Strange statement Steve.

 

Fact is that for almost every home game this season you have been able to walk 
up on the day and get a ticket, including the crunch match against the Baggies 
2 weeks ago.  That surely is a reflection of the fact that people aren't 
enjoying watching Wolves play under McCarthy.

 

If the team were winning more regularly, you would attract higher calibre 
sponsors who would be willing to pay more to be associated with a successful 
club. As demand for tickets increases then you have the supply and demand 
benefit of being able to increase ticket prices.  So quite clearly the more 
successful the team, the more money you generate.

Statement here from Morgan ""But we were the third-highest net spenders in the 
Premier League last summer with £18 million, so it's not as if we're not 
spending on players. And Mick will have money to spend again this summer. It's 
all about balance. "  Does that sound like a team that should only be making 
tiny, tiny steps of progress when we're the 3rd highest net spenders? 

With the squad we have we should be in the Premier League 3rd quadrant.  With 
the team that McCarthy plays week in week out we should be in the Championship.

 

 

From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of 
Steven Millward
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 PM
To: nswolves@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]

 

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.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to