Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GrantsMoustache

Are we a selling club again then?

Recommended Posts

Until the accounts are published nothing is really known - bar that the terminally dom will continue to over excite themselves about some made up sh ite put out by the media.Personally I cannot see what the childish whining is all about.We get promoted, we receive large sums of money of which we spend on transfer fees and wages to reflect the our new league statusWe get relegated, we receive lower sums of money so any transfers and wages will reflect that new league status.Please explain to me what the club is supposed to be doing that they supposedly are not doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No we''ve not become a selling club cause we''ve sold Snodgrass to a team in a higher Division and for our record transfer fee AND for a fee that is above his true value in my opinion!

Although Snodgrass didn''t ask for a transfer doesn''t mean he didn''t want to leave cause it does seem that in fact he did want to go!

Although Snodgrass was one of our best players last season his inclusion in our side mainly playing out of position on the right hand side of midfield was in my opinion a major factor in the team being poor going forward.

Therefore while I appreciated his efforts for us, (indeed if more players had his desire and workrate we''d of not gone down) his departure can actually benefit the team giving it more balance cause we''ll hopefully see a natural right winger playing on that side next season which will mean more crosses into the box!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies for this long post but my computer doesn''t know how to do quotes.

Jas the barclay king - I know that Snodgrass wasn''t offered a new deal because he said so, as quoted by the Pink Un.

A BBC radio commentator in Humberside said a few days before the deal that it was taking so long because Snodgrass was owed a loyalty bonus because he didn''t request to be sold, so the deal was held up until us and Snodgrass agreed on a settlement figure.

Morty... "Maybe Snodgrass is a Billy Big b******s who considers himself too big to play in the Championship?", see above two citations. But yes, it could be for football reasons. Could well be that Adams just didn''t see Snodgrass fitting in. I''d consider that unlikely though, and Adams has pretty much said there are a few bad eggs - can any of us really see Snoddy being one of them? Because he always seemed to give 100% week in week out and Adams was happy to pick him in those 5 games. We probably just need the cash, understandable I suppose and fair enough if we did.

Reggie. The Tesco analogy is awful because selling groceries and other items is their primary business. With a football club it would be selling tickets and shirts etc. It would only really work if you compared us selling an asset (Snodgrass) to a competitor (Hull), to Tesco selling an asset (A supermarket) to a competitor (Asda). And yes actually Southampton are a selling club, but this has been on the cards ever since their old owners daughters took the reigns and revealed in March that they still owed £27m in transfer fees? They said at the time that they would need to recoup that from the squad or sell to buy. Think thats why Pochettino left.

City1st, no need to be so damn rude and abusive to somebody just because you don''t agree with them, I haven''t been rude to anybody and certainly not to you. I bet you are one of those men who pushes in at the bus stop and doesn''t hold the door open for women! I''d rather be "dim" than outright rude to strangers.

Chicken - I read this bit: "I had one year left of my contract and they didn’t offer me anything else when we went down to the Championship"

Morty 2 - I also think that we had done a good bit of business and haven''t disputed that at all. I just have reason to believe that we didn''t make too much of an effort to keep Snodgrass, which may or may not be the right decision, and may or may not be good business. £8m is a very good price for Snodgrass, I don''t think many people would disagree. It just makes me wonder which other prices have a price, what that price is, who they are, and whether anybody will be matching those prices. I''d really fear for us if we lost Redmond, Fer, Hooper, Olsson, Ruddy. Wouldn''t be much Premier League quality in what we''d be left with.

PurpleCanary - Thank you, exactly my definition above. Those who sell to bolster the balance sheet / meet costs / end a year with a profit, by generating a net surplus on transfer activity. I think that will be us this year, possibly through neccessity, and I''m not criticising the club for it because I''m sure they know what they need to do and have a clear plan of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Moustache, I think we will lose at least one, possibly two of the list you quote above, but that leaves a pretty damn good squad still, and if we''re playing the "holding out for our price" game, it will also leave us with a tidy sum in our pockets.But the power is very much still with us, I think if Neyul was to say "No, I really don''t want that player to leave" then we have the facility to turn bids down.Unless of course they are daft, which gives us more money to spend etc etc etc.Really Snoddy''s price falls into the above category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am inclined to agree that Snodgrass for £8m falls within that category.

Have to also appreciate that if we did give him a new contract it would probably be with another big loyalty bonus, a pay rise, an agent fee, and probably a release clause anyway, so cashing in may well have been a no brainer.

Hull have got a good player, we''ve got good money, Snodgrass gets to play in the Prem. He leaves the thanks of many but not all for his effort and we move on.

But I never expected him to leave this summer, because I didn''t realise he only had a year left. So has thrown me a little. I thought Fer, Ruddy, RVW, Bassong would be off and actually wouldn''t miss two of those players all that much. With Snodgrass though, we do have to acknowledge that we''ve lost a big talent no matter what the fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]I am inclined to agree that Snodgrass for £8m falls within that category.

Have to also appreciate that if we did give him a new contract it would probably be with another big loyalty bonus, a pay rise, an agent fee, and probably a release clause anyway, so cashing in may well have been a no brainer.

Hull have got a good player, we''ve got good money, Snodgrass gets to play in the Prem. He leaves the thanks of many but not all for his effort and we move on.

But I never expected him to leave this summer, because I didn''t realise he only had a year left. So has thrown me a little. I thought Fer, Ruddy, RVW, Bassong would be off and actually wouldn''t miss two of those players all that much. With Snodgrass though, we do have to acknowledge that we''ve lost a big talent no matter what the fee.[/quote]As already discussed its about how Neil wants the team to play too. In some ways Snoddy was a similar problem to Hoolahan, in that other team members have to work hard to accommodate him. And if you listen to Neils aspirations he wants fast, pressing, free flowing football, which I''m really not so sure Snoddy would fit into. I don''t think he was ever really suited to the inverted winger role, and it would have been nice to have seen him in a more number ten position perhaps.If you had to pick two of that list to leave who would they be?I would let Bassong go, and wouldn''t begrudge Ruddy a move, to give Rudd his chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it would be best if we parted ways with Bassong, and I don''t think he would complain as he was Hughtons man and he probably faces losing the armband.

Tough for the second one, but I''d probably chose RVW. I want him to stay and score 20 but got my doubts and maybe if selling him meant keeping Hooper it would make sense. A year loan perhaps more realistic.

If Ruddy left though I think it could save us some distraction every window with him being linked here and there, for whichever Prem club has an out of form keeper. Keeping him may just be delaying the inevitable. Rather lose him now than in January put it that way.

So Bassong I''d be happy to go, wouldn''t cry over RVW, Ruddy would just have an air of inevitability about it.

Redmond must stay now that Snodgrass has departed, and if Fer really is willing to stay then I think he has unfinished business with us in the league above where we didn''t see him at his best so I''d be gutted if he left, especially to another club in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]A lot of people saying that £8m was fantastic business because Snodgrass only had one year left on his deal.

We also have these two facts though:

1. Snodgrass was not offered a new deal.

2. We had to agree a financial settlement with him because he didn''t ask for a transfer, which will be an owed loyalty bonus (which are waived if a player asks to leave).

McNally said that we didn''t need to sell any players. That doesn''t look true does it?

Not knocking anybody really, £8m is a lot of money, our revenue has halved, our wage bill hasn''t halved and there are areas of our team that need strengthening so I''m not saying that we shouldn''t have sold him.

But it looks like we are certainly not a club with the muscle to hold on to whoever we like, we are very much willing to listen to offers and now have an every player has their price mentality?

Hooper, Fer, Redmond, Ruddy will all have their price too.

Just hope that we don''t end up with 11 obviously not Prem quality players like Lafferty.[/quote]I''m not really sure if you have a clue what you are warbling on aboutIf you emptied your head of this stupid and meaningless cliche you might begin the grasp how contradictory your psts arePlayers move from club to club, a number of fees ofvarying amounts are involved. How much those fees are will be determined by numerous variables, just as in any buying and selling activity.Trying to conjure up some imagined status (a selling club) is worthless nonsense and merely suggests that you are attempting to cast the board in a bad light........... that being nothing new on here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is difficult for many clubs to retain their best players. For relegated teams that problem is all the more acute. One cannot blame players such as Snoddy, who are in such demand from PL teams, leaving. But having lost our best player it would be a double blow to lose our next best in Hooper. Let''s not forget that promotion is presumably the club''s aim this season and for that you need to retain, not sell, your best players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really interested in a slanging match with anybody City1st. Just said several times that I actually think £8m for Snodgrass is on its own a good bit of business, a couple of times that I''m not knocking the board, so if you are accusing me of being disingenuous or having an agenda then au contraire sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]Not really interested in a slanging match with anybody City1st. Just said several times that I actually think £8m for Snodgrass is on its own a good bit of business, a couple of times that I''m not knocking the board, so if you are accusing me of being disingenuous or having an agenda then au contraire sir.[/quote]or[quote user="GrantsMoustache"]"

McNally said that we didn''t need to sell any players. That doesn''t look true does it? [/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh dearyou post up something on a forumsomeone challenges itand you start squeaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]oh dearyou post up something on a forumsomeone challenges itand you start squeaking

[/quote]Or perhaps you''re just obnoxious and confrontational all the time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squad sizes are limited so if we bring youngsters through (and this year we have effectively added Jacob Murphy, Jamar Loza, Adel Gafaiti and Remi Matthews to our 1st Team squad) and none of our players retire, which they havent, then to keep within the permitted squad size rules then we would need to sell 4 players as the squad size is currently 29.

This however is further complicated by the fact 6 (I think) of the squad are under 21 so don''t count toward the 25 limit. Therefore we can buy 2 more players without selling any.

So, if one or two senior players leave because basically they don''t want to be here, then we have 4 available squad places, now whether we choose to fill these with players over 21 is another question.

For what it is worth, I expect another RB to cover Whitts, we have 4 CB''s in the squad and currenty 2 left backs, however I expect one LB to leave, therefore we will need to buy another LB. I also expect to see another striker in and RVW and Becchio out, unless a midfielder leaves then I cannot see that we need a.n.other.

So, that makes a squad size of 27, less the 6 players under 21, so a squad sze of 21, giving us the opportunity to buy 4 more senior players.

Will we or won''t we, are we a selling or buying club, who knows and does it matter as long as we have a squad capable of promotion.

One final thought, by bringing through our youngsters, we don''t have to shell out and their wages, for now will be quite low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually City1st almost everybody challenged my post, just that they weren''t half as rude about it.

Morty made some good counter points, Chicken provided a link which gave more quotes than the one I''d seen which challenged the premise of my post.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing or pointing out inaccuracies. Just don''t see how insults are constructive, don''t need to insult somebody to disagree with them, as many other posters showed. Is easy to respect a differing opinion, or even adopt that differing opinion, when it is put forward reasonably politely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sell one player for a hefty amount and....? We got relegated form the Premier League - it''s more about players wanting to sustain their wage, what do you expect? What would you do in their boots? We will sell a few but it won''t be on the cheap! Stop pant wetting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ray"]Squad sizes are limited so if we bring youngsters through (and this year we have effectively added Jacob Murphy, Jamar Loza, Adel Gafaiti and Remi Matthews to our 1st Team squad) and none of our players retire, which they havent, then to keep within the permitted squad size rules then we would need to sell 4 players as the squad size is currently 29.

This however is further complicated by the fact 6 (I think) of the squad are under 21 so don''t count toward the 25 limit. Therefore we can buy 2 more players without selling any.

So, if one or two senior players leave because basically they don''t want to be here, then we have 4 available squad places, now whether we choose to fill these with players over 21 is another question.

For what it is worth, I expect another RB to cover Whitts, we have 4 CB''s in the squad and currenty 2 left backs, however I expect one LB to leave, therefore we will need to buy another LB. I also expect to see another striker in and RVW and Becchio out, unless a midfielder leaves then I cannot see that we need a.n.other.

So, that makes a squad size of 27, less the 6 players under 21, so a squad sze of 21, giving us the opportunity to buy 4 more senior players.

Will we or won''t we, are we a selling or buying club, who knows and does it matter as long as we have a squad capable of promotion.

One final thought, by bringing through our youngsters, we don''t have to shell out and their wages, for now will be quite low[/quote]This (I assume correctly) answers a question I had. Namely that the 25-man squad rule, with its various stipulations, applies below the Premier League, about which I wasn''t sure. A Googling had not helped.But in that case at what point do we have to name the squad, since - unlike clubs in the Premier League - we can get players in on loan after the transfer window closes at the end of August? It is not clear to me how that can work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ray"]Squad sizes are limited so if we bring youngsters through (and this year we have effectively added Jacob Murphy, Jamar Loza, Adel Gafaiti and Remi Matthews to our 1st Team squad) and none of our players retire, which they havent, then to keep within the permitted squad size rules then we would need to sell 4 players as the squad size is currently 29.

This however is further complicated by the fact 6 (I think) of the squad are under 21 so don''t count toward the 25 limit. Therefore we can buy 2 more players without selling any.

So, if one or two senior players leave because basically they don''t want to be here, then we have 4 available squad places, now whether we choose to fill these with players over 21 is another question.

For what it is worth, I expect another RB to cover Whitts, we have 4 CB''s in the squad and currenty 2 left backs, however I expect one LB to leave, therefore we will need to buy another LB. I also expect to see another striker in and RVW and Becchio out, unless a midfielder leaves then I cannot see that we need a.n.other.

So, that makes a squad size of 27, less the 6 players under 21, so a squad sze of 21, giving us the opportunity to buy 4 more senior players.

Will we or won''t we, are we a selling or buying club, who knows and does it matter as long as we have a squad capable of promotion.

One final thought, by bringing through our youngsters, we don''t have to shell out and their wages, for now will be quite low[/quote]This (I assume correctly) answers a question I had. Namely that the 25-man squad rule, with its various stipulations, applies below the Premier League, about which I wasn''t sure. A Googling had not helped.But in that case at what point do we have to name the squad, since - unlike clubs in the Premier League - we can get players in on loan after the transfer window closes at the end of August? It is not clear to me how that can work.[/quote]

I suspect Purps you can''t find anything because Ray is mistaken.

Regulations are here: http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20130704/section-6-players_2293633_2125731#41.

Sorry, I am using Chrome so the linking doesn''t work.

I can''t find anything that limits squad sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn''t think the 25 man squad rule was in force in the Championship either.I have nothing to back it up though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Ray"]Squad sizes are limited so if we bring youngsters through (and this year we have effectively added Jacob Murphy, Jamar Loza, Adel Gafaiti and Remi Matthews to our 1st Team squad) and none of our players retire, which they havent, then to keep within the permitted squad size rules then we would need to sell 4 players as the squad size is currently 29.

This however is further complicated by the fact 6 (I think) of the squad are under 21 so don''t count toward the 25 limit. Therefore we can buy 2 more players without selling any.

So, if one or two senior players leave because basically they don''t want to be here, then we have 4 available squad places, now whether we choose to fill these with players over 21 is another question.

For what it is worth, I expect another RB to cover Whitts, we have 4 CB''s in the squad and currenty 2 left backs, however I expect one LB to leave, therefore we will need to buy another LB. I also expect to see another striker in and RVW and Becchio out, unless a midfielder leaves then I cannot see that we need a.n.other.

So, that makes a squad size of 27, less the 6 players under 21, so a squad sze of 21, giving us the opportunity to buy 4 more senior players.

Will we or won''t we, are we a selling or buying club, who knows and does it matter as long as we have a squad capable of promotion.

One final thought, by bringing through our youngsters, we don''t have to shell out and their wages, for now will be quite low[/quote]This (I assume correctly) answers a question I had. Namely that the 25-man squad rule, with its various stipulations, applies below the Premier League, about which I wasn''t sure. A Googling had not helped.But in that case at what point do we have to name the squad, since - unlike clubs in the Premier League - we can get players in on loan after the transfer window closes at the end of August? It is not clear to me how that can work.[/quote]

I suspect Purps you can''t find anything because Ray is mistaken.

Regulations are here: http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20130704/section-6-players_2293633_2125731#41.

Sorry, I am using Chrome so the linking doesn''t work.

I can''t find anything that limits squad sizes.[/quote]BF, I couldn''t find anything definitive either way, and Ray seems a generally knowledgeable poster, so I was loath to disagree with him. But with the ability to do loan deals - in and out - after August then a 25-man limit seems impracticable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall it being discussed but was not sure;  QPR seemed to have more than 25 last year but that could just be a wealth illusion.

 

Even so we have plenty of space for a couple of overage loanee as required - and suspect most purchases now will be to replace any further departing players (if any)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree Purps, but knowing how the FA work if it is not in the regulations it is not a rule.

Unless I''ve missed it that is, Ray, has quoted the Prem rules and these are competition specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC - the only way I can envisage it working for loans is if you have space (ie name 23 aged players) and can add and remove them as per the term of the loan.    

 

Alternatively if you have a full 25 compliment a loan can be added by replacing a nominated player - but that seems to defeat the purpose of any limit anyway.

 

Thinking further it could be that squad size limit could be superfluous given the stricter FFP rules in the FL,  which aims to address the same problem from another direction.  A combination of both (given QPRs flouting of FFP) would seem appropriate.   25+ youngsters is more than enough bearing in mind how few clubs hit 25.

 

A definitive answer would be good,   like PC I took Rays reliable word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguably one of the reasons we did not grow more in the premiership is because we failed to develop a £15 to £20m players that could be sold and reinvested. IMO that would be a key ingredient for an extended stay in the top flight, it would redress some of the financial imbalance with the richer clubs. Albeit sad to see star players go.

If anything I am surprised that we have not had more picking over the bones of our squad of premiership players!!! Perhaps the lack of an immediate rush may partly explain why we struggled last season!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Sussexyellow"]Perhaps the lack of an immediate rush may partly explain why we struggled last season![/quote]

 

Precisely - and no surprise that the only ones attracting any interest were the pots contenders in snoddy, ruddy & olsson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

PC - the only way I can envisage it working for loans is if you have space (ie name 23 aged players) and can add and remove them as per the term of the loan.    

 

Alternatively if you have a full 25 compliment a loan can be added by replacing a nominated player - but that seems to defeat the purpose of any limit anyway.

 

Thinking further it could be that squad size limit could be superfluous given the stricter FFP rules in the FL,  which aims to address the same problem from another direction.  A combination of both (given QPRs flouting of FFP) would seem appropriate.   25+ youngsters is more than enough bearing in mind how few clubs hit 25.

 

A definitive answer would be good,   like PC I took Rays reliable word. 

[/quote]A definitive answer would be good but it does look as if Ray may still be in denial about relegation!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...