| At the end of the day 21:45 - Mar 8 with 6574 views | swan65split |
When it's all said and done,...............a little bit of investment,..............then again we have a hedge fund. |  | | |  |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 12:25 - Mar 10 with 957 views | theloneranger |
| (No subject) (n/t) on 10:44 - Mar 10 by jasper_T |
Abraham was signed on Brian Flynn's recommendation.
It was the money and the PL that attracted him, not the manager. |
Yep, Tammy did come on Flynns recommendation, and because he knew Clement from Chelsea, but he was also paid alot more at Swansea than his £50K a week wages at Chelsea.
He wasn't Clements first choice either, that was Nathaniel Chalobah when he was playing at Chelsea, but Jenkins messed that up when trying to sign him on loan and being told he wasn't available.
Watford were told exactly the same, but asked if he was available for sale and off he went to Watford for just under £6M. Clement said at the time he was gobsmacked that nobody from the Swans had asked the question concerning the sale of Chalobah.
"It is believed Chelsea are not receiving a loan fee for Abraham because their priority was to find the best club for his development. But it has been reported that the successful club would have to pay £1million to cover signing-on fees for the player, his family and his agent "
"It has also been alleged that Abraham will be paid more than his £50,000-a-week Chelsea wage by his loan club and the deal will include a lucrative goal bonus." |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| At the end of the day on 13:09 - Mar 10 with 915 views | BobbyBacala |
Fair play, putting in the legwork that I was too lazy to do.
I know you can analyse it a number of ways (net spend, percentage of turnover, wages etc) but that's interesting to learn.
For what it's worth, I thought this would be a cost cutting season as we had to reduce our outgoings, but surprised we're that high compared to others. |  | | |
| At the end of the day on 13:22 - Mar 10 with 898 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 13:09 - Mar 10 by BobbyBacala |
Fair play, putting in the legwork that I was too lazy to do.
I know you can analyse it a number of ways (net spend, percentage of turnover, wages etc) but that's interesting to learn.
For what it's worth, I thought this would be a cost cutting season as we had to reduce our outgoings, but surprised we're that high compared to others. |
Indeed. We were under no obligation to spend anything at all like some other Championship clubs this season. We could have signed nobody and probably stayed up comfortably. The fact we spent at the level we did was hugely encouraging. People just had their PL eyes in, clubs our size rarely have the ability to safely throw money at this division. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 13:35 - Mar 10 with 893 views | Loyal |
| At the end of the day on 13:22 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
Indeed. We were under no obligation to spend anything at all like some other Championship clubs this season. We could have signed nobody and probably stayed up comfortably. The fact we spent at the level we did was hugely encouraging. People just had their PL eyes in, clubs our size rarely have the ability to safely throw money at this division. |
Except the two other clubs who came down with us ... |  |
| Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk. | | Poll: | Who should be Swansea number 1 |
| |
| At the end of the day on 13:56 - Mar 10 with 867 views | jasper_T |
And West Brom just sacked their manager because 4th isn't good enough for their level of spending.
When you overspend by that amount promotion and PL survival becomes the minimum expectation. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 14:08 - Mar 10 with 839 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 13:56 - Mar 10 by jasper_T |
And West Brom just sacked their manager because 4th isn't good enough for their level of spending.
When you overspend by that amount promotion and PL survival becomes the minimum expectation. |
Yep, no room for error. Gambling with their future. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 14:15 - Mar 10 with 833 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 14:08 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
Yep, no room for error. Gambling with their future. |
Like spending £20m on Andre Ayew | | | |
| At the end of the day on 14:40 - Mar 10 with 796 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 14:15 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
Like spending £20m on Andre Ayew |
No.
The purchase represented 20% of the then current yearly income and was in line with spending in previous seasons.
£56m represents 250% of many Championship clubs yearly income.
Not even in the same stratosphere. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| At the end of the day on 14:52 - Mar 10 with 792 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 14:40 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
No.
The purchase represented 20% of the then current yearly income and was in line with spending in previous seasons.
£56m represents 250% of many Championship clubs yearly income.
Not even in the same stratosphere. |
We were odds on to become a Championship club at that point. A Championship club in financial meltdown.
£20m would have come in handy this season. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 14:59 - Mar 10 with 779 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 14:52 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
We were odds on to become a Championship club at that point. A Championship club in financial meltdown.
£20m would have come in handy this season. |
It certainly would have.
I was addressing your point that spending £56m in the Championship is like spending £20m in the Premier League
It isn’t. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 16:12 - Mar 10 with 761 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 14:59 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
It certainly would have.
I was addressing your point that spending £56m in the Championship is like spending £20m in the Premier League
It isn’t. |
I know. Leaving aside that we looked very much like being relegated at that point and don’t have the financial clout Stoke do, I was addressing yours about clubs gambling with their future. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 16:25 - Mar 10 with 743 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 16:12 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
I know. Leaving aside that we looked very much like being relegated at that point and don’t have the financial clout Stoke do, I was addressing yours about clubs gambling with their future. |
And it’s one I agree with, gambling with a clubs future is not good at all.
It just wasn’t a very good example.
We had £100m+ income last season and has surplus to spend from previous sales.
I highly doubt Stoke had £56m surplus when it probably constitutes their total annual income including parachute payment. They don’t belong in the same discussion. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 16:35 - Mar 10 with 725 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 16:25 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
And it’s one I agree with, gambling with a clubs future is not good at all.
It just wasn’t a very good example.
We had £100m+ income last season and has surplus to spend from previous sales.
I highly doubt Stoke had £56m surplus when it probably constitutes their total annual income including parachute payment. They don’t belong in the same discussion. |
You’re ignoring the fact that we looked near certainties to go down by January and the Americans would have been fully aware of the shitstorm that relegation would bring.
It was a massive odds against gamble, I won’t say one that nearly paid off as we very nearly stayed up, but Andre Ayew didn’t contribute a lot. It was a gamble that failed and heavily compounded the trouble we’re in.
It’s not the same as a financially stable PL club, who can realistically expect the £100m the following season spending £20m on a player. It’s not close. It’s not even comparable to us spending £15m on Clucas, as we didn’t look dead and buried at that point. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 16:45 - Mar 10 with 701 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 16:35 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
You’re ignoring the fact that we looked near certainties to go down by January and the Americans would have been fully aware of the shitstorm that relegation would bring.
It was a massive odds against gamble, I won’t say one that nearly paid off as we very nearly stayed up, but Andre Ayew didn’t contribute a lot. It was a gamble that failed and heavily compounded the trouble we’re in.
It’s not the same as a financially stable PL club, who can realistically expect the £100m the following season spending £20m on a player. It’s not close. It’s not even comparable to us spending £15m on Clucas, as we didn’t look dead and buried at that point. |
I’m not ignoring it, I’m not giving it any relevance to the discussion point of “risking the future of the club”. Every signing is a gamble, it’s not the point we are discussing though.
We aren’t talking about risky signings. We aren’t talking about desperate signings. We aren’t talking about signings that didn’t work out. We are talking about risking the future of a club. Spending £20m when you have a revenue stream of £100m + surplus is not doing that.
You just seem desperate to argue today, 247. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 16:55 - Mar 10 with 690 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 16:45 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
I’m not ignoring it, I’m not giving it any relevance to the discussion point of “risking the future of the club”. Every signing is a gamble, it’s not the point we are discussing though.
We aren’t talking about risky signings. We aren’t talking about desperate signings. We aren’t talking about signings that didn’t work out. We are talking about risking the future of a club. Spending £20m when you have a revenue stream of £100m + surplus is not doing that.
You just seem desperate to argue today, 247. |
If you don’t think it was a risky, desperate (and irresponsible) signing, we will leave it there. Especially as it was £20m and little over 12 months later, we’re on the verge of appointing an insolvency expert to run the club. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 17:06 - Mar 10 with 665 views | Winner_ |
| At the end of the day on 16:55 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
If you don’t think it was a risky, desperate (and irresponsible) signing, we will leave it there. Especially as it was £20m and little over 12 months later, we’re on the verge of appointing an insolvency expert to run the club. |
Eh? I said we are not discussing whether it was a desperate or risky signing. I offered no opinion on whether I thought it was either, just re-iterating why it’s not even remotely comparable. We are discussing risking the future of a club, the example at hand is a Championship club spending 100%+ of its annual income on players.
Yes, relegation brings financial difficulties for Premier League clubs and after 7 years in the PL there are very few clubs that wouldn’t experience similar. But that doesn’t mean anyone near the relegation zone shouldn’t spend what they can currently afford.
The point is, Stoke can’t, it’s more than their total income. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 17:22 - Mar 10 with 648 views | jack247 |
| At the end of the day on 17:06 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
Eh? I said we are not discussing whether it was a desperate or risky signing. I offered no opinion on whether I thought it was either, just re-iterating why it’s not even remotely comparable. We are discussing risking the future of a club, the example at hand is a Championship club spending 100%+ of its annual income on players.
Yes, relegation brings financial difficulties for Premier League clubs and after 7 years in the PL there are very few clubs that wouldn’t experience similar. But that doesn’t mean anyone near the relegation zone shouldn’t spend what they can currently afford.
The point is, Stoke can’t, it’s more than their total income. |
I’m not suggesting Stoke can. I am suggesting we couldn’t afford £20m under those circumstances. This whole season is proving me right so far, as I’m sure you are about Stoke. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 17:22 - Mar 10 with 648 views | thornabyswan |
| At the end of the day on 14:08 - Mar 10 by Winner_ |
Yep, no room for error. Gambling with their future. |
We gambled with ours last season. | |
| |
| At the end of the day on 17:23 - Mar 10 with 645 views | swan65split |
 get a life ffs | | | |
| At the end of the day on 17:49 - Mar 10 with 614 views | thornabyswan |
| At the end of the day on 17:23 - Mar 10 by swan65split |
get a life ffs |
It's a football discussion board.
Who was that comment aimed at | |
| |
| At the end of the day on 18:41 - Mar 10 with 592 views | swan65split |
| At the end of the day on 17:49 - Mar 10 by thornabyswan |
It's a football discussion board.
Who was that comment aimed at |
Guess! | | | |
| At the end of the day on 08:39 - Mar 11 with 471 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| At the end of the day on 16:55 - Mar 10 by jack247 |
If you don’t think it was a risky, desperate (and irresponsible) signing, we will leave it there. Especially as it was £20m and little over 12 months later, we’re on the verge of appointing an insolvency expert to run the club. |
I was just thinking the exact same thing.
It was absolutely gambling with the clubs future. |  | | |
| At the end of the day on 10:06 - Mar 11 with 422 views | Arnie |
| At the end of the day on 08:39 - Mar 11 by 34dfgdf54 |
I was just thinking the exact same thing.
It was absolutely gambling with the clubs future. |
Rubbish.
We had an income of £100m+ and spare transfer cash on top. You will never catch me having a go at a club spending what it can currently afford providing that if the worst happens then it is covered by assets. I fully believe that was, and is the case. The problem we had was cashing in on those assets within the designated timeframe. Hence Mr Birch.
To say that is risking the clubs future is just fanciful creative licence. It is a business model that served us very well and will continue to do so in the future once the covering assets are sold. I did explain this twice already but of course sensible explanation is kryptonite to a Trust on full propaganda drive and was deleted twice. I’ll keep posting it until it is left. | |
| |
| At the end of the day on 10:01 - Mar 12 with 332 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| At the end of the day on 10:06 - Mar 11 by Arnie |
Rubbish.
We had an income of £100m+ and spare transfer cash on top. You will never catch me having a go at a club spending what it can currently afford providing that if the worst happens then it is covered by assets. I fully believe that was, and is the case. The problem we had was cashing in on those assets within the designated timeframe. Hence Mr Birch.
To say that is risking the clubs future is just fanciful creative licence. It is a business model that served us very well and will continue to do so in the future once the covering assets are sold. I did explain this twice already but of course sensible explanation is kryptonite to a Trust on full propaganda drive and was deleted twice. I’ll keep posting it until it is left. |
No, the problem was that the assets were lower value than what was forecasted, a lot lower.
Listen, I find it hard to slag the club off for signings like Ayew, I thought at the time he could get us the goals to keep us up and it was a risk worth taking, I was wrong. But on the other hand, I'm not taking home a £500k salary to get those decisions right. | | | |
| At the end of the day on 10:28 - Mar 12 with 319 views | swan65split |
| At the end of the day on 10:01 - Mar 12 by 34dfgdf54 |
No, the problem was that the assets were lower value than what was forecasted, a lot lower.
Listen, I find it hard to slag the club off for signings like Ayew, I thought at the time he could get us the goals to keep us up and it was a risk worth taking, I was wrong. But on the other hand, I'm not taking home a £500k salary to get those decisions right. |
I didnt go with the Ayew signing, got slaughtered for it from a cple of iriots, and just look where its got us.
and I am not on £500k a year either. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
