Do you think TB will allow CH to spend big on players this summer

[London Irish]

When you can't debate with facts, you resort to insults. As a financial journalist I thought you would be better than that.

And I guess snide is a fact is it? There's no real harm being robustly combative (with a thick skin) and there's no harm being totally wet - but you can't be both at the same time. Pick one online persona and stick to it.

 

[chaileyjem]

To be fair none of us have been happy chappies with what has been served up week after week.

Yep...
Millwall (H) - that was the worst.
and Reading (A) - last week was pretty grim.

Not happy chappies in 2014/15. On that we can all agree.

 

[ewe2]

Loans ,like them or not,IMO are key to any championship (hopefully ) club. CH will have some pull i hope.I cannot see ,a lot different to last summer,except the choices !!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

The key is to spend wisely and target the money.

CMS and Kemy together must command 20K per week at least.

There are 9 other loans or out of contract players whose wages can also be put into the pot.

Get rid of 11 players, promote Rea to the squad and offer Calderon another year.

Then target the money at ( in order ) :

A decent Striker
A Left Back
A Tex replacement ( or Tex)
A Central Defender
A Winger
A 2nd striker


Target the resources, and spread them less thinly.

11 out, 6 in, job done.

 

[B.W.]

It's more complicated...

I expect we won't suddenly spend 5 million on one player, but will spend a similar amount to last summer. However, this time, we won't squander the funds we have available.

 

[chaileyjem]

11 out, 6 in, job done.

Why would we want a first team squad of only 18 or 19 ?
What if we end up with several short or long term injuries ? (Crofts, March, Baldock for example are all out now)
We won't. We'll continue with a first team squad of 24 or so like every other club in the Champ including us...
Saving money by having a smaller squad isn't the answer.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Why would we want a first team squad of only 18 or 19 ?
What if we end up with several short or long term injuries ? (Crofts, March, Baldock for example are all out now)
We won't. We'll continue with a first team squad of 24 or so like every other club in the Champ including us...
Saving money by having a smaller squad isn't the answer.

I would normally think the same, but I noticed on the back of the Wolves' game programme that their squad comprises at least 5 players fewer than ours does. Hardly a statistically significant sample, I know, but it did get me thinking about whether (relatively) fewer, better players costing, in aggregate, the same might be a better way to go.

EDIT: a quick look at their website reveals that 27 players currently have a squad number though. Confusing.

On the substantive point of the thread: I think that TB will definitely fund losses up to the FFP limits that were previously approved (£5m?). Whether he will fund losses up to the new limits (£39m over three years) is a moot point, but one has to believe that he will fund significantly higher losses than the current limits, otherwise he wouldn't have voted for the changes to be implemented, would he? However, I very much doubt that he'll go all out and risk losing £39m in the first season in order to get promotion, leaving him with having to get to b/even in seasons 2 and 3 in the event that we don't get promoted.

On the comments re Burke: Clearly, our recruitment policy has been, errr, less than entirely sucessful. However, it's not clear to me whether that was down to Burke as an individual (ie, the specific models he built were fundamentally flawed) or whether the whole premise (of moneyball recruitment) is flawed and that any DoF would have achieved about the same results. If one concludes the latter, that's Tony's responsibility.

Finally, I did note that the new(ish) head of recruitment reports into PB, not TB (which is where I thought Burke reported).

 

[El Presidente]

I would normally think the same, but I noticed on the back of the Wolves' game programme that their squad comprises at least 5 players fewer than ours does. Hardly a statistically significant sample, I know, but it did get me thinking about whether (relatively) fewer, better players costing, in aggregate, the same might be a better way to go.

I think their problem is finding two dozen people who willingly want to live in Wolverhampton though.

 

[The Birdman]

A couple of players going cheaply at Sunderland

 

[The_Viper]

Not at chance, we'll spend the least we've ever spent at the AMEX this year while clubs like Bournemouth if they stay down show us how ****ed we really are behind the scenes by spending 10million and passing FFP

 

[Insel affe]

I fear that once the season ticket renewal figures are out or they have a good idea at least, that will determine how much Bloom will allow to be spent on the squad. I also fear that there are a good number of people that will not renew due to the lack of investment so all in all its the chicken and egg scenario.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

How important is a good season next year for the level ( and pricing ) of 1901 renewals ?

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Why would we want a first team squad of only 18 or 19 ?
What if we end up with several short or long term injuries ? (Crofts, March, Baldock for example are all out now)
We won't. We'll continue with a first team squad of 24 or so like every other club in the Champ including us...
Saving money by having a smaller squad isn't the answer.

6 new signings

Stockdale
Walton
Ankers

Calderon
Bruno
Greer
Dunk
Rea
Chicksen

Kayal
Stephens
Ince
Crofts
Holla
JFC

Lua Lua
March

COG
Baldock

= Squad of 25 !!!!



( The 11 to go :

CMS
Kemy
Maksimenko
McCourt
Fenelon
Bennett
Halford
Hughes
Best
Ledesma
Tex ( either Tex or a like for like replacement is included in the 6 new signings ) ).

 

[chaileyjem]

I also fear that there are a good number of people that will not renew due to the lack of investment .

Lack of investment. Has there been a lack of investment ? (No). And anyway if you are concerned about that who bothers to find that out ? (reading the accounts ?) Investment in players wages/fees is at an all time high anyway.
Performance on the pitch and more mundane stuff like cost, alternative ways to spend a Saturday afternoon, kids, personal stuff like job changes, moves are what matters. Some high profile signings, our form at the moment, Hughton maybe all factors but most of that won't be in place until June/July/August.

 

[chaileyjem]

we'll spend the least we've ever spent at the AMEX this year

This year, by all reports (TB public quotes, our accounts, likely players wages coming in, journalists/academics on here who know this stuff) we've spent, like every year at the Amex, the most we've ever spent not just at the Amex but ever in the history of the club.

 

[maltaseagull]

Much is being made of who we need to get shot of, but how confident are you that CH will be given a war chest big enough to replace these players with players who will be an improvement?

I am not at all convinced we will be spending any more than we did this season as we have been told this is the highest paid team we have ever had.

Taking into account the lack of income from outgoing players this year, what makes you think TB is suddenly going to splash the cash on the playing front

I think we'll be marking time and trying to stay in this division until the academy produces.

I would be ok with that provided we were reasonable competitive and the academy actually does produce.

I do think there will be a fair bit to spend on wages though, as there will be a bit of a clear out.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

My source in Yorkshire tells me that Sheffield United's marquee signing for 2015/2016 is going to cost a seven figure sum including the add ons.

 

[nwgull]

My source in Yorkshire tells me that Sheffield United's marquee signing for 2015/2016 is going to cost a seven figure sum including the add ons.

Is that a hint at COG for £1m?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Is that a hint at COG for £1m?

Lets just say they knew McCormack wouldn't be signing for the SCUM a fortnight before Palace had to make an announcement the deal had fallen through.

 

[London Irish]

This year, by all reports (TB public quotes, our accounts, likely players wages coming in, journalists/academics on here who know this stuff) we've spent, like every year at the Amex, the most we've ever spent not just at the Amex but ever in the history of the club.

But is that true if you add in transfer fees?

And what if you then add in income from transfer fees? Does the £8m for Ulloa and the other money for Buckley make that performance so impressive?