-
City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
"the Scottish market - as well as loans and frees - expected to be high on the agenda"
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/...citys-14740995
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
As much as we need to be sensible, I really do hope this is more poor journalism from Wales Online. I think we need to spend at least £35m to give ourselves a proper chance here, and with the money available now compared to a few years ago, as mad as I may sound to some, £35-40m still comes under the 'sensible' category for me.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Not3s
As much as we need to be sensible, I really do hope this is more poor journalism from Wales Online. I think we need to spend at least £35m to give ourselves a proper chance here, and with the money available now compared to a few years ago, as mad as I may sound to some, £35-40m still comes under the 'sensible' category for me.
Agreed. There’s a massive difference between being sensible and being stupidly tight.
Is Tan scrimping for an impending sale?
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Not3s
As much as we need to be sensible, I really do hope this is more poor journalism from Wales Online. I think we need to spend at least £35m to give ourselves a proper chance here, and with the money available now compared to a few years ago, as mad as I may sound to some, £35-40m still comes under the 'sensible' category for me.
Yes the market has changed hugely in the between years, although we can only afford what we can afford.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Like we are going to inform all and everyone exactly how much money we have to spend, laughable really, Warnock will have what he wants within reason:thumbup:
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Not3s
As much as we need to be sensible, I really do hope this is more poor journalism from Wales Online. I think we need to spend at least £35m to give ourselves a proper chance here, and with the money available now compared to a few years ago, as mad as I may sound to some, £35-40m still comes under the 'sensible' category for me.
We spent £35m last time, I think the noises coming out of the club and the players we're being linked with suggests we're going to spend sod all. Every club for the last two seasons has spent £10m plus on at least one player but I just don't see it from us.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Not3s
As much as we need to be sensible, I really do hope this is more poor journalism from Wales Online. I think we need to spend at least £35m to give ourselves a proper chance here, and with the money available now compared to a few years ago, as mad as I may sound to some, £35-40m still comes under the 'sensible' category for me.
That should get us Gareth Bales right boot.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Which way do we think would get us the best value from our signings?
Coming out saying money is not an object like the Fulham owner or
We only have a rather modest budget like stated in this article?
I know what I think.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
.I expected us to have the lowest kitty in the league, but, that would be about £ 10 million less than any one else last year if I remember rightly (maybe I don't?) and the amount spent increases year on year as a rule. My first thought on reading that was to think "good luck, Mr Warnock, you're going to need it" - maybe they meant Scotland when they were talking about us targeting players with Premier league experience?
On the other hand, did you see that article I posted on here a few days ago about Neil Warnock and dickhead journalists? :hehe:
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disco Des
Which way do we think would get us the best value from our signings?
Coming out saying money is not an object like the Fulham owner or
We only have a rather modest budget like stated in this article?
I know what I think.
Yeah to be fair announcing ourselves as the lowest budget is a pretty good shout. Let's hope this is the reason!
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue Not3s
Yeah to be fair announcing ourselves as the lowest budget is a pretty good shout. Let's hope this is the reason!
Clubs, players, agents and managers aren't thick, we're in the Premier League and are guaranteed nearly £200m even if we go down. We're going to get ripped off no matter what happens.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pedro de la Rosa
Clubs, players, agents and managers aren't thick, we're in the Premier League and are guaranteed nearly £200m even if we go down. We're going to get ripped off no matter what happens.
That £200m is over 4 years mind.
If we spend £30m and then double our wage bill up to £60m (lower than Aston Villa in the championship), then there is virtually the £100m for the first season gone, and you are carrying a £60m wage bill down to the championship, and you have to start cutting again.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
I mean, I know he got burned last time, but that is ridiculously low
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
qccfc
That £200m is over 4 years mind.
If we spend £30m and then double our wage bill up to £60m (lower than Aston Villa in the championship), then there is virtually the £100m for the first season gone, and you are carrying a £60m wage bill down to the championship, and you have to start cutting again.
It's over 2. We'll only get one year of parachute payments if we go down (I think). I'm not suggesting we go mad but it doesn't make any difference saying how much money you're going to spend. We're a Premier League club and it'll be assumed we have more money than sense.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
We could spend money in a different way ,by recruiting better and more scouts , both UK based and European, grab better youngsters into our academy , improve our marketing department to enhance revenues , we should see this a s a 5 year growth business model .
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Its not over 2!
Relegated teams are to receive a £40million parachute payment.
This equates to 55 per cent of the broadcast revenues in the first year after relegation.
It then goes down to 40 per cent (£35m) in year two and to 20 per cent (£15m) in year three.
But they also get around £95m for finishing bottom!
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Igovernor
Its not over 2!
Relegated teams are to receive a £40million parachute payment.
This equates to 55 per cent of the broadcast revenues in the first year after relegation.
It then goes down to 40 per cent (£35m) in year two and to 20 per cent (£15m) in year three.
But they also get around £95m for finishing bottom!
Teams who have been in the PL 1 season dont get the 3rd year.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
What a poor article by WalesOnline, I know it's the summer and really quiet but come on... A nice profile of Glyn Chamberlain though and some guesswork that City will spend no more than £20m.
Last time we spent a lot but that was 5 years ago and transfer fees have spiralled in that time, so we'd need to spend about £70m to match the spending of last time. And don't forget OGS wasted a load more money when he came, I'm sure Warnock can get by on about £30m. I think it's more about getting the right type of player at the right price rather than just spending big fees. Mind you when Warnock has spent money it hasn't been great, Madine and Tomlin for example, but has picked up great signings for nothing eg Hoilett, Bamba, Etheridge, NML.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Igovernor
Like we are going to inform all and everyone exactly how much money we have to spend, laughable really, Warnock will have what he wants within reason:thumbup:
:thumbup:
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
I think our team deserve a go in the premier league. There are plenty of 10 million players that make no impact at all, spending X amount guarantees nothing.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Is that 20million on fees or 20 million on fees and wages increase? Ah well even if we spend nothing at all it'll be fun, and then we hopefully wouldn't have to spend 2 years of Russel Slade next time to put us back on the right track
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Will put onus on scouting, coaching and tactics if true. Walesonline article suggested we're strong enough to work that defensively but we saw we might need more going forward.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cardiff55
What a poor article by WalesOnline, I know it's the summer and really quiet but come on... A nice profile of Glyn Chamberlain though and some guesswork that City will spend no more than £20m.
Last time we spent a lot but that was 5 years ago and transfer fees have spiralled in that time, so we'd need to spend about £70m to match the spending of last time. And don't forget OGS wasted a load more money when he came, I'm sure Warnock can get by on about £30m. I think it's more about getting the right type of player at the right price rather than just spending big fees. Mind you when Warnock has spent money it hasn't been great, Madine and Tomlin for example, but has picked up great signings for nothing eg Hoilett, Bamba, Etheridge, NML.
Don't think OGS wasted any money, he had an eye for a player just couldn't manage.
To be fair to him he couldn't have come in at a worse possible time but that gives no excuses for tinkering with us week in week out with no shape, style or game plan
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Makes it all the more important to resign Hoilett and Gunners.
-
Re: City's transfer kitty "expected to be no more than £20 million".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WJ99mobile
Don't think OGS wasted any money, he had an eye for a player just couldn't manage.
To be fair to him he couldn't have come in at a worse possible time but that gives no excuses for tinkering with us week in week out with no shape, style or game plan
Still don't get why we signed Eikrem and Berget. The passing of time has made some signings that looked ropey three or four years ago look better now, but Ole had a scattergun or kid in a sweetshop approach, he'd see a player, sign them and then starting thinking about where they'd fit in.
