manc-mag

Dave has gone to ground again.

In language I can understand please, Poindexter.

Dave... that's not her minge, that's her armpit.

Make it so.

The second part of that question being: and why the fuck aren't you sending them to manc-mag?

this is more like it!

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him. Thing is with the FCB in charge any player will be sold as soon as a decent offer comes in / or they manage to piss him off. That being the case we are destined to be a bottom half side until this lot sell up and fuck off. Our revenue streams will continue to diminish; Attendances will continue to fall, fewer business will want to advertise at SJP which means more free advertising for the FCB ShiteDirect and we will appear less and less on TV as we will become a pisspoor team that no one wants to watch. On a bright note Tiote having a bad start to the season should mean no one tries to buy him in the next transfer window. And all things being equal, if we're self-sustaining (as he wants us to be-meaning that that money isn't required to plug holes elsewhere), then if it isn't re-invested in the team, we're having the piss taken out of us. Agreed. when you actually say that you agree with this, its difficult to see what you have been disagreeing with and bickering about all this time, because it is what some of us have been saying for a long time now. Edit. For those who continue to harp on putting finance over the football, football is different to a high street store. You can't cut costs like Mike Ashley is doing without revenues decreasing. Top footballers want the wages in return for the shirts, advertising and commercial publicity they generate. Owning a football team full of average players which loses football games effects the "business" in the way Gerald Ratners comments about his "product" did. It's fucked. What part of that do you think people have difficulty understanding btw? It's just a statement of the obvious. Also, for completeness, there's a second part to the statement, which is to say the players want those wages whether the profit and loss dictates it's sustainable to pay them it or not. Thus if we're paying more in percentage terms than the players are actually producing for us, they won't discount their wages accordingly to bring it into line. Which brings us to the only point that's of relevance: FCB isn't prepared to play fantasy football because that comes at too high a personal risk to him in his own eyes. So the only model we should bother discussing is a self-sustaining one. That leaves room to talk about what the top realistic turnover could be and what player we could buy/retain to get it there/sustain it there. If Lambias is able to make the boast in the near future that we've become self sufficient, then when we do sell players, we should be able to reasonably demand that that money has to be re-invested in the team, because it's not needed for anything else. It could be taken as dividends etc (fairly normal practice for most owners), but he doesn't need to do that, so if he wants any credit for a self sustaining model, that's only going to be due if it's efficiencies/surplus are re-invested to take us on. That still begs the question at what level it allows you to compete in the context of other clubs budgets. Tbh Leazes, you're still at the 'just throw more money at it' stage without having answered the question posed by numerous posters 'where should the money come from' and 'how much extra do you mean'? so you have no real currency in the conversation at this point with respect. you are just blabbing on again in your usual style. You go round in circles man. Deep down, you know what I and others are saying and you agree with it, but waffle on, agreeing in parts, with certain posters, rather than admit it outright. I've NEVER said to "throw unlimited money at it", you will NOT find any post from me saying this. I was one of the few posters who warned that Souness was overspending when others were saying "continue to back him" etc for starters. The section of my post that you have highlighted - well, believe it or not, top footballers want the wages....I'm glad you agree, because there are plenty of people who are saying that we should not be paying these wages "because we can't afford it" [words to that effect] including yourself, the simple fact is that we must find a way to do it, or stop competing, and NUFC is one of the biggest clubs in the country, NOT competing with the other big clubs is NOT an option for a club like NUFC. This is the very point that has been made, for a long time now, which is that Mike Ashley is converting NUFC into a club THAT DOES NOT OR WILL NOT COMPETE AT THE LEVEL IT SHOULD BE. This is what has been said all this time would happen, and this is exactly what is happening, and those who are putting the financial side before the footballing one, are advocating this approach as being "correct". I'm stating a simple fact - which YOU have said you agree with. Footballers want the wages. Either pay them, or give up competing. No amount of hot air from you or anyone else is going to change that, so just admit that its the way it is, whether you like it or not, whoever says it. Yes but I'm saying Ashley won't pay top dollar, so that's where we're at. You're asking Ashley to take a risk with his own money. You know that too. It's fair enough, but basically you have to be honest and say that's all your statement amounts to. Not: WE SHOULD BECAUSE WE'RE NUFC! Wigan aren't doing it: BECAUSE THEY'RE WIGAN, they're doing it because of a private individual. Again, it's perfectly fair to say if Ashley's not prepared to take a risk with his own cash then he should just sling the whole idea of football club ownership altogether and sell the thing, but then he'll be wanting a buyer. And they're not queuing up at the minute. As I say, try and deal with the facts as they stand, otherwise it's just shouting slogans (as your caps lock only serves to demonstrate).

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him. Thing is with the FCB in charge any player will be sold as soon as a decent offer comes in / or they manage to piss him off. That being the case we are destined to be a bottom half side until this lot sell up and fuck off. Our revenue streams will continue to diminish; Attendances will continue to fall, fewer business will want to advertise at SJP which means more free advertising for the FCB ShiteDirect and we will appear less and less on TV as we will become a pisspoor team that no one wants to watch. On a bright note Tiote having a bad start to the season should mean no one tries to buy him in the next transfer window. And all things being equal, if we're self-sustaining (as he wants us to be-meaning that that money isn't required to plug holes elsewhere), then if it isn't re-invested in the team, we're having the piss taken out of us. Agreed. when you actually say that you agree with this, its difficult to see what you have been disagreeing with and bickering about all this time, because it is what some of us have been saying for a long time now. Edit. For those who continue to harp on putting finance over the football, football is different to a high street store. You can't cut costs like Mike Ashley is doing without revenues decreasing. Top footballers want the wages in return for the shirts, advertising and commercial publicity they generate. Owning a football team full of average players which loses football games effects the "business" in the way Gerald Ratners comments about his "product" did. It's fucked. What part of that do you think people have difficulty understanding btw? It's just a statement of the obvious. Also, for completeness, there's a second part to the statement, which is to say the players want those wages whether the profit and loss dictates it's sustainable to pay them it or not. Thus if we're paying more in percentage terms than the players are actually producing for us, they won't discount their wages accordingly to bring it into line. Which brings us to the only point that's of relevance: FCB isn't prepared to play fantasy football because that comes at too high a personal risk to him in his own eyes. So the only model we should bother discussing is a self-sustaining one. That leaves room to talk about what the top realistic turnover could be and what player we could buy/retain to get it there/sustain it there. If Lambias is able to make the boast in the near future that we've become self sufficient, then when we do sell players, we should be able to reasonably demand that that money has to be re-invested in the team, because it's not needed for anything else. It could be taken as dividends etc (fairly normal practice for most owners), but he doesn't need to do that, so if he wants any credit for a self sustaining model, that's only going to be due if it's efficiencies/surplus are re-invested to take us on. That still begs the question at what level it allows you to compete in the context of other clubs budgets. Tbh Leazes, you're still at the 'just throw more money at it' stage without having answered the question posed by numerous posters 'where should the money come from' and 'how much extra do you mean'? so you have no real currency in the conversation at this point with respect.

Good call. Man U, Arse, LFC and Chelsea have all made up the top four more or less consistently over that period too, suggesting you need to maintain that consistently to keep on that % growth forecast. We were already well out of those places despite spending beyond our means and were already looking to cut back as Leazes I think has mentioned. You can ignore Man C because theirs is entirely down to throwing £300 million around that has nothing to do with the club. On the other hand, Tottenham provide the counterpoint to suggest its possible to remain on that percentage growth outside of the top four, however. What's Everton's btw Pud? Champions league level finish during recent times but against a backdrop of fluctuating finishes/no private benefactor funding/owe money to outside lenders?

MCFC turnover £87 million and they've spent about £300 million on players (before they even start paying them a weekly wage)

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him. Thing is with the FCB in charge any player will be sold as soon as a decent offer comes in / or they manage to piss him off. That being the case we are destined to be a bottom half side until this lot sell up and fuck off. Our revenue streams will continue to diminish; Attendances will continue to fall, fewer business will want to advertise at SJP which means more free advertising for the FCB ShiteDirect and we will appear less and less on TV as we will become a pisspoor team that no one wants to watch. On a bright note Tiote having a bad start to the season should mean no one tries to buy him in the next transfer window. And all things being equal, if we're self-sustaining (as he wants us to be-meaning that that money isn't required to plug holes elsewhere), then if it isn't re-invested in the team, we're having the piss taken out of us. Agreed. He won't see it that way, because to him it's perfectly reasonable to make the point that an individual transfer sum isn't a large enough amount to take you to the next level and hence it's not worth re-investing in its entirety (ie he can get something adequate for cheaper), but as fans we know it's a pisstake all the same.

On that point there must be a tipping point where it's cheaper to offer a key player more money than it is to buy a replacement on cheaper wages, unless the new player is on a free transfer (and even then as we know you have to pay agents fees etc). I take your point about all of the squad wanting to re-negotiate though so there's a knock on effect. I'm just wondering whether it's true that you'll save money by replacing players, especially once the last high earners like Colo and Smith (and possibly Xisco) are shipped out. You'd hope that replacing a player is a decision made on footballing grounds not financial ones. The Carrroll sale is obviously a financial decision whereas I would say the Nolan sale was possibly more of a footballing one - an ageing player who would offer less and less on the pitch but wanted a long contract. I'm sure there are increments that get discussed and I'm sure there will come a stage when the cap will get genuinely tested for the very reason you've mentioned. I'm not saying it's easy to live with on a personal level either, because it's not, it's gutting. I s'pose I try my best to get a bit less worked up about it though if possible, because if a player goes it'll ultimately be because they want more money. I think acquisition remains a more straightforward process than retention under our constraints. Thus when we decided we wouldn't buy a striker last window my reaction was I thought they were just taking the piss out of us. That was eminently do-able and would have made a real difference.

You're personalising the debate in a way which the players won't do, I can assure you. The answer is whoever will pay them more money, because it will be their choice to go.

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him. which is proof of ambition, like West Ham, Wigan, QPR...... Edit My other point is if they conduct transfer talks and bore them to fuck with all that rubbish that you call "good craic" then it would shove them away too. You need to get into the real world. Footballers just don't give a toss about that sort of thing, they want to win trophies, play in europe and compete at the highest levels they can. You can talk about "good craic" as much as you like, but they will sign for the club that shows them the ambition, not the one with the "good business plan". The real world is how you're going to pay them. While I freely concede they're not going to want to talk business models during transfer talks, they would no doubt have something to say if you neglected to pay them/tried paying them in monopoly money.

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him. which is proof of ambition, like West Ham, Wigan, QPR...... Naturally, but their ambition isn't the club's ambition, it's the ambition of a private individual.

Tiote will go if he's offered more than we're paying him.

I honestly don't think you can be competitive on an ongoing self-fianacing model. There are always ups and downs...Some seasons extra cash has to be generated (that either comes from loans/player sales/ cash from owners). Agreed. Mentioned in another thread that I thought the sustainability model was to a degree a player turnover one. Not necessarily in that you automatically have to sell to buy, but because you'll inevitably lose players you can't afford to keep (because they'll be offered more elsewhere). In that scenario, if you're keeping on top of your fiscal responsibilities elsewhere I think those funds should automatically be going straight back into team development.

Like closing time at the City Tavern. To answer (i think) your question of whether it possible to sustain a £130m turnover, i'd want to check that first as a figure. To see what the potential is you need to look at Match day, Media and Commercial. Our highest matchday revenue appears to be £35m in 2005 when we got to the UEFA quarters. It was £21m in the last 09/10 accounts. Media is now £50m+. This is probably the highest it will ever be unless overseas markets support bigger deals next time. Emerging markets are still an opportunity to boost the TV money but thats a premiership thing as it negotiates collectively. The highest commercial income was £27m in 2007. We are currently at £15.4m. This has fallen massively and includes where money from branding and signage etc should be included. So, if the club wants to consider itself as 'running a good business' it should be looking at the potential in each of the major revenue streams through its recent maximum level. £35m +£50m + £27m, which is a £112m (i was close in my earlier post). In the hard nosed business evaluation, there is £26m in revenue left on the table (12m from commercial and £14m from matchdays). Conditions arent the same and there are reasons why potential may be less than that but its a good benchmark. Cheeky fucker. I know I was rambling because for the most part I know it's not possible to answer the question by 'reverse engineering' things. Ie £130 million turnover, but how much do you have to spend on players to get that money coming in? Total unknown, obviously. Again obviously if you're looking at it purely from a financial p.o.v, it doesnt matter if your turnover is 13 million or 130 million as long as you're breaking even, but we're not, we're football fans, so playing Ashley's purported game, assuming a £130 million turnover gets you a better chance of success than a £13 million one, how much would hitting this turnover actually measure up for Ashley as a risk? The only things I can tell we need to get some sort of vague agreement on are: 1. What sort of turnover is possible based on full house matchday/max exposure TV revs? 2. Is it possible to reach those levels sustainably (not scientific, but full revs imply (in my view) something approximating a European level finish (not CL) 3. What we're currently spending/where that leaves us in the league 4. How much more would it realistically cost to close the gap between 2&3 (again, not scientific, but can be reasonably judged against what money other clubs are chucking about to do the same thing/what the going rates are) Retention is the key one for me btw; it's easy saying offer someone £10k above the wage cap to keep them, they're worth it, but when that then becomes every players target on re-negotiation, you can easy be talking an extra £5-10 million per year just to keep the same players and then you have to introduce new ones at a higher rate too. That's when it gets 'easier' to stick to a wage cap and constantly re-recruit. In the purely financial sense.

PS I know that's a bit garbled but hopefully some relevant strands emerge, even if not instantly. Equally if theres any false premises, shoot them down now. For me it's all about narrowing the issues if possible.

2007 4 (2) Man United £242.6m 6 (5) Chelsea £221m 9 (10) Arsenal £192.4m 10 (8) Liverpool £176m 13 (12) Newcastle £124.3m 15 (13) Tottenham £107.2m 17 (17) Man City £89.4m 18 (n/a) Rangers £88.5 19 (n/a) West Ham £60.1m 2008 2 (4) Manchester United £212.1m 4 (6) Chelsea £190.5m 5 (9) Arsenal £177.6m 8 (10) Liverpool £133.9m 11 (15) Tottenham Hotspur £103.1m 14 (13) Newcastle United £87.1m 17 (-) Celtic £75.2m 2009 2 (2) Manchester United £257.1m 5 (4) Chelsea £212.9m 6 (5) Arsenal £209.3m 7 (8) Liverpool £167.0m 14 (10) Tottenham £114.8m 17 (14) Newcastle £99.4m 20 (-) Manchester City £82.3m 2010 3 (2) Man Utd £278.5m 5 (6) Arsenal £224.0m 6 (5) Chelsea £206.4m 7 (8) Liverpool £184.8m 15 (14) Tottenham £113.0m 19 (n/a) Man City £87.0m 20 (17) Newcastle £86.0m Man U 242.6 > 278.5 = +14.79% Arsenal 192.4 > 224.0 = +16.42% Chelsea 221 > 206 = -6.79% Liverpool > 176 > 184.8 = +5% Spurs 107.2 > 113 = +5.41% Man C > 89.4 > 87 = -2.69% Toon 124.3 > 86 = -30.82% On average, the highest Earnings clubs in England have seen an increase of 5.35% in turnover so I dont think its unrealistic to think that we could have done the same. So to answer your question. We should have been looking at £130m turnover not the current £86m. Good stuff! ....so about £44 million discrepant on turnover for arguments sake. So, using massively massively basic mathematics (and apologies to the economists for this), what amount are we counterbalancing against that in terms of servicing that higher turnover (transfer fees/wages)? The bottom line is a sustainability model now, whether we like that or not. That is a financial reality. So the first thing you'd have to question I spose is whether the £130 million turnover is a self sustaining amount to start with (because if it isn't, it's not a live issue for discussion in the first place), but if it is the second question becomes what sort of players it would it allow us to buy/retain which we're not already buying/retaining.* Anyway just trying to keep this thing moving..any help from more forensic minds would be appreciated as I know this is both i) incomplete, and ii) highly speculative.... For me it's not about pie-in-the sky stuff. If we genuinely were skint (ie being run on debt and at a loss), then fair enough it doesn't matter what our max turnover can be per se, it's what it costs to achieve that turnover. So I'm more interested in knowing what realistic margins, if we are now having to be self-financing, should be available for continued team improvements within certain ratios, and what level that should let you kick on to in a footballing sense, given the budgets of the teams around you. On this point, I'm on record as saying I think we were absolutely diddled out of a striker in the last window...however I have to concede that's an emotional statement rather than a pure financial one. *So not that it's remotely scientific, but just because it's the only vague anecdotal stuff we have to 'compare' for our value for money, are there any points we can regard as 'settled' to move the argument along? Might float a few for everyone's consideration: 1. Most pre-2007 seasons saw an operating loss, thus previous player acquisitions/wages paid over that period are not to be regarded as achievable on a sustainability model 2. Turnover vs expenditure: If the average first team salary is around (genuinely don't know - £30k pw less now than it was formerly???)....that's circa 1.5 million per year per player x 15.... £22 million less on wages per annum. (genuine guess work there obviously but we know Shearer and Owen were both £100k+, Martins, Viduka, £80's others prob around £50-60 as standard) ...we've still got Colo and Smith on big money, but the new ceiling is about £50k (Tiote) with new recruits I reckon coming in on around £10-30k....)

Aye, same for me. Yep... and he'll be flogged next summer. Possibly go on a free as his current wages won't be repeated.

The £20m a year comment was made a few years back, I doubt now whether he's prepared to put any more money into the club at all. Whatever his approach was or is, it shows that he knows as well as any of us that it needs investment to succeed. The arguments for being tight and having a mediocre team are legitimate, and the arguments for pushing the boat out and trying to compete are too. Which is why it's an argument that's gone on here for years and years. The only question is what sort of owner you have and what he can afford. It's our great misfortune to have a bloke who's spent enough to be making a challenge....but he's spent it reactively on losses rather than pro-actively on building revenue, without ever coming close to success. That sort of incompetence would be forgiveable. The suggestion that we're now going to climb the table and prove a great success, without any investment, is a contradiction of what we all know and what he said himself. Just trying to unpick what you are saying. That he has reactively spent money but only after we were relegated to cover losses? That this is unforgivable? Yes but so what, that wont magic any more money into our coffers now. It puts some of the blame for our finances in his court, it shows him as incompetent but it doest build an argument against current decision-making. In fact, in reality it supports current decision-making because it shows the inherent risks of having a high wage bill and the wrong playing staff and manager. If clubs do invest significant sums, the returns they are looking for is a bit more than 'getting the fans onside'. It has to be real and tangible, as Sunderland and Villa are struggling to deal with this season. To compete with Liverpool and Spurs through an 'investment strategy' would mean large amounts of coin the club doesnt have, no guarantee that it will bring results and no real pay-off even if the final position is 6th or 7th. Wasnt aiming a comment at you when i re-defined the term apologist generally aimed elsewhere. Just a quick note though - what do you expect for £70m? Fuck all when its dealing with a financial basket case whilst at the same time owners at Stoke, Bolton, Fulham etc have personally invested much much more. Remember if a club has 20,000 less supporters in the ground but has an owner prepared to invest £10m a year, there is no difference between what we can pay wages wise. At the risk of sounding horribly obsequious, the back-and-forth between you two genuinely has moved the debate along on this forum and it's been needed for a long time. Not that you represent each 'side' of the debate as such, but I reckon people have found both 'sides' more accessible and palatable given the manner in which you've examined it all between you. I know I have anyway. Good craic.

The pursuit of success within the constraints of responsible financial practice should be a gradual process, not a large push for immediate success. This would be achieved by retaining your best players and replacing your weaker ones with superior performers on a gradual basis. There is every chance that these players may cost more and be on higher wages, but the idea is for this to be offset by an increase in match attendance, merchandise sales, sponsorship money, prize money (higher league position, further in Cup competitions and ultimately qualification for European competition), and an increased value in the club along with its a superior perceived position in relation to other clubs. This is obviously not the model that Ashley is operating under, regardless of what they say. Any risk taken should be a manageable one. Good luck selling that dream to your 'top players'/ambitious stars. Nah, not the real world I'm afraid. Truly 'in demand' players will want a wage hike every few years and rapid progression, because as long as they're truly 'in demand' there'll be one of three or four clubs at the top prepared to offer them that. It's a nice thought, but it's ridiculous to suggest you're going to keep all your best players by showing them some cautiously incremental model. As Leazes says, the very top players want silverware now (ps and money), so you can't really have it both ways (even though he's suggesting you can by agreeing with you). Also, the turnover point does now need to be addressed square on. Not simply 'increase turnover', but suggest how much realistically it can be increased by, and how much difference, realistically speaking (in the context of bankrolled opponents budgets) , that can mean to our player acquisition/retention. This debate really does need to be rooted in the real world now. HF makes some good, moderate points in his last few posts. Lets keep it going in that direction. Obviously only the general idea, you can't allow for all circumstances. In the case of in-demand players ultimately you'd want to be getting them frequently onto new, improved contracts (hello Andy, Tiote) to somewhat mitigate that risk. The longer their contract the greater the bargaining power, and the greater the transfer fee. This could then be put to use to actual improve the squad. Sure you may have lost one of your best players but you've done so knowing that the money from that sale, if spent well, will result in a better more balanced team. It's what Spurs have done with the money from the likes of Berbatov and Carrick. The way you put it you'd think there would only be good players in three or four clubs - that's simply not the case. I'm not sure what you're implying my point is, but I'm saying that the team should be invested in on an ongoing basis and not a large splurge with the hope for immediate success. Under the model I'm talking about the money from Carroll's sale would largely have been invested in the playing squad, Enrique still would have gone, but offering Barton an improved contract would have been a priority. Nolan would have been offered a 1 or 2 year extension. If he refused it the talks would have been put on hold for the season to determine whether he maintained the same level of influence on the side, and with that information potentially been re-opened or alternately he could be sold with 1 year remaining. All of the other business would still have been conducted with the additional spend from the Carroll money having bought in 1 good forward, a natural left back and some cover in central defense. All of this IMO is completely realistic and financially responsible and would have plainly been a sign to fans and players alike that the club is moving in the right direction. Anyway, I don't profess to be an expert on any of this just offering my opinion. Feel free to shoot it down at will. I'm not shooting it down, I agree with it in the main as you'll see from the post which followed on (which cites the same Berba/Carrick example). My only criticism was merely saying that it needs to be a more rounded, real world discussion, because that's the only sensible discussion to be having now-but then you've basically moved it along with the post above anyway, so fair play, mate.

I'm not disagreeing with Oz's proposals for the record, I'm disagreeing with his (and indeed your) suggestion that it's the magic solution staring all us dullards in the face. If we adopt that model, we will still lose our top performers to the top clubs. They'll simply pay them more/offer them a more immediate opportunity at footballing progression. Daft to suggest otherwise. I think I'm realistic in accepting this is the mentality of players with 'options'. Thus we will lose some. I still think Oz's suggestion is correct, just you have to be prepared for a turbulent ride because your key performers are vulnerable. I'm with HF where I think moderately more investment right now (last window) would have made a real difference and I resent that it didnt. What I don't think however is that the level of investment that's being suggested by Oz would guarantee you kept your top players. The self-financing model is, to a degree, a player turnover model. The point was made the other day, Spurs sold Berba and Carrick-their 'best' players. Theres no way they would have stayed. Spurs then kicked on. Well that clearly isn't keeping all your best players, it's about being massively canny about who you do and don't retain and what you do with the proceeds. It's a hugely pragmatic model, so in turn if you're going to seek to impugn it you're going to have to offer a more robustly pragmatic counterpoint than: ' '

The pursuit of success within the constraints of responsible financial practice should be a gradual process, not a large push for immediate success. This would be achieved by retaining your best players and replacing your weaker ones with superior performers on a gradual basis. There is every chance that these players may cost more and be on higher wages, but the idea is for this to be offset by an increase in match attendance, merchandise sales, sponsorship money, prize money (higher league position, further in Cup competitions and ultimately qualification for European competition), and an increased value in the club along with its a superior perceived position in relation to other clubs. This is obviously not the model that Ashley is operating under, regardless of what they say. Any risk taken should be a manageable one. Good luck selling that dream to your 'top players'/ambitious stars. Nah, not the real world I'm afraid. Truly 'in demand' players will want a wage hike every few years and rapid progression, because as long as they're truly 'in demand' there'll be one of three or four clubs at the top prepared to offer them that. It's a nice thought, but it's ridiculous to suggest you're going to keep all your best players by showing them some cautiously incremental model. As Leazes says, the very top players want silverware now (ps and money), so you can't really have it both ways (even though he's suggesting you can by agreeing with you). Also, the turnover point does now need to be addressed square on. Not simply 'increase turnover', but suggest how much realistically it can be increased by, and how much difference, realistically speaking (in the context of bankrolled opponents budgets) , that can mean to our player acquisition/retention. This debate really does need to be rooted in the real world now. HF makes some good, moderate points in his last few posts. Lets keep it going in that direction.