Comments From Wilder

[Pinchy]

And here he is, my no 1 stalker.

I confront all the agenda brigade and Tyburn Jiggers. You’re towards the lower end, rather like your intellectual function.

 

[Revolution]

That’s not true though is it? Wilder has only ever stated that he will have the final say on all transfers and that he wouldn’t stand in anyone’s way who wanted to leave the club.

it

So in actual fact the players have the final say in all transfers.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I confront all the agenda brigade and Tyburn Jiggers. You’re towards the lower end, rather like your intellectual function.

Stalker alert x 2

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Without contributing at all to the running losses of the business? Glad you are not in charge of my company

So your logic states that we needed the Brooks money to contribute to the ‘running losses’ what if we hadn’t sold Brooks?

 

[Pollingtonblade]

And there's the point. The improved budget was probably predicated on Brooks being sold. The board and Wilder knew there was premiership interest and more importantly thst his new agent would be agitating for a move. His likely fee would have been factored into the budget talk and Wilder would have been aware of this.

Much if this is irrelevant however as what really matters is how the squad looks at the start of this season versus the end of last. If it's significantly better then job done.

The problem at the moment is we've let quite a few go and brought a loan keeper in so naturally people are getting nervous.

So why didn’t they say that?

We have given Wilder an improved budget based on sale of a key asset?

 

[Maidenhead]

How I think it will work is:

1) United's board agree a transfer budget for CW to work with, let's say £10m for example.

2) Brooks and his agent kick off and we sell for a £12m up front fee. So that's the original £10m budget and a £12m fee so £22m should now be in CWs working pot of money.

3) Utd's board tell CW that he can have half of the Brooks fee and that he can also spend the original £10m. Wilder now has £16m transfer and wages budget. They tell Chris he is a very lucky lad.

4) Utd's board laugh themselves silly after CW leaves the boardroom as they have now really only given him £4m to spend rather than the £10m they previously promised him in the original war chest (with Brooks £12m transfer fee making up 3 quarters of the revised post brooks sale £16m budget). The £4m contribution from the board probably not being so different to last pre seasons bargain basement budget given to Wilder.

Of course all the above is hypothetical, but really, ALL of the Brooks money should be in addition to the original amount promised to CW back in May. Otherwise they simply aren't backing him with what they previously promised him.

You fell at the first hurdle.

Wilder has a budget, he does not have a "transfer budget"

Edit: I've now read your further posts and the points you make are bang on the money

 

[grafikhaus]

Now Brazil are out we should see the signings roll in.

Rolling around on the floor, more like.

 

[Pinchy]

So why didn’t they say that?

We have given Wilder an improved budget based on sale of a key asset?

Not according to Wilder; before this becomes set in stone...

 

[Harrisblade]

So your logic states that we needed the Brooks money to contribute to the ‘running losses’ what if we hadn’t sold Brooks?

We would have made even bigger losses

 

[Pinchy]

You fell at the first hurdle.

Wilder has a budget, he does not have a "transfer budget"

You’re at it again. This can’t go on.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Without contributing at all to the running losses of the business? Glad you are not in charge of my company

You'd be very much the exception rather than the rule in the second tier of English football.

 

[BushBlade]

Wilder may have been telling the truth or he may have been being coy about exactly how much he has to spend. I’m happy to wait and see what happens and judge the board on their actions rather than words. And Wilder’s actions ie whether or not he’s here this time next year. That will tell us more than a comment at a press conference.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Not according to Wilder; before this becomes set in stone...

Need a statement

 

[Pinchy]

Need a statement

We Statements.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I think Wilder is keeping his cards close to his chest, and we will see big money being spent in this window partially funded by the Brooks fee. We did invest last summer, and didn't have any significant outgoings?The big money that came into the club was from the Walker, Maguire and Murphy add ons; not new player sales. According to the prince, the summer transfers were paid for by these add ons - plus the expected annual losses.The January signings came out of the co-owners pockets.
That being said, McCabe has publically said that we need a new ownership model: people prepared to put in more personal capital. Owners at this level are allowed to put in 39 million over a three year cycle. United, I'd suggest, are running well below this, which is why McCabe wants the new ownership model. He feels this is necessary in order for us to be more competitive in the transfer market.

 

[west_yorks_blade]

Yet again this club sells an asset for a very good profit and then re-invests Only part of that money on replacement players.

What ever the running costs were prior to his sale, they are surely still the same as when the original player budget was set. So why wouldn’t the full amount see it’s way into Wilder’s war chest?

 

[BushBlade]

Yet again this club sells an asset for a very good profit and then re-invests Only part of that money on replacement players.

What ever the running costs were prior to his sale, they are surely still the same as when the original player budget was set. So why wouldn’t the full amount see it’s way into Wilder’s war chest?

Because part of that £12m will be towards the increased wage budget, and those wages will have to be paid next season as well. Signing players is, in most cases, a three year commitment. That’s what Villa have found out; they didn’t go up, now the parachute payments have gone and they still have a huge wage bill they can’t cover.

It’s about finding the balance between going for it and what happens if we go for it and fail. Making sure we’re not forced to sell players at the end of the season (some may still go but if we don’t need to sell them for financial reasons then we can play hard ball and make sure we get good fees for them).

If there have been discussions, that’s what they’ll be about. Short term v long term.

 

[west_yorks_blade]

Because part of that £12m will be towards the increased wage budget, and those wages will have to be paid next season as well. Signing players is, in most cases, a three year commitment. That’s what Villa have found out; they didn’t go up, now the parachute payments have gone and they still have a huge wage bill they can’t cover.

It’s about finding the balance between going for it and what happens if we go for it and fail. Making sure we’re not forced to sell players at the end of the season (some may still go but if we don’t need to sell them for financial reasons then we can play hard ball and make sure we get good fees for them).

If there have been discussions, that’s what they’ll be about. Short term v long term.

I assume that the budget includes wage costs, given that they are part of the overall cost of a player.

 

[Pinchy]

I assume that the budget includes wage costs, given that they are part of the overall cost of a player.

A very considerable part. Lost on many financial advisers on here, I'm afraid.

 

[raul]

My understanding was that the JTW signings were funded by a loan? Nicolaus_Copernicus

 

[Pinchy]

It’s not an agenda. It’s an opinion based on history.

Your opinion is 10%. Not 5%; Not 15%? Precision is clearly right at the top of your agenda.

 

[Bill puntin]

I think we can all trust chris to do what is best for the club all round , he's said he won't put people's jobs on the line just to buy over priced players to the club, I know we are all waiting for that big signing , it WILL come but on wilders terms. UTB.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Day to day running.....
Someone has to pay for it......

And if Brooks hadn't been sold?????

I'm sorry if I can't get past this one at the moment but Brooks being sold just saves our leaders from having to stump up some cash that thdy were prepared to stump up a few weeks ago before Brooks buggered off.

Unless they factored in that they would be selling players anyway.

Yes. But they could also be holding some back for the JTW.

 

[Maidenhead]

Full interview here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06d2mn1

Think he explains the reasons for the Brooks sale quite clearly.

I didn't write the script for him, but I could have done.

It's amazing what you can learn if you put aside your personal agendas and actually listen to what folk say without assuming that every word uttered is there to deceive you.

 

[BushBlade]

I assume that the budget includes wage costs, given that they are part of the overall cost of a player.

Sorry I don’t really understand your point. Perhaps I didn’t explain myself clearly. What I’m saying is that any discussions will be about whether some of the Brooks money will be set aside to pay for the wages of the additional players we sign or whether they’re used on this year’s wages alone, knowing that if we don’t go up, there will be a shortfall next season that has to be covered.

So we’ve got £12m. Say we sign three players with it. We can say that’s £9m on transfer fees etc for three players on £1m a year each. That puts our wage bill up by £3m. We will still have to pay the extra £3m next year, but don’t have the Brooks money. Or we spend £6m now plus £3m extra wages and set aside the other £3m to cover these wages next season.

Obviously there are other variables like who we can get off the wage bill next season etc. Which is why it’s not a simple discussion.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Wilder may have been telling the truth or he may have been being coy about exactly how much he has to spend. I’m happy to wait and see what happens and judge the board on their actions rather than words. And Wilder’s actions ie whether or not he’s here this time next year. That will tell us more than a comment at a press conference.

"Wait and see"


Never catch on.

 

[Pinchy]

Obviously there are other variables like who we can get off the wage bill next season etc. Which is why it’s not a simple discussion.

That’s very unfortunate given that most on here (not all by any means) struggle with anything beyond the simplistic. Such is evidenced on a daily basis, sometimes accompanied by a fax-machine gag or obscure references to confectionery.

 

[Maidenhead]

That’s very unfortunate given that most on here (not all by any means) struggle with anything beyond the simplistic. Such is evidenced on a daily basis, sometimes accompanied by a fax-machine gag or obscure references to confectionery.

A mars a day helps you work rest and play?

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

I knock the board as well but the decision to provide the initial transfer budget is completely independent to anything agreed after the Brooks sale.

For all we know they'll use that capital to pay off loans that free up funds for weekly wages. I'm not so worried about how the figure is reached, more that we don't end up wasting our chance to sign players because nothing is set in stone. Set the budget quickly and work with it[/QUOTE

My understanding was that the JTW signings were funded by a loan? Nicolaus_Copernicus

Sheffield United have taken out two loans secured on club assets from Shawbrook Bank which provides loans to those unable to borrow from commercial banks. There will be an extra 7.5 per cent penalty interest charge if they fail to meet repayments.

After an excellent start to the season Blades have faltered recently. They are currently sixth in the table, but sixth from bottom in the form table. Manager Chris Wilder has said that the side needs strengthening and plans to be active in the January transfer window. Could the loans be for this purpose?

The formal documentation is available online, although it says nothing about the amounts involved: Filing history

The loans were taken out in December last year.

I've lost the link, but there's a bloke who currently heads up Shawbrook, who used to work for RBoS, who knows KM and has funded Scarborough schemes before. As i've posted elsewhere it will be interesting to see if they get settled when the cheque for DB clears. Although as some have pointed out on here, they might have been set against Walker & Maguire sell on clause money as opposed to other player sales.

 

[him behind you]

Phipps said repeatedly that the Prince would only start to make serious investments after we were promoted. There were many such "jam tomorrow" comments.

And of course, this hasn't happened.

How much has he invested then and what constitutes serious investment. Again, no figures were given so we are ALL just speculating really.