Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
Did we work this one out yet for players? On 19 May 2011 14:24, Steven Millward wrote: > With property development you generally borrow money and as long as the > yield on the development is greater than the cost of capital then you make > money. > > It's a pretty simple calculation to do in fact. > >- It's said to cost 16m for the first stage. >- It adds 2,500 seats. >- 30 quid a seat is 75,000 >- Times 19 games is 1.45m >- That's a 9% yield. Fairly reasonable for property development. >- I assume not all seats are filled but that the hospitality will >offset that and I haven't included that. 9% seems about right though. >- The expansion is being funded from cash flow though, so if the return >on the expansion is better than the return on other forms of investment > then >you would expand > > Now try it when buying players so we can compare the returns and understand > Morgan's logic. > >- Spend X million on a player? >- Residual value of Y million? >- Wages of say 1.5m a year? >- What does it get you as a return? >- What are the risks associated with getting those returns as it >affects the rate of return you'd want. The risk is much higher so you'd >want a much higher rate of return than for expanding the stadium > > > On 19 May 2011 13:05, Marcus Chantry wrote: > > > >> You do the same ROI calculations on the cost for the stadium development >> (make sure you factor in the lost revenue from being relegated ie ticket >> sales, sponsorship deals, corporate functions etc) and the payback period to >> get back to breakeven and then we can compare numbers. What period would >> you like to run the projections over and also what is the ROC demanded of >> the Board? >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:56 PM >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> >> >> OK. And what's the cost in terms of players to move up a few places in >> your view? >> >> >> >> And then what's the ROI? >> >> On 19 May 2011 12:51, Marcus Chantry >> wrote: >> >> Here is the prize money split for last season. So places make a fairly >> big difference for two-bob clubs like ours (£800,000 per place): >> >> >> >> Chelsea - £16,000,000 (WINNERS) >> Manchester United - £15,200,000 >> Arsenal - £14,400,000 >> Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000 >> Manchester City - £12,800,000 >> Aston Villa - £12,000,000 >> Liverpool - £11,200,000 >> Everton - £10,400,000 >> Birmingham - £9,600,000 >> Blackburn - £8,800,000 >> Stoke - £8,000,000 >> Fulham - £7,200,000 >> Sunderland - £6,400,000 >> Bolton - £5,600,000 >> Wolves - £4,800,000 >> Wigan - £4,000,000 >> West Ham - £3,200,000 >> Burnley - £2,400,000 >> Hull - £1,600,000 >> Portsmouth - £800,000 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:37 PM >> >> *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] >> >> >> >> The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. >> >> >> >> I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that >> Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I >> ahven't checked up on that. >> >> >> >> With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a >> little higher. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Millward >> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 >> *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 wrote: >> >> I always thought a successfu
Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
With property development you generally borrow money and as long as the yield on the development is greater than the cost of capital then you make money. It's a pretty simple calculation to do in fact. - It's said to cost 16m for the first stage. - It adds 2,500 seats. - 30 quid a seat is 75,000 - Times 19 games is 1.45m - That's a 9% yield. Fairly reasonable for property development. - I assume not all seats are filled but that the hospitality will offset that and I haven't included that. 9% seems about right though. - The expansion is being funded from cash flow though, so if the return on the expansion is better than the return on other forms of investment then you would expand Now try it when buying players so we can compare the returns and understand Morgan's logic. - Spend X million on a player? - Residual value of Y million? - Wages of say 1.5m a year? - What does it get you as a return? - What are the risks associated with getting those returns as it affects the rate of return you'd want. The risk is much higher so you'd want a much higher rate of return than for expanding the stadium On 19 May 2011 13:05, Marcus Chantry wrote: > You do the same ROI calculations on the cost for the stadium development > (make sure you factor in the lost revenue from being relegated ie ticket > sales, sponsorship deals, corporate functions etc) and the payback period to > get back to breakeven and then we can compare numbers. What period would > you like to run the projections over and also what is the ROC demanded of > the Board? > > > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:56 PM > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > > > OK. And what's the cost in terms of players to move up a few places in > your view? > > > > And then what's the ROI? > > On 19 May 2011 12:51, Marcus Chantry wrote: > > Here is the prize money split for last season. So places make a fairly big > difference for two-bob clubs like ours (£800,000 per place): > > > > Chelsea - £16,000,000 (WINNERS) > Manchester United - £15,200,000 > Arsenal - £14,400,000 > Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000 > Manchester City - £12,800,000 > Aston Villa - £12,000,000 > Liverpool - £11,200,000 > Everton - £10,400,000 > Birmingham - £9,600,000 > Blackburn - £8,800,000 > Stoke - £8,000,000 > Fulham - £7,200,000 > Sunderland - £6,400,000 > Bolton - £5,600,000 > Wolves - £4,800,000 > Wigan - £4,000,000 > West Ham - £3,200,000 > Burnley - £2,400,000 > Hull - £1,600,000 > Portsmouth - £800,000 > > > > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:37 PM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > > > The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. > > > > I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that > Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I > ahven't checked up on that. > > > > With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.....maybe a little > higher. > > > > > -- > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 > *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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe team in Macarthy's is another matter. > > > -- >
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
It's not a case of leaving seats empty for safety if you can walk up to a turnstile every home game and buy a ticket. I have friends there that are doing exactly that most home games. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 1:04 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] You also have to allow seats left empty for safety/segregation. Marcus - I'd like to who are the teams who should be in the 4th quadrant on account of having weaker squads than us? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 1:00 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] Blackpool has been at 98% capacity this season in a ground of 16,000. Very few clubs fill more than 98% of the ground. It's hard to do. There comes a point when you are full and expand. That point is less than 100%. We have been at 96% capacity and it's time to expand. On 19 May 2011 12:36, Morris, Lee SGT wrote: The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I ahven't checked up on that. With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a little higher. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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: nswolv
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
You also have to allow seats left empty for safety/segregation. Marcus - I'd like to who are the teams who should be in the 4th quadrant on account of having weaker squads than us? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 1:00 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] Blackpool has been at 98% capacity this season in a ground of 16,000. Very few clubs fill more than 98% of the ground. It's hard to do. There comes a point when you are full and expand. That point is less than 100%. We have been at 96% capacity and it's time to expand. On 19 May 2011 12:36, Morris, Lee SGT mailto:lee.mor...@defence.gov.au>> wrote: The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I ahven't checked up on that. With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a little higher. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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 mailto: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 enormousNotice 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 methe team in Macarthy's is another matter. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:04 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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: n
Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
Blackpool has been at 98% capacity this season in a ground of 16,000. Very few clubs fill more than 98% of the ground. It's hard to do. There comes a point when you are full and expand. That point is less than 100%. We have been at 96% capacity and it's time to expand. On 19 May 2011 12:36, Morris, Lee SGT wrote: > The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. > > I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that > Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I > ahven't checked up on that. > > With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a little > higher. > > > -- > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 > > *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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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=u
Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
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 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 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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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 stra
Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
OK. And what's the cost in terms of players to move up a few places in your view? And then what's the ROI? On 19 May 2011 12:51, Marcus Chantry wrote: > Here is the prize money split for last season. So places make a fairly > big difference for two-bob clubs like ours (£800,000 per place): > > > > Chelsea - £16,000,000 (WINNERS) > Manchester United - £15,200,000 > Arsenal - £14,400,000 > Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000 > Manchester City - £12,800,000 > Aston Villa - £12,000,000 > Liverpool - £11,200,000 > Everton - £10,400,000 > Birmingham - £9,600,000 > Blackburn - £8,800,000 > Stoke - £8,000,000 > Fulham - £7,200,000 > Sunderland - £6,400,000 > Bolton - £5,600,000 > Wolves - £4,800,000 > Wigan - £4,000,000 > West Ham - £3,200,000 > Burnley - £2,400,000 > Hull - £1,600,000 > Portsmouth - £800,000 > > > > > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Morris, Lee SGT > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:37 PM > > *To:* nswolves@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] > > > > The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. > > > > I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that > Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I > ahven't checked up on that. > > > > With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a little > higher. > > > > > -- > > *From:* nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Millward > *Sent:* Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 > *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 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 enormousNotice 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
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
Here is the prize money split for last season. So places make a fairly big difference for two-bob clubs like ours (£800,000 per place): Chelsea - £16,000,000 (WINNERS) Manchester United - £15,200,000 Arsenal - £14,400,000 Totenham Hotspur - £13,600,000 Manchester City - £12,800,000 Aston Villa - £12,000,000 Liverpool - £11,200,000 Everton - £10,400,000 Birmingham - £9,600,000 Blackburn - £8,800,000 Stoke - £8,000,000 Fulham - £7,200,000 Sunderland - £6,400,000 Bolton - £5,600,000 Wolves - £4,800,000 Wigan - £4,000,000 West Ham - £3,200,000 Burnley - £2,400,000 Hull - £1,600,000 Portsmouth - £800,000 From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morris, Lee SGT Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:37 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it. I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair bit..although I ahven't checked up on that. With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a little higher. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Millward Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23 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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
The ground is defiantely not full every week...far from it.
I also though the prize money increases significantly eg - I read that
Stoke throwing in the towel this week could cost them a fair
bit..although I ahven't checked up on that.
With the squad we have...we are about where we should be.maybe a
little higher.
From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Steven Millward
Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:23
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 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
enormousNotice 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 methe 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 ab
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 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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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 progres
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
Who are the teams who should be in the 4th quadrant on account of having weaker squads than us? From: nswolves@googlegroups.com [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marcus Chantry Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 12:31 PM To: nswolves@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified] 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 mailto: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 enormousNotice 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 methe team in Macarthy's is another matter. From: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com> [mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto:nswolves@googlegroups.com>] On Behalf Of LEESE Matthew Sent: Thursday, 19 May 2011 11:04 To: nswolves@googlegroups.com<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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 fo
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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 expectat
Re: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
Players are generally depreciating assets. They are usually worth less once they've been used than they are when you buy them. That means an operating club loses cash through depreciation. I've said before that I think Morgan has wanted to stop players depreciating by buying them young so they are less liekly to fall in value and are more likely to increase. We also know that we have the money to spend on players but we don't spend more on wages than the club can afford. Our wage structure is defined by the profit of the club. If we don't make more money as a business, we won't spend more on wages. If we invest in the ground we get more profit and so can spend more on wages and get better players. On 19 May 2011 10:46, Morris, Lee SGT wrote: > 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 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 t
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 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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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
RE: [NSWolves] RE: Progress [sec=unclassified]
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 enormousNotice 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 methe 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
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 mailto: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
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 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.c
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 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 th
