'We Haven't Got the Finances to do a Permanent'

[robbiez666]

I see the usual financing relationships continue.

I do wonder how we can bid £5 million for a player, 'buy' one for half of that and then not have any money.

Strange.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

It’s a game of poker mate. Especially at this stage of the season.

Wilder’s playing it smart. He’ll get his man don’t worry.

 

[bromtom]

Assuming just the Waghorn striker money, if we bid £5m for Waghorn, then allocate £2m for Norwood out of it, then I'd probably agree £3m won't get us a decent striker on a permanent, but as Cerberus says, he's hardly going to spill all the beans on Radio Sheffield with a week to go.

 

[Superblades]

Don’t believe everything he says. Other teams will listen to his interviews so like Cerberus says - it’s a game of poker.

 

[blademark]

Don’t believe everything he says. Other teams will listen to his interviews so like Cerberus says - it’s a game of poker.

It could be a true statement if he's talking about permanent wages ?

 

[Bladesman]

I actually agree, it seems like the more he talks on the radio the harder it becomes for him to land who he is after. It's much better to now plead poverty, remember the other week when after the Boro defeat he said nothing is happening and all the deals were dead.

If there was money to bring in one or two more players then there still is. It hasn't suddenly fallen down the back of the sofa.

 

[LJBlade]

I see the usual financing relationships continue.

I do wonder how we can bid £5 million for a player, 'buy' one for half of that and then not have any money.

Strange.

This didn’t need a new thread, it’s been done already.

The Strikers he wants to sign are very expensive, hence we can’t afford them permanently. He isn’t saying there’s no money.

 

[Bellypork]

This didn’t need a new thread, it’s been done already.

The Strikers he wants to sign are very expensive, hence we can’t afford them permanently. He isn’t saying there’s no money.

Well, if the Goal Machine is worth £6 million, then United are better off sticking with what they have.

There just aren't any bargains to be had that I know of.

I championed Joao's cause a year ago, before he got established in the team by Jos.

It's probably going to have to be a player like him, who can be significantly improved by the right manager.

 

[SwissBlade]

I see the usual financing relationships continue.

I do wonder how we can bid £5 million for a player, 'buy' one for half of that and then not have any money.

Strange.

It makes sense. I don't think anyone at the club has said that we have bid £5 Million for a player. Didn't Wilder say at the time that we'd made a bid for Waghorn but they want £5 Million plus for him, meaning that we hadn't bid £5 Million, but thats what Ipswich wanted.

And if we're now looking at a loan to permanent deal, lets say for example, Hogan and we're going to pay his wages of £35k per week, then that equates to £1.82 Million a year before we even start looking at a fee... Personally i don't think we'll be paying anywhere near £35k per week for him. We'd be daft to pay so much and a fee.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

For me, Ricky hit the nail on the head on another thread yesterday. The club have shot themselves in the foot with their inconsistency.

1. The club cannot afford a permanent deal.
2. The club have not yet touched the Brooks money.

Which is it?!

It feels like sound bites from the owners and board to suit the conversation at hand, sod the need for consistency of messages.

It's ridiculous really, isn't it? And this after being told we were originally aiming for 2 permanent and 2 loans.

It's about managing fans' expectations and they're doing a fine job of overpromising and underdelivering.

 

[ben1987]

More like we can’t afford the players we want on a permanent.

Hogan went to Villa for 12m. We bid 5 million for Waghorn and didn’t get him.

I think he’s just saying the 5 million we have for a striker is not enough to get someone as good as he wants. He’s said all along he wants players that are proven and will improve us. He probably thinks all the 1-2mil players are no better than what we have. 5m only gets you 80% of Gary Madine ffs.

Or he is trying to get the players he wants for as little as possible by saying we can’t afford them. If the selling clubs need to free up some budget to do other business the asking price might drop a bit if they think we’re a bit skint. Telling everyone that we haven’t touched the Brooks money didn’t work out did it so let’s try a new tactic.

I’m sure if he was willing to sellle for any old striker up front we could have signed a couple by now, he just had his sights set on a particular short list.

 

[Grizzly blade]

Well we may have used some of the money set aside for a striker on Norwood...though we need to account for monies received for Evans too.
It’s just more likely he realises we don’t have the funds to buy the quality player he wants.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

In which case, is fair comment and the original quote may be truncated perhaps?

 

[Carlton Blade]

We are either skint or we aren't. I don't think Wilder is playing some sort of next level game with other clubs in the media - it genuinely seems that the message changes every week. To avoid that just say "We are trying to get deals done within our financial structure".

 

[LJBlade]

For me, Ricky hit the nail on the head on another thread yesterday. The club have shot themselves in the foot with their inconsistency.

1. The club cannot afford a permanent deal.
2. The club have not yet touched the Brooks money.

Which is it?!

It feels like sound bites from the owners and board to suit the conversation at hand, sod the need for consistency of messages.

It's ridiculous really, isn't it? And this after being told we were originally aiming for 2 permanent and 2 loans.

It's about managing fans' expectations and they're doing a fine job of overpromising and underdelivering.

Have you ever thought it could be both? It could be that even the Brooks money (what’s available of it, we have only received £4m so far) isn’t enough to get who we want on a permanent.

That isn’t beyond the realms of possibility and it doesn’t even take much to come to that conclusion, why someone like yourself can’t see it I’m not sure. Maybe you don’t want to

 

[PaulHalfway]

Wages is a major factor
Hogan supposed to be on £35k per week
If that’s the going rate for a top class striker that’s nearly 2 million a year on wages plus transfer fee
Just for one player, how do we ever compete on that sort of investment
Unless CW can perform a miracle on buying players on the cheap and improving them significantly we will always struggle to compete in the top 6 when up against clubs who have the ability to pay players much higher wages than we can afford

 

[robbiez666]

I find the mixed messaging confusing and frustrating. It has been going on for a while. I thought we weren't going to be one of those teams who pay over the odds for big players, yet we seem fixed on signing a striker from a pool of about 5 who will cost over the odds. I wish we had some semblance of a scouting network so we could at least widen the pool.

 

[Pinchy]

It’s perfectly simple.

We haven’t got sufficient finances to do a permanent deal, including wages on a three year contract, for the player Tufty wants, Scott Hogan.

We have more than enough to do a permanent deal for other players. They are not players that Tufty wants.

There. That’s it in two short paragraphs.

 

[Bellypork]

Wages is a major factor
Hogan supposed to be on £35k per week
If that’s the going rate for a top class striker that’s nearly 2 million a year on wages plus transfer fee
Just for one player, how do we ever compete on that sort of investment
Unless CW can perform a miracle on buying players on the cheap and improving them significantly we will always struggle to compete in the top 6 when up against clubs who have the ability to pay players much higher wages than we can afford

As I said in an earlier post, it's the Joaos and Winnalls which United need to be looking at, rather than the Fletchers and the Rhodes.

I was against Wednesday signing the latter two, especially Fletcher. OK, he was a free, but a 4-year £8 million commitment for a striker who has never really been prolific was madness. The club offered him those terms to beat off Derby and Norwich.

The type of nippy forward the Blades are looking for, say Andre Gray, went for £9 million to Burnley 3 years since. Wednesday have needed a player like that for years, but what Burnley were offering was too rich even for Chansiri's blood.

The sensible way forward is to wait until a Joao or a Winnall becomes available, then pounce. Tufty can develop players, which is a major asset. Blowing money the way Wednesday did just isn't the answer, and I bet that privately Chansiri bitterly regrets doing it.

 

[Pinchy]

I find the mixed messaging confusing and frustrating. It has been going on for a while. I thought we weren't going to be one of those teams who pay over the odds for big players, yet we seem fixed on signing a striker from a pool of about 5 who will cost over the odds. I wish we had some semblance of a scouting network so we could at least widen the pool.

There are no mixed messages. Just muddled thinking at the recipient end.

Return to sender.

 

[super_pig]

For me, Ricky hit the nail on the head on another thread yesterday. The club have shot themselves in the foot with their inconsistency.

1. The club cannot afford a permanent deal.
2. The club have not yet touched the Brooks money.

Which is it?!

It feels like sound bites from the owners and board to suit the conversation at hand, sod the need for consistency of messages.

It's ridiculous really, isn't it? And this after being told we were originally aiming for 2 permanent and 2 loans.

It's about managing fans' expectations and they're doing a fine job of overpromising and underdelivering.

they’re not telling you! that’s the idea.. if we mince round saying we’ve got 25 mill to spend the price if every player will be .. you guessed it.. 25 mill

 

[LJBlade]

I find the mixed messaging confusing and frustrating. It has been going on for a while. I thought we weren't going to be one of those teams who pay over the odds for big players, yet we seem fixed on signing a striker from a pool of about 5 who will cost over the odds. I wish we had some semblance of a scouting network so we could at least widen the pool.

They would only cost over the odds if we were looking to sign them permanently, hence us looking to loan them and the comments about us not having the finance to do anything permanent.

Do you really think we don’t have a scouting network?

 

[robbiez666]

They would only cost over the odds if we were looking to sign them permanently, hence us looking to loan them and the comments about us not having the finance to do anything permanent.

Do you really think we don’t have a scouting network?

Of course we have a scouting network. It's just a bit limited in terms of scope compared to most other clubs in this league. If we want to stay in the Championship, we need to improve it.

 

[Bladesway]

Club makes announcement. Modern day fan reacts.

 

[mancunianblade]

It’s perfectly simple.

We haven’t got sufficient finances to do a permanent deal, including wages on a three year contract, for the player Tufty wants, Scott Hogan.

We have more than enough to do a permanent deal for other players. They are not players that Tufty wants.

There. That’s it in two short paragraphs.

It’s amazing how this thread carried on after after this post.

It’s as simple as this. Wilder isn’t a child if he has £5m in his pocket he won’t spend £5m on a bust just to spend it. Sit on it bring a Loan in and wait until January. By January Ched could be on 20 goals or so or there will be another player league one or below banging them in.

 

[sheffielder]

I think everyone can read what they want into those words.

For me wilder is saying we can’t afford to buy a striker better than what we have. For example Waghorn would have been 5 and some on here didn’t want him. If we want better than Waghorn then no we can’t afford it

 

[Pinchy]

I think everyone can read what they want into those words.

For me wilder is saying we can’t afford to buy a striker better than what we have. For example Waghorn would have been 5 and some on here didn’t want him. If we want better than Waghorn then no we can’t afford it

Well, that depends on how you measure ‘better than Waghorn’, doesn’t it? If you mean players whose real cost, over the term of a contract, would be greater than that of Waghorn, yes that’s right.

 

[sheffielder]

Well, that depends on how you measure ‘better than Waghorn’, doesn’t it? If you mean players whose real cost, over the term of a contract, would be greater than that of Waghorn, yes that’s right.

If you could get better than Waghorn for cheaper than Waghorn then I am sure wilder would be all ears

 

[Pinchy]

If you could get better than Waghorn for cheaper than Waghorn then I am sure wilder would be all ears

The point went that way...

 

[Sean Thornton]

It’s amazing how this thread carried on after after this post.

It’s as simple as this. Wilder isn’t a child if he has £5m in his pocket he won’t spend £5m on a bust just to spend it. Sit on it bring a Loan in and wait until January. By January Ched could be on 20 goals or so or there will be another player league one or below banging them in.

Dear me, common sense. And on a match day as well......

You do know that those not at Bolton will be busy writing their main scripts for 5pm in the event of a defeat/Leon playing and/or unconvincing draw or win don't you.