I appreciate you have 'insider' knowledge but why is your default take on everything so negative?If we cant compete with 15k a week yet Dougs wanting play offs minimum we should give up now
I completely understand what you're saying, and i agree that those principles are VERY important (i come from a finance background), but it's also worth having a little bit of flexibility in your plans eg 1/2 January loans last season, might have got us into the playoffs (and paid for themselves).That's what I want. A well run club, making smart decisions not based on emotion.
Sure, we haven't been promoted but in two years but we've got to the playoff final and flirted with them. We have a starting 11 that is as good as anyones in the league next year.
Whatever is going on the background is working, fans becoming entitled and impatient shouldn't change that.
He’s been offered a record deal by Preston.Back to Alan Browne. I saw somewhere on here that he was reputedly on £15k per week at Preston but is supposed t have been offered more to stay. Is it not feasible for us to compete with that? It would cost us more than that to keep COH
He’s been offered a record deal by Preston.
I completely understand what you're saying, and i agree that those principles are VERY important (i come from a finance background), but it's also worth having a little bit of flexibility in your plans eg 1/2 January loans last season, might have got us into the playoffs (and paid for themselves).
Occasionally if the right 'older' player comes along (and i'm not saying Browne is...i just don't have enough info about him), then it might be worth it especially if there's no transfer fee.
Who knew he could sing?
This depends on how much faith we have in our scouting systems. There are players as good as Browne to be had that are as yet unproven. You might get those for £15k a week. You pay the premium for Browne’s proven ability. The balance is obviously if your £15k a weeker ends up as the next Sandy Robertson or the next Dean Emerson. £10k a week over 3 years eliminates the risk. Depends if King is risk averse.
I agree with predominantly signing young up and coming players on lengthy contracts, but there has to be some pragmatism as well.The thing that might be blinding Doug, as a reasonably successful business man, is that he wants our players to be 'assets' and for the club to grow their value, to fund a) our losses and b) our future player purchases.
Older players certainly have less asset value and less margin to grow value, so maybe that's why he's less keen to go after them.
Additionally, loan players are not assets (as we don't own them), and he clearly seemed to use a strategy of not using them last season, despite evidence from the previous season, that they really helped our push into the playoffs.
As fans, we just want 'good' players here, and if Browne is as good as Preston fans think, and we are led to believe, he might be worth it, to help the younger players, and give some steel to our midfield.
Little unfair on Dean Emerson. He was fantastic. Could have been a City Great until Gary fucking Megson cropped him. Emerson still lives around here too.This depends on how much faith we have in our scouting systems. There are players as good as Browne to be had that are as yet unproven. You might get those for £15k a week. You pay the premium for Browne’s proven ability. The balance is obviously if your £15k a weeker ends up as the next Sandy Robertson or the next Dean Emerson. £10k a week over 3 years eliminates the risk. Depends if King is risk averse.
Agree - Emerson was a poor example to choose - very good player for us until he got crocked.Little unfair on Dean Emerson. He was fantastic. Could have been a City Great until Gary fucking Megson cropped him. Emerson still lives around here too.
It's about risk though isn't it, and resale value (i.e. there is none).This idea that 29 is a really old player and will have lost their legs is ridiculous. Genuinely feel Football Manager has ruined the perception of reality.
You’d think from some of the comments that the likes of De Bruyne (32) should be in a retirement home by now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be fair me and a few others did suggest Browne before we were linked with him.IF King has decided our highest paid players must be young talented players, and we pay good money to atttact to then re sell later at a profit, I’m ok with that.
It’s one of the reasons the foreign market appeals to so many clubs…. Wages are typically lower and a good championship wage is still a step up from what they are on.
We have all watched a tonne of championship football and yet not one single person has suggested Browne until we were linked with him. Now panic has set in for some fans already ….
We can’t get bent out of shape because his agent is hawking him around …..
The thing King has to do next season is properly see the benefit of the loan market
You're right, agreed.
However, decent loans from EPL teams normally only occur after the transfer window shuts at the end of August. We need to hit the ground running as the last couple of seasons, we've had stinker starts and been playing catch up.
Good loans should be used to supplement an already strong squad.
Normally worse in a tournament summer though as a lot of the internationals won't start pre season until late July.Not the case as much any more Loan window shuts at the same time as the transfer window shuts.
We’ve had Doyle, Panzo, Maatsen, Ostigard, Giles all in the squad for the first game of the season in recent years.
Only delays are usually because the team want to take them on their pre-season tour before loaning them.
We had the last laugh though by knocking the dirty Cnut and his team out of the cup a week later!!Agree - Emerson was a poor example to choose - very good player for us until he got crocked.
That makes no sense.Absolutely no way should we be paying big wages for a 29 yo, who's only going to decline. You'd assume he'd want 3 years as well.
Completely agree. Emerson was the one I threw in as the bargain buy that turned out to be a fantastic signing. The opposite to Robertson. I seem to remember he was on the verge of England caps before the injury.Agree - Emerson was a poor example to choose - very good player for us until he got crocked.
In the 1960's, 70s and 80s, the age of 30 was considered the tail end of a footballer's career. Now with sports science, better training methods and more responsible lifestyles (in most cases!) I'd argue that for many players 30 is their prime time, with every chance of delivering good performancea for another 4 or 5 years.Absolutely no way should we be paying big wages for a 29 yo, who's only going to decline. You'd assume he'd want 3 years as well.
Exactly, Fadz is 8 years older than Browne and still performing at Championship level.In the 1960's, 70s and 80s, the age of 30 was considered the tail end of a footballer's career. Now with sports science, better training methods and more responsible lifestyles (in most cases!) I'd argue that for many players 30 is their prime time, with every chance of delivering good performancea for another 4 or 5 years.
If you can afford the player you want, 29 years old really shouldn't be an issue.
He's hardly performing is he.Exactly, Fadz is 8 years older than Browne and still performing at Championship level.
I'd be more than happy for us to sign Browne on a 3 year deal.
And he's not a box to box midfielder in any caseHe's hardly performing is he.
That makes no sense.
If you pay him £15k a week over 3 years that's less than £2.5million for a player with a proven pedigree at championship level and a natural leader on the pitch.
Alternatively you could pay 4 or 5 million in transfer fees, plus 1 or 2 million in wages, for a younger up and coming player that is still learning, will make some bad mistakes, and may not even make the grade in the championship, and could walk away on a free after 3 years anyway.
Picking someone like Browne up on a free is a bargain so we should pay him a competitive wage.
His experience could be massive in a squad that has lost Fadz and Kelly and could be set to lose Godden and Bidwell.
The bigger risk would be allowing him to go to a competitor.But by your logic, i.e. a made up scenario, he could sign and not improve the team (championship proven - but is he better than what we have?), and then we have a player who has no resale value and is on considerable wages with a long contract.
His experience would be great, but if we overpay then it comes with massive risk.
Looked good against us at their gaff.He's hardly performing is he.
Who said he was?And he's not a box to box midfielder in any case
He kept 2 cleansheets in 12 starts for them...Looked good against us at their gaff.
He even supplied the pass that resulted in Kitching having to drag their striker down and getting a red card in the process.
I've no.doubt we'd of picked up more than 1 point out of a possible 18 if we'd of still had Fadz at the back end of the season.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?