Transfer Rumour January transfer window (75 Viewers)

SHUNT31

Well-Known Member
The net spend will low to mid table at a guess tho?

I think we've done a bit of a Tottenham, remember when the sold Bale for stacks and bought in Soldado, Chadli and various other dossers?
Actually a good analogy tbf
 

Sky Blue Goblin

Well-Known Member
Genuinely not sure if serious.

Most teams don’t build entire squads over two seasons. Most incrementally build them. So comparing a team that’s done a full rebuild with an incremental rebuild is apples and oranges.
Okay that’s fair understand now.

Had a look and in the last five years we’ve spent the fifth most.

We have also spent more than any of the parachute clubs.

 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Okay that’s fair understand now.

Had a look and in the last five years we’ve spent the fifth most.


Yeah cam said. I do think we’ve overspent, I just think comparing us to parachute clubs because we spent it all in basically one window isn’t quite right.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
King does the dealing

Manager specifies the needs
Austin sources the players against those needs
Manager chooses players to pursue
King negotiates the deals

Yeah I said this before, it could well be Kings negotiating. We saw with EMC and Kitching how he’ll give the farm away when he’s desperate.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Could be wrong here - would have to look into it but I thought you couldn't lend to a football club without charging interest under sustainability rules? Maybe it is okay under a certain threshold?

That would be perverse though wouldn't it? As the PSR are fundamentally about minimizing losses whereas interest increases losses. I don't think the rules include such a clause.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
Meaning that " King needs a bollocking" is such a lazy statement. The fact that the transfer funds are gone are also down to those instrumental in bringing those players in.
DK can’t win really. People wants him to keep his nose out yet he gets the blame for dud transfers. MR gets credit for everything positive yet most of his players picks are ones people want rid of.
 

HJones23

Well-Known Member
Okay that’s fair understand now.

Had a look and in the last five years we’ve spent the fifth most.

We have also spent more than any of the parachute clubs.

This is interesting, I wonder where we would be with wages in comparison with the rest of the league. You generally think high transfer fees = high wages, but I would hazard a guess we would be mid table perhaps ?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Could be wrong here - would have to look into it but I thought you couldn't lend to a football club without charging interest under sustainability rules? Maybe it is okay under a certain threshold?

I doubt it. Avro had interest bearing loans of over £20 million which were just compounded over time. Brentford’s owner has ploughed millions in on an interest free basis
 

SBT

Well-Known Member
DK can’t win really. People wants him to keep his nose out yet he gets the blame for dud transfers. MR gets credit for everything positive yet most of his players picks are ones people want rid of.
He needs to be held responsible for the things that are in his direct control.

I don’t actually think many of the signings we’ve made under DK are outright terrible players, but I do think we’ve paid too much for them, and that’s down to him.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
He needs to be held responsible for the things that are in his direct control.

I don’t actually think many of the signings we’ve made under DK are outright terrible players, but I do think we’ve paid too much for them, and that’s down to him.
Quite possibly true.
 

Andy123456

Well-Known Member
All of the transfer income was Kings. He owns all the assets. I’m amazed some fans still don’t understand the basics.

He could easily have pocketed 80% of the income himself, derisked his ownership and Robins 20% to invest.

He didn’t.
Easy answer, everyone on here is a business owner!!! They don't actually run the company though or get involved because that would be ludicrous behaviour, I mean how dare they want to look after their own investments!!! Honestly some people on here need to go and take their faces for a shit
 

The watchmaker

Well-Known Member
That would be perverse though wouldn't it? As the PSR are fundamentally about minimizing losses whereas interest increases losses. I don't think the rules include such a clause.
On lunch and don't have time to look but I'm sure I heard an owner (maybe even Doug) complain about this and it was an issue in the Man City cases. Rather than being pervese some regulation is probably necessary - what is the difference between providing large interest free loans that never have to be repaid and just pumping money into the club?
 

Sky Blue Goblin

Well-Known Member
Easy answer, everyone on here is a business owner!!! They don't actually run the company though or get involved because that would be ludicrous behaviour, I mean how dare they want to look after their own investments!!! Honestly some people on here need to go and take their faces for a shit
Can’t wait for us to become fan owned 🤣
 

SkyB

Well-Known Member
1 in 1 out really isn't the probably everyone is making it out to be. With a fully fit side we have to leave out 2/3 senior players every week.

If we only had a bench of 7 that would mean 4/5 first teamers missing out weekly which just didn't happen. Our squad is the ideal size just the composition is wrong and being highlight by 2 injuries in one position and 1 injury where the imbalance lies.

If we were to trade fab tav for a centre mid the squad composition is nearly there.

The big issue from Saddles statement is that the money's run out... A lot of the the additional fee in the transfers we made would have been team performance based i.e. finishing in the play offs or getting promoted. No way we've met the full fees for Kitching, Wright, Simms and Milan yet (or look likely to).
 

usskyblue

Well-Known Member
Kinell @Saddlebrains

8b217d1d7edc951c361b11b106ffce080ac62ab5.gif
 

Rodders1

Well-Known Member
Don't get the DK hate - he never said he’d throw loads of his personal wealth at transfers did he?

He cleared c£60m of debt. Funds our losses. Sold assets (Vic and Gus) re-invested pretty much all in new players (identified by recruitment and Robins) and spent money on the training ground.

Being pissed off with no more investment from his pocket is unfair. Also we want to be sustainable don't we? Not reliance on an owners wealth. See also Stoke.

Sacking Robins is a gamble, but he's the owner and will suffer if wrong so its in all our interests that he's made the decision - not just the fans.

Also the recruitment (D Austin) may well have been decent looking at the fees we maybe recouping if we do sell. So the (his) model would be working. But the results on the pitch (managers) are still frustrating.
 

SkyBluePower

Well-Known Member
I don’t know, I’m just telling you we had a directors loan of 6 million from when he’s owned us from the playoff year.

As the sisu debts were cleared before the account was created, we know that this has come from Doug.

He’s definitely put in money whether he has for transfers is another matter

Has he taken any money out though?
 

Deity

Well-Known Member
King does the dealing

Manager specifies the needs
Austin sources the players against those needs
Manager chooses players to pursue
King negotiates the deals
Who determines the approx value of the players when presenting the list of potential targets ? Austin I assume.

We then agree whether they are within our financial reach or not and negotiate from there.

So in reality ….

manager specifies needs
King determines total financial budget
Austin provides list of players within budget
Manager agrees his rank order of priority
King negotiates to try to agree deal with club / player.
Austin / Manager sell the football side of club to player.

It can fall down at any point in that process.
 

Chris1987

Well-Known Member
Don't get the DK hate - he never said he’d throw loads of his personal wealth at transfers did he?

He cleared c£60m of debt. Funds our losses. Sold assets (Vic and Gus) re-invested pretty much all in new players (identified by recruitment and Robins) and spent money on the training ground.

Being pissed off with no more investment from his pocket is unfair. Also we want to be sustainable don't we? Not reliance on an owners wealth. See also Stoke.

Sacking Robins is a gamble, but he's the owner and will suffer if wrong so its in all our interests that he's made the decision - not just the fans.

Also the recruitment (D Austin) may well have been decent looking at the fees we maybe recouping if we do sell. So the (his) model would be working. But the results on the pitch (managers) are still frustrating.
Pretty much spot on
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top