How you can quote over 55 million as relatively little with a straight face compared to what we spent in the division is quite bizarre and it is still well ahead of the bottom 3 payers in the league . Why do you think Koeman won manager of the year.. it is widely accepted they overachieved. Stating QPR did poorly with a high wage bill is just as ludicrous as using isolated examples of O Hara and Johnson as proof wages don't correlate to league position. There are always isolated cases of teams bucking an overall trend, do you believe for example that Barristers or accountants are less intelligent than road sweepers because you know Basil Brush PHD round the corner who reads Shakespeare with his broom in hand?
The wolves Way
- Thread starter BlueSkies
- Start date
- Status
How you can quote over 55 million as relatively little with a straight face compared to what we spent in the division is quite bizarre and it is still well ahead of the bottom 3 payers in the league . Why do you think Koeman won manager of the year.. it is widely accepted they overachieved. Stating QPR did poorly with a high wage bill is just as ludicrous as using isolated examples of O Hara and Johnson as proof wages don't correlate to league position. There are always isolated cases of teams bucking an overall trend, do you believe for example that Barristers or accountants are less intelligent than road sweepers because you know Basil Brush PHD round the corner who reads Shakespeare with his broom in hand?
darlowolf64
Supply Teacher & 2020/21 PTG Intertoto Cup winner
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
- Messages
- 30,328
- Reaction score
- 3,111
The magic words in my post were IN COMPARISON TO OTHER TEAMS
MARKakaJIM
Contrary Mary
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 24,546
- Reaction score
- 3,400
Very healthy net transfer spend during their Premier League period no doubt helping to fund that hefty wage bill.
Wolves spunked far too much money up the wall on transfer fees compared to their rivals, as evidenced by my delightfully coloured table earlier on, that puts a huge dent in the cash which is available to pay out for wages. If Wolves changed tack on their recruitment policy, free agents, damaged goods etc. rather than trying to poach the crown jewels from other teams at great expense then you'd be able to pay a higher wage than we saw during the last Premier League stay.
Yes. But that's like comparing apples to oranges. It's naive to compare wages of 2014/15 to 2011/12. A lot can change in three years - especially in football (and let's not turn this chat political and start talking about inflation rates! :icon_lol.
Southampton were the 16th lowest payers in the Premier League last season - out of 20. Yet they finished 7th and are competing in Europe next season.
With that in mind, I don't understand or agree with you when you say its complete "fantasy". No one is arguing with you that the top 4/5 clubs in this country are in a league of their own with both wages and player quality; but you can't honestly sit there and say you wouldn't want us to do what a club like Southampton have done?
Three years isn't that long to suggest we would ever pay or get close to paying what Southampton are and they are 15th highest wage payers if we want to be pedantic about it. Stating a team that has overachieved from 15th to 7th in one given year being an example that wages are irrelevant is rather silly, if that's the case why are Barnet, Colchester and Rochdale not in the premier league then?
Johnny75
Virtual Cock
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 36,291
- Reaction score
- 12,473
What a nonsense list. But your point stands that players always going to gravitate to more money and a chance of winning things more often. That happens in every walk of life, why people think footballers are any different confuses me.
You're quite right ..spunkity spunkity spunk all 9 million a season when we raked in over 60 million sky money each year alone. It's a miracle we haven't been liquidated as you say with the great expense we have incurred. Again as we have dealt with coincidences it must be a coincidence that 5 managers have been unable to deliver success under our great expense budget , why do you think that is ?
Parkins left foot
'Quirk's Gay Game Winner'
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 422
What clubs are offering now (Palace & £65000pw has been mentioned) is irrelevant when comparing it to the wages we paid only 2 years ago as the Premier deal has moved upwards enormously. Doubt Palace would have been looking at that level of wages had they been in the Premier in our last season there.
As to what we would or would not pay (either in transfers or wages) if we get back then none of us know - it is as possible that the club have learnt from past errors just as much as considering that they won't have. Though consider that it was holding onto to the Manager a touch too long & buying dross which did for us rather than specifically the amount of money made available.
As to what we would or would not pay (either in transfers or wages) if we get back then none of us know - it is as possible that the club have learnt from past errors just as much as considering that they won't have. Though consider that it was holding onto to the Manager a touch too long & buying dross which did for us rather than specifically the amount of money made available.
Where have I said I hate Morgan, as usual its supposition and fabrication
yeah my mistake on that one , the honour goes to Deutsch
Jinky
Head Brownie
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 34,247
- Reaction score
- 7,489
They were 16th, if you want to be "pedantic" about it.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-wage-table-revealed-5560964
Cheers for calling it "silly". It IS "silly" because that's not my point, is it? Once again, no one said wages were "irrelevant" - did they?
You're coming across in the wrong manner and people are rightly getting on your back, because you're putting words in to people's mouths when they haven't said it. While all the time, conveniently missing their points.
My example of Southampton was merely to prove that your statement of "competing with the top teams and getting in to Europe is complete fantasy" - that's a direct quote from YOU - is nonsense. I've called you out on it and you've done nothing to disprove that. All you've done is reply in the manner of schoolboy.
What I am basically saying is there is no blue print for footballing success at all at the club so why would anyone want to return to the premier league where we have not only a track record of not competing but even attempting to. As Frank correctly says , money isn't everything in the 70s but it was a different era and who wants to torture themselves seeing us getting battered by clubs that are more heavily funded both in transfer fees and particularly wages where we are clinging on for dear life week in week out. The closest model to how we are being run is Crewe Alexandra , a club relying on its youth trying to self fund but obviously on a bigger scale. I don't understand how anyone can believe we can possibly compete in the premiership with how the club has been run during the last 8 years which is why I said , we need to lower ambitions and accept we are never likely to compete in the top flight again unless the complete structure of the club is changed top to bottom. Instead of crying about it, embrace the youth coming through, limited expenditure and realise last season constituted us over achieving otherwise its going to be a long period of disappointment in store.
Called me out on what , are you seriously suggesting one team over achieving on one specific season is evidence that wages don't matter? Yes 16th not 15th I'll give you that but its not 17/18/19th payers as we were each season
PuntsWolf
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,892
- Reaction score
- 7,693
I come back and it's still going. No point debating as everything you say is twisted (but good to see his true colours on show now, although it was pretty obvious from the start where it was going). He is also arguing with himself, no one has said that increased wages don't lead to increased performance, they obviously do.
Johnny75
Virtual Cock
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 36,291
- Reaction score
- 12,473
So why are you getting all bent out of shape about wages and transfer fees spent whilst we were in the PL? And why say, we will never do it again? How can you be so sure, what would have to change for Wolves to attain a competitive stature in the PL in your opinion and why?
They obviously don't according to some because we have heard that Johnson and O Hara show that wages aren't everything implying the opposite of what you have stated and tale of woe regarding how wretched QPR were illustrating the wage theory myth.
Parkins left foot
'Quirk's Gay Game Winner'
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 422
This thread was only 3 posts into page 6 at the start of the day - now page 12 & not sure its gone anywhere new.
I'm not bent out of shape , I'm quoting what teams paid in wages, how there is a fairly direct correlation between wages and league position with obvious exceptions and how IMV there is no point in going back to the premiership with our budget as it is.
Jinky
Head Brownie
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 34,247
- Reaction score
- 7,489
For the, I dunno, 5th or 6th time (?) - who said wages don't matter?
You said its a "fantasy" that a team like Wolves can compete in the Premier League. I showed you a case from literally last season of that not being true and now you're trying to weasel out of it. Wolves & Southampton are similar clubs in the grand scheme of things (Wolves and Crewe are not). It is completely achievable to win promotion, stabilise our position there and eventually aim for European football. Competing with the likes of Manchester City/United, Chelsea, Arsenal etc a little less so, but then that wasn't the debate in the first place.
- Status
