That £4M

[zak123 0]

Remember that £4M we have left over from this seasons transfer budget? We were meant to sign Bennett and/or CMS with it. Could end up being very useful, getting in 1 extra player or something like that!

Also the Pinkun are quoting £3M for Pacheco... Surely for that price we sign him up right now?

[Legend Iwan 30]

When did we have £4m to spend?

CMS was a £2m bid rising with promotion and Bennett was less than £2m. We also signed a few loans following both failed bids, probably took a big chunck of it.

[shefcanary 2,448]

I was led to understand that the original transfer / player budget for the year had £2million unallocated at the beginning of the season, then there was an additional £2 million added to boost this in December through the Directors largesse.  I have also seen a report, at the beginning of April, that we had spent the second most only to QPR in transfer dealings at around £4.5 million - yep even more than Cardiff / Forest etc.  Thus linking that to legaue positions seems to imply a direct correlation - who says prudence without ambition anymore. 

Just saying.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,595]

[quote user="shefcanary"]

I was led to understand that the original transfer / player budget for the year had £2million unallocated at the beginning of the season, then there was an additional £2 million added to boost this in December through the Directors largesse.  I have also seen a report, at the beginning of April, that we had spent the second most only to QPR in transfer dealings at around £4.5 million - yep even more than Cardiff / Forest etc.  Thus linking that to legaue positions seems to imply a direct correlation - who says prudence without ambition anymore. 

Just saying.

[/quote]

 

I wouldn''t trust any of the figures you see suggesting how much we had to spend and how much was spent. All fees are undisclosed, and as they are generally paid in installments and add-ons the true value of a transfer is very difficult to equate. If the fee is ever disclosed it is usually a number that both clubs will feel makes them look good or the selling/buying club force the issue for PR reasons, rather than a true representation of the fee.

 

We keep seeing that Andrew Surman cost £1.2m, but can you really imagine we paid that for him? I think most people take that valuation from Mick McCarthy saying a throw away line like "we got our money back for him" but was never pressed on the matter. Barry Fry has recently said Norwich have had to pay an extra £300k for Russell Martin due to our promotions - which budget is this taken from? A clubs transfer budget is rarely a simple case of "Hey Mr Manager, you have £20m to spend".

 

As for the comment about Pacheco in the OP, I think £3m is still too much to pay for a player who would be on the bench most of the time. We need to prioritise on players who will play 30+ games next season, then we should start to look at players like Pacheco.

[Bill 1,788]

Another case of adding rumour and speculation to conjure up ''fact''.

Whatever the true figures were regarding Bennet and CMS and fees would have been spread out over a year or two. Vokes and Pacheco would have been an additional cost. Premier League wages don''t come cheap

"who says prudence without ambition anymore".

Nobody, without an ax to grind. Sadly ''ambition'' appears to be the first word on the idiots charter when they are looking for something to attack the club with.

I doubt there is anyone involved in running a football club (at any level) who is not ambitious.That''s why they are there. Financial constraints usually temper that ambition. Maybe that''s why Man Utd signed Wayne Rooney and Mansfield didn''t.

Keeping the club afloat is not lack of ambition. It is being realistic - something many fans don''t have the obligfation to be.

[Mr. Bump 0]

[quote user="zak123"]Remember that £4M we have left over from this seasons transfer budget? We were meant to sign Bennett and/or CMS with it. Could end up being very useful, getting in 1 extra player or something like that!

Also the Pinkun are quoting £3M for Pacheco... Surely for that price we sign him up right now?[/quote]Not sure where Pink''Un the Pacheco fee and the fact Blackpool want him from. Not been reported anywhere else. [:S]

[Mr. Bump 0]

[quote user="Mr. Bump"][quote user="zak123"]Remember that £4M we have left over from this seasons transfer budget? We were meant to sign Bennett and/or CMS with it. Could end up being very useful, getting in 1 extra player or something like that!

Also the Pinkun are quoting £3M for Pacheco... Surely for that price we sign him up right now?[/quote]Not sure where Pink''Un got the Pacheco fee and the fact Blackpool want him from. Not been reported anywhere else. [:S][/quote]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

£600k for Surnam

£1m + Foulgers £2m = £3m.

 

[O.T.B.C 0]

Thought Surmin was closer to 1.2 mil? I appreciate that the 600k may have been an initial outlay, but with add on''s we will have to pay, it should be nearer to the 1.2 mil.

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="O.T.B.C"]Thought Surmin was closer to 1.2 mil? I appreciate that the 600k may have been an initial outlay, but with add on''s we will have to pay, it should be nearer to the 1.2 mil.[/quote]

It was only quoted £1.2million because thats how much he cost wolves and they ''reportedly'' wanted to recoup their payment back!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="O.T.B.C"]Thought Surmin was closer to 1.2 mil? I appreciate that the 600k may have been an initial outlay, but with add on''s we will have to pay, it should be nearer to the 1.2 mil.[/quote]

While it has become public knowledge that we will have to pay £200k  re  Martin and £150k re Jackson, nothing has been said re Surnam

[deano 0]

The price for Surman was £1.2 million. But Wolves still owed us money from when they signed Shackell, so the fee we actually paid them at the time was around £700,000. There''s about £200,000 more linked to appearances.