The wolves Way

[MARKakaJIM]

Doesn't seem to include those transfers that went down as "undisclosed" either...

I just went with the protagonist's source of choice so he couldn't even argue a difference between his base data and mine.

 

[Penk Wolf]

The wage table would be interesting.

 

[Aikiwolf]

So whose gonna knock up a spreadsheet comparing wages to league positions?!

I do seem to remember there being a correlation between wages paid and league position (not saying that the wages paid is a causal tho - just that those at the top can pay more!)

 

[Aikiwolf]

The wage table would be interesting.

Fs - beat me to it!

 

[BlueSkies]

Well it's not a good guideline when the figures are 50% out...

I can say results papered over the cracks because they did. As Mark says you obviously didn't watch us that season if you could see how poor we were.

I never said we should adopt the approach of not signing anyone. We have no idea what that reason was. You're using the "we didn't spend the money as Morgan is a tight arse" as it fits your agenda. It could be partly true, but it could also be that people didn't want to join, whether that be the manager, the current players, the dressing room harmony etc.

Neither of us know the answer so try and peddle one possibility as fact is just a little silly.

You think players don't want to join because of dressing room harmony lol? haha ok, nothing to do with us being bottom 3 wage payers throughout our premiership time then.

 

[BlueSkies]

Having rechecked the "source" for my figuers, fees for Milijas (about £2.6m) and Stefan Maierhofer (about £1.8m) are not included so net spend is now up to £40.45m

It sounds like the net spend is going up like a heavy interest rate, any chance I can put a few quid in as it will be up to 50 million before the sun sets? Your figures are wrong BTW

 

[BlueSkies]

I admit I was wrong about the £60m. It was £40m or so.

It was under 30 million which I stated several pages back.. please stop this nonsense of over inflating fees to absurd amounts. We had a net spend of 9.9 spend each of the three seasons we were in the premiership with wages in the bottom 3 during our time there but if this in your eyes is evidence we would spend 65 grand a week like Palace fair enough. I admire your optimism

 

[PuntsWolf]

You think players don't want to join because of dressing room harmony lol? haha ok, nothing to do with us being bottom 3 wage payers throughout our premiership time then.

Like I said, they all will be a contributing factor. But you are blinkered to anything that isn't a dig at the club for not splashing the cash.

 

[darlowolf64]

It sounds like the net spend is going up like a heavy interest rate, any chance I can put a few quid in as it will be up to 50 million before the sun sets? Your figures are wrong BTW

Here, feel free to have a look yourself.
Still nothing on the "mad dog" comment? You were pretty quick to get arsey about a couple of "wum" comments

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/wol...tball-teams/wolverhampton-wanderers-transfers

You also have very little to say about your own source...

 

[BlueSkies]

So whose gonna knock up a spreadsheet comparing wages to league positions?!

I do seem to remember there being a correlation between wages paid and league position (not saying that the wages paid is a causal tho - just that those at the top can pay more!)

Those that are at the top pay more is a correlation.. the word correlation means a relationship between two different factors so in this case teams at the top pay more and teams at the bottom ie us go bye bye to the premier league.

 

[BlueSkies]

Here, feel free to have a look yourself.
Still nothing on the "mad dog" comment? You were pretty quick to get arsey about a couple of "wum" comments

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/wol...tball-teams/wolverhampton-wanderers-transfers

The table put up shows we had a net spend of 29 million over 3 seasons , what do I need to look up

 

[BlueSkies]

The top four wage payers were last season Arsenal , Chelsea, United and City with the lowest wage payers Burnley.. I suspect it's coincidence and wages don't matter at all!

 

[PuntsWolf]

The top four wage payers were last season Arsenal , Chelsea, United and City with the lowest wage payers Burnley.. I suspect it's coincidence and wages don't matter at all!

No one has ever said that...

 

[Aikiwolf]

Those that are at the top pay more is a correlation.. the word correlation means a relationship between two different factors so in this case teams at the top pay more and teams at the bottom ie us go bye bye to the premier league.

Awks...I said they correlated but that doesn't always equate to causal I.e. The two show a relationship but that in itself is not evidence that wages influence league position (it could be league positions influence wage levels).

 

[BlueSkies]

Clearly if you pay higher wages you are going to attract a higher class of players so your league position will improve. Of course some players aren't worth what they earn but the majority of decent players are on relatively higher wages compared to their less able counterparts and it would be naïve to think otherwise.

It's fair to say for whatever reason, we will never pay competitive wages in the premiership so lets stop kidding ourselves over tales of European football and dreaming fantasy up. If our current owner wanted to compete in wages we wouldn't be heading into our third premiership year joint 17/18th wage payers out of 20 expecting to finish above clubs that continually beat us to players with a more attractive budget.If we were serious about competing our wage bill would be similar to our gate number which I believe was around 11 or 12th highest in the league not joint 17/18th . Players will almost invariably follow the money and as we were averaging second lowest payers for 3 years why the hell would they come here.. because they were secret wolves fans as a child ? I don't believe for a minute if we got promoted next season we would ever be able to compete with clubs like Albion, palace , stoke for wages so short of working miracle after miracle punching above our weight with poorly paid players in comparison whats the point of being in the league at all? It would just be a backs to the wall job every weekend against more talented players that earn more because they are in higher demand with superior levels of ability. There's a strong case for suggesting wolves are a bigger club than all three I've just mentioned along with numerous others but it's utterly irrelevant if we aren't going to financially compete with these clubs so why do people want to torture themselves believing after 8 years we are suddenly going to change how we operate Lord only knows.

 

[darlowolf64]

Higher wages = better players?
I give you Johnson, Roger and O'Hara, Jamie
Compare the two above with
Stearman, Richard and McDonald, Kevin

I know it is a low level, wolves comparison but how many players have been brought in by top teams and failed despite having huge wages or being a "big name"? Wages doesn't equate to performance on the pitch.
You wanted "evidence", I provided it and you won't even look at it...

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Where did Ipswich finish in 2001? Southampton were close to the top four for a time last season.

Football is more fluid than you'd think. What if City's owners get bored in a couple of years if they're crap in Europe again? What if Arsenal make the wrong appointment when Wenger leaves?

There has always been a hierarchy in football. Let's not pretend the 70s and 80s were any different, how many titles did Liverpool win.

Looking at the 23 years before the premier league and the 23 years of the premier league there is no comparison .In that time there were 5 sides who won the premier league Man U Man City Arsenal Chelsea Blackburn were champions and these sides were also in often the top three if they were not champions.The only sides to break into the top three in the history of the premiership are Forest Newcastle Villa Leeds and Norwich. So 10 sides have been champions or in the top 3 since the start of the premier league

That compares with 15 sides for the 23 years before the premier league.Leeds, Everton Arsenal Derby Liverpool Forest and Villa were champions. The additional sides to finish in the top three were Palace, Sheff Wed Southampton Watford WBA QPR and Ipswich. In our lifetime I would bet that few if any of those teams will ever finish in the top three of the Premier league. Liverpools dominance 1969-92 is mirrored by Man Us dominance 1992-2014 in terms of numbers.

Also Forest won the league on promotion to the old Div 1 in 1978. That will never happen again, ever in the existence of the premier league. Even City with all their billions could not do that. Blackburn were accused of buying the title back in the 90's but even their spine was British. Now the money is foreign money, the players are foreign players and the wages commanded can olny be afforded by about 6 clubs hence why there are only 6 teams that can win the premiership. The rest are also rans.

The difference is money. It buys the players. City buy as many as they can as do chelsea and Man U. Their reserves would beat most premier first teams. The quality in depth is what brings them success. Injuries don t hit teams as hard. Forest won the league and used about 15 players! Thats right. Man U or City or other premier teams now use 15 in a week! Its a squad game now and the reason the game has changed is money.

As a passionate Wolves fan I would be deluded in thinking that our current strategy would ever be enough to break into the top 4 of the premier league. It is impossible. A realistic aim nowadays is a few seasons of mid table premier league and a cup run to get into europe or the fair flay award.

 

[BlueSkies]

Higher wages = better players?
I give you Johnson, Roger and O'Hara, Jamie
Compare the two above with
Stearman, Richard and McDonald, Kevin

I know it is a low level, wolves comparison but how many players have been brought in by top teams and failed despite having huge wages or being a "big name"? Wages doesn't equate to performance on the pitch.
You wanted "evidence", I provided it and you won't even look at it...

Absolutely O Hara and Johnson is undisputable evidence that high wages have no relevance to league position at all , like I said earlier its coincidence the top four wage payers last season were united, city , arsenal and Chelsea and Burnley the lowest payers. The evidence is clearly flawed with those two players proving your point beyond doubt. As you correctly mentioned earlier, we don't want to do what portsmouth or leeds did.

 

[Johnny75]

Awks...I said they correlated but that doesn't always equate to causal I.e. The two show a relationship but that in itself is not evidence that wages influence league position (it could be league positions influence wage levels).

Ah, the Wolverhampton Causals, never really got going as they couldn't find a reason....

..... Coat please.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Higher wages = better players?
I give you Johnson, Roger and O'Hara, Jamie
Compare the two above with
Stearman, Richard and McDonald, Kevin

I know it is a low level, wolves comparison but how many players have been brought in by top teams and failed despite having huge wages or being a "big name"? Wages doesn't equate to performance on the pitch.
You wanted "evidence", I provided it and you won't even look at it...

Nailed! There is a difference in the quality a top 6 side can go for and the quality a newly promoted team can go for. Occasionalky you get gems like Swansea and Southampton but they soon get sold to "bigger" clubs ie those with more cash and who will pay higher wages. OHara Johnson and Doyle were big money to us but would not have made any of the premier league top 10 starting 11 in my humble opinion. The gap is that big. So while we took a hit that hurt the big 6 will take hits like Falcao andf it wont matter a jot as they have enough quality back up and very very deep billionnaire pockets.