Redrobbin Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said: Without quoting the above post (it's a long un) Outside of our structure (for wages as things stand) is very different to 'outside our budget' (as set by SL) Sorry for the double post. But could you please define the difference between wage structure ( essentially budget) and budget??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 1 minute ago, Portland Bill said: His son may well have the list and may well be working on it atm! After all, isn't he the chairman! Not sure John will be deeply involved !!!! I think he was referring to SC, Burt and his team and the analysis / Stats team !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchay Red Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 2 minutes ago, Portland Bill said: His son may well have the list and may well be working on it atm! After all, isn't he the chairman! Keith Dawe is the chairman, isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 1 minute ago, Redrobbin said: Sorry for the double post. But could you please define the difference between wage structure ( essentially budget) and budget??? Okay, our 'structure' is probably (I'm not in the know), some highly waged League 1 players who got a payrise on promotion. Our Championship budget could be significantly higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 15 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said: To be fair he repeated the same in the RB interview - admitted he didn't know the Jan transfer targets but was relaxed about it as people (management etc) were working hard on it and he was expecting it fairly soon (And as he'd explained in I/v earlier he doesn't get involved in the identification of players and compiling a list of chosen targets) And you believe that! Would you like to know what your money was being spent on? Regardless of who it is Especially with previous experience ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 3 minutes ago, Frenchay Red said: Keith Dawe is the chairman, isn't he? Good point! Vice chairman then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 2 minutes ago, Redrobbin said: Sorry for the double post. But could you please define the difference between wage structure ( essentially budget) and budget??? I don't know this - just a suggestion Sll may , for a number of reasons say - no weekly wage over £********* for any player or he could say as some clubs operate Total Wages Budget for 2015/16 is 5 million or whatever and it is for the Chief Exec / SC / KB etc to ensure that we keep to that - In simple terms - if you have a wage equivalent of 25k a week 'spare' in the budget - you can sign one player on 25k / week , one on 15k and one on 10k or 5 @ 5k a week etc just a thought - I havnt a clue what Gayle is on at Palace but SL was quite clear about our ability to pay it I think / got the impression that he's more concerned about the residual value of the player tho it's clear we can't and won't pay ridiculous wages or agents fees which you have to respect IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverface Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 Its intriguing that we apparently knew what Gray/Gayle was on and we were prepared to match, but we need to offer more than that as a sweetner so that we become a considered club. I mean, would you bother moving house/home/schools etc without getting a pay rise? I wouldnt. We really need to sell ourselves as a club, whether through ambition, players were going to sign, wages, or even a tallisman manager who's been there and done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
054123 Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 3 hours ago, JustinCider said: Imagine the irony if prospective corporate clients actually don't want to use our lovely new facilities as they would rather use the facilities at clubs more likely to get promotion. You do realise that all corporate has been sold for next year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 I thought one telling comment was his apparent throwaway line at the end `perhaps we should have paid the agents more`. Make of it what you will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay mizel Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 2 hours ago, Redrobbin said: SC hasn't put a list of players for January before him yet, he's expecting one any day. Leaving it a little bit late isn't he? Another huge error in business management! Even a micro sized business knows what is happening within the space of 10 or so days. Waiting for a budget from SL. Seriously though, where the **** is Dawe? (What does he do?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 Trouble is Steve Langsdown as his finger in two pies. It's have not just about BCFC any more as we all know. I do recall one poster recently stating (although ridiculous) that SL's first love is rugby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 2 minutes ago, j mizel said: Waiting for a budget from SL. Seriously though, where the **** is Dawe? (What does he do?) How do you work that out from the quote FFS? Just the opposite is more likely, SC has the budget and is working on a list of players that fit the parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 6 hours ago, spudski said: Well I'm glad he confirmed it wasn't wages that stopped players coming here...said this all along. What I find amusing is you even said last week on another thread that this forum wasn't about who is right and who is wrong. I can post a link to your own comment if you like. Funnier still that the reason SL gave for players not coming wasn't your reason - players, manager, agents and coaches not liking Cotterill - but because players think other clubs have a better chance of promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 1 hour ago, NickJ said: Correct you did say that, you said it was because players, manager, agents and coaches don't like Cotterill. Whereas SL said the players we were after went to clubs they felt had a better chance of challenging for promotion. Go back over my comments re the Burnley and Palace dealings and you will see I said the players didn't want to come here for various reasons...but we could match the wages offered. I have said SC isn't liked by many people in football...thus making it harder to attract players. So I don't see what your problem is, apart from the fact I don't name names, which obviously irks you. Like I have said before... it's your prerogative to listen or not...you obviously don't...so why bother commenting? Seems you just like to go around nit picking with people. Plus you did imply recently that you also speak to such like people in the game...if so...you would also hear the same things. But I very much doubt it...as you seem intent on having one on one pedantic nit picks. Basically you know one person who worked at the Gate and they told you SC was hard working...which he is. So get over yourself, and stop being a pedant and trying cause arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 6 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said: I thought one telling comment was his apparent throwaway line at the end `perhaps we should have paid the agents more`. Make of it what you will. I think you have it in one, after all it would have been the agents who were leaking the prices of the bids in the first place. They are only interested in one thing, getting as much money for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 2 hours ago, wayne allisons tongues said: I'm a bit confused, according to people who were at the senior refs Thursday we aren't paying huge wages and going to look at l1 l2 players. Today been said wages aren't a problem its just getting players to sign that's the problem. Which is right for both are allegedly from SL. Have I got this wrong? Why are they mutually exclusive? Just because you have a budget does not mean you should spend it all. I don't see a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Orns Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 4 minutes ago, Redrobbin said: Trouble is Steve Langsdown as his finger in two pies. It's have not just about BCFC any more as we all know. I do recall one poster recently stating (although ridiculous) that SL's first love is rugby! I'm pretty sure the man has said that himself. JL got him into City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 8 minutes ago, Redrobbin said: Sorry for the double post. But could you please define the difference between wage structure ( essentially budget) and budget??? Let me help! Wage Budget is the amount total of monies available, wage structure is the structure in which those total monies are distributed in wages....I can make it simpler Club have 10M to spend on wages (budget) distributed among 22ish players, with a cap and floor to any individual...Does that help!? Anyway away from basic 1.01 budgeting, I thought our majority shareholder was candid and straight forward and you would expect nothing less from a bloke who would not care a jot of the opinion of anyone on here or listening to Radio Brizz.... Gayle and Grey did not sign for us because of the lack of money available in wages or in transfer fees, which is what many (actually a notable few) of us have been saying/screaming for sometime, however SL (or me) does not care what a few people want to continue to whinge on about (ITK or not) those are the facts according to the bloke that pays!!!!! He made it plain, as of the interview, he did not personally know about/who the targets for the window are, however he was being told today/soon with the inference he wold be advised about costs (I've already noted comments on, how do we not know, blah, blah....The club do the major shareholder is about to be told). Once the board the manager and the coaching staff advise him he will back them within all reason and he has never not backed a manager at the club and he will continue to do so with money. We could not get a lot of deals across the line many of them unknown to the ITK's due the fact that we were not perceived to be a good option as we set ourselves to higher standard (a good thing in general), however they may be a marginal change in policy regarding targets. Is it all clear now or are we all going to argue about power, corruption lies spin etc!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City Rocker Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 9 minutes ago, Woodsy said: I'm pretty sure the man has said that himself. JL got him into City I thought he said exactly the reverse of that very recently. Football has always been his game and he doesn't really know about rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 4 minutes ago, Woodsy said: I'm pretty sure the man has said that himself. JL got him into City Correct Woodsy - tho he also said football was always his 'love' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickJ Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said: just fed up with your constant agenda And yes you have indicated within the last week or so that you have your own sources who tell a different story to Spudski You spout the same stuff, ironically accusing Spudski of having an agenda yet you wouldn't let anyone have an opinion on your love in with certain people at AG if they emptied the clubs safe and ran off to South America BTW Spudski and other on here know a lot more than they ever post on here - if they have an agenda as you tediously and boringly repeat in just about every post why wouldn't these posters post all they've got if they wanted to stir ?? Genuine q - out of interest have you ever had a direct connection with the club (other than as a fan) or involvement in professional football ? Last sentence - get a life. My agenda is loyalty and support for my club, which means fans, players and managers sticking together. Constructive criticism is fine but you and your mate go beyond that in a cowardly bullying subversive way. Your and your mate and a few others constant snipe against Cotterill because your comments pre appointment have been made to look stupid. And Mr Anonymous because I defend our manager you have an agenda against me - you even referred to me on a thread I hadn't posted on this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 1 minute ago, NickJ said: Last sentence - get a life. My agenda is loyalty and support for my club, which means fans, players and managers sticking together. Constructive criticism is fine but you and your mate go beyond that in a cowardly bullying subversive way. Your and your mate and a few others constant snipe against Cotterill because your comments pre appointment have been made to look stupid. And Mr Anonymous because I defend our manager you have an agenda against me - you even referred to me on a thread I hadn't posted on this week. * chuckle * You have issues :laugh: So who was your source at AG then Notice you didn't answer my question about involvement at the Club or pro football. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 19 minutes ago, NickJ said: Last sentence - get a life. My agenda is loyalty and support for my club, which means fans, players and managers sticking together. Constructive criticism is fine but you and your mate go beyond that in a cowardly bullying subversive way. Your and your mate and a few others constant snipe against Cotterill because your comments pre appointment have been made to look stupid. And Mr Anonymous because I defend our manager you have an agenda against me - you even referred to me on a thread I hadn't posted on this week. please feel free to quote me - as you indicate - appears from previous threads that you spend a great deal of time (think it's You that needs to get a life ! ) searching for any previous comments - please feel free to (try and) find my comments about his appointment off ya go..........have fun Still waiting for the name of your source................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 6 minutes ago, REDOXO said: Let me help! Wage Budget is the amount total of monies available, wage structure is the structure in which those total monies are distributed in wages....I can make it simpler Club have 10M to spend on wages (budget) distributed among 22ish players, with a cap and floor to any individual...Does that help!? Anyway away from basic 1.01 budgeting, I thought our majority shareholder was candid and straight forward and you would expect nothing less from a bloke who would not care a jot of the opinion of anyone on here or listening to Radio Brizz.... Gayle and Grey did not sign for us because of the lack of money available in wages or in transfer fees, which is what many (actually a notable few) of us have been saying/screaming for sometime, however SL (or me) does not care what a few people want to continue to whinge on about (ITK or not) those are the facts according to the bloke that pays!!!!! He made it plain, as of the interview, he did not personally know about/who the targets for the window are, however he was being told today/soon with the inference he wold be advised about costs (I've already noted comments on, how do we not know, blah, blah....The club do the major shareholder is about to be told). Once the board the manager and the coaching staff advise him he will back them within all reason and he has never not backed a manager at the club and he will continue to do so with money. We could not get a lot of deals across the line many of them unknown to the ITK's due the fact that we were not perceived to be a good option as we set ourselves to higher standard (a good thing in general), however they may be a marginal change in policy regarding targets. Is it all clear now or are we all going to argue about power, corruption lies spin etc!? Ok got it. But if you buy a player for 9mil. And have 10 mil to spend on 22 squad players, and maybe reserves who knows. Stands to reason we won't be able to bid on these type of players based on wages. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Certainly not in the summer transfer market anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 6 minutes ago, Redrobbin said: Ok got it. But if you buy a player for 9mil. And have 10 mil to spend on 22 squad players, and maybe reserves who knows. Stands to reason we won't be able to bid on these type of players based on wages. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Certainly not in the summer transfer market anyway. No you haven't got it. You don't know the difference between buying players and paying them apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 33 minutes ago, beaverface said: Its intriguing that we apparently knew what Gray/Gayle was on and we were prepared to match, but we need to offer more than that as a sweetner so that we become a considered club. I mean, would you bother moving house/home/schools etc without getting a pay rise? I wouldnt. We really need to sell ourselves as a club, whether through ambition, players were going to sign, wages, or even a tallisman manager who's been there and done it. I have no inside info, but I'd be amazed if we weren't offering Gray a fair bit more than he was on at Brentford. I think the issue was two fold: - Burnley offered a fair bit more than us - Burnley likely to be challenging for promotion Had Dyche been manager of City and Cotts at Burnley, I don't think he'd have come to us. As for the interview, it was a really good listen.. Seemed honest if not a little political in his answers....but you'd expect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 9 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said: No you haven't got it. You don't know the difference between buying players and paying them apparently. Ok clever clogs. Why did we fail to get Gayle etc. Based on finances!? Based on wages. As transfer fees were not a problem apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 9 minutes ago, Redrobbin said: Ok got it. But if you buy a player for 9mil. And have 10 mil to spend on 22 squad players, and maybe reserves who knows. Stands to reason we won't be able to bid on these type of players based on wages. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Certainly not in the summer transfer market anyway. Don't confuse capital expenditure (price of player) with wage budget, they are often (mostly but not always) mutually exclusive. (Baker for example is coming largely from a non capital budget as City have to pay him and an ongoing fee to Villa so there is a good example of the exception....Yes loans are not free, Usually!!) Transfer fees are capital expenditure and are a factor of what Capital (money) you have in the bank. Think of SL as being a bank that City keep thee captital in although he spends that money from his personal fortune in reality. In days gone buy clubs would build up profit keep it in the club to spend on transfers...These days football clubs are the toys of the super rich and as such the money comes from them...Think Roman Abramovich or the super wealthy at Man City...Wages would normally be paid from what is referred to normally as profits from ongoing operations, in this case tickets shirts, sponsorship et al...(however the super rich will try and pay those too, hence FFP). The left hand in this case is SL the right hand is the ongoing operation at the FC...Do they know what each other is doing, usually/mostly yes and certainly they do when one requires the other (usually the club requires SL) The summer transfer window was not a case of one not knowing what the other was doing but a case of an inability to get the personnel they FC required.... does that make it a little clearer (I am not being condescending)? The problem with wages under FFP is you can only spend what you can afford from revenues received, thus more seats = more possible revenue from sales across the board, like booze, shirts, hospitality and better sponsors also adding to expendable cash available under FFP... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted December 19, 2015 Report Share Posted December 19, 2015 With reference to the left hand and right hand I was really referring to SL & SC. Dont seem to singing from the same hymn sheet. Publicly and so definitely not privately (if they talk at all, which I'm sure they do). And I'm well aware of FFP. Which keeps us small clubs in our place In the main. The originality of laws was to "protect property from the masses", was it not. And so it continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.