Serious Question

[Darthblade]

I never put too much faith in this ownership, not with their previous form, but at the same time, I can't see a valid reason for them not to.

There isn't a valid reason for the Board not to support Tufty ....... the problem is they don't need a valid reason.

I believe that the reason for not providing sufficient funding in the recent past to get us out of this division is simply down to the fact that the board members know f**k all about football and have been badly advised by some incompetent advisers and managers alike .......

We just need to hope that they have learned something from their appalling judgement errors over the last few years and decide to trust this manager with the Adams transfer funds, to try to build a competitive squad. Just 4/5 more decent players should see the job substantially done and then they can begin the process of forcing out the dead wood of Woolford, Coutts, Freeman, Wallace and eventually Scougal & Done.

UTB & FTP

 

[Blade56]

.....when Kendall got shot

Kendall was shot?

He will be given a large portion of the Che money on incoming transfer targets. Some of it will go on transfer fees, some of it will go on wage packages for new signings. I would expect to see 4 incomings before the end of the window. Also I wouldnt be surprised if Woolford agreed a piss off package in next couple of weeks - CW wants him off the wage bill pronto but didnt have the means to justify the outlay of a severance pay off pre Che trsnsfer. Think the other transfer listed players will stay on until January at least as no one wants to touch them and CW might as well have em as back up squad players. For all those doubting Utd's board now i can totally understand why as they have let us down time and time again. However i just think that we will be pleasantly surprised and relieved this time as Wildthing will be backed. It helps the board when they are confident that the money will be spent wisely and not just spent on crocks, old boys after a final fat contract, or players who are clearly past their sell by date. Looking forward to the positive news now.

61 posts Weasel, ITK flowing, logical strategies, big predictions 4 incoming this week, new nickname being pushed "Wildthing"....... Are you his agent, his missus or a club PR man, OR WHF?

 

[Darthblade]

He didn't say too much about the transfer situation, but what he did say at the time was that existing players on big contracts were impacting on the budget.

All I can do is suspect that the wage bill is no longer a factor or at least it's under control since we turned down previous bids. This would seemingly indicate that there's been no pressure from above to sell.

There may not have been pressure from above to sell, but it certainly seems to be that he was not allowed to bring in more players that are so desperately needed if this season is not to be another disappointing one.

UTB & FTP

 

[8lade]

I think that given the sale of Adams was a probability, the scenario of it would've been factored in way before it happened and likewise the limitations if it hadn't happened. Given this I'd say some of the money will be reinvested.

 

[Moon Beam Blade]

ive seen a lot of posts on here on the Che thread saying Wilder wants this money to reinvest and some saying that will happen, when have we ever done this from selling someone?

Last time I recall was Blake when Kendall got shot and used the money wisely.

Stop being so negative! we sold Jamie Murphy last year and used the money to finance the signing of the maverick wing wizard Martyn "magic" Woolford

 

[blader]

Well here's what grinds my gears: we sell Adams for 1.7 million, that should mean up to 1.7 million is available for transfer fees alone.

I hate when fans try to defend the club by saying we will 'use some of the 1.7 on wages for a new player. Well no, hang on, because we have just lost Adams, who was also on a wage. Therefore, the new player receives the wage that Adams was receiving (even if they are on more, it's going to be no more than a few hundred a week more) and the rest should still be available.

Ofcourse, we will get a couple of freebies and people will say 'well I bet he's on about 4K a week (which they definitely won't be) so that's 200k. Then there's agent fees, and signing on fees etc.' and before you know it, someone has equated our sale of 1.7 million to the same cost as a freebie from Blackburn.

If we don't use at least half the money on fees then we have come nowhere near to reinvesting all if the 1.7. Which doesn't bother me too much, but I do get bothered when people make up numbers to prove that a free ends up costing the club 1.7 million...

Let's go make a proper statement signing. I need some action for me to start rebuilding my faith in this board and their 'investment'

 

[Revolution]

Hear what you are saying as why use potential transfer money to pay off a player? Depends how u look at it i suppose. I look at it as if you can make a saving over the course of the year then get that commitment paid up and that obligation completed. For example if Woolford is due to receive 250k over the next year til he is out of contract (say 5k a week) and we can give him a lump sum of 100k now to tear his contract up, surely it makes sense to take the 100k hit now and free up 5k a week from the weekly budget? I appreciate figures above estimated and Woolford has to agree but for all the bad press Hammond got at least he took a deal (thanks again Nigel).

I understand what you are getting at, but if there are no moves other than Woolford being paid off (heaven forbid) we have been fools to sell.

 

[JohnDenver]

Well here's what grinds my gears: we sell Adams for 1.7 million, that should mean up to 1.7 million is available for transfer fees alone.

I hate when fans try to defend the club by saying we will 'use some of the 1.7 on wages for a new player. Well no, hang on, because we have just lost Adams, who was also on a wage. Therefore, the new player receives the wage that Adams was receiving (even if they are on more, it's going to be no more than a few hundred a week more) and the rest should still be available.

Ofcourse, we will get a couple of freebies and people will say 'well I bet he's on about 4K a week (which they definitely won't be) so that's 200k. Then there's agent fees, and signing on fees etc.' and before you know it, someone has equated our sale of 1.7 million to the same cost as a freebie from Blackburn.

If we don't use at least half the money on fees then we have come nowhere near to reinvesting all if the 1.7. Which doesn't bother me too much, but I do get bothered when people make up numbers to prove that a free ends up costing the club 1.7 million...

Let's go make a proper statement signing. I need some action for me to start rebuilding my faith in this board and their 'investment'

You've a point but...

...if we increase the size of the squad using the money earned, then it holds true. And we also have a history of buying utter garbage on big wages, be they loans or freebies. From Nyron Nosworthy to Danny Higginbotham to Connor Sammon. I've little doubt we could have used their wages alone to pick up a Chris Hussey or two.

As alcoblade always says, it's not the selling of quality so much as the recruitment of shite.

 

[Revolution]

Well here's what grinds my gears: we sell Adams for 1.7 million, that should mean up to 1.7 million is available for transfer fees alone.

I hate when fans try to defend the club by saying we will 'use some of the 1.7 on wages for a new player. Well no, hang on, because we have just lost Adams, who was also on a wage. Therefore, the new player receives the wage that Adams was receiving (even if they are on more, it's going to be no more than a few hundred a week more) and the rest should still be available.

Ofcourse, we will get a couple of freebies and people will say 'well I bet he's on about 4K a week (which they definitely won't be) so that's 200k. Then there's agent fees, and signing on fees etc.' and before you know it, someone has equated our sale of 1.7 million to the same cost as a freebie from Blackburn.

If we don't use at least half the money on fees then we have come nowhere near to reinvesting all if the 1.7. Which doesn't bother me too much, but I do get bothered when people make up numbers to prove that a free ends up costing the club 1.7 million...

Let's go make a proper statement signing. I need some action for me to start rebuilding my faith in this board and their 'investment'

That's right - signings are expensive even if the player is free.

Yet another reason not to sell a good young player who isn't on that much money, relatively speaking.

 

[Slim Man]

He needs £1mil of it to make us promotion contenders. Anything less and I hold the board fully responsible for another year in league one.

Yet the clappers will be spouting shite like 'well we've already spent the transfer fee paying Hammond off, signing O'Connell, Fleck and Duffy's wages' etc. Get your excuses in early boys, everyones getting tired of the same old shit now.

 

[blade too long]

Well here's what grinds my gears: we sell Adams for 1.7 million, that should mean up to 1.7 million is available for transfer fees alone.

Be a first, Ive only been watching us 50 odd years and spending any fee in full ,cant say its ever happened
If we spent a million itd be a break from tradition
we arent and never have been a wealthy club, you need 3 or 4 on the board putting in money
we never have had that luxury
and running at 5 or 6 million a year losses its like a familys budget , you squeeze what
luxuries you can out of limited resources

like all clubs at this level any income is hemorrhaging out in running costs
sad , but true fact is if we can eek 50 per cent back into team funds be doing well

 

[coolhandluke]

Anyone who thinks CW will receive every penny of the Adams transfer fee to reinvest is guilty of naive optimism . Likewise , those that believe none of it will be reinvested are guilty of blind pessimism .

CW will get a percentage of the overall fee to reinvest . Quite how much will have been established before Che was finally released . The rest of the cash will be used to offset the costs already incurred as part of CW's tenure , the Hammond payoff etc

I guess overall protagonists of the 2 diametrically opposed " great piece of business " and " same owd , same owd " camps are both going to be provided with ammo to sustain their points of view so the debate will continue unabated .

Personally , I'm going to put my trust in CW . This time around it was him who sanctioned the move and this in itself represents a significant departure from the past . And whilst I'm sure CW had no option other than to sell if he wanted to bring new players in I'm also confident that Che would have still been here if CW believed we were better with him at the club with no new arrivals .

I guess this time around its a question of trust in the manager . He believes selling Che and bringing others in is better for us . I trust him . Seems a lot on here don't . Time will tell I guess .

 

[him behind you]

Anyone who thinks CW will receive every penny of the Adams transfer fee to reinvest is guilty of naive optimism . Likewise , those that believe none of it will be reinvested are guilty of blind pessimism .

CW will get a percentage of the overall fee to reinvest . Quite how much will have been established before Che was finally released . The rest of the cash will be used to offset the costs already incurred as part of CW's tenure , the Hammond payoff etc

I guess overall protagonists of the 2 diametrically opposed " great piece of business " and " same owd , same owd " camps are both going to be provided with ammo to sustain their points of view so the debate will continue unabated .

Personally , I'm going to put my trust in CW . This time around it was him who sanctioned the move and this in itself represents a significant departure from the past . And whilst I'm sure CW had no option other than to sell if he wanted to bring new players in I'm also confident that Che would have still been here if CW believed we were better with him at the club with no new arrivals .

I guess this time around its a question of trust in the manager . He believes selling Che and bringing others in is better for us . I trust him . Seems a lot on here don't . Time will tell I guess .

I'm pretty sure I read (or heard) an interview with CW fairly recently where he mentioned bids for Che and DCL and he said that there were plans in place to strengthen the squad should any bids come for players which were deemed acceptable. If, therefore, he is given some of the money (which I think and hope he will be), I would like to think things will happen fairly quickly. If not, then we are left either wondering whether CW is another in the long line of managers brought in to simply spout the board's mantra, or the board have not changed and have shot him in the back by telling him to have plans in place - which should have been ratified by the technical committee or whatever they are called and, therefore, he could realistically assume that they would be backed.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

We spent the Nick Blackman money on Jamie Murphy and wages for Danny Higginbotham and Jon Forte.

I still think it we pushed the boat out that January, kept Blackman but signed Murphy anyway then we'd have gone up.

Agreed. And we could have done without signing Higginbotham, Forte, Poleon and Robson. I reckon a team of


-----------------------Long

McMahon—Maguire—Collins—Hill


Flynn-----McDonald---Doyle---Murphy


--------------Blackman----Kitson


Had every chance of taking us up with how bad the league was that year.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Can the posters speculating on the board giving Tufty the proceeds give an undertaking that when it's clear he's not getting any of it will not post that they " fucking knew he wouldn't get a penny to spend" so we can be spared a few hours of boredom as they contradict themselves?

We’ve been running at a loss for years and the owners are putting money in every year to cover those losses. Without knowing how much the owners would have put in but for the Adams sale, it’s impossible to say with any certainty how much of the Adams money has been reinvested. If it has merely replaced the cost to the owners of covering losses, it could be interpreted as not being reinvested but the counter-argument is that in a way it is as it’s covering the wages of the players we’ve signed. My gripe with that is that the club constantly speaks of funds being available and there being no need to sell. If that is genuinely the case, then the proceeds should be fully available for recruitment over and above what we already have.


My prediction is we might see one more undisclosed fee and maybe one in on loan leading to furious arguments about how much they cost and what percentage of the Adams fee we reinvested.


In response to the OP. We need look no further than the Maguire sale for money being reinvested. Brayford, Done, Coutts and Freeman arrived in January. That wasn’t a cheap shopping spree. However, if the question was when have we reinvested with the result seeing us stronger than before the sale, then it could be argued that we need to go back to the Kendall era. Thought I’d argue that a summer in which we signed Ifill for £825k, Webber for £500k and Shipperly on a free whilst offloading Andy Gray for just over a million made us significantly stronger. Although not a case of reinvestment as such, I would also say the deal involving Woodhouse and Ndlovu was an excellent one for us.

 

[FATTYFOULKE]

ive seen a lot of posts on here on the Che thread saying Wilder wants this money to reinvest and some saying that will happen, when have we ever done this from selling someone?

Last time I recall was Blake when Kendall got shot and used the money wisely.

Funny you mention Blake. Saw an article the other day saying how much he hated United.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Funny you mention Blake. Saw an article the other day saying how much he hated United.

That's quite an old article (unless he's done it again). I remember one a couple of years ago where he said our fans were horrible etc.

 

[coolhandluke]

I'm pretty sure I read (or heard) an interview with CW fairly recently where he mentioned bids for Che and DCL and he said that there were plans in place to strengthen the squad should any bids come for players which were deemed acceptable. If, therefore, he is given some of the money (which I think and hope he will be), I would like to think things will happen fairly quickly. If not, then we are left either wondering whether CW is another in the long line of managers brought in to simply spout the board's mantra, or the board have not changed and have shot him in the back by telling him to have plans in place - which should have been ratified by the technical committee or whatever they are called and, therefore, he could realistically assume that they would be backed.

I agree . Deals need to be concluded very quickly for all of the reasons you've mentioned . Furthermore , I think the deals will be concluded very quickly as CW will know exactly who he wants . The only obstacle I can see in any of this is if CW encounters ludicrous agent demands in terms of wages , bonuses etc etc . But it must be made clear that these obstacles are not the result of us penny pinching ..... its the direct result of CW refusing to be had over a barrel and shafted . ( This in itself will lead to many blades questioning the club's ambition but for me it's an eminently sensible and correct course of action )

Where I genuinely believe CW will be dramatically different to past managers however , is his steadfast refusal to become KM's lapdog , poodle , spokesman , stooge or whatever other labels can and would be thrown his way if he folded in the face of the Boards duplicitous moving of the goal posts . CW would , I believe , walk , if he had the carpet pulled from under him . And I think KM knows this too . Now KM may be a lot of things but he's not stupid . There's not a cat in hells chance he'd knowingly invite the carnage at the lane that CW walking would bring .

That's one of the reasons why I trust CW more than any of the manager's that have walked through the revolving door at the lane in recent years . Add to this the fact that CW appears to be far more astute in a managerial capacity than I ever originally gave him credit for and this will reveal while I'm actually very optimistic about this season . And that's not something I was when he was first appointed .

In CW I trust .

 

[Trigger Blade]

Kendall was shot?

I always thought it was Kennedy, although I wasn't really paying attention at the time.....

 

[Rodders]

I always thought it was Kennedy, although I wasn't really paying attention at the time.....

No, it was Sue Ellen.

 

[coolhandluke]

No, it was Sue Ellen.

It was the lizards that did it .

 

[Grizzly blade]

Club is losing millions every season.

We release a few, pay off a few and pay off a manager and back room team. That costs money.

We have signed several new players, most of whom for free. However, we will be paying some serious money....certainly for Fleck. Clarke commanded a fee that has been undisclosed....but circa £250k. So for me, the wages are still relatively high considering we still have a few players on the list and surplus to requirements being paid good money.

So add that up. Regardless the playing squad is smaller, the budget will still be creating a big loss for the owners. So it's simple maths....the owner will yet again reduce the losses by selling players. This year it's Adams.
Not an ice cubes chance in hell that any more than half of that money will be used on new players.
Expect one permanent and a loan...tops.

 

[NottinghamBlade]

Kendall was shot?

He was drinking shots.

 

[him behind you]

I agree . Deals need to be concluded very quickly for all of the reasons you've mentioned . Furthermore , I think the deals will be concluded very quickly as CW will know exactly who he wants . The only obstacle I can see in any of this is if CW encounters ludicrous agent demands in terms of wages , bonuses etc etc . But it must be made clear that these obstacles are not the result of us penny pinching ..... its the direct result of CW refusing to be had over a barrel and shafted . ( This in itself will lead to many blades questioning the club's ambition but for me it's an eminently sensible and correct course of action )

Where I genuinely believe CW will be dramatically different to past managers however , is his steadfast refusal to become KM's lapdog , poodle , spokesman , stooge or whatever other labels can and would be thrown his way if he folded in the face of the Boards duplicitous moving of the goal posts . CW would , I believe , walk , if he had the carpet pulled from under him . And I think KM knows this too . Now KM may be a lot of things but he's not stupid . There's not a cat in hells chance he'd knowingly invite the carnage at the lane that CW walking would bring .

That's one of the reasons why I trust CW more than any of the manager's that have walked through the revolving door at the lane in recent years . Add to this the fact that CW appears to be far more astute in a managerial capacity than I ever originally gave him credit for and this will reveal while I'm actually very optimistic about this season . And that's not something I was when he was first appointed .

In CW I trust .

Hope you're right. I had so much respect for Spackman when he said enough was enough and walked. Would hate us to be looking for another manager so soon but if it happened I'd accept it if it showed the board up to be breaking promises.

 

[coolhandluke]

Club is losing millions every season.

We release a few, pay off a few and pay off a manager and back room team. That costs money.

We have signed several new players, most of whom for free. However, we will be paying some serious money....certainly for Fleck. Clarke commanded a fee that has been undisclosed....but circa £250k. So for me, the wages are still relatively high considering we still have a few players on the list and surplus to requirements being paid good money.

So add that up. Regardless the playing squad is smaller, the budget will still be creating a big loss for the owners. So it's simple maths....the owner will yet again reduce the losses by selling players. This year it's Adams.
Not an ice cubes chance in hell that any more than half of that money will be used on new players.
Expect one permanent and a loan...tops.

I'll raise you another permanent .

2 permanent and one season long loan for me .

So 2 permanent , 1 season long loan , all of which improve us in key positions versus the sale of a squad player.

It's a no brainer really isn't it .

* As an aside I've heard it'll be 3 permanent and 1 season long loan . For me though , the inevitable dynamics of negotiating terms with players/agents will mean one signing will fall through .

 

[Teddy]

Wonder if the board will be watching the next 3 home games closely to be sure that Wilder really is their man.

All well and good saying nows the time to back the manager and make the funds available, but we've had more false dawns than defeats under Weir in recent years. Once bitten, twice shy and all that...

If we lose the next 3 at home those purse strings could be pulled tighter than... I'll leave that there.

 

[Frecheville Blade]

If we've sold for £1.7M, then 20% of that will have gone to Ilkeston I expect. That leaves ~£1.3M, which we'll most likely receive in instalments over the 3 seasons of his Birmingham contract. That means ~£450k this season - or more, if the board speculates with the money from future seasons.

Either way, I personally think we'll bring in two more plus loans. Just gut feeling.

 

[BushBlade]

Wonder if the board will be watching the next 3 home games closely to be sure that Wilder really is their man.

All well and good saying nows the time to back the manager and make the funds available, but we've had more false dawns than defeats under Weir in recent years. Once bitten, twice shy and all that...

If we lose the next 3 at home those purse strings could be pulled tighter than... I'll leave that there.

Pointless giving him the job then.

 

[coolhandluke]

Hope you're right. I had so much respect for Spackman when he said enough was enough and walked. Would hate us to be looking for another manager so soon but if it happened I'd accept it if it showed the board up to be breaking promises.

If it happened , and god forbid it did happen , there'd be a shit storm at the lane the likes of which none of us has ever seen before .

Even KM wouldn't initiate that ...... would he

 

[Teddy]

Pointless giving him the job then.

True enough. But all managers are backed to a differing extent by their boards, and some of that level of backing is based on the degree of confidence a board has at that time. It's possible that if Wilder's great talk and pro-active approach is undermined by a shit start that this level of confidence drops.

Conversely, smash Crewe, Rochdale and Southend and the owners may be inclined to make that little bit more available.

All highly theoretical and open to challenge, I'll admit.