Money saved in wages?

With 6 players leaving this transfer window, how much do you think we've saved between now and the end of the season?

With 6 players leaving this transfer window, how much do you think we've saved between now and the end of the season?

£40,000-£50,000 as Bolton only paying 50% of Le Fondre's wages.

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Loose change in comparison to the debt. How much a week do they reckon Tan is having to put in at the minute?

You say it's loose change, but what if we hadn't shipped them out? Would you be happier the club is paying out on players that don't play?

Of course you wouldn't - give them some credit.

With 6 players leaving this transfer window, how much do you think we've saved between now and the end of the season?

each deal is different, often the loaning club have to stump up a percentage of wages.

You say it's loose change, but what if we hadn't shipped them out? Would you be happier the club is paying out on players that don't play?

Of course you wouldn't - give them some credit.

I agree players need to be moved on. What I am driving at is that this is not going to make a massive difference to the finances when compared to the debts we have. We are not going to be in a position to improve the squad in the Summer without allowing for far bigger savings than this. I am convinced that there will be more cost cutting later on in the year, and I don't see much scope for investment while our current debts are as high as they are.

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Smart business - Are you deluded ?? Lex and others have gone on a free or let go for nothing - Correct ???

OGS - Was given a free range on what he bought and put the players on - This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

ONE LAST POINT - Marshy + Fabio ( £5 M at least ) - How much of that has been spent back into the club ??

today has been a good day. 3 points.money off wage bill. and if these 6 perform for the clubs they are loaned to we might get something for them in the summer.

today has been a good day. 3 points.money off wage bill. and if these 6 perform for the clubs they are loaned to we might get something for them in the summer.

More than we got for LEX

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Smart business - Are you deluded ?? Lex and others have gone on a free or let go for nothing - Correct ???

OGS - Was given a free range on what he bought and put the players on - This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

ONE LAST POINT - Marshy + Fabio ( £5 M at least ) - How much of that has been spent back into the club ??

You're missing my point - the players in question are fringe players who unless being shipped out, would have drained close to an additional £1m. So yes, this is a saving.

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Smart business - Are you deluded ?? Lex and others have gone on a free or let go for nothing - Correct ???

OGS - Was given a free range on what he bought and put the players on - This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

ONE LAST POINT - Marshy + Fabio ( £5 M at least ) - How much of that has been spent back into the club ??

Missing the point ? so you would run a business and get rid of players without a fee ??? after you have spent money on them?
DO YOURSELF A FAVOR NEVER GO INTO THE DRAGON 's DEN - With your business plan - you will get " I'M OUT "

Loose change in comparison to the debt. How much a week do they reckon Tan is having to put in at the minute?

It is called good housekeeping

Loose change in comparison to the debt. How much a week do they reckon Tan is having to put in at the minute?

It is called good housekeeping

Which is what I said in my second post on this thread, and what I have been saying for the last couple of years. This club has to make debt reduction it's number one priority. We have had plenty of experience in the past as to what happens when you live beyond your means. We cannot keep spending money we don't have, and these savings are just the start. They are not going to make a major dent in the outstanding debts, furhter savings have to be made, and continue to be made for some time to come.

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Smart business - Are you deluded ?? Lex and others have gone on a free or let go for nothing - Correct ???

OGS - Was given a free range on what he bought and put the players on - This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

ONE LAST POINT - Marshy + Fabio ( £5 M at least ) - How much of that has been spent back into the club ??

Pauly Gee quite clearly said it was smart business shipping out players on loan , which it is as it generates significant wage cost savings until the end of the season. There was no reference in his post to players released on a permanent basis like Lex Immers or to the OGS signings in general.

On the point you raise about Marshall and Fabio , the answer is that all of the transfer money raised has been "spent" back in the club in that the transfer profit has all been used to reduce the level of loss that would otherwise been incurred and the cash used to reduce the level of cash shortfall each month that the club would otherwise have suffered.

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Smart business - Are you deluded ?? Lex and others have gone on a free or let go for nothing - Correct ???

OGS - Was given a free range on what he bought and put the players on - This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

ONE LAST POINT - Marshy + Fabio ( £5 M at least ) - How much of that has been spent back into the club ??

Pauly Gee quite clearly said it was smart business shipping out players on loan , which it is as it generates significant wage cost savings until the end of the season. There was no reference in his post to players released on a permanent basis like Lex Immers or to the OGS signings in general.

On the point you raise about Marshall and Fabio , the answer is that all of the transfer money raised has been "spent" back in the club in that the transfer profit has all been used to reduce the level of loss that would otherwise been incurred and the cash used to reduce the level of cash shortfall each month that the club would otherwise have suffered.

You know what some are like past failings are always dragged up to contradict ANYTHING decent.

As you said Paul was just suggesting that in this isolated incident it was good business.

Me personally, I still blame everything on the sale of Toshack. We'd have gone up that year and made the top flight 42 years earlier than we actually did and we wouldn't have had to deal with anything that came after.

Fred Dewey has so much more to answer for than Tan ever will.

today has been a good day. 3 points.money off wage bill. and if these 6 perform for the clubs they are loaned to we might get something for them in the summer.

More than we got for LEX

on the face of it the LEX episode looks terrible business.
but unless we have access to his earnings with us, his potential earnings elsewhere, and our managers train of thought regarding the player its justs all just guessing.
have to add. OGS summer window. we sold caulker,mutch,medel and campbell plus lesser players.money recieved was more than money spent and our wage bill probably reduced too. i dont think he was the right manager for us but that doesnt mean he is the root of all evil either.

nice bit of business but then again we will have people wanting depts. down but willing to spend a million on a 29year old playing in Scotland. WOW just WOW.

17 weeks until the end of May
£50,000 per week

= £850,000 saving

Some smart business done here, shipping out players who aren't really getting a look in out on loan. The only one I would have likes to see kept was O'Keefe but he's not really featured in Warnock plans so far.

Smart business - Are you deluded ?? Lex and others have gone on a free or let go for nothing - Correct ???

OGS - Was given a free range on what he bought and put the players on - This is why we are in the mess we are in now.

ONE LAST POINT - Marshy + Fabio ( £5 M at least ) - How much of that has been spent back into the club ??

Pauly Gee quite clearly said it was smart business shipping out players on loan , which it is as it generates significant wage cost savings until the end of the season. There was no reference in his post to players released on a permanent basis like Lex Immers or to the OGS signings in general.

On the point you raise about Marshall and Fabio , the answer is that all of the transfer money raised has been "spent" back in the club in that the transfer profit has all been used to reduce the level of loss that would otherwise been incurred and the cash used to reduce the level of cash shortfall each month that the club would otherwise have suffered.

You know what some are like past failings are always dragged up to contradict ANYTHING decent.

As you said Paul was just suggesting that in this isolated incident it was good business.

Me personally, I still blame everything on the sale of Toshack. We'd have gone up that year and made the top flight 42 years earlier than we actually did and we wouldn't have had to deal with anything that came after.

Fred Dewey has so much more to answer for than Tan ever will.

Killed us dead in the water - such a 'small club' thing to do. I was only 9 but at the time it felt so wrong - not as bad as the red but bloody close.

You know what some are like past failings are always dragged up to contradict ANYTHING decent.

As you said Paul was just suggesting that in this isolated incident it was good business.

Me personally, I still blame everything on the sale of Toshack. We'd have gone up that year and made the top flight 42 years earlier than we actually did and we wouldn't have had to deal with anything that came after.

Fred Dewey has so much more to answer for than Tan ever will.

Killed us dead in the water - such a 'small club' thing to do. I was only 9 but at the time it felt so wrong - not as bad as the red but bloody close.

So true.

My point in this scenario is how easy it is to always blame Tan even when talking about isolated successes.

If we can keeping harping on at the past. I'm going to blame the sale of Toshack.

Had it not happened. There would have probably been no Tan and no red. Damn you Dewey. However, I'm only joking and may you rest in peace.

You know what some are like past failings are always dragged up to contradict ANYTHING decent.

As you said Paul was just suggesting that in this isolated incident it was good business.

Me personally, I still blame everything on the sale of Toshack. We'd have gone up that year and made the top flight 42 years earlier than we actually did and we wouldn't have had to deal with anything that came after.

Fred Dewey has so much more to answer for than Tan ever will.

Killed us dead in the water - such a 'small club' thing to do. I was only 9 but at the time it felt so wrong - not as bad as the red but bloody close.

So true.

My point in this scenario is how easy it is to always blame Tan even when talking about isolated successes.

If we can keeping harping on at the past. I'm going to blame the sale of Toshack.

Had it not happened. There would have probably been no Tan and no red. Damn you Dewey. However, I'm only joking and may you rest in peace.