We should have plenty of money.

[xxxx 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]There is not a single penny in the budget make no mistake about it.I was told by a member of Club staff"we will be shopping at poundstretcher".Forget the rebate issue this was said before it even raised it''s head.[/quote]

I so hope you''re wrong John but somehow I doubt it, just reinforces my feeling that while Smith and Jones remain at the club for all their good intentions we will only be going in one direction. You can''t do this football thing without money anymore whatever level you are at I''m afraid.

[/quote] If we had any transfer money we wouldnt be signing the no marks that we are , can anybody see anything but another season of struggle with the low quality players we are bringing in ? .

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Downloads"][quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="Mushroom"]I was genuinely about to post a thread about whether people think these transfer fees are going to go straight into our transfer kitty. I sure as hell don''t - it never has. Would love to be proved wrong.[/quote]

One thing that annoys me is how the club always seem to totally discount the wages that we have saved on departing players, when Clingan goes we have probably saved something like 20k a week in wages and you''d get 4 league 1 players for not much more than half that amount in wages. Surely that should mean that having made a big saving on wages every penny of any transfer fees should be spent on transfer fees but that doesn''t seem to happen. As a result every time you sell a player for a largish fee and replace them with a freebie you downgrade the quality of the playing staff and that is what got us into this position in the first place.

[/quote]

I''m sorry but thats a funny kind of statement.

You can''t spend the 20k of wages you have saved... There is no saving... We dropped a league down with significantly reduced income and thus we are dropping wages to balance not increase the books?????

Come on lets write credible stuff.

[/quote]

Of course we''re saving money if players move on, had they stayed here we would have continued to pay their wages which were probably a combined total of 20k a week. If we replace them with say four players that cost a combined total of 12k a week in wages then we have saved 400k per year in my book, that is then 400k towards the shortfall we have due to loss of revenue. Like you said "let''s write credible stuff" lol.

[Canary Poirot 1]

Surely if we sell Clingan for £1 million + that money we gain can be used to plug the wages gap that we undoubtadly have - i.e. we are in a situation where certain players are earning such high wages that our income might not cover them. The Clingan money can then be used to ensure we keep the likes of Hoolahan at the club on their big wages, otherwise we might be forced to offload him to get him off the wage bill.

 

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Downloads"][quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="Mushroom"]I was genuinely about to post a thread about whether people think these transfer fees are going to go straight into our transfer kitty. I sure as hell don''t - it never has. Would love to be proved wrong.[/quote]

One thing that annoys me is how the club always seem to totally discount the wages that we have saved on departing players, when Clingan goes we have probably saved something like 20k a week in wages and you''d get 4 league 1 players for not much more than half that amount in wages. Surely that should mean that having made a big saving on wages every penny of any transfer fees should be spent on transfer fees but that doesn''t seem to happen. As a result every time you sell a player for a largish fee and replace them with a freebie you downgrade the quality of the playing staff and that is what got us into this position in the first place.

[/quote]

I''m sorry but thats a funny kind of statement.

You can''t spend the 20k of wages you have saved... There is no saving... We dropped a league down with significantly reduced income and thus we are dropping wages to balance not increase the books?????

Come on lets write credible stuff.

[/quote]

Of course we''re saving money if players move on, had they stayed here we would have continued to pay their wages which were probably a combined total of 20k a week. If we replace them with say four players that cost a combined total of 12k a week in wages then we have saved 400k per year in my book, that is then 400k towards the shortfall we have due to loss of revenue. Like you said "let''s write credible stuff" lol.

[/quote]

Dude NO!

20k a year was based on Championship football. We couldn''t afford to continue paying his wages with League One income, that''s why we sold him. We hadn''t planned to spend 400k on his wages in League One at all, we had planned in spending 400k in the Championship, that''s why there isn''t a saving.

I thank God you aren''t in charge of the purse trings!

[William Darby 0]

The 100k extra we got for Joe Lewis must have fell into a massive hole.BTW what if our new directors are flippin'' loaded and they''re being kept under wraps until most of the wheeling and dealing is done?Well every one has dreams[;)]

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Downloads"][quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Downloads"][quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="Mushroom"]I was genuinely about to post a thread about whether people think these transfer fees are going to go straight into our transfer kitty. I sure as hell don''t - it never has. Would love to be proved wrong.[/quote]

One thing that annoys me is how the club always seem to totally discount the wages that we have saved on departing players, when Clingan goes we have probably saved something like 20k a week in wages and you''d get 4 league 1 players for not much more than half that amount in wages. Surely that should mean that having made a big saving on wages every penny of any transfer fees should be spent on transfer fees but that doesn''t seem to happen. As a result every time you sell a player for a largish fee and replace them with a freebie you downgrade the quality of the playing staff and that is what got us into this position in the first place.

[/quote]

I''m sorry but thats a funny kind of statement.

You can''t spend the 20k of wages you have saved... There is no saving... We dropped a league down with significantly reduced income and thus we are dropping wages to balance not increase the books?????

Come on lets write credible stuff.

[/quote]

Of course we''re saving money if players move on, had they stayed here we would have continued to pay their wages which were probably a combined total of 20k a week. If we replace them with say four players that cost a combined total of 12k a week in wages then we have saved 400k per year in my book, that is then 400k towards the shortfall we have due to loss of revenue. Like you said "let''s write credible stuff" lol.

[/quote]

Dude NO!

20k a year was based on Championship football. We couldn''t afford to continue paying his wages with League One income, that''s why we sold him. We hadn''t planned to spend 400k on his wages in League One at all, we had planned in spending 400k in the Championship, that''s why there isn''t a saving.

I thank God you aren''t in charge of the purse trings!

[/quote]

If I have a 200k mortgage and am paying a thousand pounds per month and I sell my house and only take out a 100k mortgage with a repayment of five hundred a month are you saying I''m not saving anything?

[TIL 1010 4,746]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]There is not a single penny in the budget make no mistake about it.I was told by a member of Club staff"we will be shopping at poundstretcher".Forget the rebate issue this was said before it even raised it''s head.[/quote]

 

I have heard slightly different, but there you go.

So are you saying the new board members will give nothing to the club?

[/quote]

I have no idea who they are WAY49 or any finance they may bring to the table but unless the current Board pull their finger out the season will be under way.

[HappyhammerAndy 0]

Watchya juanvelascoAway game income rising, not so sure. As regards attracting bigger gates. Unforunately, you ''aint a big team anymore my friend. Much smaller grounds and capacities, unlike your stadium. Millwall for example get 8,000 and they''re not the smallest. I''m positive that they don''t think of meeting you as anything other than, just another game.Falling property value, agree your comments.All the bestAndy.

 

[ZLF 274]

[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Downloads"][quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Downloads"][quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="Mushroom"]I was genuinely about to post a thread about whether people think these transfer fees are going to go straight into our transfer kitty. I sure as hell don''t - it never has. Would love to be proved wrong.[/quote]

One thing that annoys me is how the club always seem to totally discount the wages that we have saved on departing players, when Clingan goes we have probably saved something like 20k a week in wages and you''d get 4 league 1 players for not much more than half that amount in wages. Surely that should mean that having made a big saving on wages every penny of any transfer fees should be spent on transfer fees but that doesn''t seem to happen. As a result every time you sell a player for a largish fee and replace them with a freebie you downgrade the quality of the playing staff and that is what got us into this position in the first place.

[/quote]

I''m sorry but thats a funny kind of statement.

You can''t spend the 20k of wages you have saved... There is no saving... We dropped a league down with significantly reduced income and thus we are dropping wages to balance not increase the books?????

Come on lets write credible stuff.

[/quote]

Of course we''re saving money if players move on, had they stayed here we would have continued to pay their wages which were probably a combined total of 20k a week. If we replace them with say four players that cost a combined total of 12k a week in wages then we have saved 400k per year in my book, that is then 400k towards the shortfall we have due to loss of revenue. Like you said "let''s write credible stuff" lol.

[/quote]

Dude NO!

20k a year was based on Championship football. We couldn''t afford to continue paying his wages with League One income, that''s why we sold him. We hadn''t planned to spend 400k on his wages in League One at all, we had planned in spending 400k in the Championship, that''s why there isn''t a saving.

I thank God you aren''t in charge of the purse trings!

[/quote]

If I have a 200k mortgage and am paying a thousand pounds per month and I sell my house and only take out a 100k mortgage with a repayment of five hundred a month are you saying I''m not saving anything?

[/quote]

 

Yes you have ''saved'' money,  but if you have lost your well paid job cheif exec job and are now a taxi driver (no offence to either intended) the fact your mortgage has halved does not mean you can spent the "saved" £500 pm as you simply no longer have it 

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="kdncfc"]

If I have a 200k mortgage and am paying a thousand pounds per month and I sell my house and only take out a 100k mortgage with a repayment of five hundred a month are you saying I''m not saving anything?

[/quote]

You''re looking at it all wrong mate...

If the clubs budget was £1000 a month based on a Championship income then they plan to spend within this money (most football clubs go over it by some margin year on year).

 

So everything that the club spends is within proportion of this budget.

 

If a player is signed for 3 years it will be based on a plan that the income will remain the same. Basically what i''m saying is that a club like Norwich would have signed players not expecting to get relegated.

 

So just as an example, say Clingan is paid £100 a month in total from this £1000 total budget.

 

So we are Norwich Crap City FC and we got relegated this year, our budget through TV income and ticket sales has reduced to £500 say (the numbers are totally irrelevant) but yet Clingan''s take a month is £100 which is now a much bigger proportion of the budget than it was. The current model in unsustainable assuming you don''t get automatically promoted and so Norwich cut their cloth accordingly and Clingan has to go to save the club from going under.

 

Under the previous season''s terms yes there would have been a saving if we had have got rid of him, his transfer fee and his wages i agree, but not based on the current league i''m afraid.

 

I don''t know how to explain it any differently other than to say just because a player signs a 3 year contract it doesn''t mean the money is covered for 3 years. Budgets work year on year and they have to try and balance it every year based on current income.

 

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Yes you have ''saved'' money,  but if you have lost your well paid job cheif exec job and are now a taxi driver (no offence to either intended) the fact your mortgage has halved does not mean you can spent the "saved" £500 pm as you simply no longer have it 

[/quote]

lol

That''s funny, your analogy was way better than my explanation. I won''t bother typing next time.

[kdncfc 0]

Whatever the income to be paying 400k a year less is till a saving irrespective of what the income may be, think we''ll have to beg to differ on this one as although I am right and you are wrong lol.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

Getting back to the original point, the simple fact is that we have not sold Clingan yet, nor has the rebate money situation become clear, so much of the cash being mentioned doesn''t actually exist until those things sort themselves. Who knows, Clingan may yet stay - we can''t spend until he goes; similarly, we can''t spend the rebate money until we know it is there.  Put simply, the club isn''t in a position yet to second guess how much there will be. 

But with these things + presumably money from new board members will soon be sorted, so I am sure that we will soon have the better cash position that was being mentioned.

Onto other bits - re: Simpson, there is nothing at all in anything I have read to suggest that we wanted him - indeed, there is more to suggest that we didn''t - so I''m not totally clear how it is that anyone can say we have missed out on one of our targets.   The defender (Clarke?) was only ever mentioned once he had moved - I didn''t see a sniff of him on these boards until the EDP decided we''d missed out on him, so am not at all sure that we wanted him, either.