Transfer watch....

If they are gonna give Pitman a go at replacing Murphy fair enough.......it is all the bullshit and pantomime of leading fans on that has annoyed me........everytime it's 'money is there to spend' and then 'won't pay over the odds' **** me I don't know many transfers which in the real world isn't 'over the odds' that's modern football for ya....but if your gonna enter into that game at least play it a little.......as I've said before I don't like a high turnover of players and preferred the days of one maybe two a season but if you say something at least stick to it every now and then.

Rant over ....


...CoYB
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nuggets and Tony-write
Spanish said:
Yeah but we have saved on Murphy, Stewart's and Piotr's wages, which the bigwigs fail to ****ing mention.
Oh and how fecking stupid anyway, replace our best striker with loaners and in the process spunk two thirds of the money on giving other clubs players game time.
At the end of the season we lose these players and also the money from the sale of Murphy,.lose ****ing lose imo.
What makes it worse is that people are OK with this and are saying it was a good window, you couldn't make it up!!
It's a fecking disgrace and just shows how clueless our owner and manager are!
Click to expand...

Spanish we've had to settle both Stewart / Piotr's contract so not sure where you're going with this? We'll have made a saving over the year of their deals but still had to shell out quite a fee upfront to settle or they wouldn't have agreed to it. Maybe saved 30 - 40% over keeping them on the books for a year but upfront a big hit.
 
Nah it's all bullshit, you can't get away from the fact we have just thrown money away, might as well have torn it up and thrown it down the drain, the loanees are not enough to take us up and they will go back to parent clubs at end of the season. Then we are left with no money and no players, where's the sense in that?
It's a little like renting, you are paying someone else's mortgage to live in their house but at the end of the lease, you have nothing to show for all that outlay!
Fecking madness imo and you won't convince me otherwise!
Oh and westy, please enlighten me on how much was paid to terminate contracts, what makes you think it was a big hit, coz I very much doubt it was!! Certainly much less than if they were to see their contracts out, of that you can be sure!
 
Even if we have used a large percentage of the Murphy money on loan wages or paying up contracts, it's the players that we have brought in that's part of the problem. If we only have x amount of money to spend on players / loans, we need to bring in players for the positions we need, the loan signings are all midfielders (no matter what the club says, Lawrence is a midfielder not a striker - especially when playing 1 up front). If we assume that Skuse and Ward are guaranteed to start, that means it's 3 from...williams, Lawrence, grant, bru, bishop, Sears, Douglas (& that doesn't include coke, dozzell or McConnell). Sears is never going to play as a lone striker as holding the ball up is not his game. I know a lot of people are pleased to see Williams back - I was until we didn't bring in a striker. I would rather the 3rd loan be used on a player that was needed. If Pittman gets injured, we have major problems
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spanish
Spanish said:
Nah it's all bullshit, you can't get away from the fact we have just thrown money away, might as well have torn it up and thrown it down the drain, the loanees are not enough to take us up and they will go back to parent clubs at end of the season. Then we are left with no money and no players, where's the sense in that?
It's a little like renting, you are paying someone else's mortgage to live in their house but at the end of the lease, you have nothing to show for all that outlay!
Fecking madness imo and you won't convince me otherwise!
Oh and westy, please enlighten me on how much was paid to terminate contracts, what makes you think it was a big hit, coz I very much doubt it was!! Certainly much less than if they were to see their contracts out, of that you can be sure!
Click to expand...

We'd give the players a lump sum upfront and it'd have to be an amount that would suit both - if we offered Stewart 30% of his deal, he's clearly going to decline and want a bigger %%%. I obviously like you and everyone else don't know the amount, but I'd imagine we've had to pay both 60% or so of their contract. Annoying.
 
Ive no problem with players leaving and as Mick says theres no point in keeping an unhappy player, Murphy was clearly tapped up by Newcastle via his agent and knew what the deal was before he even handed in his transfer request, so that pisses me off although its a perfectly legal practice apparently, what I cant stand is the way money raised from transfer sales such as Cresswell, Mings, and Murphy which at a conservative estimate totals in excess of £18M seems to disappear even though promises are made that it will re invested in playing staff, this clearly doesn't happen but the debt continues to grow, so if players are not being bought with the money and the debt isn't being reduced either, then where has it gone? £18M isn't exactly petty cash is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: San Diego
Field Marshall - our wage bill is over £18 mill per annum. We lose around £9 mill per season before selling players, so the £18 mill for that lot simply goes back into the running costs of the club I'm afraid. Given we're losing that per year, you're right we're not going to reduce the debt it's only increasing year upon year. This is going to continue until we do get into the prem. There's also other costs like the new £600,000 training pitch, and the £2 mill a year investment the club put into the academy.

Without the sales, well I dread to think. At least we've got some decent fees of late though. Cresswell deal if he gets England honours could end up over £7 mill. A lot more than the reported £3.75 mill etc. The sales of players goes back into new contracts and ensuring we're within FFP legislation I suppose.

Not to say I'm happy with the club but sadly that's the state of this division. An absolute ruddy mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: itfcptc
Westy...do you know if that figure of 18m is correct? Seems a lot to me (or does that include non playing staff?) If that's just players, then that doesn't add up. Even if you take an average of 10k a week for 24 players (can't see many being on more) then that's just over 12m a year. Obviously if you add in Mick n TC and the coaches n tea lady, then yeah, yours is much closer to the real figure.
And again, so you know that our operating costs are around 27m?
 
Stretchy, westy would have done his homework before giving us figures, he knows he would be put straight if he was wrong and no way would he want me having a dig at him for making figures up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigalreigned
Westy what you say makes perfect sense but a bit sad in a way, if it takes £18M to field an upper mid table Championship side for a season and then we have a 50% loss on that figure then basically we are insolvent, and if we were to run on a break even basis about the best we could hope for is a 3rd division side. If £27M a season running costs only gets you a mid table Championship side then I can see a time when the Championship will become a 2 tier division in line with the Prem and 5 year parachute payments brings this prospect closer with every season, it surely wasn't supposed to be this way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back