It makes you wonder...

[fox in the sox]

West Brom have announced a profit of 1.5 million for the last financial year whilst we had losses of nearly 30 million. They have not had money pumped in by wealthy owners like us. They have a stadium which holds 6000 less than us. Yet they are 8th in the Premiership with no financial worries and we are stuck in the Championship in a right mess with major financial worries. It makes you wonder how this club can have been run so badly in recent years..

[Guest Col city fan]

West Brom have announced a profit of 1.5 million for the last financial year whilst we had losses of nearly 30 million. They have not had money pumped in by wealthy owners like us. They have a stadium which holds 6000 less than us. Yet they are 8th in the Premiership with no financial worries and we are stuck in the Championship in a right mess with major financial worries. It makes you wonder how this club can have been run so badly in recent years..

The whole Sven project was a major Fook up from start to finish.

This has been done to death though really ain't it?

[Ford Super Sunday]

Yeah, let's compare ourselves to a team that has had tens of millions per season in TV revenue, while we cope with £2.5m per season. A team that attracts sponsors who will pay Premier League prices to advertise now they are considered mainstream

[Kitchandro]

Yeah, let's compare ourselves to a team that has had tens of millions per season in TV revenue, while we cope with £2.5m per season. A team that attracts sponsors who will pay Premier League prices to advertise now they are considered mainstream

You do have a point. It helps a lot financially when you're actually in the Premier League.

Even when they've got relegated they've had the means to dominate the Championship and go straight back up.

We went down at just the wrong time, and they went up at just the right time.

[Harry - LCFC]

What were their figures in the Championship? You can't compare us to a Premier League club, circumstances are too different.

[Guest Bilo]

There's no doubt we've been financially mismanaged, but blaming Sven alone doesn't sit quite right with me.

He was employed by the club and all of his deals had to be signed off by somebody, they could have told him to stop at any time. He'd no doubt have stomped his feet and walked out, but that option was always there because the money and the responsibility came from the Thais and their accountants.

Of course, should we be promoted, a lot of these money worries will disappear quickly. Greatly increased TV revenue will be a factor, as will increased ticket sales and in all probability interest in Thailand. With the best will in the world, Leicester City v Manchester United/Manchester City/Arsenal will always be more productive in building a fanbase than scraps against the likes of Barnsley and Charlton.

[Guest BlueBrett]

WBA are also pretty savvy in the transfer market. Players like Lukaku, Jacob, Mcauley, Gera and plenty more besides all picked up either on frees or on loan

[AKCJ]

Pretty sure being in the Premier League helps a fair bit

[Guest Col city fan]

Pretty sure being in the Premier League helps a fair bit

What, you mean being benefitting from SKY revenue?

Wash yer mouth out!!

[MooseBreath]

There's no doubt we've been financially mismanaged, but blaming Sven alone doesn't sit quite right with me.

He was employed by the club and all of his deals had to be signed off by somebody, they could have told him to stop at any time. He'd no doubt have stomped his feet and walked out, but that option was always there because the money and the responsibility came from the Thais and their accountants.

So you'd give an accountant the ultimate responsibility over transfer policy, rather than a man you pay thousands of pounds per week to for his in depth knowledge and expertise on all matters related to football management? Somehow I don't think that would go down to well with many managers.

[Swiss_tony]

more money doesn't make things better, just ask pimpey. prudent financial management does, whatever league you are in. economics 101.

[Guest Bilo]

So you'd give an accountant the ultimate responsibility over transfer policy, rather than a man you pay thousands of pounds per week to for his in depth knowledge and expertise on all matters related to football management? Somehow I don't think that would go down to well with many managers.

If at any point the spending got too much, it was the accountant's or Andrew Neville's job to say 'enough.'

Managers buy and sell players, they shouldn't be expected to deal with the financial side of things. I want to see Pearson poring over tactics not spreadsheets.

[Swiss_tony]

"I want to see Pearson poring over tactics not spreadsheets."

he could learn some tactics, that would be a start. maybe have a plan b?

[Kitchandro]

So you'd give an accountant the ultimate responsibility over transfer policy, rather than a man you pay thousands of pounds per week to for his in depth knowledge and expertise on all matters related to football management? Somehow I don't think that would go down to well with many managers.

I'd want the manager to pick the players he wants and negotiate how much money they want for them. This is where having a good relationship with the board is important.

It shouldn't be a 'let them get on with it' attitude, there should be communication between both parties. If the board thought it was too much, they should say so. If Sven thought a certain player wasn't worth that much money, he should have advised them so. Both are to blame.

We ended up with players like Matt Mills because as a whole we weren't professional enough. The owners just basically let him pick whoever he wanted and then just spent the money. It was reckless.

[MooseBreath]

If at any point the spending got too much, it was the accountant's or Andrew Neville's job to say 'enough.'

Managers buy and sell players, they shouldn't be expected to deal with the financial side of things. I want to see Pearson poring over tactics not spreadsheets.

Well what constitutes "too much" was/is up to the owners. Pretty sure the owners were never out of the loop in terms of how much was being spent. You might think spending £30m was too much, but it doesn't really matter what you think because you're not the owner and it wasn't your money. They might have been happy to throw £100m at it for all any of us know.

[MooseBreath]

I'd want the manager to pick the players he wants and negotiate how much money they want for them. This is where having a good relationship with the board is important.

It shouldn't be a 'let them get on with it' attitude, there should be communication between both parties. If the board thought it was too much, they should say so. If Sven thought a certain player wasn't worth that much money, he should have advised them so. Both are to blame.

We ended up with players like Matt Mills because as a whole we weren't professional enough. The owners just basically let him pick whoever he wanted and then just spent the money. It was reckless.

Where has there ever been any suggestion that the board thought it was "too much"? Again, for all any of us know, the owners may have been willing to spend lots more than they did. They have never came out and said they spent too much money. At the time they had what they thought was a competent manager, they gave him some money and let him go to work. That's what you want from your owners. You certainly don't want them meddling with the transfer policy.

[fox in the sox]

What were their figures in the Championship? You can't compare us to a Premier League club, circumstances are too different.

They were promoted 3 times without ever having to get into serious debt so it can be done. Even if City do get promoted the huge debts will take a lot of wiping out. Yes they are a Premier League club but I would compare them to us in terms of the size of the club.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

WBA are a club we can all be envious of right now, well run, successful (in comparison) and with none or little money worries. Hopefully our turn will come

[fox in the sox]

Well what constitutes "too much" was/is up to the owners. Pretty sure the owners were never out of the loop in terms of how much was being spent. You might think spending £30m was too much, but it doesn't really matter what you think because you're not the owner and it wasn't your money. They might have been happy to throw £100m at it for all any of us know.

Aren't they just loaning the money to the club ? Surely it can't just be their decision in this case.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

What, you mean being benefitting from SKY revenue?

Wash yer mouth out!!

tut tut you sky charlatan

[Bayfox]

West broms chairman was happy to risk yo-yoing for a few years taking the cash and building slowly. But it's a risk.

There's no way our fans would accept this.

[Kitchandro]

Where has there ever been any suggestion that the board thought it was "too much"? Again, for all any of us know, the owners may have been willing to spend lots more than they did. They have never came out and said they spent too much money. At the time they had what they thought was a competent manager, they gave him some money and let him go to work. That's what you want from your owners. You certainly don't want them meddling with the transfer policy.

I'm telling you it's too much. It's not sensible, it's too risky (especially for some of the players we have been shelling out for) and a lot (probably most of it) isn't their money so their opinion on whether it's too much isn't the be all and end all.

Oh, and we as fans are paying for it with increased prices. So yeh, it was too much, whether they think so or not.

[Corky]

WBA have been well-run for years, accepting that they will yo-yo for a while before eventually settling in the top flight without paying huge fees and wages. Also, they seem to have a blueprint on how to play on the pitch and get managers to fit in around that.

In the last 12 years they've either been in the Premier League, got promotion or in the play-offs. I'd have loved to swap with them.

[Izzet is God]

You really can't compare the two...as stated in previous quotes WBA have benefitted from the ridiculous Prem profits which also benefits the teams coming down with parachute payments.

The fact that we have spent to get there shows that you can easily recoup the amount in a single season. Unfortunately if you don't get promoted you noticeably make huge losses.

My worry is if we don't get promoted and the thais look to go elsewhere, we'll be another poor situation looking for someone to bail us out.

The blame can't lie just with Sven, he was given a salary and amount to get us to the Prem...yes he didnt do that but when he was sacked we weren't in that bad a position as everyone made out. Pearson has ultimately done a better job with so-called lesser players but lets not forgot we still aren't in a great league position to say its ours to lose. i.e. being 1st or 2nd with a substantial points gap.

If we don't get promoted this season we still will have to deal with the losses made by the expenses in trying to get there even if they be smaller than last year.

Let's see if we can rally in this final quarter of the season and get to the Prem where we should see financial improvement at least.

[yorkie1999]

West broms chairman was happy to risk yo-yoing for a few years taking the cash and building slowly. But it's a risk.

There's no way our fans would accept this.

My mate's supported west brom for 30 odd years and reckons the yo-yoing was some of the most exciting seasons he's had at the club. one year fighting relegation and the next fighting for promotion. If villa go down this year he reckons he'd prefer if they were in the championship as well because of the rivalry with the brum clubs. Playing teams like man utd, spurs and everton doesn't mean **** all to him.