Summer 2014 Transfer rumour thread - Part V

I heard it was 40m before player sales.

 

The rumoured budget has nothing to do with ambition, it's just the amount of money we happen to have available. It's not the owner/board being generous, it's a case of money coming in, money getting reinvested.

You can't use the size of the transfer budget as evidence for the ambition, or lack thereof, of the board, unless they're pocketing money, or injecting money (which is no longer allowed).

 

Of course you can. If you spend what you're able to (or more) that's a sign of ambition, and if you spend much less than that it's a sign of caution (or as you say, the owner siphoning off the profits).

 

Michael Poke has joined Pompey

 

If they're not pocketing some (a bad kind of ambition), and they're not allocating all of what is available into the various budgets (standard practice), what are they doing with it?

 

Katharina could take some money out as dividends on her investment...not saying she is, but perfectly entitled to.

 

Building up a cash reserve, in case of a future drop in income, for example. Which certainly would signify a lack of ambition.

 

Or sound business sense. We don't want to ever be broke again.

 

Paulinho-Southampton - the situation: http://gianlucadimarzio.com/livorno/livorno-per-paulinho-ce-il-southampton-la-situazione/


TRANSLATION


"Paulinho could be the future of England. Everything seemed to be made ​​for the transfer of Brazilian Livorno at Al Jazira of the UAE team, willing to pay ten million Euros required by the President of Tuscan society, Aldo Spinelli. But, in the last hour, you would be inserted Southampton, looking for a striker who can replace Rickie Lambert, who moved to Liverpool. The Saints have the right disposable income and could meet the economic demands of Spinelli. Scenarios that change abruptly, horizons British, now, in the future Paulinho."

 

Sound business sense is striking the right balance.

 

As far as budgets are concerned don't forget we have a £30m bill for the new training ground and £26m left over from last years transfers to cover probably over the next three years + interest

An initial budget of £30m with the loss of no players would have been decent possibly giving us the resource to move a place up the league and have a proper go in the cups
So every player we loose needs to be replaced over and above the initial £30m IMHO

 

No thanks! Looks too muhc like Osvaldo

 

But also factor in that if we raise £90m and have a total £120m to be 'reinvested' a large chunk of that may well go on increased salaries. We are going to have to pay players more if we want to attract the best or we will only get those wanting to get a foot on the PL ladder that West Ham, QPR etc don't want. Plus we are going to have to improve some contracts within the squad.

So say £90m to be spent on transfers and £30m on improving existing contracts, paying higher to incoming players.

 

I disagree that such measures would be an example of a lack of ambition; in fact it would demonstrate a caring, albeit conservative, plan for the future of the club. Regardless, that's not really what I'm getting at. If reinvesting what you have available is pretty standard practice (and it is) then by doing so you can't be showing any more ambition than every other club which is doing the same. The size of the budget is mostly circumstantial. We don't have a bigger budget than most clubs because we're more ambitious than most clubs. We have a bigger budget than most clubs because we can afford it.

 

There were rumours of this fellow a little while back were there not?

 

Assuming every club spends to the limits of their ability, then sure. I don't think that's the case though. Just look at Newcastle.

 

You are forgetting the Prem money which will easily cover the training ground, the 27m we owe and 40m budget.

 

The training ground will be paid for with Markus' money, so none of last season's income will go to that. If that £27m is installments for transfers from seasons past, then surely we've got money carried over from previous budgets to pay for that. To put it simply, if the £30m we supposedly spent on players the summer we came up was actually arranged to be paid in installments over the next couple of years, we'll presumably still be paying those installments with that season's budget, not this season's budget.

 

Even if the training ground isn't covered. We get so much money from the Prem it's fine.

 

I assume it is, because it was something Markus planned while he was still with us and the club wasn't earning nearly enough to fund it.