skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
If he keeps playing like he did today he'll have 10 by Xmas.
Have we (or SISU) missed out financially with Bournemouth going up? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter woody11462
- Start date
If he keeps playing like he did today he'll have 10 by Xmas.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
They only stumped up for the pie money.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Well the "idiotic" losses I assume meant the result of being in Northampton.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You know such salient facts are irrelevant to Toni and Obtuse.
It's like criticising somebody for selling their (1984) Golf GTI for market value in 1994 then today complaining it was undersold.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Not according to some on this site.
They even said He was not good enough for the step up championship:laugh::laugh:
Grendel
Well-Known Member
I know I should stop. The pair of them are as intellectual as the Chuckle Brothers are funny.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Here's the other thing. Because the Wilson money was used to cover the losses from Sixfields that SISU's investors were going to cover not only did we lose our best player we never used any of the Wilson money to replace him. As a result of which we came very close to getting relegated. Again. Of we had have got relegated what would that have cost us? More than £3M I would wager. Lost ticket sales, lost merchandise sales, lost prize money etc. etc.
Not only did we not get what he was worth the short-sightedness of what we did get meant there was nothing to put into boosting the budget and that was a contributing factor to our poor season. The decision fucked over the club in countless ways and that's why it was a bad deal.
It beggars belief that some can't see that or for what ever reason or won't admit it even with the benefit of hindsight.
Not only did we not get what he was worth the short-sightedness of what we did get meant there was nothing to put into boosting the budget and that was a contributing factor to our poor season. The decision fucked over the club in countless ways and that's why it was a bad deal.
It beggars belief that some can't see that or for what ever reason or won't admit it even with the benefit of hindsight.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
They're irrelevant to the fact that the Wilson money was used to cover the losses from Sixfields which was the point I was making. The losses Grendull is talking about are from CCFC Ltd. The loses from Sixfields were incurred by OE.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We weren't there for the losses off a company we'd put into admin and you know that so I don't know why you pretend we were. You're only fooling yourself with that one. Well, you and FP. Although Sickboy will probably turn up in a minute to join in.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Astute
Well-Known Member
Backtrack Grendel is back again I see.
You said what we got for Wilson was good for CCFC. Yet you have not said once in realistic terms why it was good for CCFC.
You also said it was good because he had only played league 1. So had Oxlade Chamberlain.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Yes Fern. So it was a good deal for CCFC because we were making big losses? And is your pathetic 21 year difference on selling a car the best you can do?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Completely misses the point that he clearly wasn't sold for market value and people were complaining about this at the time of the sale.
I find it hard to understand why people can't just say yes, with the benefit of hindsight we did sell him on the cheap. There's no shame in that, it's the adult thing to do. You can't say the same about carrying on with sticking your fingers in your ears going la la la I can't hear you.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
They just love letting someone else have the last word, too...
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
At the time he was sold from market value. He had had one good season in League 1. Any other club at our level would do the same. He wouldn't have wanted to stay anyway. Many underestimate the power players and agents have in the game.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
He was not sold for market value. He was sold for the best of the low offers we received for him. There is a difference.
You only have to look at the history of players being sold from this league to higher leagues before the Wilson deal to see we didn't get market value for him.
Oxlade Chamberlain scored 9 goals in league one and was sold for £12M rising to £15M
Wilson scored 22 goals and was sold for £2M rising to £3M
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
I agree that a players value is only what someone is prepared to pay. We also had a financial hole to fill. But we didn't receive 3m in cash and got 3 loan players as part of the deal that they didn't want.
But the part that gets me is when someone says that it was a good deal for CCFC. Yet nobody ever comes out with a valid reason why.
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
In hindsight it wasn't a good deal. If Wilson had failed in the Championship it would have been.
As you said, we had a financial hole to fill. People can't go on about NOPM and claiming it doesn't matter that we get minimal revenue from the Ricoh and then complain when something like this happens.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think anyone who's ever been to a football match could see Wilson was going to do well in the championship and possibly even the premier league. There was no gamble for Bournemouth at £3M. They were always going to get at least £3M worth of player. We unfortunately sold a player I would was say worth double that all day long and possibly worth more to a club with the finance's to take a punt.
It was the move to Northampton that crippled us that season not NOPM. Even if Tims estimates on the crowds were right for Sixfields we still would have been selling Wilson because despite how it was sold to the fans SISU's investors were only willing to cover the Sixfield losses once the family jewels had been sold off on the cheap. He was never staying after the season he'd had and that wasn't because his head was turned, he wanted a move, the powers of agents or because of the offer we received for him was a good deal for the club. It was a good deal for SISU's investors, it was £3M they didn't have to cough up because of the failed policy of their investment managers. Why people are trying to kid anyone it was anything different is staggering.
Like I said in an earlier post. There's no shame in putting your hands up and saying with the benefit of hindsight I can now see what I didn't see at the time and admit it wasn't a good deal for CCFC. Some posters just can't bring themselves to do that. The obvious reason why is because it's being critical of SISU. The club certainly didn't gain from it or the Clarke money or the Arsenal windfall.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
Oh yes they can. And oh yes they do. I really do think that some people are too thick to realise the correlation.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
But how many go on about NOPM?
Northampton has done 100 times more damage then NOPM could ever have achived.
Silence_Is_The_Enemy
Well-Known Member
now he is scoring overhead kicks past Leicester what a lad 
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
6 to go. 15 isn't looking so deluded anymore is it Sickboy?