Morecambe Jack wrote:The Fury wrote:The summary on there doesn't put the figures into context, which were considerably higher than those related to the other clubs you describe has having bigger budgets. Seeing as most of what you say is speculation, I would counter by some speculation of my own by arguing that the likes of Capaldi, having dropped from a significantly higher level, will not be on cheap wages.
Another aspect of the debate here is whether Sammy's reputation attracts a certain calibre of player. Whilst this may be the case regarding Capaldi, one issue I would have is why we have never been able to utilise Sammy's very public (he scuttles off to MUTV at least twice a week) association with Manchester United?
Whatever context you put it into, £1,500 is not a lot of money to the football club. Yes, many clubs spent nothing but that isn't really a figure to worry about is it?
I don't think its unreasonable to speculate that our budget is lower than clubs with much higher gates than us? But my main argument is that it does not matter how many players are in the squad as long as Sammy sticks to the budget given to him by the Board. They do know our financial situation and do know what we can afford. Again, I'm not saying that Capaldi isn't on a considerable wage (I think he probably is) but, if the board were unhappy with it, they wouldn't allow it.
Fair point about the gates. But, similarly, if Capaldi is on a considerable wage (which we both assume he is) then surely this demonstrates that our budget isn't exactly on the level of the likes of Accy and Macclesfield, to use two examples of clubs with traditionally low budgets at this level. The reality is it is these clubs we are competing with at the moment and, given the wages of Capaldi (I'd be tempted to throw Roche, Shuker, Holdsworth, Haining, Hurst and Jevons into that list) then questions have to be asked.