Are Cardiff a smaller club than Fulham and wolves ?

[Harry Monk]

And the listed parts weren’t demolished.

That’s by the by anyway considering they renovating it.

If they were that desperate for land there you think they’d build over that huge park before the stadium.

The park will be green belt and will not be able to be built upon, in fact, I have a feeling it belongs to the Church of England and would have a covenant on it. Having seen how developers work in London, I have no doubt in my mind that if they want to convert the "listed parts" of Craven Cottage into luxury flats, they will. The fact that the owner is buying Wembley (Only 7 miles from Fulham - just a bit further than the 5 miles from Boleyn Ground to the Olympic Park) and the banks of the Thames are the most desired areas to live in London, I wouldn't rule out a move and a new development. Maybe not in the next year or two, but I wouldn't dismiss it.

[severncity]

The park will be green belt and will not be able to be built upon, in fact, I have a feeling it belongs to the Church of England and would have a covenant on it. Having seen how developers work in London, I have no doubt in my mind that if they want to convert the "listed parts" of Craven Cottage into luxury flats, they will. The fact that the owner is buying Wembley (Only 7 miles from Fulham - just a bit further than the 5 miles from Boleyn Ground to the Olympic Park) and the banks of the Thames are the most desired areas to live in London, I wouldn't rule out a move and a new development. Maybe not in the next year or two, but I wouldn't dismiss it.

Of course there’s a chance that in the future Craven Cottage will make way for housing but given the amount of new apartments going up in Battersea/Nine Elms, as well as at Lots Rd I think that the local market may be oversaturated. Incidentally it is about 3 miles from WHUFC’s old stadium to their new one.

[dml1954]

I don’t think that we spent £70-80m the last time around and what we did spend a vast amount of it was recovered when players were moved on. I think that the debt would have been a lot smaller than what people think. Don’t forget that City would have got over 100m on being promoted then.

With regards to this years spend I agree with you that although we spent 24m a more realistic figure would have been 35-45m. We should definitely have brought in a quality striker & come January we may well have left it too late. Many of the available strikers have been snapped up, clubs generally ask for more & we may be way behind our competitors.

Is there a possibility that the club have the finance but because NW such a great job in getting us promoted on a shoestring budget that the club think he can work the same miracles in the Premier League on a shoestring
Premiership budget? For a comparison, Stoke have spent more than City & Forest the same amount as us! There are probably a few more Championship clubs that have spent similar and they don’t get the 100-120m.

City got only £67m tv money last time in the Prem - it was a different deal then. The amount spent was £40-£45m on transfers but this didn't include wages or signing on fees. It is very likely therefore that we spent more than we got in for being promoted, which was a silly/stupid thing to do and a recipe for disaster. To even contemplate doing the same thing again would be ridiculous. Although we recouped the transfer money for Medel and Caulker we lost big time on Cornelius and others and dont forget paid everyone sky high wages and large signing on fees, none of which was recovered. On what they have spent, Stoke and Forest will be in serious trouble with FFP if they dont get promotion this season. You appear therefore to be advocating lunacy. Why not stop moaning, get behind the club and enjoy the season.

[Croesy Blue]

You’ve got to speculate to accumulate though, a couple of extra 15 to 20 million pound signings could be the difference between a premier league income or a championship income next season.

[NYCBlue]

Looks nice. That's going to be a lot of money for just 3900 extra seats though.

[Fulham traveller]

Looks nice. That's going to be a lot of money for just 3900 extra seats though.

And a few luxury apartments I tnink, but not sure

[the other bob wilson]

I don’t think that we spent £70-80m the last time around and what we did spend a vast amount of it was recovered when players were moved on. I think that the debt would have been a lot smaller than what people think. Don’t forget that City would have got over 100m on being promoted then.

With regards to this years spend I agree with you that although we spent 24m a more realistic figure would have been 35-45m. We should definitely have brought in a quality striker & come January we may well have left it too late. Many of the available strikers have been snapped up, clubs generally ask for more & we may be way behind our competitors.

Is there a possibility that the club have the finance but because NW such a great job in getting us promoted on a shoestring budget that the club think he can work the same miracles in the Premier League on a shoestring
Premiership budget? For a comparison, Stoke have spent more than City & Forest the same amount as us! There are probably a few more Championship clubs that have spent similar and they don’t get the 100-120m.

Rather than saying that we spent £70-80 million last time, I said it would equate to that under current prices, so, I think it's fair to say that our level of spending in 2013 was still, comparatively, some way short of Fulham's this summer.
I agree with you that we seem to be placing an awful lot of faith in our manager coming up with another miracle - fair enough, he has form for doing that in the Championship, but it will be a first if he manages it in the Premier League.

[the other bob wilson]

City got only £67m tv money last time in the Prem - it was a different deal then. The amount spent was £40-£45m on transfers but this didn't include wages or signing on fees. It is very likely therefore that we spent more than we got in for being promoted, which was a silly/stupid thing to do and a recipe for disaster. To even contemplate doing the same thing again would be ridiculous. Although we recouped the transfer money for Medel and Caulker we lost big time on Cornelius and others and dont forget paid everyone sky high wages and large signing on fees, none of which was recovered. On what they have spent, Stoke and Forest will be in serious trouble with FFP if they dont get promotion this season. You appear therefore to be advocating lunacy. Why not stop moaning, get behind the club and enjoy the season.

It's hard to argue with the first part of what you say, but are you really saying that the sort of spending bridgendbluebird1927 was advocating (between £35/45 million) is "lunacy" when it is the sort of sum Huddersfield spent last season and Burnley have done most years since their last promotion? In 2013, we spent very close to all of our TV money on new signings, the sort of figure being talked about here is less than half of it.

[Superdad]

It's hard to argue with the first part of what you say, but are you really saying that the sort of spending bridgendbluebird1927 was advocating (between £35/45 million) is "lunacy" when it is the sort of sum Huddersfield spent last season and Burnley have done most years since their last promotion? In 2013, we spent very close to all of our TV money on new signings, the sort of figure being talked about here is less than half of it.

When you consider what Huddersfield spent last season and now this season, they didn’t look that great and will be one of the clubs expected to go down.

If we spent another £20m we will probably still go down at the end of the season.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

When you consider what Huddersfield spent last season and now this season, they didn’t look that great and will be one of the clubs expected to go down.

If we spent another £20m we will probably still go down at the end of the season.

We're a better team than Huddersfield and a proven striker would possibly have us on 6 points instead of 2. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating spending £100m (bar the usual WUMs) but spending £10-15m on a goalscorer could be the difference between staying up and going down.

[the other bob wilson]

When you consider what Huddersfield spent last season and now this season, they didn’t look that great and will be one of the clubs expected to go down.

If we spent another £20m we will probably still go down at the end of the season.

But Huddersfield stayed up last season and earned the right to push the boat out a bit more this year - if they spent poorly over the summer and suffer for it accordingly, then that's their fault, but last season's table tells you that their modest, by Premier League standards, spending in the summer of 2017 was good enough to succeed in its objective.

[splott parker]

But Huddersfield stayed up last season and earned the right to push the boat out a bit more this year - if they spent poorly over the summer and suffer for it accordingly, then that's their fault, but last season's table tells you that their modest, by Premier League standards, spending in the summer of 2017 was good enough to succeed in its objective.

Chatting with Huddersfield fans over a few pints after Saturday’s game, they were annoyed with Wagner spending millions on 9 players in the recent window yet only 2 have featured. Interesting point of view, they were suggesting that they should have spent the same amount on fewer players, players of better quality who would be automatic choices rather than squad fillers. Can understand their reasoning, they were resigned to probable relegation, best way to think I s’pose anything else is a bonus then.