Transfer Rumours Summer 2025 Transfer Thread…

  • 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!
Stockholm Tiger said:
So we've brought in 64 players and of those we've moved 40 on.

Am I right in saying that out of those 40 (and I know some were loans) we've only made a profit on Philogene.

That a pretty amazing way to run a club at out level.
Click to expand...

There has definitely been too much churn but I feel like the article is doing us a bit of a disservice in that a hefty proportion of them are loanees, and them returning to their parent club is being classed as them moving on. We've signed 64, but 21 were loans that we didn't sign permanantly.

According to that list, of the players we've signed and sold in that timeframe, we made profit on Philogene and Tetteh. Oscar was signed for free and left for "Undisclosed", so probably add him too, and we have Longman, Allsop, Lokilo and Celi (who isn't actually in the out list so it should be 41 out) who are undisclosed in and out, so it's possible we made a bit, but also that we didn't.

That said, there are also only 3 that we made a definite loss on - Sayyadmanesh (-2.5), Tufan (-1), Sinik (-4!). Ryan Woods was undisclosed in, and free out, so a probable loss.

The vast majority of the players we actually paid a transfer fee for are still here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim the Tiger, ashbees_captains_armband and Stockholm Tiger
Fuc
Christophalophados said:
There has definitely been too much churn but I feel like the article is doing us a bit of a disservice in that a hefty proportion of them are loanees, and them returning to their parent club is being classed as them moving on. We've signed 64, but 21 were loans that we didn't sign permanantly.

According to that list, of the players we've signed and sold in that timeframe, we made profit on Philogene and Tetteh. Oscar was signed for free and left for "Undisclosed", so probably add him too, and we have Longman, Allsop, Lokilo and Celi (who isn't actually in the out list so it should be 41 out) who are undisclosed in and out, so it's possible we made a bit, but also that we didn't.

That said, there are also only 3 that we made a definite loss on - Sayyadmanesh (-2.5), Tufan (-1), Sinik (-4!). Ryan Woods was undisclosed in, and free out, so a probable loss.

The vast majority of the players we actually paid a transfer fee for are still here.
Click to expand...


Kin Sinik eh. Nice earner if you can get it
 
Christophalophados said:
There has definitely been too much churn but I feel like the article is doing us a bit of a disservice in that a hefty proportion of them are loanees, and them returning to their parent club is being classed as them moving on. We've signed 64, but 21 were loans that we didn't sign permanantly.

According to that list, of the players we've signed and sold in that timeframe, we made profit on Philogene and Tetteh. Oscar was signed for free and left for "Undisclosed", so probably add him too, and we have Longman, Allsop, Lokilo and Celi (who isn't actually in the out list so it should be 41 out) who are undisclosed in and out, so it's possible we made a bit, but also that we didn't.

That said, there are also only 3 that we made a definite loss on - Sayyadmanesh (-2.5), Tufan (-1), Sinik (-4!). Ryan Woods was undisclosed in, and free out, so a probable loss.

The vast majority of the players we actually paid a transfer fee for are still here.
Click to expand...
I'd say we got our money's worth out of Tufan 100%, I have a sneaky feeling that Woods cost us more than it may first appear, purely based on reported wages rather than incoming and outgoing costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
pierredelafranchesca said:
I'd say we got our money's worth out of Tufan 100%, I have a sneaky feeling that Woods cost us more than it may first appear, purely based on reported wages rather than incoming and outgoing costs.
Click to expand...
Yes, I nearly commented something similar myself. We don't mind losing a million in transfers when someone plays a lot of games and wins us points like Tufan did. Sayyadmanesh and Sinik though... sheesh
 
  • Like
Reactions: pierredelafranchesca
Christophalophados said:
Yes, I nearly commented something similar myself. We don't mind losing a million in transfers when someone plays a lot of games and wins us points like Tufan did. Sayyadmanesh and Sinik though... sheesh
Click to expand...
Sinik is up there as one of our worst perm signings ever, a definite challenger for that award with lads like Bullard and Olofinjana, Sayyadmanesh is a funny one, were it not for injuries I think he could have worked out, definitely not in the absolute stinker category that Sinik is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim the Tiger
pierredelafranchesca said:
Sinik is up there as one of our worst perm signings ever, a definite challenger for that award with lads like Bullard and Olofinjana, Sayyadmanesh is a funny one, were it not for injuries I think he could have worked out, definitely not in the absolute stinker category that Sinik is.
Click to expand...

And (through no fault of his own obviously) Ryan Mason as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pierredelafranchesca
pierredelafranchesca said:
Sinik is up there as one of our worst perm signings ever, a definite challenger for that award with lads like Bullard and Olofinjana, Sayyadmanesh is a funny one, were it not for injuries I think he could have worked out, definitely not in the absolute stinker category that Sinik is.
Click to expand...
Maybe my brain is failing me, but i don't remember Olofinjana being particularly bad?
 
  • Like
Reactions: askewshair, Benjo, carry_on_the_grudge and 2 others
pierredelafranchesca said:
Sinik is up there as one of our worst perm signings ever, a definite challenger for that award with lads like Bullard and Olofinjana, Sayyadmanesh is a funny one, were it not for injuries I think he could have worked out, definitely not in the absolute stinker category that Sinik is.
Click to expand...

Sayyadmanesh is doing incredibly well in Belgium. Was always a decent player but never worked out here. Injuries didn’t help either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ashbees_captains_armband, rovertiger, Steven Toast and 2 others
Christophalophados said:
Maybe my brain is failing me, but i don't remember Olofinjana being particularly bad?
Click to expand...

He wasn't bad at all, but we gave him a stupid contract and then spent most of it trying to get rid of him as it was crippling us. There were a few players around that time in a similar situation.
 
Christophalophados said:
Maybe my brain is failing me, but i don't remember Olofinjana being particularly bad?
Click to expand...
I think similarly to Bullard, was signed at a time we had no money for a decent fee and was regularly injured and once we went down we had the pair of them on give or take 45k and 30k a week in the championship, SO basically hung around for the 4 years of his contract playing on loan for the last 2 before he left on a free. Timing rather than him being a shocking player, he was basically Bullard-lite
 
We always seem to do poorly in cash returns for outlays.

In my time going, off the top of my head I can only think of

Brian Horton - sales of his signings Jobson, Payton, Parker - must have brought him into profit
Dolan - sales of his signings of Windass, Fettis, Brown - must have put his dealings well into profit
Bruce - sales of Harry M and others must have put his dealings into profit.
 
PLT said:
He wasn't bad at all, but we gave him a stupid contract and then spent most of it trying to get rid of him as it was crippling us. There were a few players around that time in a similar situation.
Click to expand...

Stelios Giannakopoulos on a two year deal was a pointless load of wages we could have saved.
 
Christophalophados said:
There has definitely been too much churn but I feel like the article is doing us a bit of a disservice in that a hefty proportion of them are loanees, and them returning to their parent club is being classed as them moving on. We've signed 64, but 21 were loans that we didn't sign permanantly.

According to that list, of the players we've signed and sold in that timeframe, we made profit on Philogene and Tetteh. Oscar was signed for free and left for "Undisclosed", so probably add him too, and we have Longman, Allsop, Lokilo and Celi (who isn't actually in the out list so it should be 41 out) who are undisclosed in and out, so it's possible we made a bit, but also that we didn't.

That said, there are also only 3 that we made a definite loss on - Sayyadmanesh (-2.5), Tufan (-1), Sinik (-4!). Ryan Woods was undisclosed in, and free out, so a probable loss.

The vast majority of the players we actually paid a transfer fee for are still here.
Click to expand...

Nearly a third of our signings since Acun took over have been loans.

That’s quite remarkable and might go some way to explaining why it takes us so long to get going at the start of a season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christophalophados
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back