(12-03-2021, 05:22 PM)Marinakis Red Wrote: Forest have got to do better financially. The amount we spend on players with no return or sell on fees is ridiculous. This figures highlight the continuous mistakes in that department.

Fortunately marinakis has papered over the failings of others with the 20m.

(12-03-2021, 07:15 PM)Sabricadabra Wrote: Wages is the main expenditure (around £35m a year? ish) and on the whole we’ve balanced incomings with outgoings in recent years, with smallish transfer outlay, so I doubt there’s been much difference overall on the balance sheet.

(12-03-2021, 07:35 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(12-03-2021, 07:15 PM)Sabricadabra Wrote: Wages is the main expenditure (around £35m a year? ish) and on the whole we’ve balanced incomings with outgoings in recent years, with smallish transfer outlay, so I doubt there’s been much difference overall on the balance sheet.

I wonder with the 11 out of contact players and loans to go back whether this is the perfect storm to get wages down to a 'blank' sheet to give Hughton the transfer war chest he needs for Forest to 'go for it' this Summer with a more balanced squad.  Seems like we'd have to offload Arter and one or two other high wage earners.

If we can keep hold of Worrall, Yates and Johnston there is a decent spine there to build around.  We have a decent keeper.  We have Mighten on the wing.  That's 5 players we don't have to worry about.

Doesn't that finally churn out the Aitor era of signings?  We could raise money by selling Car' and grab a nominal fee for Grabban or keep him as squad depth with him no longer being the main striker?  That and sell one or two others to allow Chris to go shopping to augment the spine with 'buys' and loans?

I often wonder how Reading and Barnsley went from bottom six to top six.  I haven't looked into their transfer business but was aware when they changed managers and that up until recently hadn't been doing that well.

How does our wages turnover compare to the likes of the current top six?

It seems to me that a good manager, an actual preseason and getting recruitment right still count for alot.  And it should if you're spending £35 million on wages.  :O

SA.

(14-03-2021, 04:06 PM)zicorice Wrote:

(12-03-2021, 07:35 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote:

(12-03-2021, 07:15 PM)Sabricadabra Wrote: Wages is the main expenditure (around £35m a year? ish) and on the whole we’ve balanced incomings with outgoings in recent years, with smallish transfer outlay, so I doubt there’s been much difference overall on the balance sheet.

I wonder with the 11 out of contact players and loans to go back whether this is the perfect storm to get wages down to a 'blank' sheet to give Hughton the transfer war chest he needs for Forest to 'go for it' this Summer with a more balanced squad.  Seems like we'd have to offload Arter and one or two other high wage earners.

If we can keep hold of Worrall, Yates and Johnston there is a decent spine there to build around.  We have a decent keeper.  We have Mighten on the wing.  That's 5 players we don't have to worry about.

Doesn't that finally churn out the Aitor era of signings?  We could raise money by selling Car' and grab a nominal fee for Grabban or keep him as squad depth with him no longer being the main striker?  That and sell one or two others to allow Chris to go shopping to augment the spine with 'buys' and loans?

I often wonder how Reading and Barnsley went from bottom six to top six.  I haven't looked into their transfer business but was aware when they changed managers and that up until recently hadn't been doing that well.

How does our wages turnover compare to the likes of the current top six?

It seems to me that a good manager, an actual preseason and getting recruitment right still count for alot.  And it should if you're spending £35 million on wages.  :O

SA.

For Reading  its obvious isn't it? Two words: Alfa Semedo.....

Obviously joking.

(12-03-2021, 06:39 PM)Strawberry Avenger Wrote: It would be interesting to see a list of the players brought in

(15-03-2021, 12:17 PM)Woan Wrote: Just a question. Wasn't it Barnsley that established a transfer policy of no new signings of players over 25? If so, it seems looking for younger, hungrier players on lower wages might be the way to go instead of 30 year old wasters looking for one last contract.

(15-03-2021, 12:24 PM)Alf Garnett Wrote: Sure we tried a similar thing once and it got us nowhere.
We shouldn't place limits on ourselves.

(15-03-2021, 12:17 PM)Woan Wrote: Just a question. Wasn't it Barnsley that established a transfer policy of no new signings of players over 25? If so, it seems looking for younger, hungrier players on lower wages might be the way to go instead of 30 year old wasters looking for one last contract.

(15-03-2021, 12:24 PM)Alf Garnett Wrote: Sure we tried a similar thing once and it got us nowhere.
We shouldn't place limits on ourselves.

(15-03-2021, 02:19 PM)Salvatore Matrecano Wrote:

(15-03-2021, 12:17 PM)Woan Wrote: Just a question. Wasn't it Barnsley that established a transfer policy of no new signings of players over 25? If so, it seems looking for younger, hungrier players on lower wages might be the way to go instead of 30 year old wasters looking for one last contract.

(15-03-2021, 12:24 PM)Alf Garnett Wrote: Sure we tried a similar thing once and it got us nowhere.
We shouldn't place limits on ourselves.

I would really like to try the no over 25s policy properly. We kind of did it but we basically signed a load of Portuguese kids with no experience of the EFL so nor surprise we got nowhere. If recruitment is done correctly I think it could work then we unlock potential and develop these players how we want.

Alf does have a point though and I am a realist. Barnsley fans up until a few months ago were complaining bitterly about the strategy. Lets be honest if it wasnt for some utterly clueless Forest injury time defending last July, then Barnsley would currently be a L1 side.

Maybe there is a compromise. Only sign over 25s on free transfer and max 2 year contract, Youth first policy.