I'm sure Morgan has not bothered looking at forecasts of attendances or anything like that. You're probably the first person to work out that it's a huge mistake
On 19 May 2011 12:48, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: > I would probably update the menu and the quality of the food to ensure > that it was booked out 100% for months in advance like The Fat Duck or > Bulli, and because people want to get into places that are consistently full > I would put up my prices to make more profit. Simple economics. > > > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:40 PM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > > > Capacity is 29,195 > > Baggies game had 28,510 > > So it was at 98% capacity. > > > > You reckon that the absences were because no one else wanted to go or > because a few STH and people that cought a ticket couldn't make it. > > > > We are consistenly over 95% capacity. > > > > If you had a restaurant with 100 tables, 50 of which were booked in advance > and 95 of them were full all the time, would you say > > > > a) expand the restaurant > > b) not expand until 100% full. > > > > > > > On 19 May 2011 12:31, Marcus Chantry <marcus.chan...@macquarie.com> wrote: > > 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. > > > > -- > 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.
