Doncaster & Strihavka

[spm2866 0]

How can a chief execitive state a cost of a player one minute then when the contract is terminated the real truth comes out?

this man uses spin more then the politicians we have in this country and why?

   Are the Turners watching him like they promised beause i think something stinks here.........

[Huddy 0]

Yes, it can be seen as misleading, but again you will look at it that way if you want to moan.

The club have been clever really, reducing the gamble on an unproven player quite significantly, while also in theory protecting their interests if they did want to complete a permanent deal. I.e, that if he was good, noone would have known about the contract and somehow tried to pinch him, it''s better than a straightforward loan. Be happy hes cost us 250k and not £1 Million!

[Matt Juler 211]

We can''t expect the club to be transparent on everything, at the end of the day they are a business. We should be thankful that such a deal was brokered to start with, otherwise we''d have wasted a lot more money than we have.

[Grando 336]

I do think this has rather blown their cover (not that they really had any left) on the spin front. Really though, why should we believe that it''s ''only'' cost us £240k to pay off Dave - they just seem to pluck figures out of the air when it suits, depending on what message they want to get across. They want it both ways, but I think they''ve gone too far with this - either leave fees etc undisclosed and keep us in the dark, or tell us the truth - but don''t tell us a distorted truth to spin that we''ve spent more/less than we actually have. The PR people at Carrow Road have got this wrong big-time.

[The Voice of the Thorpe Area 0]

Some people are never happy unless they can moan- in this case, a poster has decided to make an Everest out of a bleedin'' mole hill!

[SouthamptonCanary 0]

[quote user="spm2866"]

How can a chief execitive state a cost of a player one minute then when the contract is terminated the real truth comes out?

this man uses spin more then the politicians we have in this country and why?

   Are the Turners watching him like they promised beause i think something stinks here.........

[/quote]

 

I think this kind of ''spin'' as you put it by the club is standard practice by all clubs in all leagues not just NCFC.  When a club announces that they have bought a player for say £5 million it doesn''t normally mean that they have forked out £5 million cash to the other club.  It normally £5 million based upoon things such as Goals, Appearences, International Caps, Time at the club, Sell on fees etc.  

I think this was a good peice of business by the board because it was effectivly a one year loan for £240k with and extra £760k should we choose to take up the 3 year extension on the contract.  I think this is good practise when buying an unknown player from abroad because if he had of done well no other club could have come in and spoid the deal for us.  But as it has worked out we can get shot of him for quite a small loss 

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="Grando"]I do think this has rather blown their cover (not that they really had any left) on the spin front. Really though, why should we believe that it''s ''only'' cost us £240k to pay off Dave - they just seem to pluck figures out of the air when it suits, depending on what message they want to get across. They want it both ways, but I think they''ve gone too far with this - either leave fees etc undisclosed and keep us in the dark, or tell us the truth - but don''t tell us a distorted truth to spin that we''ve spent more/less than we actually have. The PR people at Carrow Road have got this wrong big-time.[/quote]I disagree. If we say that we''ve signed him cheaply on an initial one-year deal with an option to extend it, and then he bangs in a hatful of goals, his agent will start telling him to move on. The deal that was brokered has obviously benefitted us in the long run, thus saving us money. Surely it''s better than the club harping on about ''hidden costs'' and ''agents'' fees'' and all manner of other excuses why we haven''t got the money? What they''ve actually done is saved us two years'' wages and another 350k-odd on transfer fees (seeing as we were told he cost 600k in the first place). Sometimes it''s in our best interests not to be given the full facts. I agree that actually giving a false figure rather than simply not disclosing the figure is a little bit irresponsible, but the financial implications of the situation have worked in our favour in this case, and in hindsight surely you can see why they acted the way they did?

[Tumbleweed 106]

If I get a 100% mortgage on a house worth £200,000 and pay, say £1000 per month to the bank and after 8 months decide I don''t like the house and sell it then it will have cost me £8000 plus early termination charges (ignoring stamp duties, fees, removals etc). So do I say whan I bought it that I bought a £1000 house and then when I sell it that it cost me £200,000? I think not. I have no idea what Doncaster said, but I think on balance getting out the relegation scrap is a tad more important than trying to pick inconsistencies from public statements.

[Grando 336]

I take your point - but I guess we''ll never know the real reason. I still suspect though they bandied about the £600k figure to imply to fans that they''d paid lots of money for a quality striker and were an ambitious board willing to splash the cash... (And hadn''t just signed a cheap, but risky, European gamble.)

Whatever though, I''m happy that cutting our losses will apparently not cost us as much as we''d thought. But I won''t make the mistake of believing any transfer figures they quote again.

The best thing about this is that Roeder knows the players he thinks aren''t up to it and is clearing them out. I just hope the board back him when it comes to signings, because the squad is wafer thin up front now, as the Bury game demonstrated when Jarvis and Martin played...

[Syteanric 1]

he''s siging for Slavia Prague... so he wasnt "on loan" from Banik then was he clint/Caramac?

jas :)

[BBFF 0]

Its not just Doncaster that has lost the trust of the fans, its the whole club. What ever statment comes out of Corrow Rd now I think to my self "wonder what the truth is". You only have to remember Ashton''s trancfer to see why the club has lost the trust it once had.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Burgandy 0]

would you want it the other way? "oh yes we signed a bargain here, £250k! oh crap hes rubbish lets release him and then tell everyone he actually cost £1.2m!"

that would be a good piece of PR wouldnt it.

Lay off doncaster for once

[Trent Canary 0]

Its the fact that this summer we thought we had spent around 1mil. When we hadnt. Meaning we actually spent very little.

[Evil Monkey 52]

Nearly all clubs report the total value of a transfer, including add-ons, rather than any initial fee.  This isn''t a way of misleading the public, it''s just the way it''s nearly always done and reported by the media.  In this instance, this is what has happened - the total value of the transfer deal was quoted.  This is not deception, rather normal practice.  The fact that ND didn''t then go on to explain the ins and outs of the deal is rather obvious, and it seems to me that we were in a position of strength on a transfer deal for a change.

[O.T.B.C 1]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

he''s siging for Slavia Prague... so he wasnt "on loan" from Banik then was he clint/Caramac?

jas :)

[/quote]

Well, it does say that we had him for 1 year for a small payment, then if we did like him we could have payed the rest and if we didn''t like him, then we can release him. Near enough a loan in my eyes, I''m quite happy with the outcome to be honest. Yes he has gone to another club, but it was structered basically like a loan.

[Delias Tasty Nibblets 0]

Some people arent happy unless they are whinging, we signed a potentially top striker, and at the time the club said the deal could eventually cost upwards of one million, cue happiness and optimism!

As it turns out the board took a safe option in having the ability to let him go in the first year and only pay £240,000, rather than be lumped with an extra 1.1M.

Nothing that they have said has been deceptive, naive nor wrong, its business sense.

I''d liken it to poker, we got dealt Ace King, a potentially great hand, but we were behind after the flop (strihavka), so we folded and got out of it lightly!

Well done Doncaster and co.

[spm2866 0]

There are obviously lots of fors and against with my post but at the end of the day why quote a price when its not, but then tell us the full price for another player in Brown?

Both players have failed to live up to anything what we expected! This club has been making to many gambles with players since the premiership and its a truly open wound now......

I hope Glenn has the needle and thread to not just patch it up this time....

Bring us back to glory Glenn, you have my backing 100%

[ricky knight 0]

lets be honest if we went for proven quality rather then crxp we would''nt have wasted so much dough, two players today had contracts cancelled who were never going to do any good here and yes i said it at the time its not hindsight. 

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]lets be honest if we went for proven quality rather then crxp we would''nt have wasted so much dough, two players today had contracts cancelled who were never going to do any good here and yes i said it at the time its not hindsight. [/quote]Brellier was an integral part of a side that finished above Rangers in the SPL and was very close to qualifying for the Champions League group stages. Getting him for nothing was an excellent piece of

business at the time. I don''t think we could reasonably be expecting to

sign players of a much higher calibre than that, could we? I mean the guy was at Inter Milan just a few years ago.Strihavka, on the other hand, was a complete gamble, which backfired spectacularly!

[Mello Yello 2,572]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]Its the fact that this summer we thought we had spent around 1mil. When we hadnt. Meaning we actually spent very little.[/quote]

Yup! And that''s the long an'' short of it Trenty, we were all assuming that we had made an effort to bring in some quality; when we had in fact purchased gold plated tack........Quite frankly, I don''t really care whether the Board or Donkster told ''Pinocchio''s Porkus Pious'' and have proboscis that extend and retract like a telescopic jib on a large ''Quinto'' crane.......It''s just so tiresome these days - and I find it just so incessantly boring.......Ultimately at NCFC, it''s the folk who pull on the shirt on the playing side, the people who coach and manage and those who carry out all the mundane day to day tasks at Carra including the loyal support - who I have real praise for.......

I care nought for what comes from the lips - of those who I really care nought for.....

We are the club......not they. 

 

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="ricky knight"]lets be honest if we went for proven quality rather then crxp we would''nt have wasted so much dough, two players today had contracts cancelled who were never going to do any good here and yes i said it at the time its not hindsight. [/quote]
Brellier was an integral part of a side that finished above Rangers in the SPL and was very close to qualifying for the Champions League group stages. Getting him for nothing was an excellent piece of business at the time. I don''t think we could reasonably be expecting to sign players of a much higher calibre than that, could we? I mean the guy was at Inter Milan just a few years ago.


[/quote]

and theres a vey good reason why he isnt there now!

 It just goes to show the gulf in quality between the scottish Premiership and even the championship! Celtic and Rangers in the premiership? wonder how long theyd last....

jas :)

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="ricky knight"]lets be honest if we went for proven quality rather then crxp we would''nt have wasted so much dough, two players today had contracts cancelled who were never going to do any good here and yes i said it at the time its not hindsight. [/quote]Brellier was an integral part of a side that finished above Rangers in the SPL and was very close to qualifying for the Champions League group stages. Getting him for nothing was an excellent piece of business at the time. I don''t think we could reasonably be expecting to sign players of a much higher calibre than that, could we? I mean the guy was at Inter Milan just a few years ago.

[/quote]

and theres a vey good reason why he isnt there now!

 It just goes to show the gulf in quality between the scottish Premiership and even the championship! Celtic and Rangers in the premiership? wonder how long theyd last....

jas :)

[/quote]The average SPL team would struggle in the Championship, but Rangers and Celtic would hold their own in the Premiership. The Hearts team that finished second was an excellent team, and Brellier was a vital component of it. And we got him for free. You''re just playing the hindsight game!

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="ricky knight"]lets be honest if we went for proven quality rather then crxp we would''nt have wasted so much dough, two players today had contracts cancelled who were never going to do any good here and yes i said it at the time its not hindsight. [/quote]
Brellier was an integral part of a side that finished above Rangers in the SPL and was very close to qualifying for the Champions League group stages. Getting him for nothing was an excellent piece of business at the time. I don''t think we could reasonably be expecting to sign players of a much higher calibre than that, could we? I mean the guy was at Inter Milan just a few years ago.

Strihavka, on the other hand, was a complete gamble, which backfired spectacularly!
[/quote]

There was always a worry about Brellier''s fitness and temperament, i definately at least expect players we sign be at the fitness level required to play. not too much for ask. BTW nothing is for nothing, so he did not take wages off us for doing nout then.

[Yellow Rages 0]

If we budgeted for a 1.1 million pound payment on big dave, does this mean we now have this money available seing as he didn''t last the course?

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]If we budgeted for a 1.1 million pound payment on big dave, does this mean we now have this money available seing as he didn''t last the course?[/quote]

you have more chance of seeing Lord Lucan riding Shergar.

[Mello Yello 2,572]

[quote user="Delias Tasty Nibblets"]Some people arent happy unless they are whinging, we signed a potentially top striker, and at the time the club said the deal could eventually cost upwards of one million, cue happiness and optimism! As it turns out the board took a safe option in having the ability to let him go in the first year and only pay £240,000, rather than be lumped with an extra 1.1M. Nothing that they have said has been deceptive, naive nor wrong, its business sense. I''d liken it to poker, we got dealt Ace King, a potentially great hand, but we were behind after the flop (strihavka), so we folded and got out of it lightly! Well done Doncaster and co.[/quote]

Dave ''The Striker'' was here for 6 whole months......and scored one goal. We paid £240,000 for half a year of his incredulous service. That equates at roughly £40,000 quid a month for his most valuable contribution. (not counting wages, agent fees, accommodation costs etc).

We sold the ''not entirely effective'' Brown to PNE for £400,000 with a supposed £75,000 ''profit''..........Now, if that is good business for those 2 ''strikers''.........I then applaud all those concerned who should really be congratulating themselves, before they all dive head-first into that ''Black Hole''.......that probably leads to URANUS.[:|]

 

[Big Down Under 0]

First, can someone link me to the statement from the club saying we paid 1m up front for Strihavka? Do you really think that its standard practice these days to pay cash up front for players?The only spin here is from those so desperate to slag off our board, they will criticise them at every opportunity. For a player who was a prolific scorer in the Czech league, getting him for 240k was a great bit of business. The fact that he has failed as a player isn''t the boards fault.The board get criticised when they accept a deal for a player with delayed payments (i.e. McKenzie, Ashton etc) and criticised when they buy players with delayed payments and conditional clauses. They just can''t win with some of you lot. Why don''t you at least try and exercise your brains before you whinge?