• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Mavrias

Status
Not open for further replies.
mooseknuckle said:
but those players will be back on our wage bill in 9 months time we have only moved them off temporarily. if they fail at their clubs and nobody wants them we will have a big problem if we have signed players long term in their place.
Click to expand...

so it seems you are coming back to wages being a problem then, which you laughed at earlier.

In any case, I don't see where this idea comes from that we have no money to spend. It just seems like we are being cautious more than worried and to be honest getting people off the wage bill permanently makes more sense than needing transfer money in in order to spend.

Why exactly do you think we have no money to spend?
 

King for a Day... said:
so it seems you are coming back to wages being a problem then, which you laughed at earlier.

In any case, I don't see where this idea comes from that we have no money to spend. It just seems like we are being cautious more than worried and to be honest getting people off the wage bill permanently makes more sense than needing transfer money in in order to spend.

Why exactly do you think we have no money to spend?
Click to expand...


He likes to say it to get people wound up.
 
King for a Day... said:
so it seems you are coming back to wages being a problem then, which you laughed at earlier.

In any case, I don't see where this idea comes from that we have no money to spend. It just seems like we are being cautious more than worried and to be honest getting people off the wage bill permanently makes more sense than needing transfer money in in order to spend.

Why exactly do you think we have no money to spend?
Click to expand...

we are only freeing up wages for 9 months though that is what i am saying so the obvious option for us is to fill that gap for 9 months via a loan deal and the reason i think we have no money to spend is because of our chief exec's comments and our financial records.
 
King for a Day... said:
so it seems you are coming back to wages being a problem then, which you laughed at earlier.

In any case, I don't see where this idea comes from that we have no money to spend. It just seems like we are being cautious more than worried and to be honest getting people off the wage bill permanently makes more sense than needing transfer money in in order to spend.

Why exactly do you think we have no money to spend?
Click to expand...

It could be because Margaret Byrne said a while ago that the tv money would be used to pay off our debts.
 
Maxie said:
If its off, this is where the new setup start earning their money. That's (allegedly) the 3rd long running transfer we've trailed that hasn't come to fruition (if reports are true).
Click to expand...

What about all of the players that we have signed?
 
King for a Day... said:
so it seems you are coming back to wages being a problem then, which you laughed at earlier.

In any case, I don't see where this idea comes from that we have no money to spend. It just seems like we are being cautious more than worried and to be honest getting people off the wage bill permanently makes more sense than needing transfer money in in order to spend.

Why exactly do you think we have no money to spend?
Click to expand...

We have money to spend, it's just that the priorities are two fullbacks and a central midfield playmaker. It's likely that if we can sign players for those 3 positions without worrying about players out but if we bring in a player for a different position, then we'd have to reduce the squad further before signing one of our priority positions.

So as it is, we are concentrating on signing those priority positions, even if it threatens other deals we have going and then working on getting players out, so we can bring in other players.
 
sad-eyed prophet said:
The increase in the tv money,wasn't it?
Click to expand...

we were running at a massive loss before the extra tv money.

andy78 said:
We have money to spend, it's just that the priorities are two fullbacks and a central midfield playmaker. It's likely that if we can sign players for those 3 positions without worrying about players out but if we bring in a player for a different position, then we'd have to reduce the squad further before signing one of our priority positions.

So as it is, we are concentrating on signing those priority positions, even if it threatens other deals we have going and then working on getting players out, so we can bring in other players.
Click to expand...

righto :lol:
 
andy78 said:
We have money to spend, it's just that the priorities are two fullbacks and a central midfield playmaker. It's likely that if we can sign players for those 3 positions without worrying about players out but if we bring in a player for a different position, then we'd have to reduce the squad further before signing one of our priority positions.

So as it is, we are concentrating on signing those priority positions, even if it threatens other deals we have going and then working on getting players out, so we can bring in other players.
Click to expand...

At last,a bit of common sense.
 
mooseknuckle said:
we were running at a massive loss before the extra tv money.


righto :lol:
Click to expand...

That wasn't your argument though. Typical of your approach on here. You lurch from one spurious assumption to another without anything concrete to back it up and then try to mock those who present a counter argument that might have some merit.
 
sad-eyed prophet said:
That wasn't your argument though. Typical of your approach on here. You lurch from one spurious assumption to another without anything concrete to back it up and then try to mock those who present a counter argument that might have some merit.
Click to expand...

you said the EXTRA tv money was to pay the debt you knacker therefore we would still be running at a massive loss so where is the extra money from transfers coming from?.
 
mooseknuckle said:
we have money but only for certain positions,haway man.:lol:

how much do we have?.
Click to expand...

Transfer fees aren't a problem at all, we could buy whoever we wanted right now but Premier League clubs can only increase their wage bill by so much per year. So with so much dead wood still at the club, we have prioritised right back, left back and central midfield.

Anyone outside of those 3 positions will have to wait until we ship out the likes of Cuellar, Bardsley, Vaughan, Cattermole, etc.
 
andy78 said:
Transfer fees aren't a problem at all, we could buy whoever we wanted right now but Premier League clubs can only increase their wage bill by so much per year. So with so much dead wood still at the club, we have prioritised right back, left back and central midfield.

Anyone outside of those 3 positions will have to wait until we ship out the likes of Cuellar, Bardsley, Vaughan, Cattermole, etc.
Click to expand...

100% bollox. we have shifted far more from last seasons wage bill than we have added and we are allowed to increase it by 4 million this season.
 
mooseknuckle said:
100% bollox. we have shifted far more from last seasons wage bill than we have added and we are allowed to increase it by 4 million this season.
Click to expand...

Yes but the midfield playmaker is going to cost a load of money, not to mention whatever the likes of Peruzzi and Cissokho get. They'll be on more than £4m per year between them.

You don't seem to understand how money works. :neutral:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top