Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
High Wages Cost Money Too...
Topic Started: Jan 10 2006, 09:55 AM (254 Views)
cotswold chris
Steve Claridge
[ *  *  * ]
I keep reading posters on here complaining that the Board haven't spent enough money on new signings.

In fact of course they have already made huge investments in signing new so called star players on massive wages. The reality post Bosman is that high wages have taken over from high transfer fees for most transfers, except for the real superstars where you have to pay big fees and high wages

Many of these signings dont seem to have paid off so far at least, so why should we be surprised if hard nosed businessmean are a little reluctant to keep throwing good money after bad.

In any case by comparison Villa have spent much less, both on transfer fees and wages, and yet they are not heading for the coca cola league.

Face facts guys. Steve Bruce has had unbelievable financial resources, and he lacks the tactical ability to make them pay. This aint going to change so why give him more cash to **** away?

We should accept that we are likely to move down for a season and make sure that our younger players get a proper chance to show what they can do. Lets hope Bruce doesnt screw them up too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StAndrews4Eva
Member Avatar
Gil Merrick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Totally agree.

I am fairly sure Steve Bruce's transfer spending is around the £40miliion mark. Now for a club that is relatively new to this league that is aa hefty sum.

No manager is perfect and they all make mistakes in the transfer market. However I feel that the board expected more of a return on their investment in players.

Managers like Big Sam and Curbs would kill to have that level of investment in their clubs. Look at what they have achieved without it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cotswold chris
Steve Claridge
[ *  *  * ]
thanks st andys. He has spent even more then I thought if your figures are right
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
StAndrews4Eva
Member Avatar
Gil Merrick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
cotswold chris
Jan 10 2006, 10:12 AM
thanks st andys. He has spent even more then I thought if your figures are right

I'm pretty sure he has spent around the £40mil mark.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TJDIXI
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This post is perfectly set fo gncoma to come along and spread his gospel!

The board are spending to keep the club in the laegue and out of debt. What really annoys me is the attitude of some fans when they say the board don't put enough in.

*It was the board that took the gamble on us when they bought us and still are (unless there investment has paid off?),

*any money that the board put into the club deepens the debt and damages the profit. If the golds and sully put £10m into the january sales the club are going to be paying that back which means the profits of the club for that finacial year and those after are down so to pay off the loan

Cotswold Chris you are spot on son - i'm sorry for ranting but it really annoys me to see people complaining about the financial movements of the club and then in the same breath moaning about the cost of season tickets, shirts and Bovril.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joe
Geoff Horsfield
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The country air must be getting to you Chris. 'unbelievable resources' £40 million! Don't make me laugh. Bruce has probably spent £15 million net on fees. Yes wages are high, but aren't they for any respecting PL club. Our wage to turnover ratio is the lowest in the PL. When people like Butt sign on loan they are last resorts because Bruce wasn't allowed/able to get who he really wanted. Let's just see how much he ends up spending during this transfer window. A million here, a million there (only if other players are sold), foreign loans perhaps? It will be the same for the next manager after him. Wake up and smell the coffee
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cotswold chris
Steve Claridge
[ *  *  * ]
Joe
Jan 10 2006, 11:45 AM
The country air must be getting to you Chris. 'unbelievable resources' £40 million! Don't make me laugh. Bruce has probably spent £15 million net on fees. Yes wages are high, but aren't they for any respecting PL club. Our wage to turnover ratio is the lowest in the PL. When people like Butt sign on loan they are last resorts because Bruce wasn't allowed/able to get who he really wanted. Let's just see how much he ends up spending during this transfer window. A  million here, a million there (only if other players are sold), foreign loans perhaps? It will be the same for the next manager after him. Wake up and smell the coffee

Good point about the wages to turnover stat.

But I still think you will find that we outgun most clubs outside the top 4 or 5 when it comes to wages paid to entice "stars".

As another poster said, what would Big Sam or Curbs have achieved given the same backing?

But you may be right. Perhaps my brain is addled by too much fresh air - I need some brummie stuff to make me think like all you whinging buggars!!!!

And the coffee smells wonderful ta.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stourbridge Blue
Stourbridge Blue
[ *  *  * ]
Again People forget to add on (a) signing on fees (B) Agents fees.

The cost of signing a player is high, even if they come on a free tranfer. It is not free. If they come on loan it is not free, that is before they pay the players wages.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bookemdanno
Member Avatar
Alex Govan
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Stourbridge Blue
Jan 10 2006, 02:40 PM
Again People forget to add on (a) signing on fees (B) Agents fees.

The cost of signing a player is high, even if they come on a free tranfer. It is not free. If they come on loan it is not free, that is before they pay the players wages.

Perhaps then we should be more prudent in purchasing players. Not settle for run of the mill players, panic loans and the rest.

Quality not quantity, we have/had enough squad players before. Maybe we should have kept them, and added improvements. Not replace our sold squad players on occasions with more squad players.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cotswold chris
Steve Claridge
[ *  *  * ]
Stourbridge Blue
Jan 10 2006, 02:40 PM
Again People forget to add on (a) signing on fees (B) Agents fees.

The cost of signing a player is high, even if they come on a free tranfer. It is not free. If they come on loan it is not free, that is before they pay the players wages.

aint no such thing as a free lunch, nor a free loan signing either
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TJDIXI
Member Avatar
Trevor Francis
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
i seem to get a few on football manager though!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
david_kelly
Peter Enckelman
[ *  *  * ]
Chris, thanks for raising this important topic.

You are of course, 100% on the money with your argument. When this £15m net spend propaganda first surfaced and then duly propagated by Steve's cheerleaders in the media, I hoped that many sensible people would see through it and thankfully they have.

The evidence of squander on fees and waste on wages, was as clear to see on Saturday as it has been for almost the past 2 years.

We all acknowledge that every investment on the playing side is a RISK. Nevertheless, the failures far outweigh the successes.

But the fact the club has spent all this money at the same time as heavily discount admission charges at the gate, is a tribute to Karren's stewardship and the quality of the people around her.

The club is on the whole self-financing and significant sums have been afforded to successive managers. There will of course be those who malign the board for not spending "big" money, but any business will only do this when they are sure that there is a market out there with people paying premium prices EVERY WEEK for quality players.

How many games have been "Kids for a Quid", "Kids for a Fiver", £10/£15/£20 adults etc.? Too many to remember, I'd say. People have their opinions about this strategy, but on the whole it is a courageous and yet a grossly unappreciated marketing paradigm.

So I think it is far too simplistic and irresponsible for the media and certain fans to spout this "only £15m" mantra as a self-evident truth. The fact is that it is far more complex financial situation than that.

Saying that "Sullivan has this amount of money" or "the Golds have that amount" and that they should "put their hands in their pockets" has always been missing the point.

The inescapable fact of the matter is this, and if the board are too diplomatic to say it, I'll say it for them:

MONEY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE MANAGER. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE. PLAYERS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS CLUB ON BIG WAGES AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO PERFORM. INJURIES ARE NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

So to Steve....

YOU'RE THE MANAGER, YOU'VE BOUGHT THE PLAYERS, YOU'VE COACHED THEM....

IT'S YOUR FAULT!

Nothing personal Steve, but it is disingenious for you to think we should believe otherwise.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cotswold chris
Steve Claridge
[ *  *  * ]
david_kelly
Jan 10 2006, 03:44 PM
Chris, thanks for raising this important topic.

You are of course, 100% on the money with your argument.  When this £15m net spend propaganda first surfaced and then duly propagated by Steve's cheerleaders in the media, I hoped that many sensible people would see through it and thankfully they have.

The evidence of squander on fees and waste on wages, was as clear to see on Saturday as it has been for almost the past 2 years.

We all acknowledge that every investment on the playing side is a RISK.  Nevertheless, the failures far outweigh the successes.

But the fact the club has spent all this money at the same time as heavily discount admission charges at the gate, is a tribute to Karren's stewardship and the quality of the people around her.

The club is on the whole self-financing and significant sums have been afforded to successive managers.  There will of course be those who malign the board for not spending "big" money, but any business will only do this when they are sure that there is a market out there with people paying premium prices EVERY WEEK for quality players. 

How many games have been "Kids for a Quid", "Kids for a Fiver", £10/£15/£20 adults etc.?  Too many to remember, I'd say.  People have their opinions about this strategy, but on the whole it is a courageous and yet a grossly unappreciated marketing paradigm.

So I think it is far too simplistic and irresponsible for the media and certain fans to spout this "only £15m" mantra as a self-evident truth.  The fact is that it is far more complex financial situation than that.

Saying that "Sullivan has this amount of money" or "the Golds have that amount" and that they should "put their hands in their pockets" has always been missing the point.

The inescapable fact of the matter is this, and if the board are too diplomatic to say it, I'll say it for them:

MONEY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE MANAGER. THE EVIDENCE IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE.  PLAYERS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS CLUB ON BIG WAGES AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO PERFORM.  INJURIES ARE NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

So to Steve....

YOU'RE THE MANAGER, YOU'VE BOUGHT THE PLAYERS, YOU'VE COACHED THEM....

IT'S YOUR FAULT!

Nothing personal Steve, but it is disingenious for you to think we should believe otherwise.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

You aren't Ms Brady by any chance are you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Blues Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.