Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:01 pm  

Mugwump wrote: Hang on a second. There isn't a single Saints fan I know who would have any problems with McManus reducing player expenditure to secure the stadium, balance the books etc. It is McManus himself who has year after year after year claimed we are spending up to the cap. You can't blame Saints fans for being puzzled by claims we are spending as much as anyone whilst watching successive teams whose performances are not suggestive of such. If McManus has embellished the truth about the cap he has brought this on himself because he didn't have to. Saints fans would have accepted the truth at face value. If, on the other hand, he genuinely is paying up to the cap on guys like Meli, Gardner and such - he has also brought this on himself. I don't think for a minute that we don't spend up to the cap, but you are ignoring up front cash fees including golden handshakes and transfer fees which we cannot afford. But the math isn't complicated 5 kids = 2 superstars in terms of salaries etc. The only way we could afford big signings would be to have a very thin squad in terms of no's and strength in depth. In previous years, we would not have coped with the loss of key players as well as we are doing now IMO. McManus warned only yesterday the perils of SL finances http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/04/06/RUGBYL_Bradford_McManus.html&BID=480 I believe we were only 1 or 2 years away from beng a bradford basket case until the new stadium and the re-financing came along. IF we show a profit this year (the first in over 10 years?) he might loosen up the purse strings a bit.

Mugwump wrote: Hang on a second. There isn't a single Saints fan I know who would have any problems with McManus reducing player expenditure to secure the stadium, balance the books etc. It is McManus himself who has year after year after year claimed we are spending up to the cap. You can't blame Saints fans for being puzzled by claims we are spending as much as anyone whilst watching successive teams whose performances are not suggestive of such. If McManus has embellished the truth about the cap he has brought this on himself because he didn't have to. Saints fans would have accepted the truth at face value. If, on the other hand, he genuinely is paying up to the cap on guys like Meli, Gardner and such - he has also brought this on himself. I don't think for a minute that we don't spend up to the cap, but you are ignoring up front cash fees including golden handshakes and transfer fees which we cannot afford. But the math isn't complicated 5 kids = 2 superstars in terms of salaries etc. The only way we could afford big signings would be to have a very thin squad in terms of no's and strength in depth. In previous years, we would not have coped with the loss of key players as well as we are doing now IMO. McManus warned only yesterday the perils of SL finances http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/04/06/RUGBYL_Bradford_McManus.html&BID=480 I believe we were only 1 or 2 years away from beng a bradford basket case until the new stadium and the re-financing came along. IF we show a profit this year (the first in over 10 years?) he might loosen up the purse strings a bit.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:02 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

It might have something to do with the need to make a profit for a change, or would you rather have the bradford financial situation?
We simply have not been able to afford the very best recruits for the last 4+ years or so.

I'm sure that when the impact of the the financial regime (i.e.no external debt and an average 14,000+ crowd etc) kicks in, then Mac's chequebook will be open for business again.

I'm sure if McManus came out and said player recruitment will be put on a back burner as we need to build a stadium to save our long term future then many fans would have accepted this.

However, he's constantly banged on how we will have a team to grace the new stadium, he told us the club offered eastmond a massive deal and offered jammer the biggest contract the club has ever offered.

If we had this sort of cash to offer eastmond and jammer huge deals and lost the wages of another high paid player in leon pryce says to me we've not spent to the cap and should have recruited better players.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:03 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Hang on a second. There isn't a single Saints fan I know who would have any problems with McManus reducing player expenditure to secure the stadium, balance the books etc.

It is McManus himself who has year after year after year claimed we are spending up to the cap. You can't blame Saints fans for being puzzled by claims we are spending as much as anyone whilst watching successive teams whose performances are not suggestive of such.

If McManus has embellished the truth about the cap he has brought this on himself because he didn't have to. Saints fans would have accepted the truth at face value. If, on the other hand, he genuinely is paying up to the cap on guys like Meli, Gardner and such - he has also brought this on himself.

This post is absolutely spot on.
There is also a concern that some of the youngsters are getting too much coin considering they are unproven or injury prone.

Regardless of cap limit the handling of the overseas quota has been baffling.

Leaves Brown with a lot of gaps to fill with significant restrictions unless some under contract players are offloaded.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:07 pm  

Gerry Mander wrote:

This post is absolutely spot.
There is also a concern that some of the youngsters are getting too much coin considering they are unproven or injury prone.

Regardless of cap limit the handling of the overseas quota has been baffling.

Leaves Brown with a lot of gaps to fill with significant restrictions unless some under contract players are offloaded.

Spot on

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 12:16 pm  

saint at wire wrote: I don't think for a minute that we don't spend up to the cap, but you are ignoring up front cash fees including golden handshakes and transfer fees which we cannot afford. How do you know anyone else affords such? But the math isn't complicated 5 kids = 2 superstars in terms of salaries etc. The only way we could afford big signings would be to have a very thin squad in terms of no's and strength in depth. Well, the math certainly isn't complicated when you boil it down to the above. Whether this bears any relation to reality I have no idea. I mean, a "kid" can be 18 or he can be 21. I doubt 10 kids age 18 would add up to one superstar's wage. The truth is more complicated. In previous years, we would not have coped with the loss of key players as well as we are doing now IMO. Which previous years? And in case you haven't realised we're not coping all that well now. McManus warned only yesterday the perils of SL finances http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/04/06/RUGBYL_Bradford_McManus.html&BID=480 I believe we were only 1 or 2 years away from beng a bradford basket case until the new stadium and the re-financing came along. IF we show a profit this year (the first in over 10 years?) he might loosen up the purse strings a bit. I'm perfectly well aware that SL's finances are worrying. But again - it is McManus who has driven this - not the fans. If we had money worries he could quite easily have come clean, publicly tightened the purse strings and the fans would be ok. Sure, you'd lose a few glory hunters and such but the core fan base - provided they aren't lied to - would be accepting.

saint at wire wrote: I don't think for a minute that we don't spend up to the cap, but you are ignoring up front cash fees including golden handshakes and transfer fees which we cannot afford. How do you know anyone else affords such? But the math isn't complicated 5 kids = 2 superstars in terms of salaries etc. The only way we could afford big signings would be to have a very thin squad in terms of no's and strength in depth. Well, the math certainly isn't complicated when you boil it down to the above. Whether this bears any relation to reality I have no idea. I mean, a "kid" can be 18 or he can be 21. I doubt 10 kids age 18 would add up to one superstar's wage. The truth is more complicated. In previous years, we would not have coped with the loss of key players as well as we are doing now IMO. Which previous years? And in case you haven't realised we're not coping all that well now. McManus warned only yesterday the perils of SL finances http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/12/04/06/RUGBYL_Bradford_McManus.html&BID=480 I believe we were only 1 or 2 years away from beng a bradford basket case until the new stadium and the re-financing came along. IF we show a profit this year (the first in over 10 years?) he might loosen up the purse strings a bit. I'm perfectly well aware that SL's finances are worrying. But again - it is McManus who has driven this - not the fans. If we had money worries he could quite easily have come clean, publicly tightened the purse strings and the fans would be ok. Sure, you'd lose a few glory hunters and such but the core fan base - provided they aren't lied to - would be accepting.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 3:54 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

It is McManus himself who has year after year after year claimed we are spending up to the cap. You can't blame Saints fans for being puzzled by claims we are spending as much as anyone whilst watching successive teams whose performances are not suggestive of such.

What amazes me is that a club like saints, with mickey poor attendances, can afford to consistently finish near the top of the table and get to finals. Compared to clubs like Wigan, Leeds, hull and Warrington with a sugar daddy, we have done remarkably well. I am amazed at dreamers who think we can magic players out of ruin air with very limited funds. Some people really do live in cloud cuckoo land.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:14 pm  

SomersetSaint wrote:

What amazes me is that a club like saints, with mickey poor attendances, can afford to consistently finish near the top of the table and get to finals. Compared to clubs like Wigan, Leeds, hull and Warrington with a sugar daddy, we have done remarkably well. I am amazed at dreamers who think we can magic players out of ruin air with very limited funds. Some people really do live in cloud cuckoo land.

ian a sugar daddy? r u sure about that? he doesn't chuck money into wigan every time a player becomes available.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:16 pm  

dubairl wrote:

ian a sugar daddy? r u sure about that? he doesn't chuck money into wigan every time a player becomes available.

I never said Wigan had a sugar daddy, I said Warrington do. You are right, leneghan has put very little into the club

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:49 pm  

[quote="SaintsFan....but at least we made the effort during that match to actually pick the ball up when it came loose, unlike on Friday when certain players just stood and watched it until a Wigan player picked it up for us).....

The problem is the team, not the coaching staff.[/quote]


That is the closest I've seen you give this new set up any credit at all!!!

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:53 pm  

Poor Royce - there really is no way he can win here.

If Saints improve - it's because of KC & Rush.
If Saints get worse - we're still better off under KC & Rush because Royce would have made an even bigger mess.