McNally

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Read my post again nutty, i am refering to the period under Delia before promotion when we were told we broke even on 16k crowds and we roughly broke even in the transfer market- thereby proving your assertion that we`ve always had to make big profits in the transfer market wrong.

I heard some very interesting stuff last night, but as your default setting is "disbelieve Mr Carrow at all times" i won`t expand.  All i`ll say is thank goodness McNally is apparently comitted to sorting out the mess he has inherited.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Read my post again nutty, i am refering to the period under Delia before promotion when we were told we broke even on 16k crowds and we roughly broke even in the transfer market- thereby proving your assertion that we`ve always had to make big profits in the transfer market wrong.

I heard some very interesting stuff last night, but as your default setting is "disbelieve Mr Carrow at all times" i won`t expand.  All i`ll say is thank goodness McNally is apparently comitted to sorting out the mess he has inherited.

[/quote]

I quite clearly remember Roger Munby stating that we require 16,000 crowds to break even. It was around the time the wooden fence (placebo South Stand - pre Jarrold) was constructed.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Nutty, you are twisting and turning like a worm on a hook but the fact is you have contradicted yourself with your "they all lie" statement.  I know you cannot be honest enough to accept it though.  And then you turn to personal insults whilst only a few posts ago you were moaning about "nutty-baiting"!  As someone once said, you couldn`t make it up....

The 16k is in reference to your assertion that we have always sold players and failed to re-invest the money, but the fact is we didn`t have to before the boards failed obsession with infrastructure and that is born out by the fact that the majority of years before promotion under Delia we did not make a transfer profit of any significance.  Those are facts nutty but deny, ignore and deflect all you like- it just proves that you are not interested in seeing the true picture but in spreading your made-up version of it.

[/quote]

OK Mr Carrow, now is your moment of truth. I don''t, and never did, dispute that 16k quote but I don''t see the relevance of it. There must also be a player budget figure to break even on. For instance it would not be possible to break even on 16k gates if the player budget was 16m!!

I think you made that last part up. And what makes that worse is that you accuse me of denying, ignoring and deflecting from those "facts" that you made up. So Mr Carrow, now is your moment of truth, your chance to prove me wrong. Name those seasons[:^)]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Nutty, i guess the 16k figure was based on what they regarded as a sensible, adequate budget at the time.  I also remember being told that we didn`t have to sell to survive- which was music to my ears after Chase.  Remember us turning down big bids for Eadie and O`Niell? 

We did of course end up selling those two and Bellamy, but were there any other big player sales in the nine or so years under Delia before we were promoted?  We certainly spent money in that time- Roberts, Flemming, Rivers, Drury, Hucks etc were not cheap. 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

You see Mr Carrow it is relevant what player budget can be sustained on 16k gates. Championship Player Budgets have surely inflated at a much higher pace than our ticket prices. And of course, as everybody seems to agree, the statement was made before the Jarrold was built.

 

I see you didn''t want to "name those seasons" and I don''t blame you. Anyway, there  were no "nine years under Delia" before we were promoted. Smith&Jones'' first full season as owners was 98/99. Before that was a couple of seasons where Watling was owner, Lockwood chairman and Bennett CE. It was Gordon Bennett who made the quote about not having to sell to survive. And it was about youth players.

 

Anyway, after Chase left the interim board appointed Mike Walker and he virtually broke even on transfer fees with Prior and Cureton out and Jackson, Scott and Marshall in.But the following season we sold Andy Johnson for 2.25m, received 700,000 in a sell on clause for Sheron. Walker spent 1.5m of this on Roberts and Fleming. Now I''m sure we didn''t spend the other 1.5m on Segura, Fugelstad and Peter Grant. During that season Danny Mills was also sold for 250,000.

 

The first full season of ''Delia''s little Norwich'' saw us sell O''Neill for 1m and receive 500,000 in a sell on clause for Sherwood. So if you add that to the previous season income I doubt you could call the signings of Mackay, Mulryne, Dalglish and Anselin "breaking even". The following season we received 900,000 in sell on clauses for Mills and Sutton and brought in De Blasiis on a free and spitting legend Pape Diop on loan. Gordon Bennett left the club, Bob Cooper took over as CE and surprise surprise Eadie was sold for 3m. Later that season Rioch resigned and Hamiltons band of loanees and trialists came in. I still don''t see a virtually breaking even season do you Mr Carrow?

 

The following season saw Bellamy leave for 6m and Lee Marshall for 600,000. We spent 1.2m of that on Notman, Holt, Drury and Abbey. Then we spent another 1.5m the next season on Crighton, Easton, Emblen, Rivers and Nielson. So yes, that seasonalone we spent 1.2m more than we received but the previous season we''d received 5.5m more than we spent. 2002/3 we spent and received virtually nothing in transfer fees. But I believe we did have a share issue. And then of course 2003/4 where we spent about 1.3m more than we received.

 

So there you see it Mr Carrow. That is why I never believe anyone who tells me all money from transfers will be given to the manager for new players. It''s quite likely there''s more "sell ons" than I listed as well.

 

But these are just fag packet calculations because the true cost of a player is his contract and comparing fees in and out is not the whole picture. Rather like looking at costs without considering income. Or in fact income without costs.

 

I just listed the 8 seasons before promotion but you could just as easily take any season from before that and tell the same tale. Do you remember Townsend and Linighan out with Polston, Woodthorpe and Blades in?

You can surely understand the need to find alternative income streams with the transfer system that served us so well now virtually extinct. I guess they must have made mistakes, but what would you have done? I understand Newcastles player budget could be as much as 45m this season, I wonder if they could break even on 16k gates.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Fair enough nutty, your figures show about an average of about £1m profit per season over 8 seasons.  A fair bit of that could be explained by not attaining the 16k break-even crowd figure, and the fact that we actually booked overall profits in several of those years (see football economy)- in other words we made more of a transfer profit than we needed to.  Whatever, they are pretty miniscule figures when compared to the scale of the transfer profits made since relegation.

But i assume you accept that the 16k break-even figure was basically true?  Well we have gone from that to having 24k plus gates and making a £6m loss before a £3.5m transfer profit bailed us out in `08, and my question has always been why that is?  Why don`t you do a comparison of non player wage costs over the Delia years?  I became a shareholder in `04 so i don`t have figures from before `01, but i can tell you that they were £9m in `02 and gradually rose to £17m in the Prem- they then stayed at that level despite revenue falling off a cliff when parachute payments ended, basically eating up nearly all our revenue and leaving next to nothing for players.  The "rising Championship player budget" is only relevant if we were keeping up with it, but we were not- after taking into account the transfer profits we were spending no more after promotion than before it.

As for the Jarrold, if a stand that has been full pretty much every game since it opened is such a drain on resources then the board must have made a monumental cock-up in the economics of it.  Constantly trying to blame our financial woes on a stand full to the brim is a cop-out nutty, and an excuse not to look at all the other things i have gone through dozens of times.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

To look at it another way nutty if we needed 16k crowds to break even before promotion, we needed over 40k crowds to make up for the £6m loss in `08.  As for "rising Championship playing budgets" we spent £6.8m on player wages and made a £3.5m transfer profit so the bulk costs of the team was £3.3m out of £19m revenue.  Ie. the cost of the football side was not the problem.

[T 190]

So if the cost of football is not the problöem and the off-field activities are profitable per the accounts aprt from the 300k interet costs on the property deal what is the problem for NCFC and nearly every other football club then?

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Once more your cherry picking Mr Carrow. You can''t just consider one theing without another. It could well be that we could break even on 16k gates when that statement was made but that would only have been with regards to the player budget at that time too. That quote is only relevant when it''s made. You can''t even apply it to the next season because circumstances will have changed. What if your boss said no pay increase this year because you could get by quite comfortably on what you earned 6 years ago?

By football economy I assume you mean that website which stated that we employed more people than Chelsea. I wouldn''t pay much regard to that if I was you. Mr. Carrow, I''m not saying you''re wrong and neither am I saying that money hasn''t been wasted. But you really do have to consider the whole picture and not select facts to suit your argument. If you believe our non-player wages are too high then tell me who we employ that we don''t need to? How much income do we get from the areas where non-player wages are spent? How much does it cost to staff the Jarrold compared to the South Stand in the days of breaking even on 16k gates? Does the extra income support it? Cast your mind back a few years and did you advocate not building the Jarrold? Have you ever looked around the Jarrold and it''s facilities? Would you really have preferred not to have it or indeed have just a shell with seats in?

You say we spent 9m on non-player wages in ''01. What were these wages?

I don''t constantly try to blame our financial woes or any other woes on the Jarrold Stand. That is more you I''m afraid. I constantly blame our failure on the pitch and for that failure I constantly blame the boards poor choice of football manager and those football managers waste of the budget given to them.

And I see you''ve neatly sidestepped your whole reason for "nutty baiting" on this thread which was to prove me wrong about my opinion that managers are never given outgoing transfer fees to spend on replacements.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]And I see you''ve neatly sidestepped your whole reason for "nutty

baiting" on this thread which was to prove me wrong about my opinion

that managers are never given outgoing transfer fees to spend on

replacements.[/quote]The manager will certainly never get the headline fee, for a start - lots of slices in that cake I would imagine, and the money only ever comes in in installments - I got the impression that we brought Earnshaw in with the money that we got from Ashton, probably to the penny.

[T 190]

Perhaps Mr C and Tangie might finds more support for their views of reality here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/?

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]And I see you''ve neatly sidestepped your whole reason for "nutty baiting" on this thread which was to prove me wrong about my opinion that managers are never given outgoing transfer fees to spend on replacements.[/quote]

The manager will certainly never get the headline fee, for a start - lots of slices in that cake I would imagine, and the money only ever comes in in installments - I got the impression that we brought Earnshaw in with the money that we got from Ashton, probably to the penny.
[/quote]

This is maybe true Blah. But my whole point is that we are never told this when we are told any money received from transfers will be given to the manager to buy replacements. So the headline figure is what the fans expect the manager to get. So in fact I will retract my statement "they ALL lie"[:O] And replace it with "they ALL never tell the whole truth" [;)]

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]And I see you''ve neatly sidestepped your whole reason for "nutty baiting" on this thread which was to prove me wrong about my opinion that managers are never given outgoing transfer fees to spend on replacements.[/quote]

The manager will certainly never get the headline fee, for a start - lots of slices in that cake I would imagine, and the money only ever comes in in installments - I got the impression that we brought Earnshaw in with the money that we got from Ashton, probably to the penny.
[/quote]

This is maybe true Blah. But my whole point is that we are never told this when we are told any money received from transfers will be given to the manager to buy replacements. So the headline figure is what the fans expect the manager to get. So in fact I will retract my statement "they ALL lie"[:O] And replace it with "they ALL never tell the whole truth" [;)]

 

 

[/quote]

We could have saved 5 pages of ...............

If only you had admitted that in a post you said you believed everyone until you found out they had lied, and just changed that to didn''t tell the whole truth!!

Classic.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Fair enough nutty, your figures show about an average of about £1m profit per season over 8 seasons.  A fair bit of that could be explained by not attaining the 16k break-even crowd figure, and the fact that we actually booked overall profits in several of those years (see football economy)- in other words we made more of a transfer profit than we needed to.  Whatever, they are pretty miniscule figures when compared to the scale of the transfer profits made since relegation.

But i assume you accept that the 16k break-even figure was basically true?  Well we have gone from that to having 24k plus gates and making a £6m loss before a £3.5m transfer profit bailed us out in `08, and my question has always been why that is?  Why don`t you do a comparison of non player wage costs over the Delia years?  I became a shareholder in `04 so i don`t have figures from before `01, but i can tell you that they were £9m in `02 and gradually rose to £17m in the Prem- they then stayed at that level despite revenue falling off a cliff when parachute payments ended, basically eating up nearly all our revenue and leaving next to nothing for players.  The "rising Championship player budget" is only relevant if we were keeping up with it, but we were not- after taking into account the transfer profits we were spending no more after promotion than before it.

As for the Jarrold, if a stand that has been full pretty much every game since it opened is such a drain on resources then the board must have made a monumental cock-up in the economics of it.  Constantly trying to blame our financial woes on a stand full to the brim is a cop-out nutty, and an excuse not to look at all the other things i have gone through dozens of times.

[/quote]I''m gibbering at this illogic.The Jarrold could very well increase the break even costs without being bad for the club.Would you not take a much better paid job just beacause the commute costs slightly more?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

The lack of logic goes the other way i`m afraid.  When i point out that we can afford to spend less on our team than we did before promotion people blame the Jarrold stand.....then when i point out that infrastructure spend has lessened the amount we can spend on our team people say that can`t be true because otherwise we wouldn`t have done it.  Wanting it both ways at the same time.

Banging on about the Jarrold is a red herring anyway as i`ve never disagreed with that or the hotel, so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr. Carrow"]so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times[/quote]How many millions, over what period ?  If it''s less than a million per season, it probably wouldn''t have made a dent in our league position.  And who is to say that the money would have been free to be spent on the team had it not been spent on "stuff we don''t need" ?  Are we effectively arguing about interest payments on loans ?  Is the difference between your position and the people you disagree with a case of an extra 100 k per month, for example ?

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The lack of logic goes the other way i`m afraid.  When i point out that we can afford to spend less on our team than we did before promotion people blame the Jarrold stand.....then when i point out that infrastructure spend has lessened the amount we can spend on our team people say that can`t be true because otherwise we wouldn`t have done it.  Wanting it both ways at the same time.

Banging on about the Jarrold is a red herring anyway as i`ve never disagreed with that or the hotel, so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times.

[/quote]

Now, that at least, is a fact. Many, many dozens.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr. Carrow"]so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times[/quote]

How many millions, over what period ?  If it''s less than a million per season, it probably wouldn''t have made a dent in our league position.  And who is to say that the money would have been free to be spent on the team had it not been spent on "stuff we don''t need" ? 

Are we effectively arguing about interest payments on loans ?  Is the difference between your position and the people you disagree with a case of an extra 100 k per month, for example ?
[/quote]

Do you have any idea how many smarties you can get for that, Thought Not!

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The lack of logic goes the other way i`m afraid.  When i point out that we can afford to spend less on our team than we did before promotion people blame the Jarrold stand.....then when i point out that infrastructure spend has lessened the amount we can spend on our team people say that can`t be true because otherwise we wouldn`t have done it.  Wanting it both ways at the same time.

Banging on about the Jarrold is a red herring anyway as i`ve never disagreed with that or the hotel, so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times.

[/quote]So these two figure are exact opposites are they?   Break even crowd numbers and amount we can spend on the team.It is not possible for both sides to increase at the same time?Oh well, I''m off to completely reconstruct global economic theory.  See you later.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The lack of logic goes the other way i`m afraid.  When i point out that we can afford to spend less on our team than we did before promotion people blame the Jarrold stand.....then when i point out that infrastructure spend has lessened the amount we can spend on our team people say that can`t be true because otherwise we wouldn`t have done it.  Wanting it both ways at the same time.

Banging on about the Jarrold is a red herring anyway as i`ve never disagreed with that or the hotel, so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times.

[/quote]

Now, that at least, is a fact. Many, many dozens.

[/quote]

It''s a pity that some peoples memory  retention means they forg.............

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Once more your cherry picking Mr Carrow. You can''t just consider one theing without another. It could well be that we could break even on 16k gates when that statement was made but that would only have been with regards to the player budget at that time too. That quote is only relevant when it''s made. You can''t even apply it to the next season because circumstances will have changed. What if your boss said no pay increase this year because you could get by quite comfortably on what you earned 6 years ago?

By football economy I assume you mean that website which stated that we employed more people than Chelsea. I wouldn''t pay much regard to that if I was you. Mr. Carrow, I''m not saying you''re wrong and neither am I saying that money hasn''t been wasted. But you really do have to consider the whole picture and not select facts to suit your argument. If you believe our non-player wages are too high then tell me who we employ that we don''t need to? How much income do we get from the areas where non-player wages are spent? How much does it cost to staff the Jarrold compared to the South Stand in the days of breaking even on 16k gates? Does the extra income support it? Cast your mind back a few years and did you advocate not building the Jarrold? Have you ever looked around the Jarrold and it''s facilities? Would you really have preferred not to have it or indeed have just a shell with seats in?

You say we spent 9m on non-player wages in ''01. What were these wages?

I don''t constantly try to blame our financial woes or any other woes on the Jarrold Stand. That is more you I''m afraid. I constantly blame our failure on the pitch and for that failure I constantly blame the boards poor choice of football manager and those football managers waste of the budget given to them.

And I see you''ve neatly sidestepped your whole reason for "nutty baiting" on this thread which was to prove me wrong about my opinion that managers are never given outgoing transfer fees to spend on replacements.

 

[/quote]

Nutty, i remember the 16k figure being used several times as a general figure, not specific to one season ie. "we generally need about 16k to cover costs and break even"- and break even we generally did with the help of the odd player sale.  A bit different from needing 40k plus crowds to break even as in `08 hey?  But i assume we shouldn`t be curious as to why?

Football economy said nothing of the kind about Chelsea staff figures- it was misread by another poster and retracted on the same day.  The fact that you have to repeat lies to defend your weak position really says it all about you.  The fact that you whine about "nutty-baiting" when you`ve been caught contradicting yourself really does paint you as a comedy character frankly.  And you`ve apparently "cherry-picked" football economy as a site not to be trusted because you don`t like me using some of the figures they provide.....fantastic stuff!

And i wasn`t talking about non-player wages, but non-player wage costs- ie the amount it takes to run the club if you strip out player wages, and ours rose massively up to the Prem season and then stayed at the same level eating up nearly all our revenue in `08.  Don`t you think we should ask why?  I`ll tell you something someone who should know told me last season:  "They employ 5 full-timers in the press office....it must be the cushiest job in Norwich as we`ve all got Doncasters number and everything goes through him anyway".  I`ve also been told that McNally is amazed at the mess he`s inherited and there has been and will be big cut backs. 

As i assume you think i`ve got it wrong that "obsession" with infrastructure spend has led to less money being available for the team rather than more, can i ask you to join me and T in our proposal to sell Askou, Holt, Hooly, Russell and Smith in January, replacing them with freebies on not more than 1k a week, thereby guaranteeing a profit in this financial year and leaving a surplus to be re-invested in land near the bottom of the economic cycle? 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr. Carrow"]so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times[/quote]

How many millions, over what period ?  If it''s less than a million per season, it probably wouldn''t have made a dent in our league position.  And who is to say that the money would have been free to be spent on the team had it not been spent on "stuff we don''t need" ? 

Are we effectively arguing about interest payments on loans ?  Is the difference between your position and the people you disagree with a case of an extra 100 k per month, for example ?
[/quote]

About £32m since `02 (posted for the 32nd time....) on capex.  If you strip out £10m for the Jarrold it`s still an awful lot- some out of ordinary revenue , some in loans which require interest and capital repayments which affect how much we can spend on the team.  Land, spine roads, new ticket office/offices/stand refit/conservatory/scoreboard/press facilities/club 101/spaces for sport.....you don`t want the whole list yet again do you?  How did any of these things help us avoid relegation?

[The Butler 0]

As i assume you think i`ve got it wrong that "obsession" with infrastructure spend has led to less money being available for the team rather than more, can i ask you to join me and T in our proposal to sell Askou, Holt, Hooly, Russell and Smith in January, replacing them with freebies on not more than 1k a week, thereby guaranteeing a profit in this financial year and leaving a surplus to be re-invested in land near the bottom of the economic cycle? 

 

Mr C why would you think that would make a difference to our Supporter?

He will be on the terraces applauding Delia and the team regardless because HE IS A TRUE FAN.

Takes whatever crap is dished up, watches relegations and sale of our best players,to be replaced by ? appointment of a succession of crap managers all to finance multi million loss making land deals.

They must be good for the club because they say so and the club (other than about player sales) does not lie does it.

And we are told that it could not be made up

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="The Butler"]

As i assume you think i`ve got it wrong that "obsession" with infrastructure spend has led to less money being available for the team rather than more, can i ask you to join me and T in our proposal to sell Askou, Holt, Hooly, Russell and Smith in January, replacing them with freebies on not more than 1k a week, thereby guaranteeing a profit in this financial year and leaving a surplus to be re-invested in land near the bottom of the economic cycle? 

 

Mr C why would you think that would make a difference to our Supporter?

He will be on the terraces applauding Delia and the team regardless because HE IS A TRUE FAN.

Takes whatever crap is dished up, watches relegations and sale of our best players,to be replaced by ? appointment of a succession of crap managers all to finance multi million loss making land deals.

They must be good for the club because they say so and the club (other than about player sales) does not lie does it.

And we are told that it could not be made up

[/quote]

That is about the nub of it Butler.  Why oh why i`m such a sucker for hopeless causes is actually worrying me a bit.  I should just follow your lead and laugh about it rather than get sucked onto yet another merry-go-round where all my points are either misunderstood, ignored or twisted......You can`t rationalise with the irrational.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr. Carrow"]so it`s basically used as an excuse not to address the millions spent elsewhere which i`ve listed dozens of times[/quote]How many millions, over what period ?  If it''s less than a million per season, it probably wouldn''t have made a dent in our league position.  And who is to say that the money would have been free to be spent on the team had it not been spent on "stuff we don''t need" ?  Are we effectively arguing about interest payments on loans ?  Is the difference between your position and the people you disagree with a case of an extra 100 k per month, for example ?[/quote]

About £32m since `02 (posted for the 32nd time....) on capex.  If you strip out £10m for the Jarrold it`s still an awful lot- some out of ordinary revenue , some in loans which require interest and capital repayments which affect how much we can spend on the team.  Land, spine roads, new ticket office/offices/stand refit/conservatory/scoreboard/press facilities/club 101/spaces for sport.....you don`t want the whole list yet again do you?  How did any of these things help us avoid relegation?

[/quote]No, I don''t want the whole list again, although I got the headlines [:)]  What I''d like is an estimate of how much per season we overspent in your opinion.On the assumption that everything that isn''t the Jarrold Stand is unneccesary, 22 million over 7 seasons is just over 3 million per season.  Is all of that unnecessary spending ?  It''s probably impossible to work out what is and isn''t from just the accounts I would guess.  Would it be closer to 10 million ?  Maybe it''s about the same amount that we think Delia and MWJ have put into the club ?Just a thought...

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Fair questions blah and i`d be interested in the answers myself!  I`ve never claimed i understand where every £100k has gone and whether it has come from sale of a player or whatever, but it is clear that the general approach has not (on current evidence) increased the amount available to be spent on the pitch but decreased it- non player wage costs rising far faster than revenue is a good example. 

I suppose it would be arguable how much of that £22m would cover normal everyday wear-and-tear and was therefore necessary, but imo the majority of it paid for things which were non-vital.  The land, spine roads and infill alone take you over £10m.

I guess D and M`s investment has been roughly spread over their 13 (?) year tenure so i`m not sure if that can be applied.  I suppose their loans go into a pot, and my point is that far too much of that pot has been used off the pitch and it has taken us further into the financial mire rather than helping matters.

[blahblahblah 2]

I suppose you could say that between 1 - 1.5 million per season has been "diverted" elsewhere over that time then.  An extra million would have given us Wolves'' player spending budget - but would Roeder have spent that extra million as wisely as he spent the other 8.5 ?At least the staff are in place now, on both sides of the fence.  So there''s hope for the future.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

I don`t think it`s as simple as that blah because the main problem seems to be interest payments on the loans and the general increase in running costs, rather than the initial outlay.  £19m revenue of which £17m is eaten up in non-player wage costs is scary stuff.  We can either play the old "everyone else is in the same boat" game, or acknowledge that they screwed up.  I think it may become apparent what our new CE thinks....

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I think it may become apparent what our new CE thinks....[/quote]As he is now the man in possession of all the facts, I would be inclined to believe whatever he has to say on the issue.

[T 190]

The only overspend Mc C and Tangie has been able to substantiate in all this time is the proverbial property deal which is costing 300k a year and had an expected 3m profit when the deal was done plus some minor bits and pieces. Otherwise it is just a pet theory. That is not to say I don''t accept that the Directors are probably taking a hard look at costs such as moving the reserve games which a few people moaned about.