RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Jukie was sold in the transfer window of 2012 and Keogh in the summer, pretty sure Ranson left in March 11'
Leon available for transfer (18 Viewers)
- Thread starter AFCCOVENTRY
- Start date
Jukie was sold in the transfer window of 2012 and Keogh in the summer, pretty sure Ranson left in March 11'
stupot07
Well-Known Member
No, but paid for by sisu because the former owners couldn't afford it.
The fact is they would sell anyone of any value,thats all they've done since they've been here.They sold best when we had an outside chance of the playoffs.Why did they sell juke?
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
Best was signed before Ranson arrived, so he can't be held accountable to a profitable turnaround on the player. Gunnarsson could be counted though.
the fact is, we made money on the Ranson-era transfers. I'm not actually - if you refer back - saying he wasn't incompetent. Just that if you do classify him as such, how would those who have followed him be classified?
We're a league lower, with a percentage of the crowds, playing in another town, and haven't - as far as I can tell - made money on a single player signed since Ranson left the club.
So, even if we agree he's incompetent. What about his successors?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Who was that?
Who gives a toss about ranson? I didn't like him.Did he shag your missus or something? You've got a proper obsession with him.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
His era signed players who increased in value. That hasn't been replicated since. If you hold him responsible for the financial mess - or even a percentage of it; how bad would it be if he'd have signed as those who followed him? And it was you who bought Ranson into this thread, and threw about words like 'incompetent'; yet - despite two invitations to do so - have yet to offer an appropriate label to those who have bought much more sorrow to our doors
Last edited:
It was when ranson was here.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that they are anything like competent, but any attempt, even slightly, to absolve Ranson of any responsibilty, makes my blood boil.
However we could possibly discount the profit made on Bigi anyway, as he wouldn't have even been here if Ranson, hoffman's and Elliotts plan to disband the Academy in 2008 had been allowed to go ahead.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Sorry I should have been more clearer, who was the player we sold when we had an outisde chance of the play-offs?
Best. Undisclossed fee as normal.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
You'll note I didn't include Turner too - for that very reason.
I am, to repeat again, no Ranson fan. But his era did sign players that were sold, as far as can be differentiated by virtue of 'undisclosed fees', at a net profit for the club throughout his term.
When you look at the totality of the losses at the club, given we at least washed our own faces on transfers in and out for three-and-a-half years, the balance that has been overseen by his successors is all the more disgusting
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
seem to remember it being widely reported he had gone for 1.5m, cant remember now though.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
When Leon was sold we were 14th 8 points off of the Play-Off places and had played two more games then teams above us such as Preston and Leicester and one more than the majority of the teams.
I am not sure we had a chance maybe slim, however had we of done a deal for Leon Best at the beginning of January instead of leaving it until deadline day we may have been able to fund a suitable replacement, but given we only had Clinton Morereasons, Gypo and for a time Jon Stead, I personally don't see it being strong enough at the top end to be able to get us goals we needed. Had we of kept Leon Best you never know, but we weren't the highest scorers and we conceded more goals frequently so I would of said we would miss out by 3 places or so on the play-offs.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Transfers are only part of the story though,
Some of the huge wages paid to very average(at best) players were unsustainable.
Ruthless Ray's famed negotiating skills seemed to desert him when it came to dealing with players agents.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
The season before, with Best, Dann, Fox, Westwood, Gunnarsson, and Turner we only finished 19th, 16 points off the play-offs.
The incompetence of appointing Coleman scuppered any chances that a decent squad of players had.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I would say two things there. Firstly, in an interview, I've heard Fisher be quite evasive - quelle surprise - on the issue of the transfer surplus. Taking 'a view' on the undisclosed, I've seen a breakdown which looked pretty sensible on the Telegraph forum that showed a £4 - 5m surplus. When tackled, Fisher was stating we 'broke even'. Now, given he's not famed for the art of understatement, I've always presumed he meant we broke even on the totality of our transfer activity; i.e. transfers in and out, plus associated fees and loans taken into account.
On the issue of wages; well, yes - probably right. But, SISU had other board members who could, and did sanction him. As seen on the Thomas transfer to Liverpool. Although we all agree the rent was too high - and let's move that aside for a moment - it was less than £3 a ticket just when extrapolated over only league games, given the 18K gates that prevailed when SISU arrived at the club. That left them with the balance of the ticket values, plus cup games, shirt sponsorship, club shop, TV money, etc to build a business around. Look at income, match expenditure and set a wage ceiling.
He was only one of many faces who failed to deliver this basic mantra from a 'debt free' beginning
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Ineed, but some of those faces are still hovering aroung like Ghosts of Christmas pasr.
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
The season before Best was sold we finished 17th, 20 points off the Play-Offs.
I agree about Coleman though, at that time we needed a manager who was experienced getting teams promoted and Coleman who was keeping Fulham (Just) every season in the Premier League and a short spell at Real Sociedad wasn't the make and model we required.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
I think that was the season before?
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
The season we sold Leon Best we finished 19th and 16 points off the Play-Off's the season before that (When we played Chelsea at the Ricoh, with Dann and the likes in our squad) we finished 17th, 20 points off.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
You're quite right, both seasons finishing with 54 points.
Coleman one useless wanker!
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No as Ranson had departed before either of those two were sold.
covcity4life
Well-Known Member
so pressley comes out and says this is more rubbish
twice now,doesnt stop 17 page threads going mad at sisu though lol
twice now,doesnt stop 17 page threads going mad at sisu though lol
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
This is the biggest mystery to me. I clearly remember at the time us having one of the lowest wage structures in the league. Stories of Eastwood on £1k, McIndoe saying we ha the third worst budget in the league. Newly promoted teams outbidding us on wages, us bein unable to stop players leaving because we can't offer better wages.
Yet still, apparently, we were massively overspending.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Yeah - although the budget for new signings is obviously diminished when you've got junk like Wood and Doyle sat on big contracts.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
At least read the thread before posting something you believe is smart, but within context is quite the opposite
RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
It might be all well and good that Ranson allowed managers to bring in players that stock rised and we managed to make profit on, but had Ranson brought in a manager who could have got these players to fulfill there potential as a team then we may have been talking under a different scenario.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Don't think we actually had anything like one of the lowest wage budgets in the league.
Not one for telling stories, but have heard of one player, who came to us from effectively non-league, was on £8000 a week, and he was nothing like close to a "name", since left for nothing of course to lower standard.
Anybody who seriously believed that Eastwood was actually on £1000 a week, after signing for us from Woves for £1.5million, still having a hefty amount of time left on his very lucrative contract with Wolves(who paid around £3million for him) needs their head looking at.
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't argue with that; and within the thread I've also stated repeatedly that I am no sycophantic fan. His era is characterised by signings we made money on though (even if not all were sold within his tenure); and we've gone downhill since his departure.
Neither of those comments pointing to a necessity to afford him the freedom of the City, again for purposes of clarity
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Not quite non-league 
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Stop throwing your toys out of the pram because you've been shown to be talking bollocks again, old fruit.
lordsummerisle
Well-Known Member
Not quite non-league
Effectively!
Mary_Mungo_Midge
Well-Known Member
I didn't dear chap. Just pointed out you made a fool of yourself by not reading back through the thread and having an understanding of the context of my comment. Which - for the purposes of clarity - was that Ranson's era was characterised by players signed who ultimately were sold at profit. So, a player signed by his 'team' and sold after his departure would still be classified thus
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Hmm - not sure if using an example of the club making a sale post Ranson leaving could really be credited to him. Unless of course, he was operating in his other business of lending money to football clubs to buy players.