Ok I a Ok I accept all of that - like I said I didn’t trust Ashton, but trying to sit on the fence.... He bought in Webster and sold him for a HUGE profit Others too, with smaller profits: Eliasson, Kelly, Tomlin etc. From a purely FINANCIAL perspective he could argue he made us money. Like I said, I didn’t trust him - just playing’devils advocate’
I think you'll find we lost money on Eliasson and Tomlin and Kelly came through the academy. And as a footnote to that Eliasson's team Nimes were relegated to ligue 2, which is generally a shocking standard.
As did Bobby Reid and Joe Bryan. Brownhill was the other signed that we made a profit. So that's 2 from 65 we made a profit on. So we've lost on most of 63 other signings. Bloody hell when you start listing how much this lot cost (transfer and wages) you can scarcely believe what a shambles actually happened. Engvall, D'onny, Taylor Moore, Kent.........was just the start. Ps - R&W, I'm on the fence as well.
I might be wrong, but I thought the accounts showed that there wasn't much in it regarding profit and loss regarding players come the end of LJ's reign..
I think the point might be value for money, quite a few of the loans and even some of the permanent signings barely made double figure appearances.
Just as a snapshot in the 2016/17 season we made 25 signings 14 we paid fees for + 7 free + 4 loans. That is unsustainable. 2 of the players signed for fees played 2 times each and one zero times. of the 7 free transfers 1 player played twice and Oneil played quite a few, the other 5 never played at all. That does not represent value for money.
It impacts heavily on the the overall profit you mentioned, but is not factored in, loans, free transfers and obviously paid for signings eat up transfer budgets, especially foreign with foreign players, which in that particular season accounted for 9 players, we just about broke even on the sale of 1 player, 1 is still with us but probably not worth what we paid for him, the rest were losses. Pretty much a similar scenario for the English based players we signed that season, with the notable exception of Brownhill. Our transfer policy in those early days of Ashton/LJ were incredibly scatter gun, expensive and wasteful and contributed to the later poor recruitment to replace sales of our better players and ultimately our dysfunctional transfer policy and is another reason why we are looking at the quality of player we currently are, which is why I think maybe 2 or more of our better players maybe sacrificed to help with recruitment.
I hope not, we need to add to them, not sell our best players, nothing would surprise me but I hope not.
Ashton/ Jiffie Have we got players worth that much at the end of Johnson's tenure? Back then we unloaded Bryan, Pack, Flint, Ayling, Kelly, Freeman, Reid etc. That's 7. How many of the present rabble would bring any profit ?
The answer to that is Bentley maybe if we are lucky and of course players like Semenyo and Vyner who originally cost nowt and Bakinson who wasn't a huge fee. But I cannot think of 1 other player we could recoup what we laid out for them, probably not even close. But I suspect if correct the 2 Euro bound players probably want to leave for other reasons.
Agree, but Isn’t this partly because players’ stock has plummeted as clubs are reeling from the effects of the lockdown?
As you say partly yes, but take away the pandemic, with the 2 seasons we have endured on field, I suspect that the same would still be true, only Bentley would stand any chance of increasing the fee that we paid for him, I cannot think of anybody else who go for a profit.
It makes you wonder, we shipped out 11 players which to us are worthless, in our first team squad we have got 2 or 3 players to be kind which are worth good money, that is it, what a absolute weakened base line NP has to start with. We need a miracle.
I think Pearson's mad to take on the dross Johnson has left us with. Or is he thinking a nice 3 year contract will take me to 60years old. And enough to retire on.
