GENTLEMAN Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Gent... are you on drugs? were not going to get that kind of budget at all. Come on you know that already. Maybe not three for that exact price, but I am expecting us to spend more on individual targets than we have done in recent windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 So £3m per player instead of £1m-£2m? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Gent... are you on drugs? were not going to get that kind of budget at all. Come on you know that already. Well... 3 players at £9m each would be £27m, which would be around the figure you'd expect when there's talk of an increased transfer kitty (since we spend £20m per summer typically). So I wouldn't necessarily rule out a few players in that price range - depending on what the manager thinks he needs in terms of numbers. If he's planning on bringing in 6-7 players it won't happen, but if he's thinking more 3 first teamers and some younger lads, it could 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSV Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 is this budget inclusive of wages? I cant see 3 players at £9m each I can see 1 at that price bracket and then 2 £4-6m each 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Hasn't the £20m been fees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Oh yea Gent if we don't spend more per player and cut down the number of players being brought serious questions would need to be answered its just when you said 3 x 12 million I was like WTF 36m? I think now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted February 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2014 It would make sense that we stop signing so many in one window. Now with additions from the academy too in the summer (Grealish, Carruthers, Donacien, DJ maybe....) you'd think we have sufficient numbers, which was a problem before to be fair. So even continued investment at the same levels as the last 2 summers, so without stepping up the investment, signing 3 players using that budget would mean 3 signings in the Benteke price bracket. I'm not saying we'll find a defensive and a midfield version of Benteke, but it certainly bodes well for next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 City get 40million a year for stadium and shirt sponsorship. Arsenal get 30 million. We dont even get a fraction of it. Id be delighted with 10-15 mill a year for both The man city sponsorship is distorted by the fact they are effectively sponsoring themselves to raise the income of the club to get around the FFP rules 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxy1 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 3 good quality players would make hell of a difference to this squad. Esp if we keep Benteke in summer. Hopefully Bertrand would be one of these purchases along with an AM and a Winger / striker (assuming Zog is on way out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 The club line all along has been we need to get the wages sorted then we can look to go again Has it? When have the club said that? Naming rights to build a new stand makes no sense to me when we're struggling to pay competitive wages. And transfer fees aren't the major issue, what will the wages be like in the summer? What will happen if benteke is sold? And TBH Kendrick is basically a mouth piece for the club Nothing makes sense to you. I expect though given all the criticism you've made on here that you're a self made multi-millionaire at the very least. One of the first rules of business is to invest in bricks and mortar, i'm sure the returns from better corporate facilities, more season tickets etc are much safer than spending the money on players.wages You know we're a professional sports club right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted February 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2014 The club line all along has been we need to get the wages sorted then we can look to go again Has it? When have the club said that? Naming rights to build a new stand makes no sense to me when we're struggling to pay competitive wages. And transfer fees aren't the major issue, what will the wages be like in the summer? What will happen if benteke is sold? And TBH Kendrick is basically a mouth piece for the club Nothing makes sense to you. I expect though given all the criticism you've made on here that you're a self made multi-millionaire at the very least. One of the first rules of business is to invest in bricks and mortar, i'm sure the returns from better corporate facilities, more season tickets etc are much safer than spending the money on players.wages You know we're a professional sports club right? Paul Lambert on spending last January... "He willingly works under Lerner’s principles. “The wage structure will come down, that’s for sure,’’ he said." Link "The reality is that the wage to revenue issue was not addressed and Martin apparently was unwilling to help address it. He quit." - Krulak in 2010 as wages went over £70m a year. No direct quotes in this one but it's a good read. As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to. We've been going since 1874, I'd rather we went another hundred and fifty years instead of pissing all that up the wall trying to compete with dodgy billionaires because there's lots of funny money in our league at the moment. The premier league will not always be a money washing paradise, the tv money sooner or later will move on to different climes. 15 years ago it was serie A, now it's our league, next is probabaly the bundesliga. Sustainability is not a naughty word, it's a sign of long term strength. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again?As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again? As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. The thing is, if it's naming rights for a new stand, it's probably not a case of "we'll just use that on signings instead" It could well be that we're only getting naming rights IF we build a new stand. So the choice is 1. We build a new stand and get money for it 2. We don't build a new stand but don't get any money. I agree that if Randy spent his own money on the stand then it wouldn't make much sense when we're lacking in transfer funds. But I would imagine if we're getting naming rights then maybe there's some sort of stipulation that we HAVE to develop the north stand. I don't know that, obviously. Just speculating. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romavillan Posted February 6, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 6, 2014 To be fair you are CONSTANTLY crowing about spending more money which we don't have, without the man you seemingly despise putting in the shortfall from his own pocket. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villabromsgrove Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 It was impossible for Villa (aka Randy) to spend 8 to 10 million on one player in January because of our current self imposed wage restriction. So signing that player was never going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 To be fair you are CONSTANTLY crowing about spending more money which we don't have, without the man you seemingly despise putting in the shortfall from his own pocket. You say we don't have it, that doesn't make it true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again? As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. The thing is, if it's naming rights for a new stand, it's probably not a case of "we'll just use that on signings instead" It could well be that we're only getting naming rights IF we build a new stand. So the choice is 1. We build a new stand and get money for it 2. We don't build a new stand but don't get any money. I agree that if Randy spent his own money on the stand then it wouldn't make much sense when we're lacking in transfer funds. But I would imagine if we're getting naming rights then maybe there's some sort of stipulation that we HAVE to develop the north stand. I don't know that, obviously. Just speculating. That's a fair point and one I couldn't disagree with. The point I disagreed with was the poster who said it should go towards the new stand because its a safer financial investment than improving the squad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 They show the wage bill needed to drop. Where does is say then we go again?As for the bit in bold, are you taking the piss? I'd rather not win anything if it means risking a Portsmouth or a Leeds trying to Are you taking the piss? Spending money on the squad when its so poor instead of a new stand is hardly going to turn us into **** Leeds utd is it? However flirting with relegation constantly could see us finally relegated, where does that leave us then? Can't believe we've reached a point where suggesting money gets sent on improving a poor squad over a new stand is taking the piss. Since they day he got here Lambert has been banging on about stripping the club back before he can rebuild it time and again saying how difficult the job was etc. I don't think he meant building the North Stand himself so I assume he meant the team. If you choose to disregard that it's your prerogative but I've tended to believe it and understand the reasons why. Like most I don't have the ability to see into the future so I will have to wait to see if all this comes to fruition. I do have faith in the club to try and rebuild or have another go if you like and hopefully with more sustainability this time but we will have to gamble again at some point as that's the nature of sport and i hope we do we don't fall as far if it doesn't come off. Regarding the North Stand I'm sure plenty of clubs have had stadia/stands built by sponsors and that stand would be so named for X amount of years an idea I think is a very good way of getting a free new North. Stand and a bit more money into the pot. Win win really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_John_10 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Since they day he got here Lambert has been banging on about stripping the club back before he can rebuild it time and again saying how difficult the job was etc. I don't think he meant building the North Stand himself so I assume he meant the team. If you choose to disregard that it's your prerogative but I've tended to believe it and understand the reasons why When has he said about cutting the wage bill and going again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suttonpaul Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Oh jesus have some patience and see what happens by the end of August. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts