Budget

[edlored]

Beginning of the season it was all about how good the squad was and the depth we had  people believed it bought the season tickets, it was apparent after the first month our squad is not league one standard nobody who can beat an opponent does not bode well all we want is honesty just say how it is, and personally if someone offered five hundred thousand for any of our players I would snatch their hands off. RTID

[Ryaldinhio]

15-20 years ago we were spending money and regular 6 figure fees on players.
Justin Jackson
Sean Thornton
Paul Heffernan
Matt Mills
Billy
James O'Connor
Brooker
Tommy spur

We don't spend ANY money now.....and we are not going to remain in league one without spending money.

All of the above were over a decade ago!!!!!!!

The difference being we had john Ryan then, a man with huge ambition.
We simply dont have that now unfortunately

Totally agree

Do you think we have a lower budget than Wimbledon, Burton, Exeter and Northampton?

I dont know pal, same as everyone else on here.

Ive never said we have lowest budget in the league, just that we will be one of the lowest, which I stand by.

If we have the 5th bottom budget and we finish 5th bottom that will do for me.

[Boycie]

Don't know how accurate it is but Football World quotes Alfie May is on £16 grand a week at Huddersfield.  No way can we compete with that sort of earnings.

[silent majority]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

[chrisd_123]

The current situation is not solely down to the budget. Anyone who thinks that is naive and clutching at straws.

Whether we like it or not, we're never going to be spending big money on big wages. We can throw accusations around like 'no ambition' but that's clearly not the case. Yes we'd love to have a big investor around to be able to go and sign Rob Street for £1m but we're Doncaster Rovers so there's no point even having that conversation.
All signs, for me, show that this is the fault of Grant McCann and his staff right now. I'm not calling for him to go but we can't blame budgets as soon as things go wrong. The board have given him so much power and everything he's asked for:

- Full control of the football side of the club
- Full control of recruitment and who leads that
- Investment into the training ground
- Increased/restructured the coaching staff
- New contracts for players a lot sooner than we've ever done historically

Clubs can do very shrewd business on very little. When clubs show a level of competence in the market they can pick up great players for cheap and that goes unnoticed until it starts going wrong and the budget it then suddenly the problem.

The problem is we don't appear to have any nouse or ability to pick up a player at the minute.

What doesn't help is these accounts on Twitter guessing at budgets. As soon as people see those charts created for clout it causes massive divides in the fan base because people take them as a gospel.

Yes on average bigger budgets should mean better success but spending money on Close, Westbrook and the four loanees is purely down to a lack of quality scouting/recruitment information. If the budget was the issue we wouldn't have signed players so early in the summer. i.e he signed Gotts and Middleton pretty much before their contracts even ended at previous clubs. Clearly players he wanted and not players he brought in because it's all he could afford. Both have been failures (so far).

McCann needs help. I'm just not sure he'll want it or accept it. Is he just too proud?

[TonySoprano]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

I assume your talking about wages and not transfer fees.
Because the club refusing to pay any transfer fees clearly limit the quality we can sign, having to sign other league 1 clubs cast offs, or signing league 2 players.

[StocksArmy]

You only need to look at our recruitment to suggest that the budget is not good enough to compete at this level. If we are operating with a mid table budget and players like Pearson, Hanlan, Gotts, Sharp and others are taking up a large portion of it, then we have been seriously taken advantage of by their agents. In that situation, McCann and the rest of the decision makers need to go immediately.

[drfcsteve]

Gotta love this forum. Silent Majority comes on to state the facts and hopefully straighten out the issue. Followed immediately by people who just love to argue black is white.

[chrisd_123]

You only need to look at our recruitment to suggest that the budget is not good enough to compete at this level. If we are operating with a mid table budget and players like Pearson, Hanlan, Gotts, Sharp and others are taking up a large portion of it, then we have been seriously taken advantage of by their agents. In that situation, McCann and the rest of the decision makers need to go immediately.

The second part of your post is exactly the problem for me.

We have the wrong people in the wrong roles clearly. We don't appear to have any scouting set up or any way of recruiting other than players McCann's fancied for a few years or just on vibes. And then when we do sign a player who has something to offer i.e. Hanlan he gets two starts then he's out of the squad for weeks and months.

The downfall of our season and, possibly immediate future, is that McCann doesn't seem to have a plan/idea of how to work for the long term.

[StocksArmy]

Gotta love this forum. Silent Majority comes on to state the facts and hopefully straighten out the issue. Followed immediately by people who just love to argue black is white.

If that’s a dig at my post I stated “suggest” as his previous posts regarding budget and spends off the pitch may have been missed. As a result of that, posters will question the budget and rightfully so because we have been sh!te. Not everybody spends their life on this forum yet still do carry on spending time and money travelling up and down the country to support their team. That’s what matters to the club, not people on high horses.

[Ryaldinhio]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

We dont know what last yrs budget was so to state an extra £2m we also don't know what that is or denotes. GM was quoted as stating we were 7th budget in L2 last yr so I expect an extra £2m wouldn't have put us top of L2 last year.

Regards you knowing what is spent on and off the field, do you? You may know what the budget was for this year but do you know what has been spent? Im guessing not unless you have access to this years live accounts which is doubtful.

I have said in a previous post that we didn't go big in the transfer window so maybe from the budget there was a kitty saved for January.....let's wait and see. Here's hoping.

Ultimately L1 is much more competitive (both in terms of on the pitch and in money being spent )than I expected and probably most others. Our budget has increased £2m from L2. Other teams are spending more than that on one player. Im not saying we should but IMO if we want to compete at the top end of this table then multiple 6 figure transfers were required. I also know thats easier said than done nowadays with FFP but thats where having the right people behind the scenes and a bigger strategy as a club comes in. Plenty of smaller clubs do it and do it well.

[PDX_Rover]

Oh my ghosh.

[TonySoprano]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

We dont know what last yrs budget was so to state an extra £2m we also don't know what that is or denotes. GM was quoted as stating we were 7th budget in L2 last yr so I expect an extra £2m wouldn't have put us top of L2 last year.

Regards you knowing what is spent on and off the field, do you? You may know what the budget was for this year but do you know what has been spent? Im guessing not unless you have access to this years live accounts which is doubtful.

I have said in a previous post that we didn't go big in the transfer window so maybe from the budget there was a kitty saved for January.....let's wait and see. Here's hoping.

Ultimately L1 is much more competitive (both in terms of on the pitch and in money being spent )than I expected and probably most others. Our budget has increased £2m from L2. Other teams are spending more than that on one player. Im not saying we should but IMO if we want to compete at the top end of this table then multiple 6 figure transfers were required. I also know thats easier said than done nowadays with FFP but thats where having the right people behind the scenes and a bigger strategy as a club comes in. Plenty of smaller clubs do it and do it well.

I would also question the claim that an extra 2 million would take us from 7th in league 2, to top half in league 1.

[Padge_DRFC]

Revenue will be up 2-3 million?

[Ryaldinhio]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

We dont know what last yrs budget was so to state an extra £2m we also don't know what that is or denotes. GM was quoted as stating we were 7th budget in L2 last yr so I expect an extra £2m wouldn't have put us top of L2 last year.

Regards you knowing what is spent on and off the field, do you? You may know what the budget was for this year but do you know what has been spent? Im guessing not unless you have access to this years live accounts which is doubtful.

I have said in a previous post that we didn't go big in the transfer window so maybe from the budget there was a kitty saved for January.....let's wait and see. Here's hoping.

Ultimately L1 is much more competitive (both in terms of on the pitch and in money being spent )than I expected and probably most others. Our budget has increased £2m from L2. Other teams are spending more than that on one player. Im not saying we should but IMO if we want to compete at the top end of this table then multiple 6 figure transfers were required. I also know thats easier said than done nowadays with FFP but thats where having the right people behind the scenes and a bigger strategy as a club comes in. Plenty of smaller clubs do it and do it well.

I would also question the claim that an extra 2 million would take us from 7th in league 2, to top half in league 1.

Exactly this

[Ryaldinhio]

Revenue will be up 2-3 million?

It Will certainly be up, maybe SM can let us know topline movement following promotion?

[In the box]

Beginning of the season it was all about how good the squad was and the depth we had  people believed it bought the season tickets, it was apparent after the first month our squad is not league one standard nobody who can beat an opponent does not bode well all we want is honesty just say how it is, and personally if someone offered five hundred thousand for any of our players I would snatch their hands off. RTID

I very much doubt that any of our players had any offers . Building  the ego of a player helps to let them think this , but we are not upto the standard just like the majority of clubs inL1  , even those that go up to the championship will struggle after playing inL1 as it’s not a League thot prepares you for the championship as it just grinds you down  . Look at Wrexham they off loaded every season they went up and spent accordingly. Rovers can’t do this for obvious reasons … so leave to it those whose ambitions are build on sustainability of the club . Supporters not included !!!!

[sedwardsdrfc]

You only need to look at our recruitment to suggest that the budget is not good enough to compete at this level. If we are operating with a mid table budget and players like Pearson, Hanlan, Gotts, Sharp and others are taking up a large portion of it, then we have been seriously taken advantage of by their agents. In that situation, McCann and the rest of the decision makers need to go immediately.

The second part of your post is exactly the problem for me.

We have the wrong people in the wrong roles clearly. We don't appear to have any scouting set up or any way of recruiting other than players McCann's fancied for a few years or just on vibes. And then when we do sign a player who has something to offer i.e. Hanlan he gets two starts then he's out of the squad for weeks and months.

The downfall of our season and, possibly immediate future, is that McCann doesn't seem to have a plan/idea of how to work for the long term.

100% this we can’t rely on managers to act in the long term interest of DRFC (Darren Moore anyone). Reduce their power to coaching the 1st team to win games and let others follow a consistent logical approach to off the pitch.

It might tile out a few managers who want total control and their ego tickling but anyone wanting a future in the game will get with the programme. Almost all bigger clubs operate this way so if they want to be a dinosaur and run the show they can do it in L2 with another club.

[Padge_DRFC]

Revenue will be up 2-3 million?

It Will certainly be up, maybe SM can let us know topline movement following promotion?

I'm sure when we got relegated the detriment of this was around this much. Crowds are up and also because of away attendance, plus higher STs. TV money and being in league 1 gets you more too.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

I assume your talking about wages and not transfer fees.
Because the club refusing to pay any transfer fees clearly limit the quality we can sign, having to sign other league 1 clubs cast offs, or signing league 2 players.

Transfer fees and loan fees come out of the budget don't they?

Once again, it comes down to how the budget is utilised, whether in certain cases, we're prepared to pay a transfer fee for a player in contract.  We can debate whether there should have been more focus on quality rather than quantity  but even then, once we acquire the players, all the other factors come into play to gell a squad together to get results.

The vast majority of transfers are free transfer but that doesn't mean those players are ones nobody wants does it.

We never know whether we tried to sign contracted players for fees as maybe those targets didn't agree to come for whatever reason.

Apart from that one exceptional period, we've never been a club who flashed the cash but there have been the odd exceptions for very good players. I can't see this changing anytime soon paricularly with our limited fanbase.

I'm sure we'd all love us to go out and cherry pick a player or two but there's plenty of other things we can question about why our players and management aren't currently performaning as well as a number of them can.

[chrisd_123]

So, here we go again, all the budget experts are out again I see.

It never ceases to amaze me that when we're doing well its because we have a great manager and when we're not its because our budget is shit.

In recent months the VSC was invited to go through the accounts for the last financial year, and at the same time we went through the budget for this year as well. So I don't speak from a position of having to guess what we spent on and off the pitch, I have it here in front of me on my desk. Those decrying the state of our budget would be very wrong as its more than a healthy budget, more than enough to keep us firmly in this division. The difference in the budget from last year (when nobody moaned about it as we finished top of the division) and this years is quite stark, with at least another £2m allocated to the playing squad.

According to the financial league tables issued by the EFL, a point I've made on numerous occasions as a part and parcel of financial fair play regulations puts us firmly in the top half of the division. The EFL issue these numbers on a fairly regular basis throughout the season so as to curb the impulses of football clubs to spend more on the playing budget for a fear of missing out. Its certainly not done to encourage clubs to spend more!

As a rule of thumb you would expect clubs that spent the 5th most money should be in and around the top 5, those who spent the 10th should be in and around the middle of the table etc etc. So how does that account for managers then? Shouldn't the ability of managers shine through as well? If you classed yourself as an above average manager shouldn't you be able to pitch your team several positions above what your budget dictates? If managers could only ever achieve what their budget dictated then why spend so much time, effort, and money on looking for better managers?

And once that has been taken into account should the facilities also play a part? The quality of the training ground and gym should count too shouldn’t it?

The point I'm making is that success on a football pitch is a complex picture of all sorts of variables, and pointing a finger at the budget every time we play poorly is not the black and white picture some people seem to think it is. I have my own theories as to why we struggle in areas that we shouldn’t necessarily.

And I can assure all those negative and pessimistic individuals who appear and state with such conviction that its the budget that’s wrong that it quite clearly isn't, its a healthy budget for a team and club like ours, and the documents on my desk bear that out.

I assume your talking about wages and not transfer fees.
Because the club refusing to pay any transfer fees clearly limit the quality we can sign, having to sign other league 1 clubs cast offs, or signing league 2 players.

Transfer fees and loan fees come out of the budget don't they?

Once again, it comes down to how the budget is utilised, whether in certain cases, we're prepared to pay a transfer fee for a player in contract.  We can debate whether there should have been more focus on quality rather than quantity  but even then, once we acquire the players, all the other factors come into play to gell a squad together to get results.

The vast majority of transfers are free transfer but that doesn't mean those players are ones nobody wants does it.

We never know whether we tried to sign contracted players for fees as maybe those targets didn't agree to come for whatever reason.

Apart from that one exceptional period, we've never been a club who flashed the cash but there have been the odd exceptions for very good players. I can't see this changing anytime soon paricularly with our limited fanbase.

I'm sure we'd all love us to go out and cherry pick a player or two but there's plenty of other things we can question about why our players and management aren't currently performaning as well as a number of them can.

That's the point I try to make to people when they go on about free agents being the runts of the litter and panning the club for not paying transfer fees. The majority of transfers at our level are out of contract players and frees. That doesn't automatically mean players are unwanted. It's probably more likely to be the opposite. Players refusing to sign new deals because they know other clubs want them.

Wasn't it Sol Campbell who never left clubs for transfer fees because he knew he could get higher wages if clubs didn't pay transfer fees?

[DonnyOsmond]

It isn't the summer though, it's January, so the only free agents available are ones that no club has wanted to touch for 6 months, or where their season has just ended like Ireland. After that loans are the most likely option. We could spend a fee, but in January that'll likely be inflated and it just isn't something we do. So it'll be either young lad on loan, a free agent or older player on loan who can't get a game at his current team.

[RoseTInteD]

I won't argue about things I know nothing about like the budget and how it compares to other clubs in this league, but what I don't understand is that after seven games we had won 5, drawn 1, lost 1 and were 2nd in the table.

We had a terrific start and this is the same manager, squad and budget so how we ended up in 23rd now? What happened to us after the Bradford game that we can put our finger on?

[wilts rover]

There has been an awful lot of rubbish written on here recently about budgets and transfers - mostly by people with a long-term agenda (under all their user names) rather than any real knowledge. Very, very few players are transfered for a fee these days, and not many clubs buy players. This is a list of all the transfer dealings other League One clubs did prior to the start of this season:

Barnsley - 9 players £0 fee
Blackpool - 12 players £1.5 mill (2 players)
Bolton - 14 players £1.9 mill (3 players)
Bradford - 11 players £0 fee
Burton - 11 players £0 fee
Cardiff - 3 players £1 mill (1 player)
Exeter - 8 players £0 fee
Huddersfield - 14 players £1.7 mill (2 players)
Orient - 15 players £0 fee
Lincoln - 10 players £1.3 mill (2 players)
Luton - 14 players £2.6 mill (3 players)
Mansfield - 11 players £0 fee
Northampton 17 players £0 fee
Peterborough - 16 players £1.6 mill (2 players)
Plymouth - 16 players £2.4 mill (5 players)
Port Vale - 13 players £250k (1 player)
Reading - 14 players £288k (1 player)
Rotherham - 12 players £0 fee
Stevenage - 11 players £0 fee
Stockport - 12 players £2.5 mill (2 players)
Wigan - 11 players £400k (1 player)
Wimbledon - 10 players £0 fee

[silent majority]

It seems that despite posting actual and factual information on here that's not enough for the naysayers on the forum. Look I understand your frustration, most of it is born out of wanting the club to do well, but your constant bickering over the budget and its shortcomings are not the answer. Challenging what I've posted only makes you look more naive, and I won't be challenging you on a post by post basis in order to justify what I know to be the case. But here goes;

The budget we had last season was really good by LG2 standards, it was meant to give us a fighting chance of promotion, which it did. But to make sure we got there an extra £0.5m was pumped into the playing squad, and that was the gamble the club made which proved successful.

The revenue from Central Distribution (the EFL money) last season was estimated at £1.3m but ended up being about £1.7m. The estimate for this season is £2.7m, giving us an extra £1m thereabouts but the playing budget has an extra £2m or more. This has to come from somewhere. Most of that will come from ticket revenue, and for this season we should see another £0.6m, the rest will hopefully come from commercial and other areas, but at the end of the day we are a club that runs at a loss, a smaller one than quite a number of clubs but that shouldn't decry from the efforts of the staff to make ends meet, but also the underwriting of all debts falls to one man.

That man underwrote the extra monies needed for what have been expensive, and much needed improvements throughout the club, especially at Cantley Park. He has been more generous than any single individual has done in all my years of supporting this club, and I go back a long way! He doesn’t lack ambition as some people say, he just displays it in a different way.

And finally, its the EFL who tell you where you are when it comes to your position in the budget league table. They’re the ones who have all that information to hand, so when the club tell you they have a top half playing budget, or a top six budget that is again a fact that is unarguable. That information comes from the EFL. Its not debatable, its a fact. These are the details that any club has to submit to the EFL to make sure they comply with FFP, and at the end of the day any club that fails to meet these requirements ends up on the EFL naughty step, just look at SWFC for confirmation!

More people should be thankful for the VSC and the work we do on your behalf, when it goes wrong we're the first to see it. We're not here to protect the club at any cost, and believe me you don't see half of what goes on behind the scenes to try and keep the club as honest as we can, but there's no point in flipping our lid over something that doesn’t exist. As I said in my previous post I have my thoughts on where things are going wrong, but all this focus on the playing budget is just wrong.

[DRFCSouth]

The ones paying fees for players are likely putting themselves in trouble by doing so. We pick up good players without paying fees. Which is commendable, if we can do that and still be competitive.

Why would we pay fees. Some of our fans are quick to slip the dagger in when we face some adversity.

[ncRover]

The ones paying fees for players are likely putting themselves in trouble by doing so. We pick up good players without paying fees. Which is commendable, if we can do that and still be competitive.

Why would we pay fees. Some of our fans are quick to slip the dagger in when we face some adversity.

Would also note that Lincoln and Peterborough put themselves in the position to spend fees because of the money they generate through player sales.

There’s a few players who were free agents and wouldn’t have been out of our reach who are currently performing well in League One.

Jake Beesley and Reyes Cleary are doing well and both looked like McCann type players when I saw them against us for Burton and Barnsley this season for example.

Playing catch up this January is different to the last two seasons as we aren’t as desirable a proposition to the available players in the league. Relying on winter windows is unsustainable, it’s the summer where you build your squad with the long term in mind. And the pattern of January’s being fruitful is due some bad luck.

[GazLaz]

The ones paying fees for players are likely putting themselves in trouble by doing so. We pick up good players without paying fees. Which is commendable, if we can do that and still be competitive.

Why would we pay fees. Some of our fans are quick to slip the dagger in when we face some adversity.

Would also note that Lincoln and Peterborough put themselves in the position to spend fees because of the money they generate through player sales.

There’s a few players who were free agents and wouldn’t have been out of our reach who are currently performing well in League One.

Jake Beesley and Reyes Cleary are doing well and both looked like McCann type players when I saw them against us for Burton and Barnsley this season for example.

Playing catch up this January is different to the last two seasons as we aren’t as desirable a proposition to the available players in the league. Relying on winter windows is unsustainable, it’s the summer where you build your squad with the long term in mind. And the pattern of January’s being fruitful is due some bad luck.

We wear not selling players like a badge of honour. It should be the other way round.

[TonySoprano]

There has been an awful lot of rubbish written on here recently about budgets and transfers - mostly by people with a long-term agenda (under all their user names) rather than any real knowledge. Very, very few players are transfered for a fee these days, and not many clubs buy players. This is a list of all the transfer dealings other League One clubs did prior to the start of this season:

Barnsley - 9 players £0 fee
Blackpool - 12 players £1.5 mill (2 players)
Bolton - 14 players £1.9 mill (3 players)
Bradford - 11 players £0 fee
Burton - 11 players £0 fee
Cardiff - 3 players £1 mill (1 player)
Exeter - 8 players £0 fee
Huddersfield - 14 players £1.7 mill (2 players)
Orient - 15 players £0 fee
Lincoln - 10 players £1.3 mill (2 players)
Luton - 14 players £2.6 mill (3 players)
Mansfield - 11 players £0 fee
Northampton 17 players £0 fee
Peterborough - 16 players £1.6 mill (2 players)
Plymouth - 16 players £2.4 mill (5 players)
Port Vale - 13 players £250k (1 player)
Reading - 14 players £288k (1 player)
Rotherham - 12 players £0 fee
Stevenage - 11 players £0 fee
Stockport - 12 players £2.5 mill (2 players)
Wigan - 11 players £400k (1 player)
Wimbledon - 10 players £0 fee

So the majority of clubs have paid a transfer fee ?

[TonySoprano]

It seems that despite posting actual and factual information on here that's not enough for the naysayers on the forum. Look I understand your frustration, most of it is born out of wanting the club to do well, but your constant bickering over the budget and its shortcomings are not the answer. Challenging what I've posted only makes you look more naive, and I won't be challenging you on a post by post basis in order to justify what I know to be the case. But here goes;

The budget we had last season was really good by LG2 standards, it was meant to give us a fighting chance of promotion, which it did. But to make sure we got there an extra £0.5m was pumped into the playing squad, and that was the gamble the club made which proved successful.

The revenue from Central Distribution (the EFL money) last season was estimated at £1.3m but ended up being about £1.7m. The estimate for this season is £2.7m, giving us an extra £1m thereabouts but the playing budget has an extra £2m or more. This has to come from somewhere. Most of that will come from ticket revenue, and for this season we should see another £0.6m, the rest will hopefully come from commercial and other areas, but at the end of the day we are a club that runs at a loss, a smaller one than quite a number of clubs but that shouldn't decry from the efforts of the staff to make ends meet, but also the underwriting of all debts falls to one man.

That man underwrote the extra monies needed for what have been expensive, and much needed improvements throughout the club, especially at Cantley Park. He has been more generous than any single individual has done in all my years of supporting this club, and I go back a long way! He doesn’t lack ambition as some people say, he just displays it in a different way.

And finally, its the EFL who tell you where you are when it comes to your position in the budget league table. They’re the ones who have all that information to hand, so when the club tell you they have a top half playing budget, or a top six budget that is again a fact that is unarguable. That information comes from the EFL. Its not debatable, its a fact. These are the details that any club has to submit to the EFL to make sure they comply with FFP, and at the end of the day any club that fails to meet these requirements ends up on the EFL naughty step, just look at SWFC for confirmation!

More people should be thankful for the VSC and the work we do on your behalf, when it goes wrong we're the first to see it. We're not here to protect the club at any cost, and believe me you don't see half of what goes on behind the scenes to try and keep the club as honest as we can, but there's no point in flipping our lid over something that doesn’t exist. As I said in my previous post I have my thoughts on where things are going wrong, but all this focus on the playing budget is just wrong.

mcann said last season we've got a top 7 budget, and now your claiming ( in your other post) that we now have a top half budget in league 1. But with only an extra 2 million put in.

Dubious claim at best.