Transfer thread Summer 2015

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Cromercanary said:
Fair points, DH <ok>
However, as it's a Thursday lunchtime, I feel I must pull you up on your use of the word 'criteria' which is a plural.
(BBC journos do it as well <grr>) So it should be 'the first criterion' - apologies :huh: :police: <sorry>
Click to expand...

Excellent work, Detective Crabbe.

I foresee a commendation coming your way in the near future :police::emoticon-0171-star:
 
DHCanary said:
Whilst I can see money is perhaps tighter than we'd like:

-Mbokani: Regardless of whether we'd agreed a fee or not, we surely could have done due-dilligence and seen that a work permit would be a sticking point. Surely the first criteria in signing a player, before ability, age, cost, etc, is whether they can actually play in the UK?

-If money is so tight that realistically we've only been able to add Mulumbu and Brady to the first team, (Dorrans was here, Wisdom isn't ours, Kean is irrelevant), why was Brady considered a priority worth paying so much for? Marcos Alonso for a couple of million seems a much safer bet if money is so tight we now can't afford players where we really need them.

-We've been touting RvW for two years now, if Sporting are the only club interested in all that time, why didn't we suck it up and pay a bit of his wages? £4-5m in the kitty and £20k p/w off the wage bill would have been very handy.
Click to expand...

1. The rules regarding work permits has changed in the last few weeks, while we were working on the deal. He'd have got a permit six weeks ago. There were issues with his former employees Anderlecht which hampered any move earlier in the window. Equally, there's the possibility he could get one on appeal - which I'd have thought is where we're at. So it could still happen.

2. Brady covers two positions and is therefore better value for money that buying Alonso and A N Other.

3. I agree but its understandable that the club would try to shift him entirely from the books before resorting to paying a % of his wages.
 
This will get a backlash but I do wonder whether the board care as much about being in the premiership as Watford Bournemouth and other teams do? 25 thousand plus every home game, waiting lists for season tickets without the risk have having to spend biggish money.
 
Granted the sky/bt money is massive, but to sustain a place you have to spend big in most cases. If you look at what teams like Stoke and now even west brom and palace have spent. If we are fighting promotion most seasons ala west brom a few years back, could conceivably get best of both worlds. Just an idea that my old man has mentioned a few times.
 
casualcanary said:
This will get a backlash but I do wonder whether the board care as much about being in the premiership as Watford Bournemouth and other teams do? 25 thousand plus every home game, waiting lists for season tickets without the risk have having to spend biggish money.
Click to expand...

I suspect, even though you posted it, that you know it's not true. They've given significant backing to every manager where its been possible and they're doing likewise now. Imagine we overspent this summer by say £5m and still went down. That £5m would be a massive loss to the club next summer in the Championship! One that could threaten the future of the club. It is wise to spend what you have and no more. If we had a big-money backer it would be slightly different but we don't.

You have to remember that both Bournemouth and Watford have more money behind them. They don't have a side who were already on PL wages either and arguably required more work on their teams than we did. Both have far more money to throw at fees. I'm not convinced, certainly in Bournemouth's case, that the money has been spent very wisely either. Full houses of 27k a week make little difference in the PL - however they are vital in the league below. No club willingly drops out of the PL because of the enormous risk behind getting back. I find it odd anyone would suggest it as a possible.
 
Last edited:
1950canary said:
You of all people should know how businesses have to be run and budgets have to be set and unfortunately NCFC is a business. We already have more than the 25 man squad allowed and buying a new striker and a new CB means than 2 more have to go. If we could sell RVW, Turner, Hooper and Lafferty it would free up enough in the wage budget to cover these new acquisitions and if we could get, say, £12m in total for the 4 of them then added to the,say, £8m we already have left in the transfer budget we have £20m to pay for the new acquisitions although my calculations are probably optimistic. The point is that we cannot buy until we sell because if it all went wrong we would really be in the financial mire.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know.

It all makes sense of course. It just doesn't make me feel happy or warm inside. I just thought as we have had 4 out of 5 seasons in the PL that we would have a bit spare. Maybe stuffed under Delia's mattress or something.
 
Superman wears Grant Holt pyjamas in bed said:
Nothing at all to do with a 'lack of ambition'. If we can't afford to pay more, we can't afford it! Simple as that.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not going to advocate lavish spending, but this is fudging the budget situation a little.

What we can "afford" is relative to how we dress up our budget. You said that the club budgets to finish 18th (and I think the club have said that previously too). On the face of it, that prudence looks extremely sensible. However, that misses the point that the difference between budgeting, say, 19th instead of 18th is negligible, as is the difference between budgeting 17th instead of 16th. But the difference between budgeting for 17th instead of 18th is, literally, millions. If not tens of millions. So by changing our budget to 17th, we would all of a sudden be able to "afford" a lot more.

That's the difference between a major signing or not.

So while budgeting for 18th and finishing 18th means we will be prudent, if budgeting for 18th means we will struggle to finish higher than 18th, that's not actually all that sensible, i.e. if budgeting for 17th would give us a much better chance of staying up.

I'm not saying the club is doing the wrong thing (though on the face of it I doubt other clubs are budgeting for 18th based on transfers so far), I'm just saying that it's not necessarily the case of "budgeting for 18th = prudent, budgeting for 17th = lavish, risky and dangerous" given that the significant gulf in respective budgets might have a very big impact on our chances of staying up (and therefore hedge against the risks of 17th).
 
  • Like
Reactions: FleetCanary
That is sort of partly my point, being in the premiership has in a way hindered us now by having players on expensive wages that we cannot get rid off. Do you not think they might have looked at the RVW situation and even Turner who must be on high wages and think is it really worth the risk. All I am saying, not stating facts just an opinion.
 
Just to add, I haven't just made it up to create debate, genuinely a lot of people I talk to have said the same thing. Maybe we look at it from different angles. Think I am to pessimistic and there are too many happy clappers who would support anything the board say/do. Must be a middle ground we can all agree on.
 
Canary Rob said:
I'm certainly not going to advocate lavish spending, but this is fudging the budget situation a little.

What we can "afford" is relative to how we dress up our budget. You said that the club budgets to finish 18th (and I think the club have said that previously too). On the face of it, that prudence looks extremely sensible. However, that misses the point that the difference between budgeting, say, 19th instead of 18th is negligible, as is the difference between budgeting 17th instead of 16th. But the difference between budgeting for 17th instead of 18th is, literally, millions. If not tens of millions. So by changing our budget to 17th, we would all of a sudden be able to "afford" a lot more.

That's the difference between a major signing or not.

So while budgeting for 18th and finishing 18th means we will be prudent, if budgeting for 18th means we will struggle to finish higher than 18th, that's not actually all that sensible, i.e. if budgeting for 17th would give us a much better chance of staying up.

I'm not saying the club is doing the wrong thing (though on the face of it I doubt other clubs are budgeting for 18th based on transfers so far), I'm just saying that it's not necessarily the case of "budgeting for 18th = prudent, budgeting for 17th = lavish, risky and dangerous" given that the significant gulf in respective budgets might have a very big impact on our chances of staying up (and therefore hedge against the risks of 17th).
Click to expand...

I don't think they will spend what they 'might' never get, no matter how big or small the margins.

casualcanary said:
That is sort of partly my point, being in the premiership has in a way hindered us now by having players on expensive wages that we cannot get rid off. Do you not think they might have looked at the RVW situation and even Turner who must be on high wages and think is it really worth the risk. All I am saying, not stating facts just an opinion.
Click to expand...

No.
 
K E M P said:
Yes, I know.

It all makes sense of course. It just doesn't make me feel happy or warm inside. I just thought as we have had 4 out of 5 seasons in the PL that we would have a bit spare. Maybe stuffed under Delia's mattress or something.
Click to expand...
A lot of the money accumulated in that time was spent by Hughton and Adams which is why we allegedly had the best squad in the Championship. No need for despair. There is plenty of time left to sell 3 or 4 and buy 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back