Not much profit but at least it is profit and coupled with some premier league football (I know it should have been for longer and we should have watched better football) his tenure has to be regarded as a positive. Doesn't it?
i read it differently... he's made £20 million profit and 9 players part of the £85 million haven't even sold. so actually that's a huge amount of money. But maybe I'm wrong. if we sold all of those 9 players still at the club, the profit would be quite a bit higher. Probably over 40mil
I think the context is different. One is attributing a derogatory moniker to a current player while the other, on the face of it, is calling out a player after he left the club for Stoke. MoH
Many of the players Bruce bought were not bought with profit (as in resale) in mind. They were experienced players, with a track record, who were seen as players who could help the team either gain promotion or stabilize our PL position. Many were at their zenith or close to peaking. e.g. Snodgrass, Huddlestone, even Livermore. A more meaningful analysis would be to look at players like McGuire, Clucas and Robertson, who were young with potential to develop. The profit gained from those signings was rather good, including the lower salaries they had whilst playing for us.
No it wouldn't because people like McGregor, Dawson etc will go for a loss. Hernandez likely will go for free so that's a 10m loss.
Yeah, I'm not sure anybody really knows. Some people saying permanent, some saying a loan. I guess we'll find out today.
Nope. The profit would be higher as overall we are still in profit whether any more money is recouped. The cost of the remaining players is accounted for in the £20m profit. He so far spent £85.05m and recouped £105.7m. £20.65m profit. If hypothetically Bowen is sold for £5m then he will have still spent £85.05 but recouped £110.7m so £25.65m profit.
