Top 6 Budget? (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter chiefdave
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Quite indeed and it's a shame you fail to understand what one adult has said in the context of your argument.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
According to you though the expenditure is likely to be less than the budgeted amount on players.
Surely operating under budget would allow for some if the miscalculation in fact probably all of it?
Can you explain the anomaly as it seems to contradict your theory.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
According to me nothing. I told you on the Mowbray thread that it was supposition and that I wasn't making any statement unlike yourself. OSB proves your statement to be wrong as much if not more than my self confessed from the start theory. Why you're feeling so clever is beyond me.
I think OSB has explained everything. That's what happens when adults talk unlike the juvenile tosh that comes out of your mouth.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Really? How did he prove it wrong?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Because you claimed it to be the wage budget when it is in fact an SCMP calculation from the FL. Nothing more, nothing less.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
No I didn't I said it was the budget allowed for wages - have a look at this whole thread when I have constantly stated that.
Also I stated the re-paint stuff was not part of it. That's right isn't it?
Oh and again the Madison sale - explain how that fits into the probability we under spend - surely it's likely to be the other way isn't it?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I suggest you read post #53 on the Mowbray thread where you stated (and I quote)"The budget that is shown is that ALLOCATED to players salaries".
If you've said something different on this thread the only thing you proved is that you change your story to suit your argument. Not news to most I'm sure.
Regarding the repainting, fixing shower's, ccfc signage etc. at Ryton (let's not try and make out it was a quick lick of paint), the set up from scratch of a scouting network, personalising the team bus etc. don't know and neither do you.
What I do know is it came out of TM's budget. Now you don't need to be a genius to work out that this is money that can't go towards player wages and/or transfer fees.
Where have I said that we have under spent? You don't know what any Madison money has or hasn't contributed to anymore than I do. Do you? I'm happy to say it's theory and supposition. You on the other hand...
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Waggott said we are 8th-6th on player budget
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
From what I recall TM made the decision to put some identity on ryton and that money could have been used towards the player budget side of things if he wanted to use it in that way
Sky Blue Kid
Well-Known Member
Look out! Grammar Police out in force
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Aren't you talking about two different things? Waggott and Brookfield have both, on the record, stated that we have a top 6 budget.
The SCMP calculation is only coming in to it on the assumption that is the figure the FL uses in its benchmarking report.
Of course if you have a maximum budget of, for example, £2m you might only spend £1.75m so there is an element of the unknown but given that the whole system came in as clubs were spending way more than they could afford every season is it not likely that most clubs get pretty close to their limit?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I recognise it's two different things Dave. It's grendull who's struggling. Or is he? It depends on which thread he's saying it on as he's trying to win the same argument on two different thread's by saying the exact opposite on each thread on the same point while claiming both opposites as fact.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Waggott said 8th-6th Budget player side, Dave
(I have pointed this out to you quite a few times now. )
He never said we have a top six budget
Nick
Administrator
It's just an excuse to moan isn't it? Try and take any blame from the manager, blame investment even though he had a perfectly good squad and it's no excuse for the form
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Let the manager of what? Turning us from relegation fodder to promotion hopefuls? Damn you Mowbray for coming to our club giving us hope. That's not the done thing.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Unlike those moaning about the manager you mean blissfully unaware of how far we've come this season.
hill83
Well-Known Member
Summed his posting style up in one there.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Of course it is. It's a smokescreen.
The club agreed to mowbrays demands. It can't be blamed if what budget he's had he has mid managed. Most of the permenant signings haven't delivered at all, his resigning of Johnson was absurd as was tudgay as an occasional substitute. His desperation to accommodate an aged ex premier league player when the club were performing well was just a huge error of judgement.
Its like saying if he has a £2 million budget and he spends all if it on Freddie Eastwood he still is beyond blame if better budgeted clubs exist.
Management of funds and wise spending I would assume be his responsibility.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
We had a purple patch early on in the season, but then have been in relegation for for over half a season noe and haven't yet hit our first seasons points total a season where we had 4 managers and started the season on 2-3 points after 8 games and then went into admin. Add to that we will lose our best players in the summer, so its not like we're building on this season, next season is another rebuild
I don't want Mowbray sacked but this season is a failure not progress
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Nick
Administrator
How far have we come?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I don't think he ever did make the point either.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Why would Waggot say 8th-6th?
If it is actually top six
What was the point of including 8th and 7th
Was he planning an excuse to let Mowbray off?
Nick
Administrator
He must have, because even at 8th Mowbray has under performed
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Why would they tell the SCG top quartile based on the benchmarking report (is top 6)? You seem to be ignoring that.
It is possible waggott said it before the benchmarking report was out, based on previous budget reports, and/or he wanted to take some pressure off Mowbray.
The only teams I can see would have bigger budgets is Wigan, Millwall, sheff united, Bradford and possible Peterborough
And mowbray must have been happy with the budget and thought it was enough to be competitive which is why he signed his contract when hr could have walked away.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Well at the moment we have 4 more wins, 5 less defeats, we've scored more than we've conceded and we're going to finish the season at least 8 points better of. No relegation battle hoping other results go our way on the last day of the season instead we were still in with a shout of a playoff place with three games left to go. Not bad for a manager who also had to do some basic things that should have already been in place like routine maintenance on the training ground, give the training ground an identity, set up a scouting network that we didn't have etc. etc.
What was our budget last season? Same as this wasn't it? I'm sure I remember SW saying that SP had to go because he failed to make the most of a top six budget.
That's a good turnaround in my book. Seems to me that the ones who overhyped TM when he signed on fulltime (not me, I got abused by the ones who overhyped him for being a realist) are for the most part the same ones who counted their chickens before their eggs hatched when we were sitting in the top six (maybe they forgot that they support Coventry) who then lead the calls for him to go when in fact if you look at the WHOLE picture he's done a good job not just rebuilding the team but the club and in a short period of time. We're no longer at the bottom of the cycle and that's down to TM.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
“From our Football League benchmark figure this year we’ll be between sixth and eighth in terms of spend on the playing squad" Waggot
(Between 8th-6th to me is 7th. )
The upper quartile is the median of the upper half of a set of data.
I don't really get how that works in the statement above.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Also what if there's another 2 or 3 teams all on the same budget as us? Top 6-8 could actually mean top 9-11 and upper quartile could mean 13th or 14th
I'm on the wind up here for the large part but it is entirely possible and if the other teams have the benefit of stability they're always going to have an edge baring a huge slice of luck on our part and as we all know we don't do luck that well.
I'm on the wind up here for the large part but it is entirely possible and if the other teams have the benefit of stability they're always going to have an edge baring a huge slice of luck on our part and as we all know we don't do luck that well.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Also what if there's another 2 or 3 teams all on the same budget as us? Top 6-8 could actually mean top 9-11 and upper quartile could mean 13th or 14th
I'm on the wind up here for the large part but it is entirely possible and if the other teams have the benefit of stability they're always going to have an edge baring a huge slice of luck on our part and as we all know we don't do luck that well.
As stated it's also possible that 3rd highest is marginally less.
Still if you think Rochdale, Walsall and Bury have better budgets than us you are clearly of a delusional nature.
dongonzalos
Well-Known Member
Now this is really getting confusing
I thought If we do a long term rent deal like we have now with Wasps
We are destined to stay in league 1.
However we also have one of the best budgets in league one under such a rent deal?
One or the other surely?
Nick
Administrator
haven't most said above league one would be when the issues start?