Comments From Wilder

[him behind you]

I agree that no one knows what CWs revised budget is post Brook sale, but we can only go on his comment about seeing the Board to see how much of the Brooks fee he will get. I can understand the Board telling him that he has to make some.of it last for January (and I think he would do that anyway) but why shouldn't CW see all of the Brooks fee on top of the original budget promised him? Cos in my mind he should get it all.

Example. If I went to work for the week and got my weekly wage, and then thought on Friday afternoon that I would go in on Saturday for a bit of overtime, I would expect to see the overtime money in my pay packet in addition to my basic weekly pay. I wouldn't expect my employer to reduce my basic weekly pay just because I did overtime, and ended up coming out with more money in total that week than I originally envisaged.

But if your overtime brought in an extra £1m in revenue, would you expect to get all of that?

 

[Rodders]

But if your overtime brought in an extra £1m in revenue, would you expect to get all of that?

What a pointless analogy.
The company has sold £11m of assets, if I were the bloke in charge of company performance I’d expect that fee to be reinvested back into assets.

 

[S5Blade]

What a pointless analogy.
The company has sold £11m of assets, if I were the bloke in charge of company performance I’d expect that fee to be reinvested back into assets.

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

 

[Darthblade]

Some of you are back-pedalling .

I know though: pesky agents. Nothing United can do when pesky agents are in the room.

Well there is ……. ask a few of the lads from the BBC to "discuss" the situation in a lively manner with the leech (Agent) and there may be a change of strategy …..

UTB & FTP

 

[Muttley]

So.....

If Brooks hadn't been sold, who contributes th the running of the company? The money they deduct from the sale is to save someone shelling out. No more, no less.

 

[Rodders]

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

We’ve been told that, upon promotion to the Championship, there will be untold investment yadda yadda - now we’re selling off arguably the best young talent we’ve ever had (cue all the “he never did anything” comments...) and the manager can’t even expect those funds to be reinvested in the team?

 

[8lade]

There seems to be a view of Chris Wilder that he is a saint, he isn't (in the typical view of what saints are supposed to be), if it means he is more succesful at executing his duties, I don't have a problem with lying from time to time, nobody else in football upholds these values. If Wilder said, 'not bothered if Brooks goes', 1 imagine the uproar, 2 His bargaining position is weakened 3 etc. Now of course there are perfect lines you can reel out for any question asked but when put on the spot by an interviewer the words don't always come out as you hoped, CW frequently stumbles in interviews looking for the right words.

 

[Adiroy]

Its plain as day to me.. wilder said he didnt want brooks to go but hes also said if a player doesnt want to be here they know where the door is. Its obvious brooks wanted to go and that wilder wanted it sorting out asap.

In my opinion wilder has done the best he can for the club!

Id like to think he can have some of the transfer fee made available to him but also ill be suprised if its all of it, day to day running of the club, academy etc someones got to pay for it

 

[him behind you]

What a pointless analogy.
The company has sold £11m of assets, if I were the bloke in charge of company performance I’d expect that fee to be reinvested back into assets.

No more pointless than the original one....unless the point was that CW did some extra work so should have been paid overtime.

I also ask why mine is suggesting not reinvesting in assets? Are the only assets in football the players? Of course not. Just by not putting the whole amount into new players does not mean it's not reinvested. Paying loans, wages or investing in new infrastructure projects is still reinvesting.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to think he's getting all the money to spend but I don't think it's realistic for us (the fans) to expect it. After all, do any of us know the payment terms because £12m up front doesn't necessarily mean in one go.

 

[him behind you]

We’ve been told that, upon promotion to the Championship, there will be untold investment yadda yadda - now we’re selling off arguably the best young talent we’ve ever had (cue all the “he never did anything” comments...) and the manager can’t even expect those funds to be reinvested in the team?

Could you point us to the "untold investment" please rodders? Cue the "think liverpool" comments but no one at that time said think liverpool sums so it could have been more about gradual investment and developing our own talent which liverpool were always very good at a few years ago.

 

[Muttley]

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.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

I have mixed views about the Brooks scenario. I wanted the lad to stay but ...

If he was determined to go then it’s best for the club he went early in the window so that we didn’t build the playing style round him only for him to go in January or worse start playing up ( no evidence he would have I hasten to add) and negatively impact the team. At least we have a time to use the money to strengthen where we need to . The big deciding factor is who we get in and if that makes us better.

I’ve said before about players coming and going and I’ve just got used to it over the years.

The only important things are the club itself and us the fans

 

[Revolution]

Could you point us to the "untold investment" please rodders? Cue the "think liverpool" comments but no one at that time said think liverpool sums so it could have been more about gradual investment and developing our own talent which liverpool were always very good at a few years ago.

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.

 

[Pinchy]

The budget comment's pretty comical.
You can have an increased budget but when you subsequently have to sell one of your best players don't think you can have that as well, oh no.
Hope Wilder doesn't end up regretting signing a new contract because the way it's going he's going to have to work miracles to get close to last season's effort.

 

[S5Blade]

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.

So, you are running a company that is losing hypothetically, 20m a year

You understand that you wikl have to cover these losses and makes plans to do so, including providing improved finances for the companies employees.

You then recieve an unplanned windfall of 12m in your bank, you wouldnt use any of that 12m to help offset the 20m expected loss? If you didnt, as owner of that company then you would be mental.

The 20m is obviously a made up figure, im not privvy to our finances. I also think wilder should get a decent slice of it but to suggest they should just hand over thewhole 12m is frankly a bit bat shit crazy. Wilder would have had some idea of what he was getting before he sanctioned the deal.

 

[Pinchy]

He’ll get a maximum of 10%

You haven’t a clue about that. The tiresome agenda goes on...

 

[Pinchy]

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

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

You would hope that the knee-jerkers, agenda brigade and particularly the self-indulgent brookstantrumers would listen very carefully. Don’t hold your breath though. They’ll whistle, put their fingers in their ears and hear what they want to hear.

What? It’s already happened? On this very thread? My word.

 

[Pinchy]

Don’t think anyone has claimed that Wilder was actively looking to let Brooks go. As Wilder has said though, once Brooks changed agents the writing was on the wall so Wilder resigned himself to Brooks leaving. There’s a difference. Some of us can see it.

A huge difference. One that Wilder explained with care and clarity. They don’t want to listen. They have an agenda.

 

[Pinchy]

Who’s said he can’t have any of the Brooks money?

Precisely.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

You would hope that the knee-jerkers, agenda brigade and particularly the self-indulgent brookstantrumers would listen very carefully. Don’t hold your breath though. They’ll whistle, put their fingers in their ears and hear what they want to hear.

What? It’s already happened? On this very thread? My word.

I think the question over how much Wilder gets is a valid one, but it’s entirely separate to the reasoning Wilder’s given, which you can trace back to the DCL/Adams sales for complete consistency.

• “I don’t want to sell them”
• “But I won’t hold a gun to their head, and don’t want players here that don’t want to be here”
• “If we sell I want to get the best possible deal for the club”
• “I think they would have been better off had they stayed”

Too many focus on the first Wilder comment alone, and judge the sale solely on that view, when in reality actually all four are simultaneously held views, and take a holistic approach.

 

[Pinchy]

Just in McCabe and the prince have announced Wilders cut from the Brooks deal:

Emergency. Alert the Sheffield Side-Splitting Hospital. Casualties are high.

 

[FriethBlade]

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.

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.

 

[spongebobblade]

So having been repeatedly told by various people on this board that Brooks would be going nowhere if Wilder didn't want him to go, it turns out that Wilder didn't want him to go and he went anyway...

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.
You can dress it up however you like but whether you like it or not that’s the reality of it

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

You haven’t a clue about that. The tiresome agenda goes on...

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

 

[Pinchy]

I think the question over how much Wilder gets is a valid one

Absolutely, but it remains a question. What we are so predictably and wearily getting is agenda-driven malice from numpties who haven’t the faintest idea how football, or business in general, works but are specialists in spending other people’s money.

 

[Pinchy]

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.
You can dress it up however you like but whether you like it or not that’s the reality of it

There is not even a hint from Wilder of any dissatisfaction with the owners in relation to the Brooks matter. Just realism and common sense. Brooks and his barnacle made it happen. Sadly, it’s very difficult to penetrate the granite skulls of some of our correspondents or divert from the agenda. If Tufty can’t do it, what chance you or I?

 

[Pinchy]

Some of you are back-pedalling .

I know though: pesky agents. Nothing United can do when pesky agents are in the room.

You’re in some sort of phantom zone. Bonkers.

 

[Pinchy]

Its plain as day to me.. wilder said he didnt want brooks to go but hes also said if a player doesnt want to be here they know where the door is. Its obvious brooks wanted to go and that wilder wanted it sorting out asap.

In my opinion wilder has done the best he can for the club!

Id like to think he can have some of the transfer fee made available to him but also ill be suprised if its all of it, day to day running of the club, academy etc someones got to pay for it

Not according to the financial gurus on here.

Chucksummunnehatit.

Chuckotherpeoplesmunnehatit.

Chuckevrypennyofotherpeoplesmunnehatit.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Emergency. Alert the Sheffield Side-Splitting Hospital. Casualties are high.

Stalker alert.

 

[Pinchy]

The improved budget was probably predicated on Brooks being sold.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, Wilder deals with this aspect clearly in his interview. It wasn’t, he says.