Kev an BRP

[Akinbiyi]

No ones moaning about transfer fees just don’t make out that the board has suddenly started backing wilder

They’ve been very lucky to have got money from Maguire & Walker sell ons and Brooks

We’re still in the bottom 6 in terms of club budget and this is with money from sell ons and having increased revenue

But must think the earth is flat to point out something blindingly obvious

When both owners are fighting each other for control of the club, what exactly were you expecting? A 100mil war chest?

They’ve given us a minimum of 6 million in transfer fees alone for Egan and Norwood.

 

[Chali 2na]

They’ve given us a minimum of 6 million in transfer fees alone for Egan and Norwood.

Again, just to be pedantic, technically they've taken a loan out rather than "giving" us anything.

 

[Akinbiyi]

Again, just to be pedantic, technically they've taken a loan out rather than "giving" us anything.

They’ve allowed us to permanently sign Egan and Norwood. I couldn’t care less if they’d robbed a bank for that money.

 

[Pierre's PC]

I thought that CW has said we are closer to mid table in budget this year rather than bottom six?

Whatever fits the narrative though I guess.

 

[Chali 2na]

They’ve allowed us to permanently sign Egan and Norwood. I couldn’t care less if they’d robbed a bank for that money.

Yes, I appreciate your sentiment. And I'm thankful that they've managed to sign those players and increase the budget too.

I'm just pointing out that the money will have to be paid back, unlike a generous gift or score from a bank robbery.

 

[TJB.]

Need to be careful what we wish for re: owners. Do we want to end up with an owner like the pigs, Charlton and Blackpool have had? It could be a lot worse.

Completely get where you're coming from, but on the flip side, we could get owners in the same mould as Leicester, Wolves or Bournemouth.

At the end of the day, someone has to own us. It feels to me that there's going to be a changing of the guard relatively soon. I hope to Christ we don't get a charlatan.

 

[Kev Gee]

What ever happens I just hope we come out if the other side unscathed.

The only reason I can see both owners wanting 100% control is that they have a buyer lined up so will get a nice payout.

 

[Davalon]

Well someone else will need to take us over in the coming years whether we like it or not

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

I think you're missing the point. I'll try and explain again, using rough figures:

If we dont increase the budget, the Brooks money (asuming we get it right away - which we don't.) would only just cover the losses: the losses are around £10.5m, leaving around £1.5m of the £12m Brooks fee left.

If reported fees are to be believed, then we've increased our transfer spend by £2m. Meaning that we're already at a loss of £500k, even after the sale of Brooks.

In addition to the increase in transfer fees spent, the wage budget will have increased as well. We've signed 2 relatively high profile players in Egan and Norwood, we've improved contracts for several existing players and we've signed a handful of unattached players who will require a signing on fee.
It would be pointless trying to guess that figure. Rest assured though that it will be several million pounds.

In short, the Budget has increased, regardless of the fee we received for Brooks.

Yes the budget increased because we are now in a new league

I’m not debating we haven’t increased spending

I’m saying the club hasn’t backed wilder because that haven’t

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

When both owners are fighting each other for control of the club, what exactly were you expecting? A 100mil war chest?

They’ve given us a minimum of 6 million in transfer fees alone for Egan and Norwood.

Again no they haven’t we sold David brooks , if we hadn’t we would’ve have spent that money just look at the summer before

 

[Chali 2na]

Yes the budget increased because we are now in a new league

Wrong. We are in the same league as last year.

I’m not debating we haven’t increased spending

I’m saying the club hasn’t backed wilder because that haven’t

So we've increased spending but you don't regard that as backing Wilder?

I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this conversation going.

 

[BushBlade]

Time them two put the club first and sorted summert out between them. Only dark cloud in the BDTBL sky.

Why is it that when we’ve just won and gone second you start a thread that you know is going to start an argument between your fellow Blades?

 

[Akinbiyi]

Again no they haven’t we sold David brooks , if we hadn’t we would’ve have spent that money just look at the summer before

What are you talking about?

 

[CarlingBlade]

Rumour has it the Prince isn't bother if we stay in the Champ, but all over it if we get promoted. No doubt thats down to the fact the cost of his stake in the club rises considerably.

 

[BladeInIreland]

Do you think we'd get better owners then?

The new owner would no doubt be wealthier to be able to buy them out. Better? Would be pure guesswork on my part. It’s always a risk but I’m fairly certain neither McCabe or the Prince have the cash to push us to that next stage. I’d say new owners is the natural progression for everyone involved.

 

[Chali 2na]

The new owner would no doubt be wealthier to be able to buy them out. Better? Would be pure guesswork on my part. It’s always a risk but I’m fairly certain neither McCabe or the Prince have the cash to push us to that next stage.

I don't think we need any more cash to push us to the next stage, not that we'd turn it down.

The next stage is the PL, and we're only 6 good results away.

How much of a team's success, like Burnley, Southampton, Brighton etc, is down to rich owners and how much is down to good management?

I I’d say new owners is the natural progression for everyone involved.

Or alternatively, it's more upheaval and arse-ache that we could do without.

 

[BladeInIreland]

I don't think we need any more cash to push us to the next stage, not that we'd turn it down.

The next stage is the PL, and we're only 6 good results away.

How much of a team's success, like Burnley, Southampton, Brighton etc, is down to rich owners and how much is down to good management?



Or alternatively, it's more upheaval and arse-ache that we could do without.

All the teams you list would have had bigger budgets. Wilder can’t be expected to perform miracles indefinitely.

 

[Chali 2na]

All the teams you list would have had bigger budgets. Wilder can’t be expected to perform miracles indefinitely.

Bigger budgets than what? How do you know what our PL budget is before we've even been promoted?

 

[BladeInIreland]

Bigger budgets than what? How do you know what our PL budget is before we've even been promoted?

Of course I don’t , there’s no need to pretend we don’t have a good idea though.

 

[Chali 2na]

Of course I don’t , there’s no need to pretend we don’t have a good idea though.

We have no idea whether we'll spend more* or less than the clubs I mentioned above, that's my point.

You're confidently asserting that we won't, despite not having a clue. It makes me sad that people can be so pessimistic and dour.

*relative to our 1st season and football inflation.

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

Wrong. We are in the same league as last year.



So we've increased spending but you don't regard that as backing Wilder?

I'm not sure how much longer I can keep this conversation going.

Your definition of spending and backing the manager is different to mine

Look around at the league Preston/Wigan/Blackburn have all spent more money than us and they have not received the fees we have

How you can say the board has backed wilder is ridiculous we are where we are because Chris wilder is a miracle worker

 

[BladeInIreland]

We have no idea whether we'll spend more* or less than the clubs I mentioned above, that's my point.

You're confidently asserting that we won't, despite not having a clue. It makes me sad that people can be so pessimistic and dour.

*relative to our 1st season and football inflation.

Tbf there is lots of clues, it’s not just blind pessimism. I’m pretty sure both owners have admitted this themselves. McCabe doesn’t have an endless pot of money, neither does the prince.

 

[Chali 2na]

Your definition of spending and backing the manager is different to mine

Look around at the league Preston/Wigan/Blackburn have all spent more money than us and they have not received the fees we have

You're making it up now.
Where have you got your figures?

Of the 3 clubs you mention, only Blackburn spent more than us, thanks to their £7m signing of Ben Brereton.

As far as I can tell, Wigan and Preston both spent less than us.

How you can say the board has backed wilder is ridiculous we are where we are because Chris wilder is a miracle worker

Easy. Because despite Brooks' fee barely covering the operating loss, we've still spent £2m more on players than last season and increased the wage budget.

He may not have been backed as much as other managers, but he has had money to spend.

This is my last reply on the matter. I feel like we're going in circles and you're clearly struggling to understand/interpret the figures.

 

[Chali 2na]

Tbf there is lots of clues, it’s not just blind pessimism. I’m pretty sure both owners have admitted this themselves.

What? They've admitted they'll spend less compared to Brighton, Burnley and Southampton in their 1st seasons? I must have missed that.

McCabe doesn’t have an endless pot of money, neither does the prince.

No owner in the PL has a endless pot of money*, and even if they did, FFP would prevent them from spending it.*

Besides, spending money is no guarantee of success. Just take the newly promoted sides: look at all the money Fulham spent compared to Cardiff.

*with the possible exception of Man City

 

[Fanny magnet]

Wilder has been lucky in that the sell on fees for Maguire and walker have funded his transfer budget as well as the Brooks money ,together with the increase in wages it's not fair to say the board haven't backed him as they could have used this money to cover losses which they have been personally financing

However what the guy has done on a lower end budget with a bottom 6 wage bill is why he won the efl manager of the year and is for me ( no matter what happens in the next half dozen games )out greatest ever manager

 

[Blade56]

Why is it that when we’ve just won and gone second you start a thread that you know is going to start an argument between your fellow Blades?

No I didn't

 

[Topplayersleave]

The words “free transfer” are so misleading.

When an agent has a client/ player out of contract they become available on a free.
This enables the agent to add the notional transfer/ valuation fee into the salary request.

Basically free transfers and most loanees are paid what many would deem excessive/ poor value for money wages
But that’s only because they are include the notional transfer fee/ loan fee.

That's very true with some free transfers
However some of the free transfers we've attained over the last few years were definite free transfers
Their agents will have told them they are either free with no added notional value or go and work in McDonalds because you're definitely not a footballer

 

[BladeInIreland]

What? They've admitted they'll spend less compared to Brighton, Burnley and Southampton in their 1st seasons? I must have missed that.



No owner in the PL has a endless pot of money*, and even if they did, FFP would prevent them from spending it.*

Besides, spending money is no guarantee of success. Just take the newly promoted sides: look at all the money Fulham spent compared to Cardiff.

*with the possible exception of Man City

Both have admitted they would look to sell should we return to the premier league.

Answer these two questions honestly

If we went up with Norwich and any of the teams currently in the playoffs , as a guess(as we don’t know), do you think our budget would be anything other than the lowest in the league?

You say money doesn’t guarantee success, that is true. BUT do you think if we gave Wilder a lot more money he would produce an even better side than we have at the moment? If not, Why not?

 

[Worksop II]

do you think our budget would be anything other than the lowest in the league?

hard to say what the budget would be, but Udders did £10 million on Mooy in the first year

Wolfs have just done £30 million on a striker in their 2nd year

Gonna love to see Tufty trying to spend that kind of lolly

 

[Chali 2na]

Both have admitted they would look to sell should we return to the premier league.

We were talking about what we'd spend if promoted, relative to the "lesser" clubs' 1st year, not whether or not the owners wished to sell.

Whether or not they want to sell is irrelevant as well, as we don't know how it will affect the budget.
Mike Ashley wants to sell and he's been tight when it comes to spending, however, Abramovich also wants to sell and Chelsea have spent more money this season than any year in the clubs history, including when he first took ownership.

Answer these two questions honestly

If we went up with Norwich and any of the teams currently in the playoffs , as a guess(as we don’t know), do you think our budget would be anything other than the lowest in the league?

Comparing to current PL teams, I think we would have spent more than both Huddersfield and Cardiff.

If we went up with Norwich, there's a chance we'd spend more than them - we have done this season. I'm not sure of their wage budget, but their net transfer spend for this season is £22m less than ours. (This is despite them having parachute payments)

As for the play off teams, we'd probably spend less, with the possible exception of Bristol City.

Let me ask you a question:

Why would you expect our budget to be anything other than one of the three smallest in the division (should we go up)? Established PL teams have a large financial advantage and it would be daft to expect us to outspend them.

You say money doesn’t guarantee success, that is true. BUT do you think if we gave Wilder a lot more money he would produce an even better side than we have at the moment? If not, Why not?

What relevance does this have to the discussion?

I think he probabaly would, but it's hardly a ground-breaking point. I think just about every manager in existence would do a better job with more money, the fact is, they all have to work with what they've got.