Teasy

I think I misunderstood you. "Director" is an all encompassing term. It's a title given to someone who oversees all aspects. Like a film director, he's not responsible for any one thing, but for sealing the deal on what everyone else is doing in their specific roles. I'm not sure if your problem is Wise being given that title, or anyone at any club. I thought the former, but it seems you meant the latter. Personally I think it's a clearly defined role, but undermines the man who should do that job, the manager. My point is it isn't a clearly defined role, I think you're taking it to literally, its an executive title.. When Keegan said Allardyce would be mad to allow a Director of Football he'll have had an idea in his head of what a Director of Football is. The fact that Wise has the title of Executive Director of Football doesn't mean his role fits what Keegan had in mind in the slightest.

Are you seriously not getting my point or just looking for an argument?

It really annoys me when the phrase Director of Football is thrown about as if it means one specific job/position. Its just a fancy title...

The quotes your referring to have already been posted in this thread, not only are they typical PR that contradicts earlier quotes but AFAICS you're also adding in extra bits he didn't even say to make it sound worse... The actions of a Newcastle fan I suppose? mackems.gif Honestly why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and concentrate on whichever team you really support?

Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place? getcarter did who posted the list of clubs. All I'm saying is its not a very good indicator & 60% is a very low figure for "unsustainable" to be placed at. Ah right, I thought your initial post was in reply to my post. I agree completely that any fixed figure is complete bollocks, especially 60%. BTW Leeds were completely fucked financially before they got relegated.

How can it be a pointless statistic?.. It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect. Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold, I certainly didn't did I? What I mean is every time they peddle this stuff, they say anything over 60% is unsustainable, which is rubbish. The arrival of the millionaire / billionaire private owners have made it even less relevant, but it was the over 60% bit I was criticising mostly. I agree there is no fixed percentage you have to meet. You have to look at the whole picture, one club may make £30 million a year and have a 50% ratio while another makes £80 million a year and has a 70% ratio. The club with the 70% ratio is still better off. Having said that the figures are still important, especially for those clubs we can see in that list with 80-90% ratios and only £40-50 million turnovers. Those clubs are in a very dangerous position.

Who in this thread even mentioned any 60% figure in the first place?

How can it be a pointless statistic?!.. It tells you how much of the clubs total yearly budget has to be spent before all the costs of running the club/buying players ect. Its not the definitive way to guage a clubs finances obviously, but its pretty f'ing important.. Nobody said 60% would make anyone have to fold either, or I certainly didn't anyway.

Load of s*** % figures?.. Man they're not some pointless statistic, the turnover is the total money the club brings in. If your spending say 90% of the total amount the club earns on wages you then have almost nothing left to run the club (unless your making a huge turnover like Manure or Chelsea, even then its a bad situation to be in). And those wages are fixed unless you sell/release players. Leeds folded with a 80-90% ratio.

There wage bill is 710,000 per week. There seems to be some confusion with there wages to turnover ratio An article I read suggested it was around 90% or more, but the list in this thread says 69%. I don't know there turnover for the 2006-2007 season so I'm not sure. But there turnover for the two seasons before that was £36 million each time. So the 90%+ number seems more likely then 69%, unless there turnover increased to £52 million in the 2006-2007 season.

Exactly. Good to hear more and more fans are as realistic as me. Bet you're a blast in the pub before the match. Well if you'd ever been like. Oh he's been to plenty, at the stadium of s****. typical. denial are we?? I'm certainly not denial no.. mackems.gif

Does a £16 million bid for one player not tell you anything about the budget?

Pilko Where does the Modric bid stand in your theory? Keegan still didn't know who he wanted to sell when the season finished so Ashley allowed a £16 million bid anyway?.. We've made two significant bids for players, then afterwards we've sold one and are possibly on the brink of selling another. That doesn't suggest anything like a sell before we can buy policy, in fact it tells us pretty clearly that there is no such policy. At the very most we have a policy of trying to reduce the wage bill, or at least not increase it. But clearly the transfer funds are there regardless.

Exactly. Good to hear more and more fans are as realistic as me. Bet you're a blast in the pub before the match. Well if you'd ever been like. Oh he's been to plenty, at the stadium of shite.

Dunno where you are getting that form considering there has already been confirmed bids for Woodgate in January and Modric. Both were considerable bids. Aye, but he didn't really have much time then did he? And plus, he wouldn't have known who he wanted to sell within the first two weeks of being at the club. Eh?. what's your point?

Seemed pretty clear to me.

I'm not sure, but here's hoping!

I didn't say they weren't in it for the long haul.. I said they aren't going to run the club as a charity, I think they're running it as a business. They'll be hoping that continued success, an even better league finish and new stadium will increase revenue significantly, wether it will or not we'll have to wait and see.

Portsmouth are hardly comparable to Chelsea, they have a wealthy owner, but there's no indication he's willing to run the club as a charity..

The clincher will probably be whether this new stadium they're getting is filled week in week out or not. Ah right didn't realise there was a new stadium coming. No doubt that's what they're counting on then since there current ground is tiny, how much is it supposed to be costing them and when's it going to be ready?

Not really no, more likely it would be Modric coming here because we made the better offer (we offered a higher fee and better wages). Obviously we weren't prepared to take part in the dodgy deal and had Spurs not been prepared to do it either I'm sure his agent would have accepted the best financial package. Having said that, who cares?.. At the time I was excited by the possibility of the transfer, now I'm not that bothered, lets move on to other players. I'm just glad we weren't desperate enough to bend over and take it up the arse from the Mamic brothers.. unlike a certain other club.

I can see what you're getting at. Though its a bit over the top to compare us to Wolves and Sheff Wed My view on Portsmouth is that they're over extending themselves, they've already hit the limit of how far they can go (over 90% of revenue going on wages ) and now they're passing it which is very unwise. If they don't get Champions League Football next year they've got nowhere to go but down IMO.

I agree with Dave, when I saw the thread title I eagerly clicked the link, when I saw £5 million I was ecstatic, then I saw "NOTW" and came right back down to earth. Its a comic, pretty similar to the Beano but for a younger audience.. almost nothing they print is true unfortunately.

Whatcha talkin bout willis?

Yes its very astute to bow to a players agent/owner and let them keep control of the player while he's merely parked at your club before being moved on whenever they feel like it... just so you can beat your rivals to the signing..