So we can't afford Murray, but can buy CMS for 3 Million?

[Questions]

Gus dropped Murray 2 or 3 times during our league 1 campaign. I remember he left him against Bournemouth - and everyone was gobsmacked - who were going neck and neck with us to right near the end of the season. He had a problem with him. He has a problem with a few players. Manage in the prem ? With some of those egos and the agents that go hand in hand with them.
He makes f*** ups....... He had better learn quick. Nothing wrong with what he is trying to do on the pitch though.

 

[dingodan]

I was always under the impression that while we were negotiating with GM we were dealing with the wage/transfer budget of the 2010/2011 season, and by the time we signed CMS we had established our wage/transfer budget for the 2011/2012 season, which was much greater than the previous season. I may be wrong, but that is what I always thought.

It also seemed to me to be the case that we were establishing our responsible approach to running the football club, with the new stadium on the way and big changes afoot, a lot was made of the fact that we had budgets and we would be sticking to them.

The sense at that time was that while exciting times were ahead, a sensible and careful approach was required (knowing all too well what poor financial management can do to a football club). If I remember rightly, these were the sentiments at the time GM was negotiating a contract, and as has been said many times, we offered what was possible with our budget at the time, he decided he wanted a better deal more than he wanted to play for us, and fair enough.

It is easy for us to say now that we wish Tony and Gus had ignored the budgets and wage caps which were in place at that time, because with hindsight we can see what a benefit keeping GM could have been. But that is hindsight for you, and would we really want to have sacrificed our commitment financial responsibility for the sake of a gamble which may or may not have paid off?

 

[Rugrat]

I was always under the impression that while we were negotiating with GM we were dealing with the wage/transfer budget of the 2010/2011 season, and by the time we signed CMS we had established our wage/transfer budget for the 2011/2012 season, which was much greater than the previous season. I may be wrong, but that is what I always thought.

It also seemed to me to be the case that we were establishing our responsible approach to running the football club, with the new stadium on the way and big changes afoot, a lot was made of the fact that we had budgets and we would be sticking to them.

The sense at that time was that while exciting times were ahead, a sensible and careful approach was required (knowing all too well what poor financial management can do to a football club). If I remember rightly, these were the sentiments at the time GM was negotiating a contract, and as has been said many times, we offered what was possible with our budget at the time, he decided he wanted a better deal more than he wanted to play for us, and fair enough.

It is easy for us to say now that we wish Tony and Gus had ignored the budgets and wage caps which were in place at that time, because with hindsight we can see what a benefit keeping GM could have been. But that is hindsight for you, and would we really want to have sacrificed our commitment financial responsibility for the sake of a gamble which may or may not have paid off?

A business can't look at its costs in such isolation. Obviously it has budgets but you can't just look at one line and over one year. When it comes to players and playing budgets transfer fees and wages are inextricably linked and length of contracts determine the overall financial obligation. They will look at "total cost of ownership" so:

Murray over 3 years - give him £250,000 (re)signing on fee (daft but makes a point) and £20K a week (equally daft) so his cost is £3.25M
CMS over 3 years - £2.5M Transfer fee £0 signing fee (??) 10K a week (??) his cost is £4M

Even on a 2011/12 basis CMS costs more as a third of his fee plus all his wages will be included

We don't know numbers but the cost of CMS is way higher so this has nothing to do with a sensible fiscal policy

Gus simply didn't want Murray and/or didn't think he was worth the money

 

[dingodan]

A business can't look at its costs in such isolation. Obviously it has budgets but you can't just look at one line and over one year. When it comes to players and playing budgets transfer fees and wages are inextricably linked and length of contracts determine the overall financial obligation. They will look at "total cost of ownership" so:

Murray over 3 years - give him £250,000 (re)signing on fee (daft but makes a point) and £20K a week (equally daft) so his cost is £3.25M
CMS over 3 years - £2.5M Transfer fee £0 signing fee (??) 10K a week (??) his cost is £4M

Even on a 2011/12 basis CMS costs more as a third of his fee plus all his wages will be included

We don't know numbers but the cost of CMS is way higher so this has nothing to do with a sensible fiscal policy

Gus simply didn't want Murray and/or didn't think he was worth the money

I'm not sure what point you are making? CMS was much more expensive than Murray ever would have been. But we had different financial resources available when negotiating a new contract with GM, than we had when we bought CMS.

I think it is possible that Gus did not see GM as being his ideal frontman, but as has been said there was a financial limit and GM wanted more than that limit would allow. We paid more for and to CMS, but at a time when more was available in the Budget. The implication being that if we had wanted CMS when we were negotiating with Murray, we could not have had him. And if we had been negotiating with GM at the time we bought CMS, we could have met his wage demands (if we had wanted).

So it was the timing and the wage/transfer structure which dictated what happened, provided that I am correct about the two deals taking place under different seasons budgets, which I think was the case.

 

[Rugrat]

I'm not sure what point you are making? CMS was much more expensive than Murray ever would have been. But we had different financial resources available when negotiating a new contract with GM, than we had when we bought CMS.

I think it is possible that Gus did not see GM as being his ideal frontman, but as has been said there was a financial limit and GM wanted more than that limit would allow. We paid more for and to CMS, but at a time when more was available in the Budget. The implication being that if we had wanted CMS when we were negotiating with Murray, we could not have had him. And if we had been negotiating with GM at the time we bought CMS, we could have met his wage demands (if we had wanted).

So it was the timing and the wage/transfer structure which dictated what happened, provided that I am correct about the two deals taking place under different seasons budgets, which I think was the case.

The point I'm making is I can't see how it was a decision based on finances.

I now see what you're saying but I can't think for one minute that the budgets changed so dramatically over such a short period of time, it's simply not good business and doesn't allow for any planning. I'd say Gus already knows (within a degree of tolerance) his budgets for next season (on the basis we're in the Champs) and will be planning accordingly.

 

[dingodan]

The point I'm making is I can't see how it was a decision based on finances.

I now see what you're saying but I can't think for one minute that the budgets changed so dramatically over such a short period of time, it's simply not good business and doesn't allow for any planning. I'd say Gus already knows (within a degree of tolerance) his budgets for next season (on the basis we're in the Champs) and will be planning accordingly.

But remember we are dealing with a budget which was set for season in League 1, at the Withdean and with no guarantee of promotion the following season. There was a significant change in budgets over the transition from the Withdean to the Amex, from L1 to the Champ. Remember we bought Will Buckley for £1M and it was at the time a significant milestone for the club.

I think maybe what you, and certainly some people are imagining, is that all Gus had to do was say to TB, Ok now we know we are going up, let's do what it takes to keep GM. But, as in any business, you cannot just up a budget when you want to spend more - that is not what a budget is for.

 

[Rugrat]

But remember we are dealing with a budget which was set for season in League 1, at the Withdean and with no guarantee of promotion the following season. There was a significant change in budgets over the transition from the Withdean to the Amex, from L1 to the Champ. Remember we bought Will Buckley for £1M and it was at the time a significant milestone for the club.

I think maybe what you, and certainly some people are imagining, is that all Gus had to do was say to TB, Ok now we know we are going up, let's do what it takes to keep GM. But, as in any business, you cannot just up a budget when you want to spend more - that is not what a budget is for.

Well I don't imagine that at all. I would like to think that there's a well developed and sensible fiscal approach and it's pretty well stuck too.

If anyone at the club was planning a Withdean budget in L1 I hope they were quickly moved on. The Amex had been planned for years and by Christmas you have to believe any sensible financial person would have set a budget for the Championship as well as L1. It would be absurd in the extreme to wait until end of season to start putting budgets together

 

[dingodan]

Well I don't imagine that at all. I would like to think that there's a well developed and sensible fiscal approach and it's pretty well stuck too.

If anyone at the club was planning a Withdean budget in L1 I hope they were quickly moved on. The Amex had been planned for years and by Christmas you have to believe any sensible financial person would have set a budget for the Championship as well as L1. It would be absurd in the extreme to wait until end of season to start putting budgets together

Not saying they were planning a budget for League 1, just that they where planning a budget while in League 1 (with the possibility of being there next season too). EDIT: Oh I did say that, but that wasn't what I meant

Budgets apply or they don't. It's not a case of "putting it together" during the season. Someone will have known roughly what next seasons budget was likely to be, but your budget is your budget and it applies for the whole season. Next season a new budget, not plucked out of thin air, obviously thought out and planned, but it applies next season, not the one before.

What would be absurd would be to actually go ahead and spend more money than you have budgeted for, based on an assumption about what will happen in the future. Spending money because we think we are sure we will get promoted this season, or because we think we are sure we know what gate receipts at our new ground will be etc etc, this is the road to ruin for a football club.

 

[Rugrat]

Not saying they were planning a budget for League 1, just that they where planning a budget while in League 1 (with the possibility of being there next season too).

Budgets apply or they don't. It's not a case of "putting it together" during the season. Someone will have known roughly what next seasons budget was likely to be, but your budget is your budget and it applies for the whole season. Next season a new budget, not plucked out of thin air, obviously thought out and planned, but it applies next season, not the one before.

What would be absurd would be to actually go ahead and spend more money than you have budgeted for, based on an assumption about what will happen in the future. Spending money because we think we are sure we will get promoted this season, or because we think we are sure we know what gate receipts at our new ground will be etc etc, this is the road to ruin for a football club.

They don't spend the money they just plan. It's why players contracts finish at end of June ... we had Murray knowing we were in the Championship, with a budget planned for the Championship (or I'd bloody well hope so) and we chose to let him go and buy CMS instead. Nobody came along to Gus after Murray had gone and said "here's another £2.5M to play with"

 

[BLOCK F]

Well I don't imagine that at all. I would like to think that there's a well developed and sensible fiscal approach and it's pretty well stuck too.

If anyone at the club was planning a Withdean budget in L1 I hope they were quickly moved on. The Amex had been planned for years and by Christmas you have to believe any sensible financial person would have set a budget for the Championship as well as L1. It would be absurd in the extreme to wait until end of season to start putting budgets together

Agreed.
Fact is,Poyet for whatever reason did not like/rate/want Murray enough to keep him.Probably not the easiest player to deal with,but that is what good managers should be able to do.If he had wanted him enough,I don't doubt for a minute that a way would have been found to keep him.
Shame,he went and then we grossly overpaid for CMS.who hasn't produced the goods.Not all down to the way we play.Whatever the way we play,he misses too many chances for a Championship striker,let alone one costing £2.5 m +

 

[Silverhatch]

The club will have had a 3-5 year plan to include P&L and capital expenditure on The Amex. Until TB came in they were talking to banks so will have had to have produced very detailed and granular forecasts. These budgets will have been adjusted constantly to take account of new scenarios/economic outlook. This is what companies have to do.

If any business wants to go outside agreed operating parameters (i.e. break the wage structure in GM's case) then they have to make a case to the board/shareholders to get the extra cash e.g it'll cost us an extra £1m over three seasons to keep GM but in our opinion (the football management team) this money will provide us with greater competitiveness and more ability to win football matches.

Everyone can go round and round in circles on GM but the "couldn't afford him" is a smokescreen. If Gus and the rest of the coaching staff fancied his abilities as much as the club wanted a marquee signing like CMS (to announce the new BHA in their stonking new stadium) then we'd have kept him, and definitely could have afforded him. And I'm not saying CMS isn't worth the money, I actually think he is. The club didn't think GM was worth what he wanted, so he left to get a better contract at Smellhurst.

This is not a fact about BHA; it's just a fact regarding how commercial profit making operations work - and BHA is one of them.

 

[dingodan]

They don't spend the money they just plan. It's why players contracts finish at end of June ... we had Murray knowing we were in the Championship, with a budget planned for the Championship (or I'd bloody well hope so) and we chose to let him go and buy CMS instead. Nobody came along to Gus after Murray had gone and said "here's another £2.5M to play with"

This is the crucial point. Doesn't a seasons budget generally kick in when the transfer window opens in the Summer? I may be wrong, but that is what I thought.

Even though we knew we were in the Championship, and even though we had a budget ready to go for the next season, it did not apply at the time GM was negotiating a contract, at that time that seasons budget applied.

And so you have to decide, stick to budgets or not.

All of that aside, I agree that Gus did not seem to believe that GM was his ideal front man, but I am arguing that it never came down to Gus having to decide if he wanted him or not. He looked at the budget and offered GM what was available within that framework at the time (which suggests to me that he did want him), and so I just don't think talk of Gus making a bad call on the GM situation is fair or warranted, our manager is restricted by a budget and that is a good thing.

Would we really want Gus saying to Tony, I need more money, lets change the budget? If he had done that I would be far more worried. We are being short sighted with this I think, we are hurt because a former player went to our rivals and put two past us in a 3-0 stonking. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture over one player. We have a professionally and sensibly run football club. That should be more important to all of us than any one player, especially given our recent history.

 

[Rugrat]

This is the crucial point. Doesn't a seasons budget generally kick in when the transfer window opens in the Summer? I may be wrong, but that is what I thought.

Even though we knew we were in the Championship, and even though we had a budget ready to go for the next season, it did not apply at the time GM was negotiating a contract, at that time that seasons budget applied.

And so you have to decide, stick to budgets or not.

All of that aside, I agree that Gus did not seem to believe that GM was his ideal front man, but I am arguing that it never came down to Gus having to decide if he wanted him or not. He looked at the budget and offered GM what was available within that framework at the time (which suggests to me that he did want him), and so I just don't think talk of Gus making a bad call on the GM situation is fair or warranted, our manager is restricted by a budget and that is a good thing.

Would we really want Gus saying to Tony, I need more money, lets change the budget? If he had done that I would be far more worried. We are being short sighted with this I think, we are hurt because a former player went to our rivals and put two past us in a 3-0 stonking. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture over one player. We have a professionally and sensibly run football club. That should be more important to all of us than any one player, especially given our recent history.

Yes the budget will start at the beginning of the season. It's irrelevant when Murray was negotiating ... they would have known well before they started talking what they had and defo before he left. They didn't just go and get CMS the next day either, would have been tracking him for months knowing full well (within reason) what they'd need to pay. The suggestion that we let Murray go to maintain a sensible financial policy is way off mark

Anyway think I'll withdraw from this one now - too hard

 

[Mellotron]

This. I'll admit it - I'm still pissed off Gus let him go and has replaced him with CMS who isn't anywhere near as good as Murray but has a lovely smile, long flowing hair and does a very agreeable seagull celebration when he tucks away his one chance in 25. It was a f***ing turd mistake.

I'm still a bit baffled by it. Getting rid of Murray - very intelligent, good first touch, great link play and does a massive job defensively and bringing in CMS - tries to do everything at 1,000 miles an hour, passion and determination over skill and technical ability. Seems a very un-Gus move to me.

 

[BLOCK F]

This is the crucial point. Doesn't a seasons budget generally kick in when the transfer window opens in the Summer? I may be wrong, but that is what I thought.

Even though we knew we were in the Championship, and even though we had a budget ready to go for the next season, it did not apply at the time GM was negotiating a contract, at that time that seasons budget applied.

And so you have to decide, stick to budgets or not.

All of that aside, I agree that Gus did not seem to believe that GM was his ideal front man, but I am arguing that it never came down to Gus having to decide if he wanted him or not. He looked at the budget and offered GM what was available within that framework at the time (which suggests to me that he did want him), and so I just don't think talk of Gus making a bad call on the GM situation is fair or warranted, our manager is restricted by a budget and that is a good thing.

Would we really want Gus saying to Tony, I need more money, lets change the budget? If he had done that I would be far more worried. We are being short sighted with this I think, we are hurt because a former player went to our rivals and put two past us in a 3-0 stonking. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture over one player. We have a professionally and sensibly run football club. That should be more important to all of us than any one player, especially given our recent history.

I have to disagree with that.
If Poyet had wanted Murray to stay,a way would have been found to keep him.Rigid financial limitations wouldn't have come into it.In business,you sometimes have to make what I used to call 'commercial decisions'.That means looking at the bigger picture for the overall good of the business and taking decisions accordingly.
Anyway,as per Rugrat,I have had enough of this one.

 

[One Love]

The truth will probably come out after CMS moves on.

Gus isn't going to say "We made a mistake and over-estimated CMS's worth at the expense of losing our best player" at the moment because he wants to protect the asset that is CMS. Hence the BS that is our budget wasn't big enough to afford him.

This is also why we are not seeing a lot of Dobbie and Hoskins as Gus wants to be seen as viewing CMS as the main man. The exclusion for Bristol City can be seen as resting him for the Palace game. A football club is a business. Arsenal fans are now finding this out. Ibramovich persists with Torres for the same reason though 50million of them though.

 

[dingodan]

I have to disagree with that.
If Poyet had wanted Murray to stay,a way would have been found to keep him.Rigid financial limitations wouldn't have come into it.In business,you sometimes have to make what I used to call 'commercial decisions'.That means looking at the bigger picture for the overall good of the business and taking decisions accordingly.
Anyway,as per Rugrat,I have had enough of this one.

Yes, the way to keep him would have been to up the budget during the season. It has everything to do with rigid financial limitations, but not because the money was not there and not because we were unsure of our future, but simply because we had committed to a particular financial culture at the club, and part of that meant sticking to budgets.

All of what you are saying about it being possible to make "commercial decisions" etc are true. But that would have had to be done at the expense of sticking to the plan and sticking to the budget. I just think that at the time this factor was considered more important than keeping any one player. That was the impression I got anyway.

 

[Crofty]

He is a class act is our Glen!

 

[Crofty]

But were you not saying that Murray was 'Pants' and 'good-riddance' etc this time last season?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But were you not saying that Murray was 'Pants' and 'good-riddance' etc this time last season?

Yes up until the game at the Amex in Sept.