| Annual £5 transfer budget.... 23:19 - Aug 7 with 3656 views | Nick_Blue11 |
I have no problem with Waggy leaving and I also have no problem with Evans, I would rather PH get 3/4 players of his ilk than have just Waghorn at his disposal. But with our league being pumped with more money year on year how long can we honestly go on without attempting to build on our squad in the transfer market?
Im not calling to buy championship/ prem journeyman because as were experiencing, even the lower league boys aren't cheap.
We have several young promising players who could command big transfer fees in the years to come but how will we ever move forward or even stay consistent if we have to continually sell our best assets to attempt to build a better squad?
This strategy will have to evolve in the next few years as it simply won't be possible to stay competitive without spending on top of what you've got.
Food for thought for the man with £765 million in his back pocket.....
|  | | |  |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:23 - Aug 7 with 3621 views | J2BLUE |
This is precisely the strategy many of us have been calling for. Next summer we'll probably sell someone else to fund squad improvements. It's our only hope.
I'm sure Evans would stick £50m in if promotion was assured. We only need to look at Derby to see how it can go wrong. They must be due a fall if they don't get promoted very soon. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:32 - Aug 7 with 3585 views | mos |
That isn’t the case though, he doesn’t have £765m in his ‘back pocket’.
I believe that figure is taken from his net worth speculation, and with ‘back pocket’ implying money he can freely spend then your intentions for him are wrong.
It is what he is worth, which includes all the assets of which he owns. Not what he has in his ‘back pocket’. What he does have in his ‘back pocket’ is most likely significantly smaller than the said figure, although we probably will never know, we can only estimate. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:36 - Aug 7 with 3569 views | SouthBucksBlue |
Exactly my point in another thread. | | | |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:48 - Aug 7 with 3534 views | SouthBucksBlue |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:23 - Aug 7 by J2BLUE |
This is precisely the strategy many of us have been calling for. Next summer we'll probably sell someone else to fund squad improvements. It's our only hope.
I'm sure Evans would stick £50m in if promotion was assured. We only need to look at Derby to see how it can go wrong. They must be due a fall if they don't get promoted very soon. |
We need strikers of the calibre of Waghorn if we are to progress.
He was bought for peanuts and it paid off.
Our strategy worked.
So we sell him after one year before he is really able to contribute to our progression in what we'd expect to be a better developed team this year? | | | |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:01 - Aug 8 with 3503 views | Guthrum |
Except, of course, Evans doesn't have £765 'in his back pocket'. It's primarily a valuation of the company he owns. I doubt he has more than 0.5% of that figure in available cash. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:03 - Aug 8 with 3491 views | Guthrum |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:32 - Aug 7 by mos |
That isn’t the case though, he doesn’t have £765m in his ‘back pocket’.
I believe that figure is taken from his net worth speculation, and with ‘back pocket’ implying money he can freely spend then your intentions for him are wrong.
It is what he is worth, which includes all the assets of which he owns. Not what he has in his ‘back pocket’. What he does have in his ‘back pocket’ is most likely significantly smaller than the said figure, although we probably will never know, we can only estimate. |
Sorry, have largely just repeated what you said. But this subject gets me riled, loose thinking about the "net worth" of people like our owner. | |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:10 - Aug 8 with 3474 views | Nick_Blue11 |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:32 - Aug 7 by mos |
That isn’t the case though, he doesn’t have £765m in his ‘back pocket’.
I believe that figure is taken from his net worth speculation, and with ‘back pocket’ implying money he can freely spend then your intentions for him are wrong.
It is what he is worth, which includes all the assets of which he owns. Not what he has in his ‘back pocket’. What he does have in his ‘back pocket’ is most likely significantly smaller than the said figure, although we probably will never know, we can only estimate. |
Of course he docent have that in cash, that figure was more for effect. But genuinely, how long do you thing this strategy Is sustainable?
I'm all for whats going on this summer and am very excited by our new additions! Just intrigued to see how the strategy will involve as it will be harder and harder to be competitive. | | | |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:14 - Aug 8 with 3465 views | SParnellx |
At the end of the day, it’s not our money to spend, it’s the owner’s.
However, a shrewd business man such as ME should see how giving us even a modest budget like you’re suggesting could potentially help him get a huge return on his investment.
According to a report I found regarding how much Wolves will make from their promotion, the revenue from being a premier league club is astronomical, and in their words “promotion is currently estimated to be worth ‘a minimum £190m’ and victory catapults the winners straight into the world’s top 30 richest clubs.”
So a decent budget put in the hands of the right manager, which Paul Hurst may turn out to be, would give ME the chance to own a club that brings in 9 figure sums each year it’s in the Premier League. Of course it’s not guaranteed, but maybe it’s a gamble worth taking? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:16 - Aug 8 with 3462 views | Coastalblue |
It's what we did before, and it worked out OK.
Buy, develop, sell, rinse and repeat, if you buy well enough then over time the team will improve even if we are losing someone annually.
I have no problem with this at all and think it's far more likely to see long term results than the more recent method, it may also mean we take a step back to take two forward sometimes. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:25 - Aug 8 with 3445 views | ElderGrizzly |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:16 - Aug 8 by Coastalblue |
It's what we did before, and it worked out OK.
Buy, develop, sell, rinse and repeat, if you buy well enough then over time the team will improve even if we are losing someone annually.
I have no problem with this at all and think it's far more likely to see long term results than the more recent method, it may also mean we take a step back to take two forward sometimes. |
And this summer feels a bit like what we used to do. Buy low, improve, sell high and properly reinvest in permanent players
We are and always will be a selling club. |  | | |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:26 - Aug 8 with 3442 views | mos |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:03 - Aug 8 by Guthrum |
Sorry, have largely just repeated what you said. But this subject gets me riled, loose thinking about the "net worth" of people like our owner. |
All is good, it annoys me too, since people often throw around his net worth as some sort of reason to get us spending money. Though his net worth doesn’t paint the full picture.
It would be good if someone could dive into his accounts and find out how he was doing financially across his company/companies. A job for HarryFromBath maybe?  | |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 08:08 - Aug 8 with 3063 views | homer_123 |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 23:48 - Aug 7 by SouthBucksBlue |
We need strikers of the calibre of Waghorn if we are to progress.
He was bought for peanuts and it paid off.
Our strategy worked.
So we sell him after one year before he is really able to contribute to our progression in what we'd expect to be a better developed team this year? |
If you have a look at his entire career you'll see that last season, from a goals scored/ assists perspective is a complete outlier, especially when you factor in the level he's playing at.
He did have a season at Rangers (but not the Scottish topflight) where he scored a fair few but that is it.
Given our approach is, clearly, to raise funds to build the squad through player sales (given we run at a loss), then it's clear we are going to loose one or two of our better players each year to allow investment in the squad.
This year, we've sold Webster but Hurst clearly stated he wanted to make bigger changes, the only other two saleable assets (that are any kind of decent money) is Bart or Waghorn.
I really don't have a problem with us selling Waghorn as I strongly suspect he won't have a season like he did last year. That's not to say i don't rate him and would be equally happy if he stayed but if his leaving means three signings (that increase the quality of the overall squad), then I'm all for that.
For a reference point, see how Burley slowly improved the squad each year over time. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 08:19 - Aug 8 with 3023 views | agentp |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:14 - Aug 8 by SParnellx |
At the end of the day, it’s not our money to spend, it’s the owner’s.
However, a shrewd business man such as ME should see how giving us even a modest budget like you’re suggesting could potentially help him get a huge return on his investment.
According to a report I found regarding how much Wolves will make from their promotion, the revenue from being a premier league club is astronomical, and in their words “promotion is currently estimated to be worth ‘a minimum £190m’ and victory catapults the winners straight into the world’s top 30 richest clubs.”
So a decent budget put in the hands of the right manager, which Paul Hurst may turn out to be, would give ME the chance to own a club that brings in 9 figure sums each year it’s in the Premier League. Of course it’s not guaranteed, but maybe it’s a gamble worth taking? |
It's all relative though - it's just situational money.
We spend £50m and get promoted. we get £190m (that's an estimated top line figure and isn't given as a lump sum. It comes in over a the season) and an FFP fine. we have to increase the wages of the squad significantly and will then have about £20m to invest in the squad.; Bournemouth have just spent £25m on one player.
The club must be re-built on strong foundations. Not have it's future placed as a long shot bet.
If it fails we're fcked. [Post edited 8 Aug 2018 8:23]
| |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 08:23 - Aug 8 with 3008 views | Herbivore |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:10 - Aug 8 by Nick_Blue11 |
Of course he docent have that in cash, that figure was more for effect. But genuinely, how long do you thing this strategy Is sustainable?
I'm all for whats going on this summer and am very excited by our new additions! Just intrigued to see how the strategy will involve as it will be harder and harder to be competitive. |
It's a very sustainable strategy, in fact we're one of only a handful of clubs in this league that is employing a sustainable strategy. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 08:24 - Aug 8 with 3004 views | Vic |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:14 - Aug 8 by SParnellx |
At the end of the day, it’s not our money to spend, it’s the owner’s.
However, a shrewd business man such as ME should see how giving us even a modest budget like you’re suggesting could potentially help him get a huge return on his investment.
According to a report I found regarding how much Wolves will make from their promotion, the revenue from being a premier league club is astronomical, and in their words “promotion is currently estimated to be worth ‘a minimum £190m’ and victory catapults the winners straight into the world’s top 30 richest clubs.”
So a decent budget put in the hands of the right manager, which Paul Hurst may turn out to be, would give ME the chance to own a club that brings in 9 figure sums each year it’s in the Premier League. Of course it’s not guaranteed, but maybe it’s a gamble worth taking? |
We speak as if the Premiership is the promised land and the fix to every clubs financial problems. Thing is, it isn’t! For most prem clubs survival in the league is success, but that can c9me at a huge cost. Look at the number of clubs that get relegated and end up in financial trouble - our friends up the road are a classic example. They got up, came down and are no better off financially. Talking to their supporters it’s not much fun being a buddy fan just now. So this talk of premiership riches is all a bit of a myth. Most clubs even their seem to lose money, or at least live on a cliff edge.
The new way of buying low and selling high has to be the best way forward for a club like ours. As others have already said, it’s actually the model we’ve always used, most notably in Burleys time, but also going right back to SBR’s time also. It isn’t like we’ll sell to stay the same; this year it might be - I doubt we’ll be better this year than last. But players values should go up, so when they are sold we can reinvest in a slightly better player and so incrementally improve the team over all. Again, go back to George Burleys time to see a near perfect example of this. |  |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 09:25 - Aug 8 with 2889 views | Nick_Blue11 |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 08:23 - Aug 8 by Herbivore |
It's a very sustainable strategy, in fact we're one of only a handful of clubs in this league that is employing a sustainable strategy. |
It's very sustainable from a financial point of view and I'm all for that. The questions is how sustainable is it from a competitive point of view?
How long can we compete at this level utilising a buy with what you can sell strategy? I take the Burnley example but it was more of a level playing field back then. This year their are probably 8/9 sides who would happily spend 5mil on a player (Boro, Leeds, Derby, Swansea, Forest, Bristol, West Brom, Stoke, Shef United) without selling.
That's only going to continue with more investors coming in and further parachute payments. | | | |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 09:30 - Aug 8 with 2874 views | Herbivore |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 09:25 - Aug 8 by Nick_Blue11 |
It's very sustainable from a financial point of view and I'm all for that. The questions is how sustainable is it from a competitive point of view?
How long can we compete at this level utilising a buy with what you can sell strategy? I take the Burnley example but it was more of a level playing field back then. This year their are probably 8/9 sides who would happily spend 5mil on a player (Boro, Leeds, Derby, Swansea, Forest, Bristol, West Brom, Stoke, Shef United) without selling.
That's only going to continue with more investors coming in and further parachute payments. |
And each year it'll go tits up for some of those clubs as it has done for Brum, Sheffield Wednesday and, to a lesser extent now they've been bailed out, Villa. A strategy of gambling millions each year is very high risk and isn't sustainable, indeed lots of those sides have been very hit and miss in terms of actually being competitive in this division. Our strategy is sensible financially and has the potential to work, we're basically signing £5m players before they become £5m players. | |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 10:12 - Aug 8 with 2849 views | Guthrum |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 00:26 - Aug 8 by mos |
All is good, it annoys me too, since people often throw around his net worth as some sort of reason to get us spending money. Though his net worth doesn’t paint the full picture.
It would be good if someone could dive into his accounts and find out how he was doing financially across his company/companies. A job for HarryFromBath maybe? |
Very likely to be impossible, given large sections of MEG are domiciled overseas. The accounts will simply not be available.
At one point, many years ago, I used to do such things as a job. | |
| |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 10:33 - Aug 8 with 2807 views | mos |
| Annual £5 transfer budget.... on 10:12 - Aug 8 by Guthrum |
Very likely to be impossible, given large sections of MEG are domiciled overseas. The accounts will simply not be available.
At one point, many years ago, I used to do such things as a job. |
Ah, shame.
An it can probably make for quite an enthralling read if you have got the time and knowledge to access and understand accounts. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
