I think people are saying that the owners are stripping the club of it's assets (ie players) to repay the debt to them.
The bigger plan
- Thread starter Tony Angelino
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Isn't selling the assets and not replacing them the definition of asset stripping?
Yes, I have never subscribed to the asset stripping theory. Transfer money received since papa shut the cheque book has been used to pay the bills, yes, including gift interest. But that interest would be payable to a bank, and right now that bank would be getting a bit twitchy. At least it is owed to them. Waits for the defender/apologist accusations.
The assets have been replaced. Albeit sold the odd Rembrandt for a charcoal sketch, but the assets have been sold and replaced.
There's a distinct difference between what they seem to be doing(using the money to fund the club) and pocketing the money(asset stripping)?
Nope.
They are replacing them, but with lower cost, and inevitably, overall lower quality.
Asset stripping would be selling anything and everything with any value, and either not replacing it or else replacing it as cheaply as possible. They haven't done that e.g. they didn't have to spend on Scott, Festus, Wilks, etc, they could have used kids or total freebies, and we would also have seen others sold too.
Their approach has been dumb in practice / execution, but it is not asset stripping. With better execution their approach could easily have seen us still in the Championship (which I'm sure was their intention, but yet again they ****ed up, or more specifically, Ehab ****ed up - I wonder what his old man says to him behind closed doors).
Did Bowen want to stay?
Did he actually consider staying or did he think 'hang on a minute,I'm being offered 5 or 6 times my salary to move to a new job'?
It's their business, it'll never be their club.
The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
My point wasn't Bowen should have stayed my point was they should have replaced him with a permanent signing.
No one can with a straight face or multiple brain cells claim the assets have been replaced when our permanent senior squad is tiny and we don't even have a senior right back anymore.
Hang on a minute mate!! I'm defending nothing here,I'm making statements based on some fact.The Allams aren't my particular flavour of the month at this moment in time but I'm ****ed if I'm just gonna follow your logic to suit your agenda.
Different opinions on their failings aren't a defence of them.
There's literally no-one on here who thinks they've done well for the club right now.
Maddison was just another **** up, this time by both Enob and McCann. Who knows if it would have been turned into a permanent in due course, something we've done many times through our history, it's common practice (think for example the Man U lads),
Of course 'assets' (let's call them players) have been replaced, and will be replaced. We've been able to field a full squad, even including the expanded subs bench. We've brought new players in, be they permanents or loans ... loans are just normal business for non-PL clubs.
Sorry Syd but you're talking daft. Yes, they've made some stupid errors (time and time and time again) including leaving the squad without a decent senior specialist right back (among several other gaping absences), but that's just incompetence coupled with arrogance, stubbornness and tightness.
I think it's quite clearly disingenuous to suggest selling high value assets for free agents and loanees is anything other than asset stripping but everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Scott £1.6 million
Elder £1.4 million
Honeyman 400k
Wilks Undisclosed but not free
Samuelsen Undisclosed but not free (likely to have been fairly significant layout).
Arthur Undisclosed by not free
McCloughlin Undisclosed but not free
I'm sure I've missed quite a few more.
Then with the loans, some of those don't come cheap. Kane, Pennington, Maddison, Bowler, ....
Come on Syd, stop it.
Indeed if the facts don't fit a particular narrative, invent your own.
Where on earth did you get those fees from? Elder was a couple of hundred thousand max for starters.
Arthur and McLoughlin were minimal fees as they were from non-League clubs.
Scott the only one there I'll grant you cost us a bit and that was in the wake of the sales of Bowen and Grosicki. I'm not suggesting every single player has been stripped with nothing to replace it, I'm suggesting there has been a gradual and systemic stripping of assets over time that has left us with a threadbare squad of kids and loanees. Blind Freddie could see that.
Yeah right, of course he was!
I could ask you the same question.
Even IF he was only "a couple of hundred thousand" that defeats your argument in itself!! Never mind then the cost of the others. Why on earth would they pay any fee (permanent or loan) if they were simply asset stripping? Please Syd don't bother answering, just let it go now.