So does Naylor know he signed and is leading up to a big scoop!!!??

[sten_super]

Read my posts and I have said that it should please us and I have never indicated that he is putting the future of the club in danger, never.

Where the hell did you read that.

But I happen to think that its a reasonable discussion to disagree with people on here who seem to think that we are anything other than a kept club that hasnt made a penny piece in recent history.

We are a smaller version of all the well known Premier League Clubs that we all snivel at with our mates over our pints on a Friday night.

But some still, for some bizaare reason wish to paint a picture of financial prudency and sneer at the Bournemouths of this world.

At a time that we had real ambitions to sign a player that would cost many more thousands of pounds a week, the budget boys still persist !!!

I don't think anyone anywhere has argued that we're making money. One look at the accounts will tell you that.

I think (as you've not made it very obvious) that you are crowing about the fact that there may be moves afoot to bring in a player on potentially high wages, ergo we apparently don't have a wage budget. From the OED;

budget

• noun 1 an estimate of income and expenditure for a set period of time. 2 the amount of money needed or available for a purpose.

We have an amount of money available for the purpose of paying wages. Yes, there will be cases where the board are willing to change this budget to accomodate certain players. I think you have taken a budget to be set in stone, and unable to change. We still have a budget, it has just been adjusted (in fairness, I'm also sure that the potential increased crowds coming to see Robbie Savage have also been taken into account in this increase). They have chosen to increase the budget to accomodate Savage, which they wouldn't do for Hammond. Is that your point?

The reason that we 'sneer at the Bournemouths of this world' is because you have to cut your cloth according to what incomes you have. Yes, we rely upon benefactors to keep us going at the current level. They commit to giving the club (or assuring the club for) a certain sum of money. Some clubs go to the wall because their benefactors pull out. There is a risk of this, but I'd imagine that the directors of this club are obligated to cover any losses should that happen anyway (although I'd quite happily be proved wrong). The clubs that should be looked down on are the ones that cannot sustain the expenditure they have through any means of income, yet continue to spend at the level they do, in the hope that something will happen to change their situation (i.e. new benefactor coming in, promotion, etc.). As I said, clubs have to cut their cloth. We cut ours given how much money the board will put in.

 

[Monkster]

He has got nice hair though. Do you think he's a Pantene Pro V man or a Herbal Essences?

 

[seagull_special]

So your view is £6000 + , ok.

But unless Savage's contract is at an end imminently, then how much of a shop window is League 1, he aint going to move unless he can negotiate a package similar to his Derby.

My point was that either way you wrap this up, it was always likely to smash many on heres perception that we actually do have a wage structure.

An excuse that was used to justify previous players leaving the club during Wilkins tenure.

Maybe Norman Cook will sponsor him from the takings from Beach Boutique 4 or maybe Joel Lynch's wages will contribute, if they are being paid by Forest (he might have been sold already?) Would you say hypothetically that you would not pay 6000 a week for Savage or any player at all and what are out top players on? Forster, Murray etc....... and finally if we paid him 6000 a week for a year that would equate to 300,000 which is what we spent on Murray (i know there would be no return on that outlay) but there is obviously money available within the club wherever that may be coming from

 

[BigGully]

I don't think anyone anywhere has argued that we're making money. One look at the accounts will tell you that.

I think (as you've not made it very obvious) that you are crowing about the fact that there may be moves afoot to bring in a player on potentially high wages, ergo we apparently don't have a wage budget. From the OED;

budget

• noun 1 an estimate of income and expenditure for a set period of time. 2 the amount of money needed or available for a purpose.

We have an amount of money available for the purpose of paying wages. Yes, there will be cases where the board are willing to change this budget to accomodate certain players. I think you have taken a budget to be set in stone, and unable to change. We still have a budget, it has just been adjusted (in fairness, I'm also sure that the potential increased crowds coming to see Robbie Savage have also been taken into account in this increase). They have chosen to increase the budget to accomodate Savage, which they wouldn't do for Hammond. Is that your point?

The reason that we 'sneer at the Bournemouths of this world' is because you have to cut your cloth according to what incomes you have. Yes, we rely upon benefactors to keep us going at the current level. They commit to giving the club (or assuring the club for) a certain sum of money. Some clubs go to the wall because their benefactors pull out. There is a risk of this, but I'd imagine that the directors of this club are obligated to cover any losses should that happen anyway (although I'd quite happily be proved wrong). The clubs that should be looked down on are the ones that cannot sustain the expenditure they have through any means of income, yet continue to spend at the level they do, in the hope that something will happen to change their situation (i.e. new benefactor coming in, promotion, etc.). As I said, clubs have to cut their cloth. We cut ours given how much money the board will put in.

In many ways I accept your view, but it might be that you are unaware of previous discussions between me and others on here, they do not seem to see the irony of this Savage bid, at a time of mid table mediocrity.

I am pleased that we have such financial clout for us to remain competitive, but there have been players that were not funded not because they were outside budget restrictions as some on here so readily accept, but because DK himself did not rate those players, even if the manager did, thats bad practice, no doubt.

I am not doubting our clubs sustainability, I am optimistic, but not blinded.

We might presently cut our cloth to how much the board might put in, but I am not sure why you feel that is a superior ( albeit the ONLY way ) template to others that have failed, I am sure Bournemouth and others had their own budgets based on projections here and spersonal support there whilst trying to remain competitive, one of many things might of let them down, putting them in their current prediciment.

You dont have to look too deeply to see that if one of the present benefactors walked then we would be vulnerable too.

 

[The Large One]

You're making out we can't afford it, and that the shareholders and directors are winging it, and that the budget won't allow for it.

This may or may not be true.

What I am saying is, you're not in a position to make that judgement for certain.

 

[Simster]

I can't be arsed to read most of this thread because BigGully is on one of ihs fuckwitted tirades again.

I am assuming you're arguing the toss about how we can afford Savage's wages. Presumably we'd pay only a portion of it and nobody knows exactly what percentage because it won't be made public?

 

[BigGully]

I can't be arsed to read most of this thread because BigGully is on one of ihs fuckwitted tirades again.

I am assuming you're arguing the toss about how we can afford Savage's wages. Presumably we'd pay only a portion of it and nobody knows exactly what percentage because it won't be made public?

You nearly joined in, but lost it on the last sentence !!

 

[BigGully]

You're making out we can't afford it, and that the shareholders and directors are winging it, and that the budget won't allow for it.

This may or may not be true.

What I am saying is, you're not in a position to make that judgement for certain.

That is totaly wrong, I am not saying that, not in the slightest actually.

 

[Knotty]

I can't be arsed to read most of this thread because BigGully is on one of ihs fuckwitted tirades again.

I am assuming you're arguing the toss about how we can afford Savage's wages. Presumably we'd pay only a portion of it and nobody knows exactly what percentage because it won't be made public?

You're right.

The problem is he starts with a baseless assumption and then argues as if it's a fact.

As someone said on here a little while ago, arguing with BigGully is like trying to nail jelly to a wall!

 

[Simster]

You're right.

The problem is he starts with a baseless assumption and then argues as if it's a fact.

As someone said on here a little while ago, arguing with BigGully is like trying to nail jelly to a wall!

Exactly. I don't know why people bother with him in all honesty. The bloke is a clown.

 

[BigGully]

Hey your not all ganging up on me are ya ...... you dont mind if I say that it doesn't really bother does it ;-)

You choose not to acknowledge that thankfully we do not have a set budget and we are run on the whims of those directors financing us.

Then you try to swallow that of course Wilkins couldnt sign x,y & z coz we gotta a wage structure that we can't break ..... then you all applaud the efforts to try and sign a player on £25,000 a week, albeit having to pay a percentage of that amount on top of the monies already spent to try and improve a squad that is languishing in mid table .... wakey wakey everyone.

Wheres this prudency now, it is up DK arse trying to save face if MA doesnt work out, thats where it is.

 

[The Large One]

Hey your not all ganging up on me are ya ...... you dont mind if I say that it doesn't really bother does it ;-)

You choose not to acknowledge that thankfully we do not have a set budget and we are run on the whims of those directors financing us.

Then you try to swallow that of course Wilkins couldnt sign x,y & z coz we gotta a wage structure that we can't break ..... then you all applaud the efforts to try and sign a player on £25,000 a week, albeit having to pay a percentage of that amount on top of the monies already spent to try and improve a squad that is languishing in mid table .... wakey wakey everyone.

Wheres this prudency now, it is up DK arse trying to save face if MA doesnt work out, thats where it is.

I'd pack this shit in now if I were you. You're saying this stuff like it's gospel.

You don't know - and that's the end of it.

The rest of us, meanwhile, will have a reasoned debate.

 

[BigGully]

I'd pack this shit in now if I were you. You're saying this stuff like it's gospel.

You don't know - and that's the end of it.

The rest of us, meanwhile, will have a reasoned debate.

No your saying its like gospel, as far as we have a budget like ..... thankfully we havent really, coz the only money we have are the benefactors, god bless em !!!

So the budget is how much they wish to spend at any given time.

What is so difficult for some to recognise this, if you weren't so precious you might even see that that in itself is a godsend and I have acknowledged that.

But only last season we were fed stories of wage structures and greedy players at a time when maybe just maybe there was a real chance to progress and even the play offs, who knows.

But now our wage bill is likely to be higher than last year, even if we kept the players Wilkins wanted last Xmas and now a bid for Savage.

I am only too pleased that we currently look like we are to throw money around even though we are mid table, I just remain mindful that DK didnt seem so generous at a time we actually had a real chance of success.

 

[Knotty]

Hey your not all ganging up on me are ya ...... you dont mind if I say that it doesn't really bother does it ;-)

You choose not to acknowledge that thankfully we do not have a set budget and we are run on the whims of those directors financing us.

Then you try to swallow that of course Wilkins couldnt sign x,y & z coz we gotta a wage structure that we can't break ..... then you all applaud the efforts to try and sign a player on £25,000 a week, albeit having to pay a percentage of that amount on top of the monies already spent to try and improve a squad that is languishing in mid table .... wakey wakey everyone.

Wheres this prudency now, it is up DK arse trying to save face if MA doesnt work out, thats where it is.

You don't KNOW ANY of that.

Your arguments, accusations and criticism are based on as much foundation as saying a beer is rubbish when you've never tasted it, just because you don't like the chairman of the brewery.

 

[BigGully]

You don't KNOW ANY of that.

Your arguments, accusations and criticism are based on as much foundation as saying a beer is rubbish when you've never tasted it, just because you don't like the chairman of the brewery.

I thought we all got told publicly of the players greed and we have no way of breaking the 'wage structure'.

Virgo, Ansi...something on loan, the other new signings etc...etc

So whats your thought on this seasons wage bill, similar. more, less

Now add Savage .......

So the assumption remains a considered one.

 

[Knotty]

I thought we all got told publicly of the players greed and we have no way of breaking the 'wage structure'.

Virgo, Ansi...something on loan, the other new signings etc...etc

So whats your thought on this seasons wage bill, similar. more, less

Now add Savage .......

So the assumption remains a considered one.

Tell me what the wage bill is. Then give me all the other details of the club's current finances. I don't know any of them...and nor do you.

Your are guessing to suit your anti-DK agenda...as you have for a long time.

And IF the wage bill is significantly higher than last year, maybe there is more money to pay for it, whatever the source. It wouldn't be from gate receipts, obviously, but could be from shareholders. What would be wrong with that? IF that is the case then the available resources for wages would go up wouldn't they?

You would like to think a crime has been committed but you have no evidence.

 

[Simster]

I'd pack this shit in now if I were you. You're saying this stuff like it's gospel.

You don't know - and that's the end of it.

The rest of us, meanwhile, will have a reasoned debate.

FFS put him on IGNORE. The bloke is an irrational and unintelligent goon with nothing to say beyond ignorant, ill-informed bluster.

 

[Man of Harveys]

FFS put him on IGNORE. The bloke is an irrational and unintelligent goon with nothing to say beyond ignorant, ill-informed bluster.

I much prefer BHAdeb, his/her "discusting" alter-ego.

 

[The Large One]

FFS put him on IGNORE. The bloke is an irrational and unintelligent goon with nothing to say beyond ignorant, ill-informed bluster.

No, I don't put anyone on IGNORE. But as for the rest of it - spot on.

I just wish he'd realise that. Even when he admits he doesn't know what he's on about - he is certain it's true by his own self-styled 'true belief' system as he calls it - he still carries on regardless.

Bizarre.

 

[Easy 10]

As someone said on here a little while ago, arguing with BigGully is like trying to nail jelly to a wall!

That would be me. On that Mayo to Lewes thread.

"Arguing with BigGully is like trying to nail jelly to the wall. You try to pin him down to a specific point, and he spins off with another whimsical little half-arsed theory that is all based on the square route of f*** all. It'd be almost entertaining, if it wasn't mildly tragic."

And I stand by that.