Jump to content

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Biz said:

You don’t seemed to have learned from the experience and consequences of letting Snakean and the boys sign off 50m+ plus in wages and fees to put us near the foot of the championship. Now is a different scenario, we aren’t (as far as I’m aware) shipping nearly as much coin for nothing in return.

There was always going to be sales when we posted nearly 50m in pre tax losses in one season. Comparing now to then; 13/14 and the years that followed it, is a little bit unfair- considering the reduction in wages, and potential levelling of turnover.

Every club is a selling club, dependent on scenario. Two of the championship clubs of the three whom signed Cairney, Hanley and Duffy- achieved promotion and the other is in the playoffs. What did the x million’s invested in the likes of Best, Murphy, Etuhu, a load of Portugeezers, and the diamond in the rough; Rhodes et al get us? A noose of debt that could’ve levelled the modern infrastructure at the club.

Whilst I’m not confident of any major success, I am quite alleviated of worry because of how they (the owners) responded last season. Could’ve easily cut it to the bone. I think they’d resist any offers for Dack, or anyone for that matter (remember Lenihan to sheff United?) unless it’s crazy money or TM wants shot.

Might happen, maybe. But as likely as “the -2 million a month years”? No way.

 

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that both Fulham and Brighton (clubs we actively sold our best players to) posted losses on a similar level to ours and owe similar amounts to their owners as we do/did. Difference with them was they were/are serious about getting promotion. So sales weren't inevitable, they were optional as a means of clawing back lost cash. The fact those players went on to be successful and worth a lot more than we sold them for goes to show what a shortsighted and flawed policy it was. Had we kept them, built around them and seriously gone for promotion the chances are we'd have gone up instead of those clubs or if not we'd have had Cairney etc. worth 5 or 6 times what we actually sold him for. 

So we got the triple whammy - selling best players for less than they could have fetched - weakening ourselves massively - strengthening rivals massively. 

My view is that if you ignore or try to justify their behaviour between 2015 and 2017 and instead focus all your attentions on what they did from 2017-present then you're leaving yourself open to major disappointment. 

Every club is a selling club insofar as a bigger club in a higher league wants one of your players then you're going to struggle to keep him. But when you're actively following a policy of selling all your best players to whoever wants them from the same division then that isn't acceptable. To my knowledge no club in the Championship has embarked on such a firesale of quality as we did to league rivals. Plenty sell the odd player or two mainly to higher divisions but that isn't what we did. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jesus Christ, give the girl a break. Who knows what she's like? Having her character assassinated and reasons for being with her fella by a bunch of internet nobodies because of how she looks, pretty

There should be no excuses and no cliches imo. The window so far has been...underwhelming.  Do I think we’d go down with this squad? No? Is it better than the one which went down? Yes, I believe

Posted Images

44 minutes ago, Pedro said:

Who was the last half-decent player we sold? Duffy (who's poor performances and attitude engineered his own move).

Surely you're not still falling for that old chestnut that all those players had their heads turned by other clubs and pushed to leave?

It was the club who wanted them gone and they went. Not the other way around. 

The evidence for that is the way the £30 million disappeared not to be seen again. Clubs that reluctantly lose their better players generally follow that up with a signal of intent by replacing them, not pocketing the dosh and replacing with trash.

The club wanted them sold. By the time Marshall, Hanley and Duffy (our last 3 decent players) were bundled out the door to Championship rivals the club and owners had made their intentions abundantly clear by getting shut of Cairney, Gestede, Rhodes and Olsson with no reinvestment along with the Lambert fiasco and appointing a clown like Coyle as manager. Those decent players left knew full well the club was going one way and the owners wanted the £30 million that came with it.

I recall people making comments about 'grass being greener' when Ben Marshall left Wolves to go to Millwall in January yet last time i checked he went on to play a central role in them rocketing up the table and nearly making the play-offs. Millwall and their fans very impressed by his contributions to a team that finished in the top 10 of the Championship last season, so another one who I'd class as 'decent'.

Edited by JHRover
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that Rich Sharpe may have been asked by the club to keep it under wraps so as not to derail a potential deal.

I'm sure it happened once or twice when Cryer was our journo. By which I mean saying 'Nothing in it', then the player in question turning up a week later. Think Santa Cruz was an example.

Edited by Mike E
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

That was 3 years ago not now. Now is different situation and different manager and now have CEO in place. 

Also every club is a selling club at championship level. 

 

Is it a different situation? You tell me. I thought it was a different situation when Bowyer was manager, then he was sacked and Coyle happened. 

We had a CEO in place when Cairney was sold. Derek Shaw was his name. Didn't stop a player being sold behind the manager's back.

Every Championship club is a selling club? Tell me when the last time Fulham sold a key player to a Championship rival? Villa? Derby? Preston? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Perhaps worth bearing in mind that both Fulham and Brighton (clubs we actively sold our best players to) posted losses on a similar level to ours and owe similar amounts to their owners as we do/did. Difference with them was they were/are serious about getting promotion. So sales weren't inevitable, they were optional as a means of clawing back lost cash. The fact those players went on to be successful and worth a lot more than we sold them for goes to show what a shortsighted and flawed policy it was. Had we kept them, built around them and seriously gone for promotion the chances are we'd have gone up instead of those clubs or if not we'd have had Cairney etc. worth 5 or 6 times what we actually sold him for. 

So we got the triple whammy - selling best players for less than they could have fetched - weakening ourselves massively - strengthening rivals massively. 

My view is that if you ignore or try to justify their behaviour between 2015 and 2017 and instead focus all your attentions on what they did from 2017-present then you're leaving yourself open to major disappointment. 

Every club is a selling club insofar as a bigger club in a higher league wants one of your players then you're going to struggle to keep him. But when you're actively following a policy of selling all your best players to whoever wants them from the same division then that isn't acceptable. To my knowledge no club in the Championship has embarked on such a firesale of quality as we did to league rivals. Plenty sell the odd player or two mainly to higher divisions but that isn't what we did. 

 

The Brighton team that sold Ulloa that season - and swelled their turnover to 25 million without parachute payments because they’ve filled the Amex every week for nearly a decade?

Fulham, a team with turnover 3x ours at that time, who owe about half of what we do to our owners? 

Our financial situation was comparable to Bolton not Brighton. Dwindling revenues, a half empty stadium and a team full of players needing paying off. 

It doesn’t take much more than a skim through recent reports, financial analysis etc - to see the club hasn’t got the same burdens- remember the figure they initially said “5 million” a year... we laughed at the time, but they ended up spending 100+ on literally nothing.

To expect them to plug the gaps in 2015, and use the fact that they didn’t as potential for more key player sales - it’s disingenuous imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JHRover said:

Every Championship club is a selling club? Tell me when the last time Fulham sold a key player to a Championship rival? Villa? Derby? Preston? 

 

Didn’t they sell Scott Malone To Huddersfield 2 years ago, you know... them who got promoted? 

And Ross McCormack the year before to recently relegated Villa?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JHRover said:

We need to be bolstering the squad with permanent signings to begin with whilst retaining all those we want to keep. So get rid of Feeney, Ward, Gladwin, possibly Whittingham make a decision on Evans and Conway, sign 4 or 5 Championship standard players to replace them, new contracts for Dack and Graham along with others if needed, bid for Armstrong, then sign a couple of quality loans later on if needed.

If you have ambitions as a club you don't sell your best players to rivals. So if someone wants Dack it should be the Premier League or nothing. I'm tired of sob stories about FFP and parachute money. If we're serious about moving forward we fight and we keep who we want to keep unless the player has a step up to a higher division.

Shrewsbury being a typical example, limited funds and punching above their weight. We all thought they'd fall away but they never did. You dont necessarily need a big budget or big names, just guys with skill and hunger

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Biz said:

The Brighton team that sold Ulloa that season - and swelled their turnover to 25 million without parachute payments because they’ve filled the Amex every week for nearly a decade?

Fulham, a team with turnover 3x ours at that time, who owe about half of what we do to our owners? 

Our financial situation was comparable to Bolton not Brighton. Dwindling revenues, a half empty stadium and a team full of players needing paying off. 

It doesn’t take much more than a skim through recent reports, financial analysis etc - to see the club hasn’t got the same burdens- remember the figure they initially said “5 million” a year... we laughed at the time, but they ended up spending 100+ on literally nothing.

To expect them to plug the gaps in 2015, and use the fact that they didn’t as potential for more key player sales - it’s disingenuous imo.

Yes, to Leicester a team a league above them. Brighton massively in debt to their owner who poured fortunes in to get them promoted and admitted himself they'd have probably failed Ffp rules if they missed promotion (though would have probably fought an embargo rather than accept it as we did). 

Fulham owe £100 million+ to their owner. They finished below us the season before we decided to sell our best player to them for a knock-down fee without even consulting our manager.

An extra few thousand through the doors every week won't account for millions on new players.

Every club in the Championship loses millions a year. We aren't a special case on that front. Thanks to these owners we're one of a very small number who decided to try and solve it by selling everyone decent. The direct consequence was relegation and millions more lost.

Anyhow, I think we're getting off track. My point was that some (Chaddy) are convincing themselves that these owners won't dream of selling Dack or others to rivals for a fee like £3 million. My point stands that they've a very recent record of doing exactly that, so i wouldn't be surprised at all if they did it again when it suits them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

Yes, to Leicester a team a league above them. Brighton massively in debt to their owner who poured fortunes in to get them promoted and admitted himself they'd have probably failed Ffp rules if they missed promotion (though would have probably fought an embargo rather than accept it as we did). 

Fulham owe £100 million+ to their owner. They finished below us the season before we decided to sell our best player to them for a knock-down fee without even consulting our manager.

An extra few thousand through the doors every week won't account for millions on new players.

Every club in the Championship loses millions a year. We aren't a special case on that front. Thanks to these owners we're one of a very small number who decided to try and solve it by selling everyone decent. The direct consequence was relegation and millions more lost.

Anyhow, I think we're getting off track. My point was that some (Chaddy) are convincing themselves that these owners won't dream of selling Dack or others to rivals for a fee like £3 million. My point stands that they've a very recent record of doing exactly that, so i wouldn't be surprised at all if they did it again when it suits them.

But after years of being badly advised, they have finally learned .. Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Biz said:

Didn’t they sell Scott Malone To Huddersfield 2 years ago, you know... them who got promoted? 

And Ross McCormack the year before to recently relegated Villa?

I'll give you McCormack but then again Fulham themselves signed him from Leeds for £11 million a couple of years earlier.

Malone joined Huddersfield after they were promoted - higher division = fair enough. Doubt Fulham would have sold him to Bristol City last summer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JHRover said:

I'll give you McCormack but then again Fulham themselves signed him from Leeds for £11 million a couple of years earlier.

Malone joined Huddersfield after they were promoted - higher division = fair enough. Doubt Fulham would have sold him to Bristol City last summer.

All clubs are selling clubs. It’s about scenario. The Rao’s could’ve put more in but I personally believe the better long term route was to put an end to the years of posting huge losses.

Of course, they could’ve put 20m in transfers and wages around those key ones that left, but that fact in isolation ignores the probable outcome of that - the previous record of poor managers appointed, the “chairman” you name costing the club millions, The ever decreasing turnover and support, all the issues in squad depth, youth setup, scouting and staffing that constant upheaval of management can cause. I can’t imagine a scenario prior to league one that would’ve taken us up.

If Brighton stayed in the championship for another season or two - you can imagine they might’ve suffered in a similar way, having to cut back. The continuity in direction and clever investment over a sustained period pushed them forwards. They built a team and squad sensibly without parachute payments, and it paid off.

If Fulham stay at this level, I can see a few players leaving. I don’t personally think there’s much of a difference between selling to a premier league team and a championship rival, it’s still losing a quality player. Newcastle signed Hanley originally, in the championship too.. I wouldn’t call that “setting the tone”.

You say you won’t be suprised if Mercermans theory of him leaving for 3 million, I cannot agree. I’d be shocked and mortified personally. It would be a flash back to more idiotic venkys decisions, and I couldn’t see TM or the club management accepting such an insulting price. If someone offers daft money... I can imagine that scenario!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mcgoldrick not a bad shout , I was kind of hoping a cheeky loan bid for Scott Hogan or Jonathan Kodija  from villa because whether they do or don't get promoted they will probably end up moving on

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Surely you're not still falling for that old chestnut that all those players had their heads turned by other clubs and pushed to leave?

It was the club who wanted them gone and they went. Not the other way around. 

The evidence for that is the way the £30 million disappeared not to be seen again. Clubs that reluctantly lose their better players generally follow that up with a signal of intent by replacing them, not pocketing the dosh and replacing with trash.

The club wanted them sold. By the time Marshall, Hanley and Duffy (our last 3 decent players) were bundled out the door to Championship rivals the club and owners had made their intentions abundantly clear by getting shut of Cairney, Gestede, Rhodes and Olsson with no reinvestment along with the Lambert fiasco and appointing a clown like Coyle as manager. Those decent players left knew full well the club was going one way and the owners wanted the £30 million that came with it.

I recall people making comments about 'grass being greener' when Ben Marshall left Wolves to go to Millwall in January yet last time i checked he went on to play a central role in them rocketing up the table and nearly making the play-offs. Millwall and their fans very impressed by his contributions to a team that finished in the top 10 of the Championship last season, so another one who I'd class as 'decent'.

Sorry, I disagree. Duffy was a numpty who wanted out. I don't blame him though, we'd just employed Owen Coyle as manager and he saw me off too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Bridcutt would just be an inferior version of Smallwood on higher wages whose struggled at Championship level for a bit now.

Bridcutt is defensive midfield who passing and tackles. Ideal next to Smallwood. Upgrade on Evans. 

Bridcutt struggled at Championship level? Really? Can you explain what you mean by struggle? 

2 hours ago, JHRover said:

Is it a different situation? You tell me. I thought it was a different situation when Bowyer was manager, then he was sacked and Coyle happened. 

We had a CEO in place when Cairney was sold. Derek Shaw was his name. Didn't stop a player being sold behind the manager's back.

Every Championship club is a selling club? Tell me when the last time Fulham sold a key player to a Championship rival? Villa? Derby? Preston? 

 

Was it Behind Bowyer back or was he happy for Cairney to go? 

Did Shaw and Bowyer go to India that summer or was it just Cheston?

Now this summer Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston are going? That would say they trust Mowbray and his judgement. 

Biz has already give you an example and more. 

 

1 hour ago, roversfan99 said:

Think the Lancashire Telegraph dont really know what they are talking about.

Dont think anyone seems to have good links any more really, signings tend to go undetected.

Probably cos nothing is leak by the club to them. Mowbray likes to it within the club and no leaks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

Bridcutt is defensive midfield who passing and tackles. Ideal next to Smallwood. Upgrade on Evans. 

Bridcutt struggled at Championship level? Really? Can you explain what you mean by struggle? 

Was it Behind Bowyer back or was he happy for Cairney to go? 

Did Shaw and Bowyer go to India that summer or was it just Cheston?

Now this summer Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston are going? That would say they trust Mowbray and his judgement. 

Biz has already give you an example and more. 

 

Probably cos nothing is leak by the club to them. Mowbray likes to it within the club and no leaks. 

Bridcutt has been poor last couple of seasons Chaddy.If he was doing well Forest wouldn't be looking to get rid of him.

We need a midfielder who can pass the ball,Bridcutt is similar to what we already have 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike E said:

Remember that Rich Sharpe may have been asked by the club to keep it under wraps so as not to derail a potential deal.

I'm sure it happened once or twice when Cryer was our journo. By which I mean saying 'Nothing in it', then the player in question turning up a week later. Think Santa Cruz was an example.

What you mean is the agents have asked Sharpe to keep it under wraps. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Bridcutt has been poor last couple of seasons Chaddy.If he was doing well Forest wouldn't be looking to get rid of him.

We need a midfielder who can pass the ball,Bridcutt is similar to what we already have 

Biz and chaddy along with the LT can ferk right off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Bridcutt is defensive midfield who passing and tackles. Ideal next to Smallwood. Upgrade on Evans. 

Bridcutt struggled at Championship level? Really? Can you explain what you mean by struggle? 

Was it Behind Bowyer back or was he happy for Cairney to go? 

Did Shaw and Bowyer go to India that summer or was it just Cheston?

Now this summer Mowbray, Waggott and Cheston are going? That would say they trust Mowbray and his judgement. 

Biz has already give you an example and more. 

 

Probably cos nothing is leak by the club to them. Mowbray likes to it within the club and no leaks. 

Far from ideal, too similar to Smallwood. 

Hes been at Sunderland, Leeds and now Forest and not convincingly become a regular at any club, the latter of which has a poor squad.

Not denying that Mowbray strives to keep transfer dealings as quiet as possible, as any manager would, but main reason is that the journalists at the Lancashire Telegraph dont seem to know their arse from their elbow in that regards anyway. Even when transfers have been leaked, the Lancashire Telegraph always lags behind nowadays and just repeats information a day or 2 after it breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JAL said:

What you mean is the agents have asked Sharpe to keep it under wraps. 

No because agents want noise for their clients, not silence.

You'd think with your obsession you'd know how agents worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pomster said:

Shrewsbury being a typical example, limited funds and punching above their weight. We all thought they'd fall away but they never did. You dont necessarily need a big budget or big names, just guys with skill and hunger

And a good gaffer. I’d trust Mowbray more with 3 mil then I would Kean with 30.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JHRover said:

Yes, to Leicester a team a league above them. Brighton massively in debt to their owner who poured fortunes in to get them promoted and admitted himself they'd have probably failed Ffp rules if they missed promotion (though would have probably fought an embargo rather than accept it as we did). 

Fulham owe £100 million+ to their owner. They finished below us the season before we decided to sell our best player to them for a knock-down fee without even consulting our manager.

An extra few thousand through the doors every week won't account for millions on new players.

Every club in the Championship loses millions a year. We aren't a special case on that front. Thanks to these owners we're one of a very small number who decided to try and solve it by selling everyone decent. The direct consequence was relegation and millions more lost.

Anyhow, I think we're getting off track. My point was that some (Chaddy) are convincing themselves that these owners won't dream of selling Dack or others to rivals for a fee like £3 million. My point stands that they've a very recent record of doing exactly that, so i wouldn't be surprised at all if they did it again when it suits them.

It is a fair point tbh. But stop it. You are ruining my Friday night!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Biz said:

All clubs are selling clubs. It’s about scenario. The Rao’s could’ve put more in but I personally believe the better long term route was to put an end to the years of posting huge losses.

Of course, they could’ve put 20m in transfers and wages around those key ones that left, but that fact in isolation ignores the probable outcome of that - the previous record of poor managers appointed, the “chairman” you name costing the club millions, The ever decreasing turnover and support, all the issues in squad depth, youth setup, scouting and staffing that constant upheaval of management can cause. I can’t imagine a scenario prior to league one that would’ve taken us up.

If Brighton stayed in the championship for another season or two - you can imagine they might’ve suffered in a similar way, having to cut back. The continuity in direction and clever investment over a sustained period pushed them forwards. They built a team and squad sensibly without parachute payments, and it paid off.

If Fulham stay at this level, I can see a few players leaving. I don’t personally think there’s much of a difference between selling to a premier league team and a championship rival, it’s still losing a quality player. Newcastle signed Hanley originally, in the championship too.. I wouldn’t call that “setting the tone”.

You say you won’t be suprised if Mercermans theory of him leaving for 3 million, I cannot agree. I’d be shocked and mortified personally. It would be a flash back to more idiotic venkys decisions, and I couldn’t see TM or the club management accepting such an insulting price. If someone offers daft money... I can imagine that scenario!

 

"The Raos could have put more in..."!!! Really? Instead they sold all our best players and we got relegated! Remember?

At some point in the future you are going to be shocked and mortified. The Raos specialise in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • K-Hod pinned this topic
  • K-Hod locked this topic
  • K-Hod unpinned this topic
  • K-Hod unlocked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.