Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Michael Appleton - March 2025 appointed Shrewsbury manager (p124)
Comments
-
Have Appleton's new assistants been at Sparrows Lane this week?1
-
I for one will not believe it until it's mentioned in the sun 😬😬😬Airman Brown said:
No, he is specifically quoted in the Telegraph as saying profit after player trading.AFKABartram said:Are we sure of the operating loss angle? Could the £1-2m loss be a projection of how they anticipate to manage after player trading?0 -
This is the issue in my eyes. Step daughter plays u10 football and for a squad of 8, they have a manager and two assistants.Starinnaddick said:Have Appleton's new assistants been at Sparrows Lane this week?
charlton are a professional outfit with a manager, assistant and a goalkeeping coach for a squad of 20 +2 -
There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.1 -
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.0 -
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.1 -
CB in Jan pls.0
-
swordfish said:
Show them the meme and then ask them again 😉Croydon said:Speaking to pals this weekend who all support various EFL clubs, and they all seem to think it's a good appointment
My offering,
Michael Appleton, kum ba yah!
Michael Appleton, Kum ba yah!
Michael Appleton, Kum ba yah!
Oh, Michael Ap-ple-ton!
7 -
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.2 - Sponsored links:
-
It’s trivial in the context of a £10m operating loss in 2021/22. Even if that’s £6m in 2023/24, it’s 2.5% of the total so not really any kind of game changer. I’d imagine they would have overestimated ticket income alone by several times that, having no first-hand knowledge of the fanbase.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.The problem as I see it is not that anyone is here with malign intent. It’s not an evil conspiracy. It’s just that Methven etc have to make unrealistic assumptions in order to get the investors on board. They are able to do so at no risk to themselves (since I doubt CM paid for his shareholding), in which case why wouldn’t you?
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.33 -
It's been used before I think.AppyAddick said:swordfish said:
Show them the meme and then ask them again 😉Croydon said:Speaking to pals this weekend who all support various EFL clubs, and they all seem to think it's a good appointment
My offering,
Michael Appleton, kum ba yah!
Michael Appleton, Kum ba yah!
Michael Appleton, Kum ba yah!
Oh, Michael Ap-ple-ton!
Kenny Achampong fitted in nicely 😉0 -
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.10 -
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.2 -
If the plan is promotion and then try to become more sustainable in the championship then I think that is a good plan.If the money runs out after 2 years and we haven’t gone up, then it’s going to be like Sandgaard. They will cut costs while looking for some other idiot to buy us.This is our cycle now, new owner comes in and goes for it for 2 years, realises they’ve spent £15m+ to end up league 1 mid table and then cut costs while they desperately try and find someone willing to pay them silly money for it. This will repeat until one of them gets lucky and gets us promoted, these ownership types are the best we can hope for at the moment6
-
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.NabySarr said:
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.1 -
Not at the moment, Senda and Shimell left with Holden. So only Hayes was kept on.Todds_right_hook said:
This is the issue in my eyes. Step daughter plays u10 football and for a squad of 8, they have a manager and two assistants.Starinnaddick said:Have Appleton's new assistants been at Sparrows Lane this week?
charlton are a professional outfit with a manager, assistant and a goalkeeping coach for a squad of 20 +0 -
I could not imagine us keeping Leaburn after this season anyway tbh. Not unless we go up.4
-
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.2 -
If Leaburn goes I hope it is with a substantial sell on.
That goes for any of the others too.2 - Sponsored links:
-
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.6 -
So not so trivial then is my take.Airman Brown said:
It’s trivial in the context of a £10m operating loss in 2021/22. Even if that’s £6m in 2023/24, it’s 2.5% of the total so not really any kind of game changer. I’d imagine they would have overestimated ticket income alone by several times that, having no first-hand knowledge of the fanbase.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.The problem as I see it is not that anyone is here with malign intent. It’s not an evil conspiracy. It’s just that Methven etc have to make unrealistic assumptions in order to get the investors on board. They are able to do so at no risk to themselves (since I doubt CM paid for his shareholding), in which case why wouldn’t you?
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.
A reasonable percentage of the funds earmarked for football squad / coaches AND coupled with over optimistic revenue streams.
I understand your point about no conspiracy. Yes it is a weak plan (as far as we have seen it / allowed to understand it).
I think it means they are unlikely to get rid of MA however poor our results come the end of the year so lets just hope he is able to do something with the constraints he has.0 -
No but to get a big fee for him we’ll likely need to sell him by next summer unless he signs a new deal before then.mendonca said:
His contract expires in July 2025. It's not imminent.NabySarr said:
Selling Leaburn in January (with a loan back) would be a good decision. He’s not going to sign a new contract, so if we can sell him in January we will still get a good fee (especially as January is often inflated transfer fees) and then still hopefully keep him ourselves till the end of the season.Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.
1 -
Because the starting point is not to cash in the assets; that would be a nonsensical approach. The aim is to progress despite selling players; not to sell players per se.Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.4 -
Cawley in the SLP.Henry Irving said:
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
think that was from the club directly.1 -
Did that say £4m offers?CafcSCP said:
Cawley in the SLP.Henry Irving said:
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
think that was from the club directly.2 -
But Miles is always going to be sold regardless. Another decent season by him which I think we’re all expecting will push his value higher than it is right now and let’s be honest who can blame him or indeed the club if a Premier League club come calling. Now the £X million the club gets for miles might well go back into getting the budget back reigned in with only a proportion put back into recruitment but when has that been any different, ever ?Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.1 -
No it didn't, there was no mention on how much the bids were at all, just that there was interestHenry Irving said:
Did that say £4m offers?CafcSCP said:
Cawley in the SLP.Henry Irving said:
Source?Addick_8 said:
but If that was the case, why didn't we accept the reported 4m in offers we had for some of our players?Airman Brown said:I am pretty indifferent to Appleton - which will have no bearing on whether he succeeds or not. He’s here; he’ll either win games or he won’t.The “project”, however, can only fail. It involves I understand a two-year fixed funding agreement, which will inevitably be based on over-optimistic revenue projections in order to sell it to investors. This in turn will force early player sales, which are not consistent with getting into / staying in the Championship.Charlie has already given the game away - the stated aim is to reduce the operating loss to £1m-£2m and then sell sufficient players to generate an overall profit. Player trading is variable year on year, but operating costs and revenue cannot deliver their bit in this business - barring a major change in the financial structure of the EFL.Appleton won’t be the reason it fails whatever he does.
think that was from the club directly.3 -
Agreed but I’m just using him as the obvious example. What is different in my opinion is that you are not going to get the ownership group deciding to invest more in January in the way that previous owners could choose to do (rightly or wrongly).ShootersHillGuru said:
But Miles is always going to be sold regardless. Another decent season by him which I think we’re all expecting will push his value higher than it is right now and let’s be honest who can blame him or indeed the club if a Premier League club come calling. Now the £X million the club gets for miles might well go back into getting the budget back reigned in with only a proportion put back into recruitment but when has that been any different, ever ?Airman Brown said:
I don’t think it works like that. There is a set amount of money and probably scope for spending in January - but then you need to sell to get back within the fixed budget.DA9 said:
If internet searches of our major shareholders by others on here, and on the other site re their wealth, and CM’s own statements to that fact, then I would guess that the 2 year funding plan is the minimum they would have had to commit to, to be part of the consortium.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.
If, and it’s a big if, we are in the shake up coming into January, and need that extra transfer spend to push on, I would hope that these investors could and will provide it, but until then we won’t find out will we, so it’s all assumptions until then.
For example, it seems likely they will sell Leaburn in January but if we look set to be in the mix they may hold off until the end of the season. Either way, they will need to sell to offset part of the operating loss because there is no recourse to the funders in the agreement.
If more funding is needed six months in that just reflects badly on Methven and co. It’s not about league position.In short they are not going to chase losses; and they are not going to be influenced by events on the pitch. They will simply hold Methven and co to account on their business plan in due course.
You could see that as sound business practice but if the plan is unrealistic it won’t get us anywhere.6 -
Why do these groups continuously get these numbers wrong?Airman Brown said:
It’s trivial in the context of a £10m operating loss in 2021/22. Even if that’s £6m in 2023/24, it’s 2.5% of the total so not really any kind of game changer. I’d imagine they would have overestimated ticket income alone by several times that, having no first-hand knowledge of the fanbase.valleynick66 said:
If the £150k suggested compensation costs is indeed trivial that might imply there are further funds available to the squad then in January?Airman Brown said:
Trivial.valleynick66 said:There is no new 'news' in this however is there?
Fixed funding for 2 years presumably just means we have a set budget agreed with the investors for the next 2 seasons and in which they aim for promotion (however unlikely that may be without better recruitment).
Presumably they have dented the budget by changing Holden for Appleton and need to absorb that some how.The problem as I see it is not that anyone is here with malign intent. It’s not an evil conspiracy. It’s just that Methven etc have to make unrealistic assumptions in order to get the investors on board. They are able to do so at no risk to themselves (since I doubt CM paid for his shareholding), in which case why wouldn’t you?
The problem for us as fans is that this house of cards is likely to fall down again.
I'm constantly reading people saying some of our support still see the club being on some sort of premier league hiatus but it appears these chancers also also seem to think it's just around the corner and we are a league one club in name only?1
