Hey guys,

I'm reading alot about how Roman needs to dig into his pockets and sign up some players in January from pretty much EVERYONE on here. But given the squad is already running at a loss (40 million pounds last season and much more in season's previous), it brings up an interesting question.

What is our natural long term position on the table (based purely on budget) assuming Roman was to decided tommorrow "no more cash injections, the club has to be made completely self sufficient" (that is at least break even financially, every season)?

Please note that I am aware it will shift around naturally season to season so am only asking for your best guess and where we'd generally finish.

I don't quite understand the question and answer to the topic, does it all operate around Romans money then? Didn't we just win the double last year with minimal transfers?

I'm not knocking you, just don't really understand what Romans money has to do with how we finish this season?

Looks to me like the club just needs an injection of team morale and for some to take their finger out their arses!

I don't quite understand the question and answer to the topic, does it all operate around Romans money then? Didn't we just win the double last year with minimal transfers?

The difference was we already had "sunk investment" in the form of players we'd bought in previous years. And we did still make a 40 million pound loss dispite winning the double.

I'm not knocking you, just don't really understand what Romans money has to do with how we finish this season?

Perhaps I am looking at this very coldly and analytically, but you just won't see Stoke win the League under pretty much any manager without a very large external injection of cash (i'd estimate they'd need at least an extra 100 million pounds to get close). Reality is, all teams find a natural range based roughly on their budget level, teams like Stoke who have done well comparitive to their budget level have done so because they have a good manager, found the right team balance, spent wisely, etc. Whereas teams like Newcastle (this season aside), have generally underperformed relative to the size of their budget because they have made crap signing, overpaid players, etc.

I can understand why the football purist or traditionalist would find my poll confronting, but theres no doubt that there is a natural limit to what you can realistically do with a set budget outside of football manager 2011. I want to ask you guys, where you think that natural limit is for us without Roman's money.

the teams with the most money generally finish higher in the table. It's hard to speculate how wealthy we would be if roman wasn't here because he'd sell us to someone. So how wealthy is the new owner?

If u based a clubs wealth on there assets and revenue then I'd say we'd prob be top 4? if you exclude the debt and based it solely on revenue.

On those terms you would have to say that man it'd and arsenal 1st and 2nd due to stadium size and team popularity. Liverpool must bring in a lot of money through popularity, then I'd say us with our peter Kenyon world domination tactics and recent success has increased our popularity and overall revenue. although man city have a big new stadium, I don't think there anywhere near as popular club as we are world wide.

Not sure if that answered ur question, it's made my head spin tryin to though!