transfer budget

[GREEKFISH]

I dont think mick has any money to spend, been 3 weeks 100k spent only but not even looking at players that will cost money.

Think jez needs to make a statement about how they are backing the manager.

[Black Suit]

I would be interested in hearing from Jez on this subject too, another rolling contract doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

However, from the bottom of my heart, I wish them both well.

[Kenny-11]

I dont think mick has any money to spend, been 3 weeks 100k spent only but not even looking at players that will cost money.

Think jez needs to make a statement about how they are backing the manager.

Jez has stated on more than one occassion that MM has money to spend, obviously he won't reveal how much.

[HIGHLANDER]

I think all the Lescott and Seol money should be made available to Mick McCarthy.We've been told that this money is needed to cover the loss in the parachute payments that we received.Thats not true as we've covered that money by getting rid of a load of high earners in the summer.The savings on their wages have been huge.

If Mick is not given this money it will only be more evidence pointing towards what many of us have been saying.

I have to admit that I'm not happy about Micks 1 year roll on contract as well.It just stinks of non comittment to me.Whether the club insisted on it or Mick ,it would be interesting to know.

[Polish Wolf]

I think all the Lescott and Seol money should be made available to Mick McCarthy.We've been told that this money is needed to cover the loss in the parachute payments that we received.Thats not true as we've covered that money by getting rid of a load of high earners in the summer.The savings on their wages have been huge.

If Mick is not given this money it will only be more evidence pointing towards what many of us have been saying.

Where has the money gone pt.57? :rolleyes:

Seriously I think that even the savings on wages won't cover the loss of parachute payments believed to be about 7 million. However I agree that money for Lescott and Seol is big enough to give MM more than the quoted 1 million to spend.

[paddingtonwolf]

I don't think that is quite right Highlander. Yes, the cuts in the wage bill have been huge, but there are other costs involved besides wages of the players. The club have been up front in saving the break even point this season is 20,000 at home games and we are below that. The Lescott and Seol money (which at present totals £3 million, because the rest won't arrive until later) is cushioning that loss of revenue. I would hope MM gets something to spend but if it is even a million I would be surprised.

This does not mean that the rest is being siphoned off elsewhere, a comment which appears to be a fishing expedition.

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

We dont have to cover the loss of the parachute payments, we just have to have a sensible budget in accord with the league we are in. We should not owe anything as far as we are led to believe and we have got rid of a lot of the high earners.
The money coming in from sales therefore should be free to use in whatever way the club decide. We are led to believe that the club is now self supporting and not subsidised by SJH so that 'should' not be a problem.
However we have been crying out for a manager who does not just go out and spend for the sake of it and when it happens we crib. There is nothing like a football fan for being fickle.
Good luck Big Mick. I for one am interested to see what you can do and how you can do it.

[HIGHLANDER]

Kennedy,Miller and Ince's combined wages must have been £3m per year.I base this on knowing that Kennedy was on £19K aweek alone.A player like Cameron would probably have been on 8-12 k per week as well..It soon adds up you know.

[fenella]

I really hate this expression 'cover the loss of parachute payments'. We haven't lost anything. Parachute payments were just a bonus above our normal Championship income - an income we've been receiving for 16 out of the last 17 years. Parachute payments are given by Sky to allow newly promoted teams to sign players on 3 year contracts without the worry about how those contracts will be funded in light of relagation. The fact that we signed very few players on long contracts when we get promoted is besides the point. The fact that we (stupidly) chose to spend the money in transfer fees AFTER we got relagated is also besides the point. The point is that we've only had parachute payments for TWO out of the last twenty years of so. We haven't lost them, we're just back to where we were before we got promoted, and back to where pretty much every team in the Championship is (including teams that are spending money in the transfer market). Calling it a 'loss' is just an excuse for the terrible way this club has been run over the last few years.

[dazmanwolf]

Everytime we say we have money to spend we get linked with an over-the-hill player who wants one last shot at glory, but can't actually manage it.

I prefer to let Wolves get who they can and announce it afterwards.

It makes absolutely no difference to us anyway - we don't have any say in the spending or of purchasing of players.

I'll support them even if they do turn out to be a bag of $$$$ this season.

[Essex Wolf]

As I recall Ince was on £15K per week so his and Kennedy's wages alone add up to £1.768M. Add Miller, Cameron ,Seol, Anderton and Lescott among the high earners and it doesn't take much to see millions have been saved. Of course there is always the likes of Ross, Ganea, Ndah and Postma to add in.

With the clubs new policy I can't imagine one single player signed of late will be anywhere near on the wages that those that have left.

[Visage Wolf]

I dont think mick has any money to spend, been 3 weeks 100k spent only but not even looking at players that will cost money.

Think jez needs to make a statement about how they are backing the manager.

Perhaps MM hasnt seen anyone he wants to spend money on?

[wolf of sedgley]

Perhaps MM hasnt seen anyone he wants to spend money on?

Well i do really hope that is the case.

[holloholloway]

jemal johnson is signing check out official site

[Kenny-11]

jemal johnson is signing check out official site

Get ready for an "undisclosed fee"

Can't see this player costing much more than £250k though

[djackl]

God not another 'rolling contract = no commitment' thread...

[Bill McCai]

God not another 'rolling contract = no commitment' thread...


Yes its amazing how if we sign a player ( or a manager ) on a rolling contract we ( or they ) are not showing any commitment. But if we give Mark Kennedy 15k a week for 4 years the player is 'on the gravy train' and we are throwing the cash away……….

[brummiewolf]

MM has gone on record ststing that he is looking at a good many loan deals if possible?? This is a good reflection of what he is alll about, he said he was successful with the loan of Downing from M' Bro to Sunderland when he scored 3 goals in 7 games.

I was under the impression that clubs were only allowed a certain number of loan deals during a season? Can anyone verify this??

[brummiewolf]

I thought we are only allowed to have so many loans during a season?? Its good to see MM getting them in, just hope they gel a.s.a.p.

Obviously MM is waiting for the ideal time to make his 1st major signing

[Bend It Like Dennison]

I really hate this expression 'cover the loss of parachute payments'. We haven't lost anything. Parachute payments were just a bonus above our normal Championship income - an income we've been receiving for 16 out of the last 17 years. Parachute payments are given by Sky to allow newly promoted teams to sign players on 3 year contracts without the worry about how those contracts will be funded in light of relagation. The fact that we signed very few players on long contracts when we get promoted is besides the point. The fact that we (stupidly) chose to spend the money in transfer fees AFTER we got relagated is also besides the point. The point is that we've only had parachute payments for TWO out of the last twenty years of so. We haven't lost them, we're just back to where we were before we got promoted, and back to where pretty much every team in the Championship is (including teams that are spending money in the transfer market). Calling it a 'loss' is just an excuse for the terrible way this club has been run over the last few years.

Spot on again. You are rolling them out today!!

Careful though, all this negativity will result in you being told to '$$$$$ off up the road and support them lot'. :confused: :rolleyes:

[Bend It Like Dennison]

Perhaps MM hasnt seen anyone he wants to spend money on?

Errr... yeah maybe??:rolleyes:

[I.D.]

I really hate this expression 'cover the loss of parachute payments'. We haven't lost anything. Parachute payments were just a bonus above our normal Championship........Calling it a 'loss' is just an excuse for the terrible way this club has been run over the last few years.

Fen,

you are moaning about a technicality. It doesn't matter how they dress it up, we have a drastically reduced income compared to the previous 3 seasons and we have to deal with this in some way. We have also had a reputation as a cushy retirement home for inadequate Premier League players and have to deal with this in some way.

What would you suggest we did for the last three years? Do you think we should have put any income above our Champioship level income into a high interest saver account for a rainy day? I can't think of a football team that has done this or would do this, most clubs tend to spend every available penny on trying to achieve their objective (ie promotion).

The Championship League is littered with teams who have been relegated and then had to go through some extreme belt tightening, why do you think that the rules on clubs going into administration were brought in? It doesn't paint a picture of football being a massively profitable business where clubs have millions lying in the bank.

Here are a few clubs who have gone through the same situation that we are now facing. From the bottom of the league up; Ipswich, Sunderland, Sheffield Wednesday, Coventry, Leicester, Derby, Leeds and Barnsley. Some extremely famous names from the top flight of football there, with only Barnsley not being associated as a top flight club.

Do you remember how much Essex Wolf kicked off about our supposed lack of spending in the Premier League? Well there are actually people who think like that in real life (away from football forums), can you imagine how they would have reacted to the club stating that they were only going to spend income not earned from Sky Premier League payments?

People who refuse to look at accounts statements and whose mathematics skills never progressed past basic are never going to accept anything but seeing football clubs spend, spend and spend again. If Wolves or any other football club aren't sepnding millions, someone must be pocketing lots of money... mustn't they?

[I.D.]

Spot on again. You are rolling them out today!!

Careful though, all this negativity will result in you being told to '$$$$$ off up the road and support them lot'. :confused: :rolleyes:

No, I think that is aimed at you for only ever being negative. Sometimes it seems like you are someone who only posts on this board to wind up other posters.

[nimrod]

Fen,

What would you suggest we did for the last three years? Do you think we should have put any income above our Champioship level income into a high interest saver account for a rainy day? I can't think of a football team that has done this or would do this, most clubs tend to spend every available penny on trying to achieve their objective (ie promotion).

Do you remember how much Essex Wolf kicked off about our supposed lack of spending in the Premier League? Well there are actually people who think like that in real life (away from football forums), can you imagine how they would have reacted to the club stating that they were only going to spend income not earned from Sky Premier League payments?

Here we go again - perfectly good point made by Fenella in my view.

Not spending the parachute money when you have it is not "putting it away for a rainy day". The idea is to use it to honour commitments made by the club into the future so you don't have to go through a dramatic cost cutting exercise like we're going through now. It's called being sensible and acting like a business, whereas we claim to act like a business, oh but only when all the money's gone.

As for bringing fans opinions into it - are you saying the club spent the money to keep fans like Essex happy? I'm pretty sure you don't actually believe the club put the financial future of the club at risk due to fans pressure. If the management did that they'd be worse than incommpetent wouldn't they? Fans have nothing to do with Board decisions on spending millions.

[Cosmo Kramer]

I really hate this expression 'cover the loss of parachute payments'. We haven't lost anything. Parachute payments were just a bonus above our normal Championship income - an income we've been receiving for 16 out of the last 17 years. Parachute payments are given by Sky to allow newly promoted teams to sign players on 3 year contracts without the worry about how those contracts will be funded in light of relagation. The fact that we signed very few players on long contracts when we get promoted is besides the point. The fact that we (stupidly) chose to spend the money in transfer fees AFTER we got relagated is also besides the point. The point is that we've only had parachute payments for TWO out of the last twenty years of so. We haven't lost them, we're just back to where we were before we got promoted, and back to where pretty much every team in the Championship is (including teams that are spending money in the transfer market). Calling it a 'loss' is just an excuse for the terrible way this club has been run over the last few years.


crystal clear and well made point

budgets and funds reflect how much the club can afford to lose as on our cost base / poor crowds we can not afford to break the bank

prudence with the cash

good management by MM will / must see us thru

forget sky money

its gone and gone for some time no doubt

[basher]

I have to admit that I'm not happy about Micks 1 year roll on contract as well.It just stinks of non comittment to me.Whether the club insisted on it or Mick ,it would be interesting to know.

Martin O'Neill has worked on rolling contracts throughout most if not all of his managerial career. He has been a manager for fifteen years and spent five years in turn at each of three clubs he has been a manager. The only one he stayed at short term was Norwich, six months. (incidently the Wolves should have gone for him but they appointed McGhee instead)

So that hardly smacks of short termism. A lot of managerial contracts are on a rolling one year basis.

It's down to McCarthy to make it a success and the Wolves in turn to keep the job attractive enough to make it difficult for him to want to leave.

[HIGHLANDER]

Martin O'Neill has worked on rolling contracts throughout most if not all of his managerial career. He has been a manager for fifteen years and spent five years in turn at each of three clubs he has been a manager. The only one he stayed at short term was Norwich, six months. (incidently the Wolves should have gone for him but they appointed McGhee instead)

So that hardly smacks of short termism. A lot of managerial contracts are on a rolling one year basis.

It's down to McCarthy to make it a success and the Wolves in turn to keep the job attractive enough to make it difficult for him to want to leave.
To negate your point I'll just point out that Glen Hoddle was on one of these one year roll over contracts as you know....And we all know how comitted he was?

[Deutsch Wolf]

True, but it's still a sound enough principle. What if we'd handed Hoddle a three year deal when he took over?

[basher]

That's hardly negated my point, just reinforced it!!!

[nimrod]

I think a rolling contract tends to work in favour of the employee if you're only looking at three years. Hoddle worked out the rest of the first season and then had a rolling twelve month contract. If you don't serve notice he's always got an extra 12 months pay coming. So if you serve notice after the second year he works the thrid year knowing he's leaving the club. Not ideal. If you don't serve notice (and I'm not sure we intended to) you get him for more than the three years. Fortunately he left by himself.

I've always thought the rolling contract is so that a potential new owner/management team could get rid of the manager with only a twelve month payout.

[kidder_wolf_II]

Isnt Alex Ferguson now on a 1 year rolling contract?

Its a very good deal to have for both manager and club as he will always to contracted to the club and never runs out.

As for hoddle having the same deal and not being committed, we could of given him a 4 year deal and he still never would have been committed to the club. You cant compare MM to GH on the fact that they have the same type of contract. you need to compare them on the fact that one has always tried his best and given everything hes got while the other has always been planning his next big move to a bigger club

[HIGHLANDER]

True, but it's still a sound enough principle. What if we'd handed Hoddle a three year deal when he took over?If we had insisted on a three year deal he wouldn't have accepted it.Hoddle wanted a short term contract that was cheap to buy out if a big premiership club became interested.

[HIGHLANDER]

That's hardly negated my point, just reinforced it!!!How do you work that out?

[basher]

That it's in the clubs best interests.

It's sound business practice. How long does the average manager spend in a job? 2.5 years max, so why give them three, four, five year contracts.

Like I said previously it's up to Mick McCarthy to make a success of the job and the club to make the job attractive enough to make it difficult for him to leave.

[TheDarkside]

..all the money's gone...

Where did it go?

[TheDarkside]

...Hoddle...

Let's forget the arrogant twisted bigoted zealot. He ruined this club. :mad:

I would be happy I never heard his name again.

[HIGHLANDER]

That it's in the clubs best interests.

It's sound business practice. How long does the average manager spend in a job? 2.5 years max, so why give them three, four, five year contracts.

Like I said previously it's up to Mick McCarthy to make a success of the job and the club to make the job attractive enough to make it difficult for him to leave.Maybe Mick is playing the same game that Hoddle tried to play.By having a short term contract,If things take off for Mick,he knows that another club can come in and buy out his contract cheaply....I would rather see that both the club and Mick are comitted and that any contract between the two parties is at least slightly more difficult to break.

[basher]

And maybe he isn't, but either way it's sound business practice from the club and that's in Wolves best interests.

[djackl]

ffs don't start another rolling contract discussion. It is a common contract in every business these days and it makes no indication as to the commitment of either manager or club.

[HIGHLANDER]

And maybe he isn't, but either way it's sound business practice from the club and that's in Wolves best interests.It's only good business sense if Mick is a failure,it then means that we can get rid of him cheaply.

[HIGHLANDER]

ffs don't start another rolling contract discussion.I can only suggest that if you dont like the post,skip it and start on the next one.

[basher]

It's only good business sense if Mick is a failure,it then means that we can get rid of him cheaply.

Well if he's a success that would I'd like to think mean that we would be promoted. Why would he want to leave then??

And given his appalling record in the Premiership would that bother you if he did??

So either way it works out fine!!!!!!

[HIGHLANDER]

Isnt Alex Ferguson now on a 1 year rolling contract?Allardyce is on a ten year contract.That has to be the best bit of business Bolton ever did.

[Florida Wolfey]

The rolling contract is not really a big deal other than being a "statement of intent". When a manager gets a 3, 4 or 5 year deal it rather points out that the guy will be here for a longer time rather than a 12 mth rolling contract which means, if we're not happy with you, we can get rid of you in 12 mths....and we'll negotiate what we pay you to go now or go then.

As for Wolves and transfer fees...I don't care if I never hear how much we have to spend. It should be kept quiet, no matter how much some folks moan.

[basher]

Allardyce is on a ten year contract.That has to be the best bit of business Bolton ever did.

Do you remember when Bristol City were last in the top flight? Alan Dick was the manager and the club put all of the players on ten year contracts as a reward. The end result of which was that they ended up virtually going to the wall and suffered three relegations on the bounce and found themselves in no time in Division four. Worst bit of business they ever did!!!

[HIGHLANDER]

Well if he's a success that would I'd like to think mean that we would be promoted. Why would he want to leave then??A bigger club might come in for him offering him more wages.Also knowing that the Haywards are unlikely to back him in the transfer market might make him leave.

And given his appalling record in the Premiership would that bother you if he did??True,his record in the premiership is very poor,but I can't see after the euphoriaa of promotion anybody at Wolves trying to get rid of him.[/QUOTE]

[HIGHLANDER]

Do you remember when Bristol City were last in the top flight? Alan Dick was the manager and the club put all of the players on ten year contracts as a reward. The end result of which was that they ended up virtually going to the wall and suffered three relegations on the bounce and found themselves in no time in Division four. Worst bit of business they ever did!!!Obviously putting a whole football club on ten year contracts is a massive gamble and puts the clubs future at risk .Putting one extremely talented individual at a club on a ten year contract doesn't risk the future of the club.

I remember Bristol City's fall from grace well.I think only our fall was quicker and worse.

[GoldenHorseshoe]

Let's forget the arrogant twisted bigoted zealot. He ruined this club. :mad:

I would be happy I never heard his name again.

Get a grip man, he's gone, he did not ruin the club, the club WILL recover.

[Florida Wolfey]

Get a grip man, he's gone, he did not ruin the club, the club WILL recover.

There's nothing to recover from. We were in the "Championship" when he came and that's where we were when he left. He didn't spend a lot of money to boot.

People hate Hoddle for illogical reasons. Personally, I think he did us a massive favour. It's certainly woke Sir Jack up and that in itself has moved the club forward.

They can blame Hoddle for not getting promotion last season if they like, but he only failed like so many before.....including DJ....who got lucky the second season. We'll never know what Hoddle could have achieved at Wolves now.....time to let it go.

New time, new era and as long as we set about building the club on sensible foundations so that we have a team capable of sustaining a place in the Prem in the future then a lot of us will be more than happy.

Those that can't see the bigger picture....well, you're welcome to put your last fiver on the roulette wheel if you like. Let us all know how it turns out.

[John]

We'll never know what Hoddle could have achieved at Wolves now.
Sub 10000 attendances. Guarenteed.

[reanswolf]

Changing tact slightly people are forgetting about the profit we have made for the last two years....we are not even being allowed to stand on our own two feet if we cannot plough that profit back into the team.

[bradmore]

Sub 10000 attendances. Guarenteed.Rubbish prediction. Rubbish spelling.

[Bend It Like Dennison]

There's nothing to recover from. We were in the "Championship" when he came and that's where we were when he left. He didn't spend a lot of money to boot.

People hate Hoddle for illogical reasons. Personally, I think he did us a massive favour. It's certainly woke Sir Jack up and that in itself has moved the club forward.

They can blame Hoddle for not getting promotion last season if they like, but he only failed like so many before.....including DJ....who got lucky the second season. We'll never know what Hoddle could have achieved at Wolves now.....time to let it go.

New time, new era and as long as we set about building the club on sensible foundations so that we have a team capable of sustaining a place in the Prem in the future then a lot of us will be more than happy.

Those that can't see the bigger picture....well, you're welcome to put your last fiver on the roulette wheel if you like. Let us all know how it turns out.

Where to start with this one??

"People hate Hoddle for illogical reasons. Personally, I think he did us a massive favour."

Illogical? How about the fact he never wanted to be here? He made us $$$$$$in boring to watch? The fact that his 18 month reign was the worst era Ive ever experienced in my 18 years of supporting Wolves?

"They can blame Hoddle for not getting promotion last season if they like, but he only failed like so many before.....including DJ....who got lucky the second season."

How did DJ get lucky? As far as I recall after Jan 2003 we lost 2 games, cruised into the play-offs, thumping Sheff Utd fair & square & going on to promotion. Was Sam Allardyce lucky when he got Bolton up this way? Was Pardew with West Ham?

"We'll never know what Hoddle could have achieved at Wolves now....."

Actually, I think someone covered this in a previous post- gates of 12,000, a $$$$$ed off threadbare squad & a very $$$$$ed off fanbase. Oh & next to no hope of leaving this league...ever.

[Florida Wolfey]

Where to start with this one??

"People hate Hoddle for illogical reasons. Personally, I think he did us a massive favour."

Illogical? How about the fact he never wanted to be here? He made us $$$$$$in boring to watch? The fact that his 18 month reign was the worst era Ive ever experienced in my 18 years of supporting Wolves?

"They can blame Hoddle for not getting promotion last season if they like, but he only failed like so many before.....including DJ....who got lucky the second season."

How did DJ get lucky? As far as I recall after Jan 2003 we lost 2 games, cruised into the play-offs, thumping Sheff Utd fair & square & going on to promotion. Was Sam Allardyce lucky when he got Bolton up this way? Was Pardew with West Ham?

"We'll never know what Hoddle could have achieved at Wolves now....."

Actually, I think someone covered this in a previous post- gates of 12,000, a $$$$$ed off threadbare squad & a very $$$$$ed off fanbase. Oh & next to no hope of leaving this league...ever.

1) Hoddle did want to be here up until the time when we sold Lescott and Seol and released so many players. One day we'll know the real reasons he left.
2) 18 mth reign the worst ever? Haven't been following us for very long have you? Either that or your memory isn't so good.
3) Boring....I'd agree with that after January this year but disagree prior to that.
4) DJ....do you really want to go there. Let's sum it up in a nutshell...11pt lead squandered, man didn't know what happened, crap football season after but scrapped play off place and Ince rallied team to win convincingly in play offs, 25M spent.....8M of it in Premiership on players who never played, crap football upon relegation.
5) Gates of 12000....with 14000 season ticket holders?

Take your blinkers off......