Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

Well if our academy didn't produce these players you have to wonder why the clubs that did produce them sold them to us so cheaply.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I think its pushing it a touch to say that our academy has produced Aarons, Godfrey and Lewis to be honest, or indeed Maddison. We pinched them from other clubs once they were well progressed through their academies. I take the fundamental point about the academy though but Palace are about to spend £20m on their, all the prem clubs have done or are doing it as well. We are not unique in that respect and indeed are spending relatively small amounts in comparison. 

I agree about Godfrey and Maddison, both of those players had solid first team experience before they joined us. 

Aarons and Lewis though both joined us aged 16 with a huge amount of development still to go before they were in the first team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1995 Marshall was the keeper who replaced Gunn.

Irrespective of whether we are promoted or relegated players will be sold.  Aarons will go, Lewis probably Buendia and Godfrey are not doing themselves any favours the rest will probably have to stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Well if our academy didn't produce these players you have to wonder why the clubs that did produce them sold them to us so cheaply.

Exactly. They still progressed via our academy. And we were still the club to identify and pick them at low prices. All academy work.

Anyway, as you say Nutty, people are concerning themselves too much with money and removing every other factor. Like you say, we've out performed so many clubs richer than ours so the argument we need richer owners falls flat on its face immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number is largely meaningless due to timing and the variables that have been fed or not fed into it. I would prefer to see the projected profit for this time next year.

If we get relegated then a player sale or two is inevitable. Not because we want to, or have to, but because player x is wanted by team y. None of the players faced with a relegation clause in their contract would turn down more money to remain in the Premiership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Exactly. They still progressed via our academy. And we were still the club to identify and pick them at low prices. All academy work.

Anyway, as you say Nutty, people are concerning themselves too much with money and removing every other factor. Like you say, we've out performed so many clubs richer than ours so the argument we need richer owners falls flat on its face immediately.

Plus the academy that recruited them is not today's academy. A big part of the Weberlution is what has been done to it since he joined, which hopefully will mean future recruits are there from a younger age. Although I'm sure we will still be looking for bargains at any age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pete said:

1995 Marshall was the keeper who replaced Gunn.

Irrespective of whether we are promoted or relegated players will be sold.  Aarons will go, Lewis probably Buendia and Godfrey are not doing themselves any favours the rest will probably have to stay. 

Simon Tracey was a loan keeper we had in from Shef Utd.  I still remember him losing the ball to an attacker near the corner flag, from which the other side scored.  Funnily enough, his loan spell didn't last very long.  If you'd seen him play, you would remember him.

 

Andy Marshall was a longer term replacement, was one of the worst kickers of the ball as a GK that I can ever remember playing for City.


I remember we conceded one goal direct from a corner (an inswinger which crept in at the back post) that season but can't remember which keeper was responsible for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Well £10m of that is the huge bonus that we dished out to players and staff upon promotion.

Presumably we'll be doing exactly the same if we go up again next season.

Bit harsh to include Pinto as deadwood, he was the same player had just lost his place in the side to an up and coming player and wasn't ideal for our system. 

I liked the player, I didn’t mean it as an insult, but it was pretty obvious he was out of favour, he wasn’t even 2nd choice in the end. At that point he was just costing money regardless of personal feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Simon Tracey was a loan keeper we had in from Shef Utd.  I still remember him losing the ball to an attacker near the corner flag, from which the other side scored.  Funnily enough, his loan spell didn't last very long.  If you'd seen him play, you would remember him.

 

Andy Marshall was a longer term replacement, was one of the worst kickers of the ball as a GK that I can ever remember playing for City.


I remember we conceded one goal direct from a corner (an inswinger which crept in at the back post) that season but can't remember which keeper was responsible for it.

I think it was the only goal in the game after Gunn had gone off injured, and if so then it was Marshall. But then he had a storming game at home to Newcastle, pulling off save after save, somehow giving us a win, and that may have persuaded Chase he didn't need to dip into the coffers to buy a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Funny how different fans can look at the same figures and come to radically different opinions...🤓

My happy-clapper view is that these figures show how sensible and brave was the decision at the end of the  2017-18 season, despite having another year of parachute payments, to start cutting back on wages.

Staff costs last season stayed the same, although overall wages fell by about £300,00, but if my maths is right then player wages (without promotion bonuses) fell from £30.5m in 2017-18 to £24m in 2018-19. That is quite a fall. Promotional bonuses cost an extra £10m.

A few more figures. The club will have to pay out up to £30m depending on various conditions (presumably staying in the PL etc etc) being met. The summer spend was £6.7m, with a potential extra £4.7m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Well if our academy didn't produce these players you have to wonder why the clubs that did produce them sold them to us so cheaply.

They didn't sell them cheaply because everything is relative. I believe the £1m that York recieved for Godfrey is their record sale. 

Coventry had to sell Maddison for £4m because they were on the brink of bankruptcy, and his fee had additional clauses on top.

You can't buy a League One first team player who had been in a first team squad for 18 months and then claim he came out of your academy, that is ludicrous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

A few more figures. The club will have to pay out up to £30m depending on various conditions (presumably staying in the PL etc etc) being met. The summer spend was £6.7m, with a potential extra £4.7m.

That is...very low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sad fact is even with our reduced wage bill, promotion means a big financial impact on outgoings as well as income.

All these mismanagement and lack of investment statements need to be thought out, as it’s clear that even with a few seasons at top level you’re never going to be comfortable financially as demands for players salaries and bonuses will always take a huge cut of any money coming in!

Maybe instead of wanting a sugar daddy to fund us, we should be ever more frugal with our wage structure! Would be refreshing to see a club say you know what, you’re playing career maybe only 12-15 years but even on £10,000 a week you’ll potentially earn over six million pounds in that time and as others need to once you’re playing career is over find another job if you need to! Normal people do!

Sad that football and sport in general is such a cash cow for sportspeople.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BigFish said:

Groundhog day, will posters ever tire of this the filthy rich owner pipedream? For a club like ours football is always going to be cyclical. Good years, followed by bad and then good again. The idea that you can kick on to the next level and become an established Premier League club on 27,000 crowds in a provincal city is a nonsense. Sure, some clubs do, for a while until gravity catches them. Equally, Stoke prove you can be a established Prem club with a filthy rich owner and still und up facing League 1.

Though I will give you it would be a pleasent change to have more than 1 or 2 consecutive years in the top flight.

I am not specifically looking for a filthy rich owner as you put it merely an investor to come on board with a few quid, something that is painfully lacking in our boardroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

But surely last time we 'pushed on' by signing the likes of Naismith?

No Wolfie as Naismith was a panic buy in the January window when relegation was looming on the horizon. In that window McNally threw caution to the wind with no strategy other than to throw money at a problem caused by not purchasing when we were promoted the previous summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

They didn't sell them cheaply because everything is relative. I believe the £1m that York recieved for Godfrey is their record sale. 

Coventry had to sell Maddison for £4m because they were on the brink of bankruptcy, and his fee had additional clauses on top.

You can't buy a League One first team player who had been in a first team squad for 18 months and then claim he came out of your academy, that is ludicrous.

 

But, we still took the gamble on them. We then, utilising our academy, structure, footballing board, coaches, whoever then took, for example a £3.5m pound player and made them a £22m pound player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

And presumably mostly loan fees, we get no asset in return for that element. 

So now we're spending too much? This time on loan fees with no asset? Or is it still low, but you're complaining about us having a couple players on loan? I'm confused what angle you're wanting to take (other than the obvious, a negative one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hogesar said:

I imagine our wage bill, should we get relegated this season, will be substantially lower than last time we were relegated. I imagine we'll be able to remain competitive for a couple seasons in the championship without having to sell. Of course, a long stay in the championship changes things but any club that has been in the championship for a long period of time has to sell players. Whether we could remain competitive 3 seasons down the line would depend on our transfer business.

You say we do not have to sell so are you saying that the vultures will not come circling around a relegated club for the likes of Aarons, Lewis and Godfrey ? Any decent transfer fee waved in our direction will be grabbed with both hands whether we need it or not and those lads will have their heads turned by a quick return to The Premier League rather than wait around with us in The Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the idea that we spent £1m on Godfrey come from? I always thought it was in the low six figures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Indy said:

The sad fact is even with our reduced wage bill, promotion means a big financial impact on outgoings as well as income.

All these mismanagement and lack of investment statements need to be thought out, as it’s clear that even with a few seasons at top level you’re never going to be comfortable financially as demands for players salaries and bonuses will always take a huge cut of any money coming in!

Maybe instead of wanting a sugar daddy to fund us, we should be ever more frugal with our wage structure! Would be refreshing to see a club say you know what, you’re playing career maybe only 12-15 years but even on £10,000 a week you’ll potentially earn over six million pounds in that time and as others need to once you’re playing career is over find another job if you need to! Normal people do!

Sad that football and sport in general is such a cash cow for sportspeople.

We are certainly not mismanaging things although the amount it appears was paid to Stone when he left is somewhat galling and its clear from Note 28 that certain other "key staff" have seen a bumper payday with our rise to the prem. That said, you can argue that they possibly deserve a decent bonus.

Rather than mismanagement, I think all these figures do is lay bare:

1. That as someone else has pointed out, we will never really be able to push the boat out in the top division without new ownership/investment as we will always have to ensure that we can cut our wage bill down to circa £20m-24m within 3 years should relegation happen.

2. That under this model, to avid having to sell players for financial reasons we need to be either in the premier league or receiving parachute payments.

3. That should we find ourselves back in the championship and with the parachute payments run out then we will make a fairly significant loss every season which would need to be covered by player sales and most probably the sale of players we have produced ourselves or picked up cheaply. Clearly the risk scenario would be if we are not producing enough of such players for a period of time as in terms of operating income and expenditure the model is not sustainable long term in the absence of parachute payments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, hogesar said:

But, we still took the gamble on them. We then, utilising our academy, structure, footballing board, coaches, whoever then took, for example a £3.5m pound player and made them a £22m pound player. 

100% confused by you Hogesar. When I praised McNally for spending some of our Premier League money on Maddison, Godfrey and Thompson so that we could develop them, similar to the model that Celtic have, and said that I'm disappointed we'd not invested some of our Premier League income doing something similar with a few £3m players.. you were highly critical. 

Now you seem to be suggesting that McNally's actions were positive? Are you now questioning 'the model' then?

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kirku said:

Where's the idea that we spent £1m on Godfrey come from? I always thought it was in the low six figures?

The fee was 'rising to £1m' based on appearances, so safe to assume that they are well on the way to realising the whole £1m now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

We are certainly not mismanaging things although the amount it appears was paid to Stone when he left is somewhat galling and its clear from Note 28 that certain other "key staff" have seen a bumper payday with our rise to the prem. That said, you can argue that they possibly deserve a decent bonus.

Rather than mismanagement, I think all these figures do is lay bare:

1. That as someone else has pointed out, we will never really be able to push the boat out in the top division without new ownership/investment as we will always have to ensure that we can cut our wage bill down to circa £20m-24m within 3 years should relegation happen.

2. That under this model, to avid having to sell players for financial reasons we need to be either in the premier league or receiving parachute payments.

3. That should we find ourselves back in the championship and with the parachute payments run out then we will make a fairly significant loss every season which would need to be covered by player sales and most probably the sale of players we have produced ourselves or picked up cheaply. Clearly the risk scenario would be if we are not producing enough of such players for a period of time as in terms of operating income and expenditure the model is not sustainable long term in the absence of parachute payments.

Well it’s fair points, but the obvious fact to point 3 that a long run in the championship will see us down size our wage budget to sustainable levels be it at the 17 million per season mentioned. I for one am fine with that, as I’ve said it’s the greed of football, demands of fans and expectations which puts clubs at risk.

The danger is if we go back to the championship, stay there for more than four seasons, don’t bring any developed youngsters through to sell to fund any shortfall and any fall in attendance will be massive!

Its critical we stay or come back within the three seasons of parachute money to sustain just where we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Well it’s fair points, but the obvious fact to point 3 that a long run in the championship will see us down size our wage budget to sustainable levels be it at the 17 million per season mentioned. I for one am fine with that, as I’ve said it’s the greed of football, demands of fans and expectations which puts clubs at risk.

The danger is if we go back to the championship, stay there for more than four seasons, don’t bring any developed youngsters through to sell to fund any shortfall and any fall in attendance will be massive!

Its critical we stay or come back within the three seasons of parachute money to sustain just where we are.

Yes so I suppose your take on all things ownership wise depends on how you feel about that being our "ceiling."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, hogesar said:

So now we're spending too much? This time on loan fees with no asset? Or is it still low, but you're complaining about us having a couple players on loan? I'm confused what angle you're wanting to take (other than the obvious, a negative one).

Not as confused as I am with you supporting the failure to spend any money on one hand, before praising McNally's signing of Maddison and Godfrey when we were last promoted on the other hand.

Nobody talks about the £23m we got for Maddison and probably £25m to £30m we'll end up getting for Godfrey.... when using Naismith and Jarvis as sticks to beat McNally with. 

Or the fact that we'd signed Ivo Pinto and Timm Klose in the same window, both successful signings. 

Ben Godfrey was signed at the same time as Steven Naismith. People like you are prepared to criticise McNally for the latter, but not prepared to give him any credit for the former. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

That is...very low

I just produce the figures disinterestedly. Others are welcome to interpret as they see fit...😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×