How can a more successful team generate more cash? The ground is full every week and most people buy shirts. The prize money and TV increase is relatively small for finishing a few places higher.
Where do you think we should be in the table Lee, with the squad we have? On 19 May 2011 11:09, Morris, Lee SGT <lee.mor...@defence.gov.au> wrote: > I always thought a successful team, even relatively, is what brings in > the cash. Wolves fans are amongst the most fickle in the land and the loss > of revenue through relegation this year would be enormous....Notice I said > "would" I think we will stay up by the skin of out teeth and the slowly > slowly routine can continue. > > Not for one moment would I suggest an all or nothing approach which is what > cost the likes of Leeds so dearly. > > At the end of the day its just debate, my club is in Morgan's hands, and > thats good enough for me....the team in Macarthy's is another matter. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *LEESE Matthew > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:04 > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > The new stadium is actually an opportunity to generate more money, not > only through increased capacity/ticket sales but through the 'non football' > facilities that will be included and allowing an income stream from the > stadium that is not so limited to match days. I'm aware there's already > facilities there for non match related activities but these will > (apparently) be substantially enhanced as part of the stadium upgrade. > Again, it comes down to a long term strategy for progress as opposed to a > 'quick fix'. If we invest the money in the short term in the team how does > that help us achieve longer term/sustained success? We may finish a couple > of places higher up the table in the first season but that doesn't generate > any more money to allow you to keep on building from there (OK a little bit > for each placing in the final table, but nothing substantial). The argument > then may be 'wouldn't that money have been better invested in upgrading the > stadium to allow us to build over the long term'. > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:46 AM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > I've got nothing against the short slow steps, as long as progress is > being made. Morgan is obviously no mug, and I do understand Matty's > reasoning behind teh timing of the stadium redevelopment. Did we really need > it though? Morgan obvioulsy know best but why wouldn't he wait until our > safety is guaranteed? > > Its great for the fans to have a fantastic new stadium to watch football > in, but I for one would prefer to watch PL action in the current stadium > rather than championship football in the all singing dancing stadium. > > Maybe what I'm trying to say is, wouldn't that money be better spent on > team building? > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 10:36 > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > 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 <matthew_le...@rta.nsw.gov.au> 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:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:26 AM >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *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:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *mark worrall >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 09:13 >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *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 < >> marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> 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:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *Marcus Chantry >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 9:00 AM >>> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >>> *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:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >>> Behalf Of *mark worrall >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 8:55 AM >>> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >>> *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. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
