Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Things dont quite add up regarding our budget/ finances and decision making in my opinion

You know sometimes you read these soundbites from the owner and quotes from various sources claiming certain things surrounding the finances of the club.

One thing that keeps bubbling to the outer surfaces of my now ageing and perhaps slightly decrepit memory are the claims regarding our budget in league one.

So The owner (God bless him, but I wish he'd put a sock in it regarding tactics) has said more than once that our budget in league one was in the top three....
The first time it sounded like a "boast" to me earlier in the season.

Well I cant for some reason come to terms with that claim.....we have been told that Ipswich and Wigan blew us out of the water on wages....so, are we saying then that our wage/budget was larger than the likes of Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday (both with a huge infrastructure to maintain as well as championship wages for the latter) and recently relegated Rotherham and Wycombe who's players must have been on similar terms to other Championship clubs.

Therefore, what on earth were we paying our underperforming rabble? Our recruitment was and remains suspect due to the nature of forming a decision based upon a committee......Steve Gallen, according to the owner is an awesome negotiator. However, that begs the question of why weren't we in for players of the ilk of if not Ipswich and Wigan, but certainly those who played for the other top 6-8 clubs, seeing as we had so much money to fling around?

Furthermore, today we hear that the likes of some of our out of contract players are expected to re-sign....Matthews, Purrington, Washington, Inniss and JFC are all mentioned in this category by the owner in a Cawley interview. Questions then springs to mind, whos making that decision, Thomas?

It certainly doesnt take into account what a new manager or coach would want within his squad, and then how do we attract new players and who decides without the input of a coach or manager? Its been said that Adkins didnt want certain players we signed, Dobson being one.

Lastly you have to wonder if Jacksons outright reluctance to play the lads from Spurs and Chelsea was because these players were forced upon him? I seem to recall Bowyer refusing to play some of the signings although I cant remember who.

Am I the only person to think that all this is beginning to sound just a little bit bonkers?

Over to you lot to set me right....

Comments

  • Would imagine transfer budget refers to the budget/spending we have to bring players in/buy them rather than their wages after.

    we could definitely be top 3 transfers budgets, but be leasing willing to spend much on wages
  • God knows, but however much the budget is, we aren’t spending it well 
  • Remember he recently said he wants to break even as well 
  • shirty5 said:
    Remember he recently said he wants to break even as well 
    He also said he expected our budget this season to be in the top three. What are to believe?
  • edited May 5
    I think he got a complete shock when he saw Wigan and Ipswich spending the money they did, I don't think he expected it.

    Sorry but that is proper naive and is the main reason we are where we are under Sandgaard.

    Considering they had just been taken over and like him they had new owners who had bought a club. Did he expect them to not spend anything? That's what people bar crooks like ESI do when they buy a football club as they want to put a marker down.


  • I think it’s probably based on how competitive we are being in the market. Ie. Last summer Ipswich and Wigan when in the market for new players were offering the most in fees / contracts, we were positioned roughly next highest in that . Which feels right with the signings of Stockley and others who would have attracted other interest. 

    The wage bill was published in the accounts released recently and I don’t think any of us could say it was insignificant for this level and should be more than enough to be competitive at the top end. It’s been managed badly.
    So, basically, we've had the money to spend on players which we didn't have under Roland/ESI but it hasn't been spent on the right players.

    Question is where was the problem with this?  Was it issues inherited from Roland/ESI, was it a poor choice of Ged Roddy (why else was he let go?) or was it the longer serving backroom staff?

    This may explain why TS has been so bold at the end of the season - he knows that the money is there to theoretically do well, just needs the right people?
  • TEL said:
    shirty5 said:
    Remember he recently said he wants to break even as well 
    He also said he expected our budget this season to be in the top three. What are to believe?
    Talk is cheap. No owner or manager is truthfully going to tell you how much they are spending on transfer fees & wages. The "top 3 budget" is just a soundbite for the press & the gullible. The proof, as always, is on the pitch on a Saturday. 
  • TEL said:
    shirty5 said:
    Remember he recently said he wants to break even as well 
    He also said he expected our budget this season to be in the top three. What are to believe?
    Talk is cheap. No owner or manager is truthfully going to tell you how much they are spending on transfer fees & wages. The "top 3 budget" is just a soundbite for the press & the gullible. The proof, as always, is on the pitch on a Saturday. 
    Aren’t the sums that we spend on wages disclosed in our annual report?
  • I think it’s probably based on how competitive we are being in the market. Ie. Last summer Ipswich and Wigan when in the market for new players were offering the most in fees / contracts, we were positioned roughly next highest in that . Which feels right with the signings of Stockley and others who would have attracted other interest. 

    The wage bill was published in the accounts released recently and I don’t think any of us could say it was insignificant for this level and should be more than enough to be competitive at the top end. It’s been managed badly.
    So, basically, we've had the money to spend on players which we didn't have under Roland/ESI but it hasn't been spent on the right players.

    Question is where was the problem with this?  Was it issues inherited from Roland/ESI, was it a poor choice of Ged Roddy (why else was he let go?) or was it the longer serving backroom staff?

    This may explain why TS has been so bold at the end of the season - he knows that the money is there to theoretically do well, just needs the right people?
    Gallen?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Logically possible - believe we were 5th or 6th highest on wages, so combined with transfer fees (I did not track what the likes of Wednesday, Wycombe etc did over the last two windows), 3rd may be possible. Issue is we were still carrying so much dead wood - Gunter, Watson to name two, we needed to invest a lot more than that…! It is all relative from your starting point. 
  • TEL said:
    You know sometimes you read these soundbites from the owner and quotes from various sources claiming certain things surrounding the finances of the club.

    One thing that keeps bubbling to the outer surfaces of my now ageing and perhaps slightly decrepit memory are the claims regarding our budget in league one.

    So The owner (God bless him, but I wish he'd put a sock in it regarding tactics) has said more than once that our budget in league one was in the top three....
    The first time it sounded like a "boast" to me earlier in the season.

    Well I cant for some reason come to terms with that claim.....we have been told that Ipswich and Wigan blew us out of the water on wages....so, are we saying then that our wage/budget was larger than the likes of Sunderland and Sheffield Wednesday (both with a huge infrastructure to maintain as well as championship wages for the latter) and recently relegated Rotherham and Wycombe who's players must have been on similar terms to other Championship clubs.

    Therefore, what on earth were we paying our underperforming rabble? Our recruitment was and remains suspect due to the nature of forming a decision based upon a committee......Steve Gallen, according to the owner is an awesome negotiator. However, that begs the question of why weren't we in for players of the ilk of if not Ipswich and Wigan, but certainly those who played for the other top 6-8 clubs, seeing as we had so much money to fling around?

    Furthermore, today we hear that the likes of some of our out of contract players are expected to re-sign....Matthews, Purrington, Washington, Inniss and JFC are all mentioned in this category by the owner in a Cawley interview. Questions then springs to mind, whos making that decision, Thomas?

    It certainly doesnt take into account what a new manager or coach would want within his squad, and then how do we attract new players and who decides without the input of a coach or manager? Its been said that Adkins didnt want certain players we signed, Dobson being one.

    Lastly you have to wonder if Jacksons outright reluctance to play the lads from Spurs and Chelsea was because these players were forced upon him? I seem to recall Bowyer refusing to play some of the signings although I cant remember who.

    Am I the only person to think that all this is beginning to sound just a little bit bonkers?

    Over to you lot to set me right....
    Well if we sign the same shit & injury prone players he can expect the same result. Maybe his brilliant son can work this out some time & advise the old man.
  • shirty5 said:
    Remember he recently said he wants to break even as well 
    The only was to do that is in prem..
  • Thanks Prague, that's very insightful and I stand corrected.



  • edited May 5
    I very much believe we are near the top of the spending charts. Problem has been spending it on the likes of Watson and Gunter.

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we don’t spend as much money on their replacements and we drop further down the spending table. Hopefully cutting the wage bill will open up more money for transfer fees.

    Not saying we haven’t spent money because we have. But to get promoted, it’s going to take more…
  • Barry Bannon's wages alone would pay for much of our squad!
  • We have got some high wage earners who were contributing little or nothing off the wage bill.
  • @TEL makes a lot of sense .. Sandy installing his son into the decision making set up is a big worry for me as is the claim that Sandy Snr is having a big say on retained players, seemingly before the new manager (whoever he may be) has an opinion .. perhaps the intention is to appoint a 'senior coach' who will be subservient to the Sandys when it comes to player retention, selection and tactics.
    Whilst I can understand Sandy wanting to know what's always going on at CAFC (is that why his son is in a powerful position?), after all it's his cash being spent.
    The fact is that when it comes to English professional football he is really is a naif. He'd do well to appoint quality football professionals to run the playing side of things, and to concentrate on the CAFC finances, running his American company and playing his geetar
  • Sponsored links:


  • Redhenry said:
    shirty5 said:
    Remember he recently said he wants to break even as well 
    The only was to do that is in prem..

    “So you’ll see a third strategy. I’m going to try and, as soon as possible, of a level of break even while I continue to invest in the club.

    “I’m not losing as much money as I did last season. But I’m losing £8m this season, investing, and that obviously can’t continue for a whole lot longer.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!