Right so you are aiming for a break even next year. That is while we are collecting £26 million parachute payment and potentially we can expect to collect £40 million plus in transfer sales (Fer, Caulker, Sterling, Austin). Now I think that although you might not initially realise it you actually agree with me. With that initial £60 million windfall next year your aim is to break even. Does that mean that there is in fact room to keep on to some players that we want to keep or that we wont get our money back for, e.g. Sandro, McCarthy, Onouha and Phillips as I picked out earlier? Or do you want to sell all those players as well? If we don't go up next year, we will make next to nothing in transfer sales and parachute payments goes down to £21m. So by your maths we would then have to find somewhere around another £40m in cuts?! So the math just doesn't add up which is why in reality I think you agree with me. Now I think you are inherently cautious so you seem anti- the element of gamble that spending money on players brings but even our recent experience shows that if we target players 25 and under there transfer values there is a fair chance you'll get at least your money back and within this some will make a profit and some might even multiply that. A league one player or championship player with only a year left on his contract who doesn't play up front and you wont need to spend anywhere close to the £4million figure we've been using. I'm not saying every signing will be that much and we'll hopefully be able to pick up at least a couple of good out of contract players for free. With the one off windfall that comes in having saleable assets like Fer, Caulker (weird to say but true), Austin and by default Sterling we need to capitalise on that to make ourselves in a better short and long term position. Because we have a few saleable assets it's important that it isn't a fire sale so that we ensure we get the right amount of money for those players. Look how well Norwich did selling Fer and don't forget Mutch and Caulker came from a Championship side. If you are setting out from a position that everything most go you will lose out millions and millions on fees that could have been reinvested in signings/wages. Think i've made myself clear that think we need to /have use the one off windfall of transfer sales and finite parachute payment to keep a core spine of the team then add to that with £15m of new signings along with a couple of free contract players. Also pointed out core players I would keep. Would help if you made yourself clear about what is the core of players you would keep? And how much of a budget for transfers you would allow? Also would be interested to know whether you would sell players like Caulker and Fer for a loss? Underneath it all I'd be surprised if our opinions are that different considering the one off windfall we can use this year and the amount of dead wood who's contract is running out anyway
Fair play, it also now looks like the shareholders have finally come to that conclusion too. That or they have got fed up with backing a three legged horse and don't want to gamble anymore...
Well, you can question my maths if you like but we had a parachute payment last time (albeit not quite as much) and still made a £60 million loss. Knock £40M off (your transfers received total seems fair all being well) and the extra relegation bonus (read parachute payment) - can't be bothered to check but say it's 10 million more than two years ago, that would still leave a £10M deficit (hope I used the right term because Stan will kill me). We save some through wages of the expired contracts but the new players have to fit in based on the total of wages and fees so there's not much in the pot. Perhaps a few million for a striker which is, as you say, the one that costs a premium. A league one player is untested so it's a gamble - yes they are good ones but can they make the step up (and quickly if you're banking on promotion next season as a must). Fer, Mutch and Caulker all had PL experience when we bought them so they cost a bit (although at the time I thought we bought reasonably well). I'd expect to make a loss on Caulker but don't think we should give him away (depending on how much his wages drop to with the relegation clause). Fer shouldn't make a loss IMO and has done enough that there'd be some interest here and abroad. Core players I'd keep - McCarthy, one of Dunne and Hill, Onuoha, Henry, Phillips if there's not a high enough offer and Faurlin if he'll sign for a suitably cheap deal. In fact all of them need to be on less than a maximum wage which I assume our new CEO will set (I'll guess about 25K pw if that makes you happy). Anyone that won't stay for that or less can go). Barton I'd let go because I think his ego makes him a bad egg (despite his onfield effort) but nobody has quite sussed it. I'm not that bothered about a full scale argument so happy enough if there's some commonality but I get the feeling that you're trying to prove that my words back up what you say despite me, in my ignorance, thinking otherwise.
Kia is the last person who should be questioning other people's mathematical competence. According to him, If Rambo had've got 5 more points than he got we would've stayed up even though we finished 8 points off safety
The sale of players this summer will not provide funding for next season, it will be to cut our losses this season to avoid a FFP penalty from the Premier League. We are still paying something like 180% of our income on wages so sales will be necessary to bring our losses below the allowed level. That's even with the £62 million prize money for being totally useless shyte and finishing bottom...
