k inc TV fees. There could be another £350k from Wednesday's game and if we win, then there could be £750k from a game at the Emirates. What I am suggesting is that, the longer a cup run lasts in terms of lucrative games, then the more room the club has to manoever when it comes to spending some of the windfall on transfers/loans/signing on fees.
|
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 13, 2008 14:14:00 GMT
With our gates at present, I don't think anyone can reasonably or justifyable criticise our spending our players.
Regardless of whether it is money recouped from sales, it is being re-invested in the team, and in that regard you can't grumble.
I have always maintained that clubs like Stoke need to sign cheap diamonds, selling them on at a healthy profit (Foster, Higgy, Doobs) or develop good youngsters who fetch us decent money. Having done that, you re-invest the money gained for ONE player, and buy 3 good players, therefore building the squad and the club.
We have additional money to spend, but for me it is good to see any income generated from player sales being reinvested in the team.
As we all know, Uncle Peter didn't always adopt such policies during his first tenure at the club.
|
|
Jimbo
Youth Player
Work 'aaard!
Posts: 338
|
Post by Jimbo on Jan 13, 2008 15:22:38 GMT
I think our current transfer policy is working very well at the moment. Clearly most of the money spent so far has been funded by the Higginbotham sale. But it's been invested wisely. It's fair to point out that although Coates hasn't spent his own money on transfer fees (yet), he and/or the club are spending big in terms of wage increases, signing on fees and agents' fees.
All in all, for a club of our size and average attendance, I don't think anyone could criticise our level of spending and current transfer activity. To be honest, I think it's above and beyond what I was expecting this season, which is a pleasant surprise.
Added to the purchase of The Brit (a sensible investment both for the club and for Coates when he comes to sell) and the planned improvement to the training facilities, then the club is currently being very well run and financed.
As a slight aside, it's nice to see two recent academy graduates in Dickinson and Wilkinson (plus Griffin), in and around the first 11.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarhead on Jan 13, 2008 15:52:48 GMT
Higgy 2.5million plus rise further by 500k
Russell 450k
Patto 300k more in the future.
Bangoura 275k
Hoefkens 500k after icelanders cut.
Sweeney 120k and 50k in future.
4 games on sky tv,they are a nice little earner.
BBC match last week plus big crowd,plenty of cash.
Now the replay cut,anything over a 25,000 crowd is great money again coming in.
So we must/should have a transfer kitty to still get 2 or 3 quality in now.
The main point i make is to ship out Broomes,Buxton on loan at least or release em because they are taking money every week they don't deserve as is Matteo,Pericard,Pulis JR!!!
Quality not quantity.
We paid for Parkin 275k...thats the Bangoura money.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarhead on Jan 13, 2008 15:54:42 GMT
Pugh the Hoefkens money.
Have we paid for Cort yet and what deal is it with Hill and palace is that 500k off the deal price if they have him?
|
|
But as Andy and you have said the a large proportion of the transfer kitty available in the summer should still be intact. Andy reckoned there could be £2 million left to spend (over and above Shawcross and Cort's fees) and I reckon that is probably correct. Above that we'd probably go for loans.
) - there should be more money available (up to a couple of million) because current and anticipated transfer spend does not exceed money brought in this season (inc the summer and the sale of Dazza). 
