Moment of truth, again, again

[wolvesjoe]

This week brings the chance to once again gauge the character of the current Wolves board.

The team is handily placed for a run at promotion, or the playoffs at least, with the
transformative potential of a successful season in sight.

A transformation that would push the club from a turnover of around 20 million, (without
the remaining parachute payment of 8m), to around 85 million under the terms of the
latest broadcasting deal.

To put it into perspective, it would, at a stroke, put the club into the top 30 of
the richest clubs, by turnover, in the world.

Richest Football Clubs 2014, Deloitte Football Money League



image





Richest Football Clubs 2014, Deloitte Football Money Lea...
Richest Football Clubs 2014, Deloitte Football Money League Real Madrid and Barcelona continue to lead the way in the 2013 Deloitte Football Money League, publi...
View on sporteology.com
Preview by Yahoo


Premier League finances: turnover, wages, debt and performance


image





Premier League finances: turnover, wages, debt and perfo...
The Premier League clubs collectively made a loss of £291m in 2012-13 despite a £2.7bn income and spent a record £1.8bn on wages. What earns them the most and w...
View on www.theguardian.com
Preview by Yahoo


The casino type structure of the modern game in England encourages
the brave and the risk taker. After a tumultuous three years, Jackett
has engineered a situation where the prospect of a quantum leap
in the club's situation and prospects is within grasp.

But only if the board overturns its previous approach to spending
and investment at critical moments. On three previous identifiable
moments, Morgan has chosen caution and retreat over using investment
to strengthen the club at a pivotal point.

The first was in the summer of 2012, when McCarthy failed to seriously
strengthen a squad that had survived by the skin of their teeth in the
previous season. Wolves maintained their wage bill, and commited
relatively lower sums to transfers, and reaped the negative rewards
in the following autumn.

The second failing was more serious, with more longlasting
consequences. Morgan delayed the inevitable sacking of
McCarthy until the mid-season transfr window was over, effectively
accepting relegation, to avoid having to back a new manager.

The third, of course, occurred less than a year later, when
Solbakken was faced with a players' mutiny, and was sacked
to be replaced by the pliant puppet Saunders, again to prevent
any serious spending to resuce the club from a second
successive relegation. Solbakken had received backing when
a percentage of the incoming fees from the summer's transfers
were allotted to him, but as soon as demands were made on
Morgan's own resources, then a destructive refusal was the answer.

For the fourth time of asking in just over 2 and a half years, Morgan again
faces a simple choice: invest and move the club forward towards fulfilling
its potential. Or retrench to a short term balancing of budgets, only to court
longer term stasis or even decline. Good players leave unambitious clubs, is
an inescapable rule of the modern game, and one which disables all attempts
to pursue a more superficially reasonable approach.

Precedent suggests a mediocre outcome. The return of the useful and
experienced Graham also suggests short-termism drives events.

But we shall soon see.....

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The third, of course, occurred less than a year later, when
Solbakken was faced with a players' mutiny, and was sacked
to be replaced by the pliant puppet Saunders, again to prevent
any serious spending to resuce the club from a second
successive relegation. Solbakken had received backing when
a percentage of the incoming fees from the summer's transfers
were allotted to him, but as soon as demands were made on
Morgan's own resources, then a destructive refusal was the answer.

Maverick stuff here, but I don't think we should have given Stale Solbakken more money when he'd already had somewhere in the region of £11m (plus wages) to spend, and here we are two years on from his sacking and only one of those players he bought is currently performing an active role at the club.

Claiming Solbakken wasn't backed financially is the latest of your frankly lunatic ramblings.

As for Graham he doesn't fit our style, not even close and so he has been sent back. We tried him in this shape, doesn't work, tried another shape which theoretically suits him more, leads to us having less control of the game and the manager doesn't want to play that way. With that in mind it would have been crazy to keep a player unfit for purpose on £30k a week.

 

[wolvesjoe]

Try responding to the argument, rather than foolish nitpicking.

Solbakken himself was amazed at Morgan's inability/refusal to
deal with the situation in the club. Which directly led to a second
relegation.

Graham is a more than useful player who would have played a role.
The notion that a promotion push can rely on one adequate striker
is "frankly lunatic" really. Any rational person can see that Wolves
need a replacement for Sako, plus two decent strikers to have
any chance of promotion this year.

If Jackett is given the licence to bring in those minimum
three then sending back Graham seems forgiveable.

But as I said, we shall soon see.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Jackett wants a striker, he doesn't want Danny Graham or a player of that ilk because they are incompatible with the way we play. No-one is suggesting that we go from here to the end of the season with Dicko as the only viable option up front. No fans think that, no-one at the club thinks that. Simple as that really.

It's "nitpicking" now to pull you up on absolute bollocks? Maybe if you don't like the answer Ulven, you shouldn't ask the question. I could have gone further and called out the nonsense that we will immediately become one of the top 30 clubs in the world by turnover if we get promoted, of course we won't.

By the way how much do you suggest Morgan should throw at it this window and how does that fit with our position regarding Financial Fair Play? Put a figure on it. I would respond to your argument if had any more depth to it than "we should sign some new players, the chairman needs to get his chequebook out". I mean what sort of response are you after?

 

[Johnny75]

In amongst the shite you have written Ulven you have one salient point about Sako and a striker....

But then if you read the Transfer Thread or General Wolves News thread you would have that information already from many of us. Instead you pursue this infantile avenue of saying what everybody else has said on a new thread. My 1 year old shouts for attention and she warrants it.

You're just an annoying noise.

 

[Boozad]

Ulven talking bollocks shocker.

 

[Norman Deeley]

The other salient point is that lobbing a whole heap of cash at the problem doesn't guarantee success in the Championship. Burnley went up last year having spent very little (£400k on fees sticks in my mind) and Fulham have spent £11m on one striker.

 

[Penk Wolf]

I've heard we are expecting a busy transfer window.

 

[Aikiwolf]

I've heard we are expecting a busy transfer window.

Who is Morgan selling to make money to invest in houses? opcorn:

 

[Tony Towner]

Saunders did say this week, what many thought, that when he took the job he was promised money then wasn't allowed to spend any. Now I wouldn't let an imbecile like Saunders spend any money, then again I wouldn't have employed him a couple of weeks earlier because Ian Rush or Graeme Souness said I should do.

That explains why he spent all of Jan '13 saying he needed reinforcements, then in Feb said he was happy with what he had.

 

[Edgmond Wolf]

Let's hope this window is productive.....

 

[FrankMunro-371]

There is not always a lot of business done in the January transfer window. Though KJ may have earmarked certain players he wants to bring in, but getting them to sign is another matter.

 

[Johnny75]

I've heard we are expecting a busy transfer window.

Hopefully more quality in than quality out.

 

[Lycan]

Saunders did say this week, what many thought, that when he took the job he was promised money then wasn't allowed to spend any. Now I wouldn't let an imbecile like Saunders spend any money, then again I wouldn't have employed him a couple of weeks earlier because Ian Rush or Graeme Souness said I should do.

That explains why he spent all of Jan '13 saying he needed reinforcements, then in Feb said he was happy with what he had.

Saunders has been peddling this pish since before we sacked him. He was given the opportunity to sign players at the start of Jan (many of the same players KJ went on to sign) but rejected them all so he could 'evaluate our squad' first. 3/4 of the way through the Jan transfer window he realised how shit the squad was and started making offers for guff like Marlon King and Kaspars Gorkss.

 

[Lord Knows]

If the club did make 3 million available to spend this window would you look for a couple of players or four or five?

 

[Tony Towner]

Definitely the former, one of which would be a number 10

 

[Lord Knows]

Definitely the former, one of which would be a number 10

Gary Gardner though he didn't pull up any trees while at Brighton would still be high on my shopping list, loan with a view to buy in the summer.

 

[Lycan]

2 players. 1 attacking midfielder and 1 striker.

 

[Lord Knows]

2 players. 1 attacking midfielder and 1 striker.

If we pulled in Nahki Wells plus Gary Gardner on loan I would look on that as a very good window.

 

[Edgmond Wolf]

A Dicko style attacker is key