Definitely.
We should be looking to sell Hamer and replace with 4 players of similar quality though. Not 1 player and deal with it as has been alluded to.
It's fair to say that Sillett wasn't always the finest judge of a player from lower leagues. We had Smith, Martin Lane was another, Edwards... I guess Houchen was God for the cup games, but not that great as a top flight forward really. Emerson a hit, obviously, but struggling to think of other lower league gems that made it under Sillett (wait for somebody to reel off a list now!)I remember seeing Kevan Smith play and sure he was, along with Kevin Mcdonald, the slowest player I've ever seen.
Yeah at the end of the day it depends who, and what potential they have. How they're signed doesn't really bother me... although loan replacements won't work beyond the one-offs, for obvious reasons.I’m also not massively fussed about spending on transfers. We need to increase our wage budget so even if Hamer going out gave us the opportunity to increase our wage budget by £2m per year for the next 3 years then that would give us far more opportunity to progress. Or even a bit of a balancing act between the two.
I’m also not massively fussed about spending on transfers. We need to increase our wage budget so even if Hamer going out gave us the opportunity to increase our wage budget by £2m per year for the next 3 years then that would give us far more opportunity to progress. Or even a bit of a balancing act between the two.
Culpin was before that
Nick Pickering and Dean Emerson?
Transfer fees received are unlikely going to enhance our ability to increase our wage bill, not significantly anyway.
As that's completely unsustainable and one sure way for the club to bankrupt itself.
It’s also the issue with people getting hung up on “keeping hold of the big 3”. If we want to progress in the medium term we *need* to sell and reinvest. Hamer, O’Hare or Gyokeres get to their last year of contract and we’re fucked.
Transfer fees received are unlikely going to enhance our ability to increase our wage bill, not significantly anyway.
As that's completely unsustainable and one sure way for the club to bankrupt itself.
Very interesting take. What I’m getting at isn’t an ongoing increase, merely using funds (like suggested) to give us the ability to bring in half-decent players on half-decent 3-year contracts this summer. If it all goes tits up then they’re out of contract by the time the wage bill has to be reduced again.
I AM SO ANGRY ABOUT SOMETHING I DONT KNOW WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN!
It's budgetable. For instance if you use the money to bring in a player on 10k per week, that's roughly 500k per year, £1.5m over 3 year contract. Appreciate that's not quite accurate with other costs such as NI contributions & other employment costs but it can be used in that way without risking the future of the club - particularly as a lot of the transfer fee would be received in installments anyway.
A name out of the blue with no substance other than the Brighton link.
Moisés Caicedo
Ecudorian international, signed for Brighton last summer for £4,5m but sent out on loan to Beershot in Belgium. Recalled by Brighton during a midfielder shortage and played a few games in the PL towards the end of last season. Very higly thought of by Potter and Brighton but maybe an English loan would be his next likely destination?
It's not particularly in the medium term. As you're relying on consistent sales to fund that.
What happens if O'Hare or Hamer suffer either a massive drop-off in form or perhaps more likely suffer serious injuries ultimately affecting their value? There's no guarantee the players brought in on the aforementioned significant wages will succeed given that every transfer has an element of risk attached to it and as such the club could be left with few saleable assets to sustain their now unsustainable wage bill.
As mentioned they might perhaps in the short term to increase the wage bill marginally in order to give Robins some extra room to manoeuvre but in the medium term they're highly unlikely to take such a risk.
However I'm not particularly holding my breath when there's interest payments owed, operational costs to cover and the EFL loan looming.
If you continually recycled the method I’ve mentioned then you’d be able to organically grow the wage budget without risking the club’s future. Yes of course it relies on player sales but without a change in ownership it’s the only way we’ll be able to improve.
I’d imagine he will be very much in the first team frame now Bissouma has gone.
Edit: and I wonder whether the loan to Belgium (a trick Man Utd used to use) was more to do with work permit issues.
I think we will keep waghorn
I fucking hope not, never seen such a waste of a city shirt since Neil Wood
Ridiculous post
Why is it?
I suppose you thought he 'brought something to the team'
Na im joking great, season 1 goal 1 assist, lets extend him
Grow up, and yes he did bring something when he played and he was much better than Neil fucking Wood.
I fucking hope not, never seen such a waste of a city shirt since Neil Wood
Personally, with how we operate - i.e. SISU's only form of investment being short-term high-interest loans - I think our wage bill can realistically only be constructed mainly from consistent sources of income. E.g. Commercial and ticketing revenue, TV money, F&B and sponsorship.
If we get ourselves into a situation of using received transfer fees as a basis from which to establish a wage budget then that's more likely than not to land us in hot water as there's far too many uncertainties and irregularities in football to rely on transfer fees as a consistent source of income and to subsidise a growing wage bill.
And on a base level I’d agree *if* we were speculatively increasing the wage bill on potential future transfer fees. What I’m suggesting is the reverse of that - using fees received as a means to fund future wages. I’ll hypothesise this quickly (and I’ll use round numbers to make it easier to explain so don’t read into the figures used!):
Say we get £8m for Hamer. £2m taken by SISU either for club overheads or as interest payments (rightly or wrongly, it’ll probably happen). This leaves £6m. You could then split that £6m over the next 3 years and increase the wage bill by £2m per year using this income that has already been received.
In a year’s time, we come to sell Gyokeres and he commands a fee of £12m. Again, £3m cut to SISU leaving £9m. Spread that over 3 years again and you can inflate by a further £3m per year based on income received.
Then one of the players we’ve brought in using Hamer’s funding blossoms and is worth £6m. £1.5m to SISU and £4.5m spread over 3 years again. You’re now in a situation where, instead of having a wage budget in a year of £15m (rough estimate of where we are at the moment) this is organically increased to £21.5m. If the rest of the players signed using those initial Hamer funds fail then their contracts roll off in time for the £2m drop the following year.
It’s just a rough working theory and crucially doesn’t take into account contract extensions but as a framework I think it has legs. For reference, that extra £6.5m that we’ve created on the wage bill for the ‘top performing’ season equates to an additional £125,000 per week on wages.
Does my fucking head inI beg of you all to please stop talking as if instalments make a difference. All transfers of a significant value in or out are paid in instalments. It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference.
Some interesting thoughts. I think there are more costs to be considered - and I doubt Robins would be given up to 75 per cent of a sale but it's something the club could at least consider for the short term at the very least.
I’m going to book a romantic weekend with the wife in Middlesbrough. I’d ask for suggestions on where to stay but the thread’s full of them
Same as people talking about transfer fees and wages as if they come out of different pots
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?