| A Nice Touch from the Club on 21:40 - Sep 7 with 764 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 21:22 - Sep 7 by jack247 |
And you accuse me of pedantry. Ok, they didn’t decide to disappoint him just for the hell of it. They decided not to sign a player he really wanted, despite stripping the first team squad heavily and raising around £40m. Yes of course we had to cut costs and of course we were never going to spend as much as we brought in, but giving the manager a bit of help now and then is all people really want.
I didn’t say ‘every single player he wants’ you just made that up. Woods is just an example of a player he was very keen to sign. I agree it would be stupid to give him a blank chequebook.
In very simple terms, ie just transfer fees, signing Woods would have been roughly the same as not being able to shift Clucas. Had he been injured and not gone to Stoke, would that have plunged us into financial danger zone?
Did we give Carvahal and Clement the players they wanted? Most of the slating is around signing Bony and Ayew for big money on fat wages. It may not be right, but common perception is they were more Jenkins signings than anyone else’s. |
Yes I absolutely accused you of pedantry, well not so much an accusation as a factual observation. I initially let it slide the first time you said it, yet you continued to use that turn of phrase so only assumed you meant it and believed it. If we agree that their action was deciding to not sign a player and not to disappoint potter then we agree.
What do you mean “despite raising £40m”?? That £40m wasn’t raised just for a laugh, it was (and is) needed elsewhere. Let’s say you are facing a 300k tax bill you need to pay by the end of the month and you don’t have a pot to p*ss in yes? You sell your house for 275k and your wife says “come on then, new car and a holiday, you have just raised 275k” - what would your response be?
I didn’t make it up. You said, and I quote “I hope they don’t continue to disappoint Potter”. Surely that means you hope they don’t continue to turn down player opportunities for the health of the club, the upshot meaning Potter gets who he wants regardless of impact on the health of club.
Yes absolutely not shifting Clucas was going to put us in the danger zone. Which is why we sold for millions less than offered a few days previous, surely you could have worked that out by looking at that deal. Unless applying logic to it wasn’t helpful to the view you wanted to push? |  |
|  |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:01 - Sep 7 with 741 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 21:40 - Sep 7 by E20Jack |
Yes I absolutely accused you of pedantry, well not so much an accusation as a factual observation. I initially let it slide the first time you said it, yet you continued to use that turn of phrase so only assumed you meant it and believed it. If we agree that their action was deciding to not sign a player and not to disappoint potter then we agree.
What do you mean “despite raising £40m”?? That £40m wasn’t raised just for a laugh, it was (and is) needed elsewhere. Let’s say you are facing a 300k tax bill you need to pay by the end of the month and you don’t have a pot to p*ss in yes? You sell your house for 275k and your wife says “come on then, new car and a holiday, you have just raised 275k” - what would your response be?
I didn’t make it up. You said, and I quote “I hope they don’t continue to disappoint Potter”. Surely that means you hope they don’t continue to turn down player opportunities for the health of the club, the upshot meaning Potter gets who he wants regardless of impact on the health of club.
Yes absolutely not shifting Clucas was going to put us in the danger zone. Which is why we sold for millions less than offered a few days previous, surely you could have worked that out by looking at that deal. Unless applying logic to it wasn’t helpful to the view you wanted to push? |
‘Disappoint Potter’ were JL and SKs words, not mine. I’m not sure which ones, but it’s in the joint interview they did. It’s hardly pedantry to repeat that. Yes, their action was deciding not to sign a player, the upshot was disappointing the manager. We agree there. You hope they continue to do it. I hope he gets cut a bit of slack when he needs it. No one is suggesting signing everyone he wants.
I mean we just raised £40m and slashed the wage bill. Yes, of course that money is needed elsewhere, but it doesn’t have to be done in one fell swoop. If it genuinely does, and the Clucas sale had to happen (not saying I disagree with that sale BTW) then signing Andre Ayew for huge money on massive wages when we looked very likely to go down was either reckless or incompetent in the extreme. |  | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:10 - Sep 7 with 729 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:01 - Sep 7 by jack247 |
‘Disappoint Potter’ were JL and SKs words, not mine. I’m not sure which ones, but it’s in the joint interview they did. It’s hardly pedantry to repeat that. Yes, their action was deciding not to sign a player, the upshot was disappointing the manager. We agree there. You hope they continue to do it. I hope he gets cut a bit of slack when he needs it. No one is suggesting signing everyone he wants.
I mean we just raised £40m and slashed the wage bill. Yes, of course that money is needed elsewhere, but it doesn’t have to be done in one fell swoop. If it genuinely does, and the Clucas sale had to happen (not saying I disagree with that sale BTW) then signing Andre Ayew for huge money on massive wages when we looked very likely to go down was either reckless or incompetent in the extreme. |
Disappoint Potter wasn’t he but I was getting at. “Deciding to disappoint Potter” puts quite a different spin on it. I would have hoped that they are not one and the same, if so it means Potter is disappointed we didn’t financially risk the club. I can only assume he is not aware of the detailed financials.
What do you mean cut a bit of slack? Where is the cut off? We signed the likes of Celina, in his case for more than we have ever signed anyone outside the Prem. I would say the cut off is being asked to nearly give back 25% of what you needed to raise on Championship DMC personally, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that deal to happen at all.
The likes of Ayew were calculated risks. We knew we could raise £40m if relegated as most of our assets are houses in player registrations which is the exact reason we stayed there for 7 years and wage bill was high. To complain about that now is just not kosher. It is a pretty sound business plan if your ambition is to stay up for as long as possible, it just means the fall is slightly harder but you get more success. I prefer that than having similar seasons to our last few as a PL staple and then competitive easier on relegation. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:24 - Sep 7 with 716 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:10 - Sep 7 by E20Jack |
Disappoint Potter wasn’t he but I was getting at. “Deciding to disappoint Potter” puts quite a different spin on it. I would have hoped that they are not one and the same, if so it means Potter is disappointed we didn’t financially risk the club. I can only assume he is not aware of the detailed financials.
What do you mean cut a bit of slack? Where is the cut off? We signed the likes of Celina, in his case for more than we have ever signed anyone outside the Prem. I would say the cut off is being asked to nearly give back 25% of what you needed to raise on Championship DMC personally, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect that deal to happen at all.
The likes of Ayew were calculated risks. We knew we could raise £40m if relegated as most of our assets are houses in player registrations which is the exact reason we stayed there for 7 years and wage bill was high. To complain about that now is just not kosher. It is a pretty sound business plan if your ambition is to stay up for as long as possible, it just means the fall is slightly harder but you get more success. I prefer that than having similar seasons to our last few as a PL staple and then competitive easier on relegation. |
Well it’s semantics then. Deciding to disappoint Potter, making a decision that they knew would result in Potter being disappointed. You know full well I wasn’t implying they had made a conscious decision to piss him off just for the sake of it. I’d guess he doesn’t know the finer details, but has a more thorough understanding of the club financial situation than you, or me, or anyone on here.
Yes we bought Celina for more than we’d ever paid for anyone outside the Premier League. We also sold Mawson, Fabianski, Clucas, Mesa, Fernandez and probably Amat? for more than we’d ever sold anyone for outside the Premier League.
They didn’t know how much they could raise through sales if relegated, I’d guess they thought they’d do better than they did. We differ on that last point. As you have said yourself many times, relegation at some point was inevitable, I’d have preferred to have the finances in place to give us the best chance of going back up, rather than gamble big money on staying up, when although it nearly happened, it looked unlikely at that point. Especially when the upshot was having to sell players below value to raise funds and cut the wage bill. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:41 - Sep 7 with 708 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:24 - Sep 7 by jack247 |
Well it’s semantics then. Deciding to disappoint Potter, making a decision that they knew would result in Potter being disappointed. You know full well I wasn’t implying they had made a conscious decision to piss him off just for the sake of it. I’d guess he doesn’t know the finer details, but has a more thorough understanding of the club financial situation than you, or me, or anyone on here.
Yes we bought Celina for more than we’d ever paid for anyone outside the Premier League. We also sold Mawson, Fabianski, Clucas, Mesa, Fernandez and probably Amat? for more than we’d ever sold anyone for outside the Premier League.
They didn’t know how much they could raise through sales if relegated, I’d guess they thought they’d do better than they did. We differ on that last point. As you have said yourself many times, relegation at some point was inevitable, I’d have preferred to have the finances in place to give us the best chance of going back up, rather than gamble big money on staying up, when although it nearly happened, it looked unlikely at that point. Especially when the upshot was having to sell players below value to raise funds and cut the wage bill. |
It’s not semantics. Disappointing Potter and not signing a player are not mutually exclusive. If I was a manager and got refused a target due to the health d the club, disappointment is not something I would feel. Frustration maybe, but not disappointment. In fact I am disappointed to hear that Potter was, I can only hope and assume he wasn’t fully aware of the impact it would have on the club.
What does it matter what we sold the likes of Mawson for? It wasn’t our money. We just agreed that. Your point is the same as your wife saying “we have just sold something for more than we ever hhave, where’s the new car and holiday?”. It’s not your money love, it’s the tax mans.
“Know”? No. A safe estimate? Yes. That’s what a business projection is. That was the safeguard upon relegation and yet we still have both Ayews, Bony, Dyer and Narsingh who are all saleable assets on high wages.
You may not have approached it the way we have, but we in all likelihood would never have won a major trophy either. And most certainly wouldn’t have had the 8th placed finish. I am happy that those at the helm see it as a positive way to do things and fully agree with them. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:10 - Sep 7 with 697 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 22:41 - Sep 7 by E20Jack |
It’s not semantics. Disappointing Potter and not signing a player are not mutually exclusive. If I was a manager and got refused a target due to the health d the club, disappointment is not something I would feel. Frustration maybe, but not disappointment. In fact I am disappointed to hear that Potter was, I can only hope and assume he wasn’t fully aware of the impact it would have on the club.
What does it matter what we sold the likes of Mawson for? It wasn’t our money. We just agreed that. Your point is the same as your wife saying “we have just sold something for more than we ever hhave, where’s the new car and holiday?”. It’s not your money love, it’s the tax mans.
“Know”? No. A safe estimate? Yes. That’s what a business projection is. That was the safeguard upon relegation and yet we still have both Ayews, Bony, Dyer and Narsingh who are all saleable assets on high wages.
You may not have approached it the way we have, but we in all likelihood would never have won a major trophy either. And most certainly wouldn’t have had the 8th placed finish. I am happy that those at the helm see it as a positive way to do things and fully agree with them. |
The first paragraph is going nowhere. I know why they disappointed him. I didn’t actually know for sure that he was disappointed (though it seemed very likely) until they came out and said it.
I’ve only mentioned the Mawson etc sales to put the Celina buy in context. If you want to go down the ‘most we’ve ever spent outside the PL’ route. It’s only right to apply balance.
We didn’t win a major trophy or finish 8th under the current regime. We appointed Bob Bradley, stayed up against the self imposed odds, then got relegated after blowing the Siggy and Llorente money the following season. Jenkins, Morgan et al may be devious, conniving etc, but I’d rather them still be running us than Kaplan, Levien and their crew.
If we ever do go up again, I hope we spend, of course I do, but hope we don’t do it to the point that we need a firesale and force the manager to fight with one arm tied behind his back in the event of eventual relegation. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:19 - Sep 7 with 688 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:10 - Sep 7 by jack247 |
The first paragraph is going nowhere. I know why they disappointed him. I didn’t actually know for sure that he was disappointed (though it seemed very likely) until they came out and said it.
I’ve only mentioned the Mawson etc sales to put the Celina buy in context. If you want to go down the ‘most we’ve ever spent outside the PL’ route. It’s only right to apply balance.
We didn’t win a major trophy or finish 8th under the current regime. We appointed Bob Bradley, stayed up against the self imposed odds, then got relegated after blowing the Siggy and Llorente money the following season. Jenkins, Morgan et al may be devious, conniving etc, but I’d rather them still be running us than Kaplan, Levien and their crew.
If we ever do go up again, I hope we spend, of course I do, but hope we don’t do it to the point that we need a firesale and force the manager to fight with one arm tied behind his back in the event of eventual relegation. |
It’s not intended to go anywhere. It’s a statement of fact. If they disappointed him by safeguarding the club then I hope they continue to do so, you said you don’t hope they continue doing so - that was our sticking point.
My “most expensive purchase” and your “most expensive sale” is not in the least bit relatable. So balance cannot be a concept that even relates. You are talking about spending money owed elsewhere I am talking about money we feel is ours to spend. This was in relation to you saying that they should be citing him some slack, when they can - they are.
It doesn’t matter what we did under this “regime”, the principles used to win those accolades are the ones you are currently complaining about. If we go up, spend a little to cushion the blow when we go down it means we will probably never achieve what we have done in the last 15 years. So again I hope we continue with this business model as it has proved unbelievably successful. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:38 - Sep 7 with 670 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:19 - Sep 7 by E20Jack |
It’s not intended to go anywhere. It’s a statement of fact. If they disappointed him by safeguarding the club then I hope they continue to do so, you said you don’t hope they continue doing so - that was our sticking point.
My “most expensive purchase” and your “most expensive sale” is not in the least bit relatable. So balance cannot be a concept that even relates. You are talking about spending money owed elsewhere I am talking about money we feel is ours to spend. This was in relation to you saying that they should be citing him some slack, when they can - they are.
It doesn’t matter what we did under this “regime”, the principles used to win those accolades are the ones you are currently complaining about. If we go up, spend a little to cushion the blow when we go down it means we will probably never achieve what we have done in the last 15 years. So again I hope we continue with this business model as it has proved unbelievably successful. |
So we are back to the Andre Ayew point then. Calculated gambles or desperate last throws of the dice, depending on which slant you want to put on it obviously, are not safeguarding the club. A gamble is more or less the opposite of a safeguard.
If spending, at a guess, 10% of what we raised in the summer is cutting him slack, then we were financially screwed last season and hadn’t properly safeguarded against the possibility of relegation.
Look back at that team that won the Carling cup. 4 of them were in the Championship or lower with us, Michu for £2m, Routledge about the same? De Guzman on loan, Ben Davies. Ki and Pablo were probably our record signings at the time at about £5m. Yes, transfer fees and wages increase, but they hadn’t quadrupled by last season. That’s not the way the club was run at its most successful. I think Jenkins said something along the lines of the Bony signing being a one off and not something we would repeat every year at the time. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:57 - Sep 7 with 660 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:38 - Sep 7 by jack247 |
So we are back to the Andre Ayew point then. Calculated gambles or desperate last throws of the dice, depending on which slant you want to put on it obviously, are not safeguarding the club. A gamble is more or less the opposite of a safeguard.
If spending, at a guess, 10% of what we raised in the summer is cutting him slack, then we were financially screwed last season and hadn’t properly safeguarded against the possibility of relegation.
Look back at that team that won the Carling cup. 4 of them were in the Championship or lower with us, Michu for £2m, Routledge about the same? De Guzman on loan, Ben Davies. Ki and Pablo were probably our record signings at the time at about £5m. Yes, transfer fees and wages increase, but they hadn’t quadrupled by last season. That’s not the way the club was run at its most successful. I think Jenkins said something along the lines of the Bony signing being a one off and not something we would repeat every year at the time. |
No it isn't. A gamble with a safeguard is absolutely what it was. It was gambling that he would have a good enough impact to stay up, not a gamble on the financial future of the club. That is just a non existent slant you are putting on it. Every signing is a gamble. That's the nature of them.
Stop making the same point, after agreeing its null and void. Again you are playing the part of your wife saying that raising 275k to pay your impending tax bill and only spending 10% of it on things she wants - isn't cutting her slack. Unless you understand this point we cannot go further.
The year we finished 8th we signed Ayew and Gomis, both on reported 17m packages of wages and fees. This was a follow on of also spending vast amounts on agents fees and wages for what Tutumlu was bringing in, I imagine none of which had relegation clauses inserted as a result. If you wanted it your way, that success would not have happened as we simply wouldn't have given those contracts.
Jenkins made that comment in the context of the time in relation to the income of the time, that obviously increased hugely. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 00:20 - Sep 8 with 645 views | _ |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:10 - Sep 7 by jack247 |
The first paragraph is going nowhere. I know why they disappointed him. I didn’t actually know for sure that he was disappointed (though it seemed very likely) until they came out and said it.
I’ve only mentioned the Mawson etc sales to put the Celina buy in context. If you want to go down the ‘most we’ve ever spent outside the PL’ route. It’s only right to apply balance.
We didn’t win a major trophy or finish 8th under the current regime. We appointed Bob Bradley, stayed up against the self imposed odds, then got relegated after blowing the Siggy and Llorente money the following season. Jenkins, Morgan et al may be devious, conniving etc, but I’d rather them still be running us than Kaplan, Levien and their crew.
If we ever do go up again, I hope we spend, of course I do, but hope we don’t do it to the point that we need a firesale and force the manager to fight with one arm tied behind his back in the event of eventual relegation. |
If we ever go up again and stay there for an unbelievable 7 years ago and then go down, we're having another fire sale - make no question about that. |  |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 00:30 - Sep 8 with 644 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 00:20 - Sep 8 by _ |
If we ever go up again and stay there for an unbelievable 7 years ago and then go down, we're having another fire sale - make no question about that. |
Yep. I am amazed people cannot link the two. They love the success then slate the effect. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 07:46 - Sep 8 with 604 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 23:57 - Sep 7 by E20Jack |
No it isn't. A gamble with a safeguard is absolutely what it was. It was gambling that he would have a good enough impact to stay up, not a gamble on the financial future of the club. That is just a non existent slant you are putting on it. Every signing is a gamble. That's the nature of them.
Stop making the same point, after agreeing its null and void. Again you are playing the part of your wife saying that raising 275k to pay your impending tax bill and only spending 10% of it on things she wants - isn't cutting her slack. Unless you understand this point we cannot go further.
The year we finished 8th we signed Ayew and Gomis, both on reported 17m packages of wages and fees. This was a follow on of also spending vast amounts on agents fees and wages for what Tutumlu was bringing in, I imagine none of which had relegation clauses inserted as a result. If you wanted it your way, that success would not have happened as we simply wouldn't have given those contracts.
Jenkins made that comment in the context of the time in relation to the income of the time, that obviously increased hugely. |
Gambling on staying up with the knowledge that if we don’t stay up, which we didn’t look like doing at the time, we are going to have to sell our players at bargain basement prices and will only be able to offer our manager a derisory amount to rebuild a ravaged squad. How useful would that £20m have been this summer?
I understand the point you are making. I understood it without the wife and tax bill analogy. I’m saying that if you had to sell your house for £275k to put towards a £300k tax bill, you would be able to treat her to a holiday if you had kept hold of the £150k you splashed on a sports car that's depreciated massively, was overpriced in the first place and you now need to lend to one of your mates because you can’t afford it’s running costs. You may even have enough to put a deposit on a new house and give your wife a few quid for furniture.
The year we finished 8th was the year before we started on our downward trajectory. When we started signing frees for £17m. Yes, you’re right, if we ever go up again, I’d prefer to see us run within our means so that we aren’t a financial time bomb on relegation. If that means we have 4 or 5 years instead of 7 and that we’re on a sound footing to move on the players who want to leave, reduce the wage bill according to income and still have budget to rebuild a competitive Championship squad, I’ll take that. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 07:49 - Sep 8 with 601 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 00:20 - Sep 8 by _ |
If we ever go up again and stay there for an unbelievable 7 years ago and then go down, we're having another fire sale - make no question about that. |
It’s not so much the sale. Players want to play at the top level and their PL wages aren’t sustainable in the Championship, I get that. It’s the not being able to build a bit of a war chest from that firesale and give the manager the strength in depth he is likely to need for a 46 game season. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 07:56 - Sep 8 with 601 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 07:46 - Sep 8 by jack247 |
Gambling on staying up with the knowledge that if we don’t stay up, which we didn’t look like doing at the time, we are going to have to sell our players at bargain basement prices and will only be able to offer our manager a derisory amount to rebuild a ravaged squad. How useful would that £20m have been this summer?
I understand the point you are making. I understood it without the wife and tax bill analogy. I’m saying that if you had to sell your house for £275k to put towards a £300k tax bill, you would be able to treat her to a holiday if you had kept hold of the £150k you splashed on a sports car that's depreciated massively, was overpriced in the first place and you now need to lend to one of your mates because you can’t afford it’s running costs. You may even have enough to put a deposit on a new house and give your wife a few quid for furniture.
The year we finished 8th was the year before we started on our downward trajectory. When we started signing frees for £17m. Yes, you’re right, if we ever go up again, I’d prefer to see us run within our means so that we aren’t a financial time bomb on relegation. If that means we have 4 or 5 years instead of 7 and that we’re on a sound footing to move on the players who want to leave, reduce the wage bill according to income and still have budget to rebuild a competitive Championship squad, I’ll take that. |
No, we didn’t do it with the intention of selling at bargain basement prices. I am sure we expected a lot of more then, we ended up having to sell at bargain basement prices, there is a difference. That £20m would be just to try and get back to te position we were in though, which is by no means guaranteed - look at Stoke. Far better to try and protect what you have than concede it and try and get it back. I would say promotion is arguably a tougher ask that survival.
You say you understand it and then continually gloss over it by making about about how much we have received in sales as a reason to why we should spend more. It’s bizarre, the only thing I can do to make it clear is go back to the wife and tax bill. It’s not the same as your new analogy however. A new car is not an essential attempt to stay in the lifestyle you had come accustomed to, a better analogy would be to say “you would be able to treat her if you didn’t plunge 150k into the business in order to try and make the money to service the tax bill and continue your lifestyle” - and I would agree, however the decision to plunge the 150k in will remain a sound one regardless of outcome.
I agree. This was because we peaked financially and will have been when the old guard looked to move us on for both personal gain and the good of the club. They could no longer keep the club running at that level, yet it is very difficult to slash costs across the board once they have increased, as I have said before, te longer you are there the greater costs become.
It also doesn’t mean having 4 or 5 years instead of 7. In most cases it doesn’t even mean 2, and those 2 are similar to the last couple we had where people claimed to hate it. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 08:31 - Sep 8 with 584 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 07:56 - Sep 8 by E20Jack |
No, we didn’t do it with the intention of selling at bargain basement prices. I am sure we expected a lot of more then, we ended up having to sell at bargain basement prices, there is a difference. That £20m would be just to try and get back to te position we were in though, which is by no means guaranteed - look at Stoke. Far better to try and protect what you have than concede it and try and get it back. I would say promotion is arguably a tougher ask that survival.
You say you understand it and then continually gloss over it by making about about how much we have received in sales as a reason to why we should spend more. It’s bizarre, the only thing I can do to make it clear is go back to the wife and tax bill. It’s not the same as your new analogy however. A new car is not an essential attempt to stay in the lifestyle you had come accustomed to, a better analogy would be to say “you would be able to treat her if you didn’t plunge 150k into the business in order to try and make the money to service the tax bill and continue your lifestyle” - and I would agree, however the decision to plunge the 150k in will remain a sound one regardless of outcome.
I agree. This was because we peaked financially and will have been when the old guard looked to move us on for both personal gain and the good of the club. They could no longer keep the club running at that level, yet it is very difficult to slash costs across the board once they have increased, as I have said before, te longer you are there the greater costs become.
It also doesn’t mean having 4 or 5 years instead of 7. In most cases it doesn’t even mean 2, and those 2 are similar to the last couple we had where people claimed to hate it. |
I didn’t say we did it with the intention of selling at bargain basement prices, I said we did it in the knowledge that we’d have to sell at bargain basement prices if the gamble failed. The only other plausible explanation is that they thought they would get a lot more for the players than they did. Either way, it’s naivety at best, incompetence at worst.
So you are saying Andre Ayew was a good investment? Without even using hindsight. They knew the clubs finances at the time, we didn’t. It was a massive gamble.
I am just using 4 or 5 years as a salient example because that’s where the old board got us without spending unsustainable money. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 08:38 - Sep 8 with 582 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 08:31 - Sep 8 by jack247 |
I didn’t say we did it with the intention of selling at bargain basement prices, I said we did it in the knowledge that we’d have to sell at bargain basement prices if the gamble failed. The only other plausible explanation is that they thought they would get a lot more for the players than they did. Either way, it’s naivety at best, incompetence at worst.
So you are saying Andre Ayew was a good investment? Without even using hindsight. They knew the clubs finances at the time, we didn’t. It was a massive gamble.
I am just using 4 or 5 years as a salient example because that’s where the old board got us without spending unsustainable money. |
Yes and I disagreed. We didn’t have knowledge we would have to sell at bargain basement prices. Of course they thought they would get more for the players, we all did. It’s neither naive nor incompetent, just the way it panned out.
Where have I said that? I don’t think I have ever said that. I said he was a signing worth making at the time. If faced with a similar situation again I would hope we would do the same. Some work, some don’t, as long as there is a contingency plan then choose the option with the greater chance of survival/achieving goals.
That’s the point you aren’t getting. It was all sustainable as money is tied in players. That’s how we managed to stay there for so long. While other clubs keep their reserves in a bank, we invest it into the playing staff safe in the knowledge we can cash in on them if it fails. Which is what we have done and as a result managed extreme success and an 8th place finish to top it all off. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 08:55 - Sep 8 with 570 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 08:38 - Sep 8 by E20Jack |
Yes and I disagreed. We didn’t have knowledge we would have to sell at bargain basement prices. Of course they thought they would get more for the players, we all did. It’s neither naive nor incompetent, just the way it panned out.
Where have I said that? I don’t think I have ever said that. I said he was a signing worth making at the time. If faced with a similar situation again I would hope we would do the same. Some work, some don’t, as long as there is a contingency plan then choose the option with the greater chance of survival/achieving goals.
That’s the point you aren’t getting. It was all sustainable as money is tied in players. That’s how we managed to stay there for so long. While other clubs keep their reserves in a bank, we invest it into the playing staff safe in the knowledge we can cash in on them if it fails. Which is what we have done and as a result managed extreme success and an 8th place finish to top it all off. |
Of course it’s naive/incompetent. We were always going to get fleeced on deals as a club who was desperate to sell. Next club that goes down in such dire financial straits will have to sell their players for a fraction of what they would like as well.
‘The decision to plunge £150k in will remain a sound one regardless of outcome’ I think it’s fair to assume you meant that was a good investment. I said without hindsight, so it was obvious I meant at the time. You’ve pretty much clarified you did think he was a good investment (and you’d hope we’d do the same again) with the rest of your paragraph. Sell everyone at rock bottom prices because we have to isn’t really a contingency plan.
It’s only sustainable if those players retain or increase their value (as a group, not as individuals). You’ve got a lot more chance of doing that with the type of players and the type of football we had for the first few years. None of the first team players we signed last season came close to it. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 09:12 - Sep 8 with 562 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 08:55 - Sep 8 by jack247 |
Of course it’s naive/incompetent. We were always going to get fleeced on deals as a club who was desperate to sell. Next club that goes down in such dire financial straits will have to sell their players for a fraction of what they would like as well.
‘The decision to plunge £150k in will remain a sound one regardless of outcome’ I think it’s fair to assume you meant that was a good investment. I said without hindsight, so it was obvious I meant at the time. You’ve pretty much clarified you did think he was a good investment (and you’d hope we’d do the same again) with the rest of your paragraph. Sell everyone at rock bottom prices because we have to isn’t really a contingency plan.
It’s only sustainable if those players retain or increase their value (as a group, not as individuals). You’ve got a lot more chance of doing that with the type of players and the type of football we had for the first few years. None of the first team players we signed last season came close to it. |
It’s neither naive nor incompetent for all the reasons I have already stated. It was a very reasonable punt on a quality player to enable us to stay at the level we desire. Some work, some don’t.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume anything because by that very nature you are putting words into my mouth. You asked me if I thought it was a good investment, that is with the benefit of hindsight and an irrelevant question. Just as the business example, if we know the outcome then the value of the investment is known. At the time both the 150k business investment and the Andre Ayew purchaser were perfectly fine and sound business decisions, they both gave a chance to maintain and achieve a goal and had the downside covered (the business example less so).
I don’t think the contingency was to sell everyone at rock bottom prices, again this is another twist you are applying. The contingency was the value was held in our players which could be released if relegated. It panned out that it was at low end prices but certainly not the business plan or indeed the forced reality in the future.
No it isn’t, it’s sustainable for as long as you have the value held in the squad that covers any shortfall - of which we did at all times. What you said there just isn’t true, again. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 09:23 - Sep 8 with 559 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 09:12 - Sep 8 by E20Jack |
It’s neither naive nor incompetent for all the reasons I have already stated. It was a very reasonable punt on a quality player to enable us to stay at the level we desire. Some work, some don’t.
I don’t think it’s fair to assume anything because by that very nature you are putting words into my mouth. You asked me if I thought it was a good investment, that is with the benefit of hindsight and an irrelevant question. Just as the business example, if we know the outcome then the value of the investment is known. At the time both the 150k business investment and the Andre Ayew purchaser were perfectly fine and sound business decisions, they both gave a chance to maintain and achieve a goal and had the downside covered (the business example less so).
I don’t think the contingency was to sell everyone at rock bottom prices, again this is another twist you are applying. The contingency was the value was held in our players which could be released if relegated. It panned out that it was at low end prices but certainly not the business plan or indeed the forced reality in the future.
No it isn’t, it’s sustainable for as long as you have the value held in the squad that covers any shortfall - of which we did at all times. What you said there just isn’t true, again. |
So you thought Ayew was a good investment at the time. Thank you, you knew what I was asking, could have saved us both a couple of paragraphs there.
‘It planned out that it was at low end prices’ and that came as a surprise? Seriously?
By your own admission we were the Clucas deal falling through from being in financial jeopardy. We may well have to cut further in January. We may still be in financial jeopardy. You don’t know what the value in the squad is, you don’t know what the shortfall is. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 09:36 - Sep 8 with 557 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 09:23 - Sep 8 by jack247 |
So you thought Ayew was a good investment at the time. Thank you, you knew what I was asking, could have saved us both a couple of paragraphs there.
‘It planned out that it was at low end prices’ and that came as a surprise? Seriously?
By your own admission we were the Clucas deal falling through from being in financial jeopardy. We may well have to cut further in January. We may still be in financial jeopardy. You don’t know what the value in the squad is, you don’t know what the shortfall is. |
Where did I say that? A good investment suggests a direct return on it, which I didn’t think was the case. A good decision maybe? I expected, or indeed could see the logic behind the indirect return on it.
Yes those prices came as a shock to all of us, or certainly the vast majority. I will be shocked should it happen again too although don’t think it will. It was a toxic combination which led to those prices one I hope we don’t see again.
Yes indeed we were the Clucas deal away from financial jeapordy. But I don’t envisage any way in which we couldn’t have raised the money for him or the likes of Jordan or Andre Ayew at some point. The effect of his deal falling through would simply have meant it was delayed until we sold him eventually. The upshot being the effect on finances would just be his weekly wage X how ever many weeks it took to sell him, not ideal sure. But not financial jeapordy either.
No I don’t know to the penny the value of the squad, like I don’t know to the exact penny the value of my house but an make a fairly sound estimate. Yes I do know what the shortfall was, as should you. [Post edited 8 Sep 2018 9:38]
| |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:01 - Sep 8 with 549 views | Dewi1jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 19:03 - Sep 5 by E20Jack |
It would certainly not be.
The owners have acted perfectly well so far this season. Do you not think?
Reckon the fans have? |
Yes they (Edit. The owners) have in your books.
But your book is exceptionally skewed to the owners doing no wrong.
Whereas it appears the fans can do no right.
Some yes or no questions for you.
No need to debate them, just answer yes or no.
Sort of the K.I.S.S. principle
1/Full open and honest engagement with a 21% shareholder?
2/Full requested disclosure to the said shareholder?
3/Employing the best off field staff they can?
4/Being truthful about the original sale?
5/Being open and honest about the people or the number of people backing them, either at the start or now?
6/ Full, open, honest dialogue with a 21% shareholder when they originally approached/ were approached to buy the club?
Congrats to the club BTW for the gesture to the teacher.
Little things like that go, and always have done, a long way.
Plus it gets kids thinking about Swansea City.
The little ones are our future.
Us oldies are getting closer to those we've lost by the day and without the little ones starting to watch the Swans, there will be no fans and ultimately no club. [Post edited 8 Sep 2018 10:03]
|  |
| If you wake up breathing, thats a good start to your day and you'll make many thousands of people envious. |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:01 - Sep 8 with 549 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 09:36 - Sep 8 by E20Jack |
Where did I say that? A good investment suggests a direct return on it, which I didn’t think was the case. A good decision maybe? I expected, or indeed could see the logic behind the indirect return on it.
Yes those prices came as a shock to all of us, or certainly the vast majority. I will be shocked should it happen again too although don’t think it will. It was a toxic combination which led to those prices one I hope we don’t see again.
Yes indeed we were the Clucas deal away from financial jeapordy. But I don’t envisage any way in which we couldn’t have raised the money for him or the likes of Jordan or Andre Ayew at some point. The effect of his deal falling through would simply have meant it was delayed until we sold him eventually. The upshot being the effect on finances would just be his weekly wage X how ever many weeks it took to sell him, not ideal sure. But not financial jeapordy either.
No I don’t know to the penny the value of the squad, like I don’t know to the exact penny the value of my house but an make a fairly sound estimate. Yes I do know what the shortfall was, as should you. [Post edited 8 Sep 2018 9:38]
|
Educate me. How much was the shortfall in pounds?
And what was the toxic combination? So far I’ve got players being desperate to leave, us being desperate to sell them and clubs knowing that.
A good investment doesn’t always require a direct return. If you’re happy to say you thought signing him was a good decision given our finances at the time, that’s all I was asking. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:07 - Sep 8 with 536 views | E20Jack |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:01 - Sep 8 by jack247 |
Educate me. How much was the shortfall in pounds?
And what was the toxic combination? So far I’ve got players being desperate to leave, us being desperate to sell them and clubs knowing that.
A good investment doesn’t always require a direct return. If you’re happy to say you thought signing him was a good decision given our finances at the time, that’s all I was asking. |
£40m wasn’t that the figure Leigh Dineen gave?
Your mistake was wanting everything in literal terms, when that is made clear you can’t then expect broad answers. I had to make sure you weren’t asking if I thought we would make a direct profit on Ayew.
The fans at loggerheads with the owners. The Trust being at loggerheads with the Americans. I would want to be shot of the club if I were a player with neutral loyalties. Hence my point regarding fans creating false negativity having a direct impact on players possibly steering clear of us. | |
| |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:22 - Sep 8 with 526 views | jack247 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:07 - Sep 8 by E20Jack |
£40m wasn’t that the figure Leigh Dineen gave?
Your mistake was wanting everything in literal terms, when that is made clear you can’t then expect broad answers. I had to make sure you weren’t asking if I thought we would make a direct profit on Ayew.
The fans at loggerheads with the owners. The Trust being at loggerheads with the Americans. I would want to be shot of the club if I were a player with neutral loyalties. Hence my point regarding fans creating false negativity having a direct impact on players possibly steering clear of us. |
So according to Leigh Dineen we should be about ship shape now then? We must have made a transfer surplus of about £40m, albeit most not up front, and slashed our outgoings. Should mean that we shouldn’t need to cash in on anyone in January and if we do, Potter should expect a decent chunk of what we raise to reshape the squad?
I don’t think anyone could ever claim we were likely to make a direct profit on Ayew, buying him for roughly what we sold him for, when his form had dropped significantly at West Ham and we had a good chance of relegation. If you think he was a good gamble, purely as a purchase, in the knowledge we were likely to be £40m in the hole if we went down, fair enough, it’s your opinion.
Are you implying it’s the fans fault that players aren’t coming to us? I’d have thought it more likely no one is coming because we aren’t in a position to buy them. | | | |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:25 - Sep 8 with 522 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| A Nice Touch from the Club on 10:22 - Sep 8 by jack247 |
So according to Leigh Dineen we should be about ship shape now then? We must have made a transfer surplus of about £40m, albeit most not up front, and slashed our outgoings. Should mean that we shouldn’t need to cash in on anyone in January and if we do, Potter should expect a decent chunk of what we raise to reshape the squad?
I don’t think anyone could ever claim we were likely to make a direct profit on Ayew, buying him for roughly what we sold him for, when his form had dropped significantly at West Ham and we had a good chance of relegation. If you think he was a good gamble, purely as a purchase, in the knowledge we were likely to be £40m in the hole if we went down, fair enough, it’s your opinion.
Are you implying it’s the fans fault that players aren’t coming to us? I’d have thought it more likely no one is coming because we aren’t in a position to buy them. |
<< I don’t think anyone could ever claim we were likely to make a direct profit on Ayew, buying him for roughly what we sold him for, when his form had dropped significantly at West Ham and we had a good chance of relegation. If you think he was a good gamble, purely as a purchase, in the knowledge we were likely to be £40m in the hole if we went down, fair enough, it’s your opinion. >>
I thought signing Ayew gave us a chance of staying up, I was wrong. Also thought we would make atleast some return on him, wrong. I suppose that’s why I’m not earning £500k per year plus bonuses to make these decisions though, nor is E20 thank f*ck. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
