Agree. I don't understand where everyone gets these lofty expectations from. We spent 30 years in the wilderness where the goal each and every crushing season was simply to get back to the Premier League. Now we are there, some people seem to think we should be pushing for Europe.
Marcus, you say that it will be 100 years until we get to near the top of the table. What makes you think that it is at all realistic for Wolves to get near the top of the table? What makes you even think that a top half finish is realistic? I assume you either expect money to be thrown at the squad from some mysterious benefactor or that we will somehow magically make more of the meagre squad that we have now. I believe we are already punching above our weight based on value of squad and wages. The news for everyone is that there are 19 other clubs who have the same, or higher, ambitions. Which clubs should we 'by right' finish higher than? And for what reason? I'd love to know where people think we should be in the table relative to the teams above us and their teams. If we expect to finish 10th then presumably we clearly have a better team than ten other teams? Which teams are they? The only club that has outperformed us is West Brom. Let's see how they do next season before we claim the miracle of Hodgson. Wolves are no longer a big club and don't have any more money to spend than other clubs. In fact we have less. We have a small stadium so potential revenue growth is linked to telly money and inflation. The sensible thing to do is to invest in infrastructure that will generate revenue. Seems everyone has got used to the golden tit where money was pumped in. Morgan clearly doesn't want to spunk a load of money on players and that's sensible. I certainly wouldn't if it was my money. It's harsh to say that we haven't made progress. Take where we were when Hoddle left five years ago as a starting point. As a mid-point look at the side we started the first Premiership season with, with Keogh as our striker and Halford on the wing. By the way Marcus, enjoy your last four days of blaming Mick for everything because it will all stop come Monday morning. :D On 19 May 2011 09:38, LEESE Matthew <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd say the small step approach seems a sensible and proven one - look at > teams like Stoke and Sunderland and compare their recent history with that > of clubs who have over committed financially such as Portsmouth, Hull and > Leeds. Unless you've got a Man City type owner where you're not bound by the > club's ability to generate money its not worth the risk. I don't doubt > Morgan's business acumen for a moment and I think he's taking the club in > the right direction with a sensible, sustainable approach. Morgan has > pointed out that now is a perfect time to be redeveloping the stadium in > terms of the financials as the building industry (and many others) in the UK > is on its arse and so its a buyer's market where he can get the work done > for a knock down price. The first stages of the re-development don't > significantly increase the capacity of a stadium that was never half full > (save for Carling Cup games), even in the super depressing Hoddle era. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:26 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [NSWolves] Progress [sec=unclassified] > > I've changed the title because it would have been too long with my extra > bit added. > > Anyway, Morgan seems to be working on the small step theory, which totally > baffles me because he's just about to spend a fortune on a stadium which > will be half full if the small step we made this year isn't > enough??????????????????????????????????????? > > ------------------------------ > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *mark worrall > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 09:13 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] Wolves owner Steve Morgan says he wants Mick > McCarthy to stay on as the club's manager even if they are relegated. > > Maybe thats based on Morgan only planning on putting in small amounts of > money each year, and measuring MM on what he achieved with it ? > > He wont get a big name manager in as they will expect lots of money to > spend, which he obviously doesnt want to pay. > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Marcus Chantry < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> What worries me is that Morgan has stated that Mick has made progress >> every year since he took over but when you look at how he’s measured that it >> is the context of very small fractions or single points, so based on that >> run rate Morgan will be 100 years old before he sees us getting anywhere >> near the top of the table (assuming everyone else stays stagnant for that >> entire period). >> >> >> >> Why can’t Morgan accept that Mick has reached the limit of his ability and >> take the plunge. 5 years is long enough in most roles. >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Marcus Chantry >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:00 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] Wolves owner Steve Morgan says he wants Mick >> McCarthy to stay on as the club's manager even if they are relegated. >> >> >> >> Good to see we’re both on the ball Mark. I just posted a link to the same >> story on ESPN. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *mark worrall >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 8:55 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [NSWolves] Wolves owner Steve Morgan says he wants Mick >> McCarthy to stay on as the club's manager even if they are relegated. >> >> >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/13440664.stm >> >> >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not >> the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this >> email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee >> the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions >> expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of >> Macquarie. >> >> >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> >> -- >> Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? >> A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. >> > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > Before printing, please consider the environment. IMPORTANT NOTICE: This > e-mail and any attachment to it are intended only to be read or used by the > named addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged > information. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any > mistaken transmission to you. The RTA is not responsible for any > unauthorised alterations to this e-mail or attachment to it. Views expressed > in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily > the views of the RTA. If you receive this e-mail in error, please > immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender. You must not > disclose, copy or use any part of this e-mail if you are not the intended > recipient. > > -- > Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? > A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked. > -- Q: If you could change one thing about Wolves history, what would it be? A That Peter Knowles was on the bog when the door was knocked.
