-
So you was stalking me inbetween counting dots......Not sure i remember much about the 48 hours after Wembley Yes he got Bradford right and Wembley went with us He got Luton wrong, but thankfully he gets most things right
-
If we win on Wed it will be down to Bellingham and Kane and not Tuchel...Not sure why i am debating football with somebody who spent 8 hours a day for a week counting dots on Wembleys ticket plan
-
Dress it up how you want, but when he says a keeper is not a priority with a team with a limited budget.....It is we cannot afford a keeper That was at the week-end....Monday another backroom coach comes in
-
Back on topic.....Seems we are linked with Newcastle forward Sean Neave 19 highly rated on loan
-
Ok spin it around.....Tell me why it is not needless. Tell me why we need additional coaching staff.....Please do not say Sharon would not have sanctioned it on a whim. She is a great business Woman but we have for all of her Tenure hired and fired coaches on what the first team coach reccomends Tutte and the B team staff have been replaced.....And great to see Darby and his team step in If you are happy not to question anything that goes on behind close doors, perhaps a football forum is not for you.....I am one of SS biggest backers,but if he says we cannot afford a keeper on a Sunday then appoints backroom staff on a Monday i want to know why!!!
-
Got promoted last season without him.......Getting Evatt vibes jobs for the boys. Got 4 keepers on our books none are Championship standard Get three loaned out and you could have put those wages and the new coaches wages for a Championship quality keeper Had enough of hearing we have a limited budget then needless appointments its been happening since covid
-
SS saying the right things about Taylor...Putting it out he has knocked over one min from a 2km run. He is dangling a bait out to other clubs. Already brought in two lcb and has Inwood if needed
-
33m over three seasons works out at 11m per season and if we had to use the extra 4m it would mean us having only 7m the season after extra...... This is on top of our turnover for that year. So in theory if our turnover is 20m this year we can have 85% of that which is 17m plus the additional 15m extra which could take it to 32m. That would be dependent on FV funding the extra 15m.....Like i say pocket money to the stoke city of the world
-
no need for all that..... if our turnover is 20m for the coming year we can spend 17m on Fees, wages for all Employees If we spend 25m we are well inside the total permitted ie the 33m over three years......Of course FV will have to make up the shortfall
-
I think you have it wrong. Any losses in year one can be paid out by the owners as long as we do not exceed 85% of our turnover on wages....Added to that the owners can put in 35m over three years above and beyond. I doubt FV will want to put in anywhere near that amount yet other owners will not baulk at that amount.
-
That is how i understand it. We rightly have to try and fund the club unless we have backers who do not mind losing money each year like most of the present day Championship......Some clubs can afford to lose 20-50m a season we certainly cannot as Sluffy pointed out, but these new rules are based on turnover and not losses
-
shit day, forget it pal alls good
-
So you posted on this thread and the rumours thread and offered nothing...ok
-
SCR is nothing about trading loss....It is about spending a maximum of 85% of turnover on wages plus a extra say 11m per season Teams like West Ham, Wolves etc will have both the biggest turnover and losses in the Championship so will be able to buy practically who they wish despite Massive losses each season
-
It was just a example....Ok if Stoke lose 50m they will still be able to spend 85% of turnover on wages. So our losses be they 5m or 14m have no bearing in what we can spend this season
