Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
At the end of the day 21:45 - Mar 8 with 6559 viewsswan65split

When it's all said and done,...............a little bit of investment,..............then again we have a hedge fund.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 06:18 - Mar 10 with 610 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 06:04 - Mar 10 by The_E20

Again, It’s totally irrelevant.

The discussion is regarding our £5m spend, where it is being suggested it wasn’t enough. The point is we spent everything we realistically could which culminated in our highest ever spend at this level.

The fact we raised £40m has absolutely no baring on whether that £5m can be considered a fair amount of investment (which you always allude to in these conversations), because the other £35m was earmarked elsewhere.

With this latest appointment in chairman it is pretty safe to say we invested everything we had, which is excellent. We were under no obligation to whatsoever.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 6:16]


Well going on your very fair assumptions that the £35m was needed elsewhere and we spent everything we could, it’s reasonable to conclude that had we’d raised £60m, we’d have had up to £25m to spend. The amount we brought in was relevant after all. Thank you for clarifying.

The rumour of Birch coming in does little to support the notion that the Americans have run the club well since being here, but I’ll leave you to debate that with other people on the other thread.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 06:26 - Mar 10 with 601 viewsThe_E20

(No subject) (n/t) on 06:18 - Mar 10 by jack247

Well going on your very fair assumptions that the £35m was needed elsewhere and we spent everything we could, it’s reasonable to conclude that had we’d raised £60m, we’d have had up to £25m to spend. The amount we brought in was relevant after all. Thank you for clarifying.

The rumour of Birch coming in does little to support the notion that the Americans have run the club well since being here, but I’ll leave you to debate that with other people on the other thread.


Nope. The discussion is not, and was never what we could have spent if we sold ‘x’ amount. That is a very recent twist you have added.

The discussion was around what we actually did spend and that being criticised due to raising £40m. Raising £40m in completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to the criticism of the investment as we simply did not have any more and spent as much as we realistically could. It really cannot be put any simpler.

The Americans inherited a club that had long become the victim of its own success. Without the success you would not have the spend, without the spend you would not have the deficit when relegated - it’s a vicious cycle that people are more than happy to take the upsides of and want nothing to do with the downside... yet would criticise if the upside was never present.

It’s just point after point based on nothing. Sorry 247, we usually have a fairly sound debate. This one however, is bonkers.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 6:32]
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 06:40 - Mar 10 with 597 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 06:26 - Mar 10 by The_E20

Nope. The discussion is not, and was never what we could have spent if we sold ‘x’ amount. That is a very recent twist you have added.

The discussion was around what we actually did spend and that being criticised due to raising £40m. Raising £40m in completely and utterly irrelevant when it comes to the criticism of the investment as we simply did not have any more and spent as much as we realistically could. It really cannot be put any simpler.

The Americans inherited a club that had long become the victim of its own success. Without the success you would not have the spend, without the spend you would not have the deficit when relegated - it’s a vicious cycle that people are more than happy to take the upsides of and want nothing to do with the downside... yet would criticise if the upside was never present.

It’s just point after point based on nothing. Sorry 247, we usually have a fairly sound debate. This one however, is bonkers.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 6:32]


Maybe your original discussion with other people was. I haven’t criticised the board for spending £5m when £40m came in, just you for presenting it as a badge of honour.

The twist was added in response to you stating the £40m and £5m had no bearing on each other, when they clearly do.

The Americans absolutely bought a club that had peaked, which you’d think they’d have done a bit of research into. They’ve either overestimated us, or more likely themselves, but they have accelerated and accentuated its decline spectacularly. We don’t have to have the argument about the players and managers brought in on their watch again, we’ll never agree on that.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 06:49 - Mar 10 with 588 viewsThe_E20

(No subject) (n/t) on 06:40 - Mar 10 by jack247

Maybe your original discussion with other people was. I haven’t criticised the board for spending £5m when £40m came in, just you for presenting it as a badge of honour.

The twist was added in response to you stating the £40m and £5m had no bearing on each other, when they clearly do.

The Americans absolutely bought a club that had peaked, which you’d think they’d have done a bit of research into. They’ve either overestimated us, or more likely themselves, but they have accelerated and accentuated its decline spectacularly. We don’t have to have the argument about the players and managers brought in on their watch again, we’ll never agree on that.


What do you mean “maybe your original discussion was”? YOU said that we raised £40m so a £5m investment in the squad was nothing to be praised. I correctly told you that us raising £40m has absolutely no baring on whether the £5m spend can be criticised or not as the rest wasn’t ours.

If you want to change that to a point where you simply suggest your point was “if we sold more we could have spent more” then my response to that is... and? It isn’t even a point worth making. We didn’t sell more. With what we did sell, we spent what we could and broke our transfer record spend at this level.

They almost certainly underestimated the situation, I have said it from the start. I completely disagree they accelerated its decline though. The fact we stayed up the year before relegation was a miricle, as was the season prior to a lesser extent.

But none of that has anything to do with the investment in the side this year, which you now appear to agree it was as much as anyone could have realistically expected, which was the point you appeared to take umbrage with - not for the first time.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 6:52]
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 07:06 - Mar 10 with 588 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 06:49 - Mar 10 by The_E20

What do you mean “maybe your original discussion was”? YOU said that we raised £40m so a £5m investment in the squad was nothing to be praised. I correctly told you that us raising £40m has absolutely no baring on whether the £5m spend can be criticised or not as the rest wasn’t ours.

If you want to change that to a point where you simply suggest your point was “if we sold more we could have spent more” then my response to that is... and? It isn’t even a point worth making. We didn’t sell more. With what we did sell, we spent what we could and broke our transfer record spend at this level.

They almost certainly underestimated the situation, I have said it from the start. I completely disagree they accelerated its decline though. The fact we stayed up the year before relegation was a miricle, as was the season prior to a lesser extent.

But none of that has anything to do with the investment in the side this year, which you now appear to agree it was as much as anyone could have realistically expected, which was the point you appeared to take umbrage with - not for the first time.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 6:52]


Well it is nothing to be praised. They’ve just spent what they had available to spend, it’s absolutely what I’d expect when prior incompetence has forced us to decimate the squad. I couldn’t get my head around why you were blowing smoke up them for that. Still can’t.

You introduced ‘the £40m and the £5m bear no significance to each other’. I’ve disagreed which is where ‘if we’d raised more we could have spent more’ came from. You don’t dispute that. Glad we’re now on the same page there.

You’re seriously overestimating the bottom 6 of the PL. Staying up in 2016/17 was only a miracle because they handicapped us with Bob Bradley for quarter of a season. It’s all opinion, but I’m convinced we’d have stayed up last season had we made one decent signing with the Siggy/Llorente/Cork money
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 07:13 - Mar 10 with 581 viewsThe_E20

(No subject) (n/t) on 07:06 - Mar 10 by jack247

Well it is nothing to be praised. They’ve just spent what they had available to spend, it’s absolutely what I’d expect when prior incompetence has forced us to decimate the squad. I couldn’t get my head around why you were blowing smoke up them for that. Still can’t.

You introduced ‘the £40m and the £5m bear no significance to each other’. I’ve disagreed which is where ‘if we’d raised more we could have spent more’ came from. You don’t dispute that. Glad we’re now on the same page there.

You’re seriously overestimating the bottom 6 of the PL. Staying up in 2016/17 was only a miracle because they handicapped us with Bob Bradley for quarter of a season. It’s all opinion, but I’m convinced we’d have stayed up last season had we made one decent signing with the Siggy/Llorente/Cork money


Of course spending every spare penny we have on investing in the squad is to be praised. They are under no obligation to and this off the back of claims they are in it to siphon off any cash they can. Where was I blowing smoke up them? I correctly said they spent all they could resulting in us breaking our record.. you then interjected with your point that we sold £40m. Which is when I correctly informed you that it is irrelevant.

No I did not introduce that at all. I introduced the point that the fact we raised £40m to pay a £35m debt has absolutely no baring in the criticism that they “only” invested £5m. Which was the point you were making clearly - otherwise it literally has no baring in the conversation, or any conversation remotely linked to this in fact. Unless you thought I was claiming the £5m was from their own personal pot?

You can be as convinced as you like. Our squad needed far more than one decent signing and think you are vastly underestimating the ease of being able to do so for a club in clear decline.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 7:17]
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 07:43 - Mar 10 with 567 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 07:13 - Mar 10 by The_E20

Of course spending every spare penny we have on investing in the squad is to be praised. They are under no obligation to and this off the back of claims they are in it to siphon off any cash they can. Where was I blowing smoke up them? I correctly said they spent all they could resulting in us breaking our record.. you then interjected with your point that we sold £40m. Which is when I correctly informed you that it is irrelevant.

No I did not introduce that at all. I introduced the point that the fact we raised £40m to pay a £35m debt has absolutely no baring in the criticism that they “only” invested £5m. Which was the point you were making clearly - otherwise it literally has no baring in the conversation, or any conversation remotely linked to this in fact. Unless you thought I was claiming the £5m was from their own personal pot?

You can be as convinced as you like. Our squad needed far more than one decent signing and think you are vastly underestimating the ease of being able to do so for a club in clear decline.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 7:17]


Our squad needed one decent signing to stay up, not to get back to where it was under Laudrup. This isn’t a dig at all, it’s a genuine question, but do you watch many games?

I’m not sure if you’re attributing claims they were siphoning funds to me. I don’t think that for a second, I just think they are incompetent and bullish with it, that’s what’s got us here. You consistently blow smoke up then, it’s bordering on sycophantic at times. Yes, it’s a fact we spent more than we ever have in the Championship, we raised substantially more, we had to spend the vast majority of that plugging the hole they created are also both facts.

Some people criticise the Americans regardless, you go to the other extreme. If you showed a bit of balance in your posts (in general) and didn’t present them spending the transfer budget as a philanthropic gesture (in this case), I probably wouldn’t have bothered replying.

And no, as far as I know you’ve never claimed they have invested their own money into the squad and don’t imagine you saying that.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 08:04 - Mar 10 with 549 viewsTrustPanickingAgain

(No subject) (n/t) on 07:43 - Mar 10 by jack247

Our squad needed one decent signing to stay up, not to get back to where it was under Laudrup. This isn’t a dig at all, it’s a genuine question, but do you watch many games?

I’m not sure if you’re attributing claims they were siphoning funds to me. I don’t think that for a second, I just think they are incompetent and bullish with it, that’s what’s got us here. You consistently blow smoke up then, it’s bordering on sycophantic at times. Yes, it’s a fact we spent more than we ever have in the Championship, we raised substantially more, we had to spend the vast majority of that plugging the hole they created are also both facts.

Some people criticise the Americans regardless, you go to the other extreme. If you showed a bit of balance in your posts (in general) and didn’t present them spending the transfer budget as a philanthropic gesture (in this case), I probably wouldn’t have bothered replying.

And no, as far as I know you’ve never claimed they have invested their own money into the squad and don’t imagine you saying that.


Apologies for the delay in reply, the Trust banned me again for my ability to cut through the propaganda.

Anyway....

That’s your opinion, one of which I completely disagree with. Our squad had degenerated into the teams we used to thrash regularly. Once that happens it’s very rare you can attract the caliber of player required to thrive or indeed even survive.

I’m not suggesting you said anything other than your obvious point that spending all we could on the playing squad doesn’t deserve praise due to the amount sold. Then me telling you that the amount that was sold is irrelevant to any claim that what we spent was indeed worthy of criticism. It wasn’t our money.

I think there is some sort of complex going on with you in regards to what you interpret my posts as. If I was suggesting the spend was philanthropic then that would mean it was their own money - a notion you later go on to say you know was a point I was not making.

I am completely and utterly balanced in my posts. Have never been anything but and is pretty much exactly what I stand for. You took offence at me responding to incorrect claims that the investment was derisory by correctly explaining why it wasn’t.

After you realised that the amount we sold made no difference when it came to critiquing the investment in the squad you changed tactic, although simply now re-iterating the source of those funds is an odd and irrelevant point to make.
0
Login to get fewer ads

(No subject) (n/t) on 08:39 - Mar 10 with 529 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 08:04 - Mar 10 by TrustPanickingAgain

Apologies for the delay in reply, the Trust banned me again for my ability to cut through the propaganda.

Anyway....

That’s your opinion, one of which I completely disagree with. Our squad had degenerated into the teams we used to thrash regularly. Once that happens it’s very rare you can attract the caliber of player required to thrive or indeed even survive.

I’m not suggesting you said anything other than your obvious point that spending all we could on the playing squad doesn’t deserve praise due to the amount sold. Then me telling you that the amount that was sold is irrelevant to any claim that what we spent was indeed worthy of criticism. It wasn’t our money.

I think there is some sort of complex going on with you in regards to what you interpret my posts as. If I was suggesting the spend was philanthropic then that would mean it was their own money - a notion you later go on to say you know was a point I was not making.

I am completely and utterly balanced in my posts. Have never been anything but and is pretty much exactly what I stand for. You took offence at me responding to incorrect claims that the investment was derisory by correctly explaining why it wasn’t.

After you realised that the amount we sold made no difference when it came to critiquing the investment in the squad you changed tactic, although simply now re-iterating the source of those funds is an odd and irrelevant point to make.


No problem, not your fault.

I don’t disagree that the squad had peaked. I completely disagree that it was a miracle we stayed up the season before or would have been last season. It hadn’t degenerated to the point we couldn’t finish above Huddersfield for example. When they go down they won’t be able to offload as many players to top level clubs as we did and they certainly won’t raise £40m selling players on the cheap.

I can’t get your second point. In round terms we raised £40m, £35m went to plug the relegation hole. If there’s £5m available it’s only right it goes towards the team. That doesn’t deserve praise or derision, it’s just what should happen.

No complex, I’ve meant philanthropic in the sense of the clubs money, not theirs. That’s based on you stating they were under no obligation to commit any funds to incoming transfers, despite decimati the squad. As if they were doing us a favour.


Your posts are very well thought out and structured, but you’re amomg the least balanced posters on here. Admittedly I don’t read every thread, but I can’t recall you ever criticising the Americans, either this season or previously, despite them taking us from a club worth paying £60odd million for 68% of to an insolvency practitioner in less than 3 years.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 08:51 - Mar 10 with 516 viewsTrustPanickingAgain

(No subject) (n/t) on 08:39 - Mar 10 by jack247

No problem, not your fault.

I don’t disagree that the squad had peaked. I completely disagree that it was a miracle we stayed up the season before or would have been last season. It hadn’t degenerated to the point we couldn’t finish above Huddersfield for example. When they go down they won’t be able to offload as many players to top level clubs as we did and they certainly won’t raise £40m selling players on the cheap.

I can’t get your second point. In round terms we raised £40m, £35m went to plug the relegation hole. If there’s £5m available it’s only right it goes towards the team. That doesn’t deserve praise or derision, it’s just what should happen.

No complex, I’ve meant philanthropic in the sense of the clubs money, not theirs. That’s based on you stating they were under no obligation to commit any funds to incoming transfers, despite decimati the squad. As if they were doing us a favour.


Your posts are very well thought out and structured, but you’re amomg the least balanced posters on here. Admittedly I don’t read every thread, but I can’t recall you ever criticising the Americans, either this season or previously, despite them taking us from a club worth paying £60odd million for 68% of to an insolvency practitioner in less than 3 years.


Come on 247, we were woeful. If it was as easy as bringing in a good player to solve all problems then don’t you think we would have? Or don’t you think everyone would? I cannot accept our squad of journeymen and ageing has beens was in such a privileged position that it was a simple fix, easier than other teams in the same predicament.

When Huddersfield go down they also won’t have a £100m wage bill that had naturally increased by 7 straight seasons and unprecedented success. But if you asked them if they would take 7 years in the top flight, last 16 of Europe, a major trophy and multiple top 10 finishes in exchange for a period of rebuilding once it’s over - they would snatch your hand off, anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

Again, this “doingbus s favour” thing is your odd interpretation of my point. My point was in response to criticism of the investment. They absolutely were under zero obligation to plough that “spare” money back in, especially from a group of shareholders widely accused of doing the opposite.

I am probably the most balanced poster on here bar none. The Americans made a terrible mistake ignoring advice and appointing Bradley. Openly said it. However I have the ability to understand why clubs of our size end up in our position and don’t for one second believe that it is down to the owners. I would bet anything we would be here right now, sale or no sale. But it is not something that could ever be proved, the trend prior to take over certainly suggests I am right though. We were dreadful.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 9:20]
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 10:25 - Mar 10 with 483 viewsdobjack2

(No subject) (n/t) on 08:39 - Mar 10 by jack247

No problem, not your fault.

I don’t disagree that the squad had peaked. I completely disagree that it was a miracle we stayed up the season before or would have been last season. It hadn’t degenerated to the point we couldn’t finish above Huddersfield for example. When they go down they won’t be able to offload as many players to top level clubs as we did and they certainly won’t raise £40m selling players on the cheap.

I can’t get your second point. In round terms we raised £40m, £35m went to plug the relegation hole. If there’s £5m available it’s only right it goes towards the team. That doesn’t deserve praise or derision, it’s just what should happen.

No complex, I’ve meant philanthropic in the sense of the clubs money, not theirs. That’s based on you stating they were under no obligation to commit any funds to incoming transfers, despite decimati the squad. As if they were doing us a favour.


Your posts are very well thought out and structured, but you’re amomg the least balanced posters on here. Admittedly I don’t read every thread, but I can’t recall you ever criticising the Americans, either this season or previously, despite them taking us from a club worth paying £60odd million for 68% of to an insolvency practitioner in less than 3 years.


Huddersfield probably haven’t crippled themselves financially by buying players for fees and contracts that they can’t afford in the long term so probably won’t need a firesale of biblical proportions.

Clubs get into a mess when their financial strategy is living on the never never and relying on premier league cash to prevent the club crashing down around them. When relegation catches up with those clubs they are in serious trouble.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 10:25 - Mar 10 with 483 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 08:51 - Mar 10 by TrustPanickingAgain

Come on 247, we were woeful. If it was as easy as bringing in a good player to solve all problems then don’t you think we would have? Or don’t you think everyone would? I cannot accept our squad of journeymen and ageing has beens was in such a privileged position that it was a simple fix, easier than other teams in the same predicament.

When Huddersfield go down they also won’t have a £100m wage bill that had naturally increased by 7 straight seasons and unprecedented success. But if you asked them if they would take 7 years in the top flight, last 16 of Europe, a major trophy and multiple top 10 finishes in exchange for a period of rebuilding once it’s over - they would snatch your hand off, anyone that says otherwise is a liar.

Again, this “doingbus s favour” thing is your odd interpretation of my point. My point was in response to criticism of the investment. They absolutely were under zero obligation to plough that “spare” money back in, especially from a group of shareholders widely accused of doing the opposite.

I am probably the most balanced poster on here bar none. The Americans made a terrible mistake ignoring advice and appointing Bradley. Openly said it. However I have the ability to understand why clubs of our size end up in our position and don’t for one second believe that it is down to the owners. I would bet anything we would be here right now, sale or no sale. But it is not something that could ever be proved, the trend prior to take over certainly suggests I am right though. We were dreadful.
[Post edited 10 Mar 2019 9:20]


It’s not as if we weren’t in a strong enough position to attract players. We had just sold Siggy and Cork, were on the verge of selling Llorente.

We saw off Newcastle for Abraham, god knows how many clubs for Sanches and paid Bony £100k per week. £15m or so for Clucas, I don’t remember what Mesa cost but he was a marquee signing of sorts, neither would have been on bad wages. We paid £20m and presumably West Ham wages for Ayew in January.

You can’t pretend we weren’t in a position to attract good players, or even that we didn’t try. The fact (ok technically my opinion) is all 6 of them were bad signings. If you break it down, two of them had mental problems, one of them had been injured for the majority of the last 2 years and remained injured, Abraham was fed to the lions a bit as he’s no way suited to playing up front with no support, Clucas was vastly overpriced and Ayew was a panic buy.

Yes, that’s with hindsight and I was as excited as anyone when we signed Sanches, but I would have expected the club to do a bit of research on these players before committing that kind of money.

Even after that, had we not lost to Southampton right at the end, we probably would have stayed up, so yes, one decent signing would have made a massive difference.

Re. Huddersfield - I’m sure they would, not convinced they would if you replaced ‘period of rebuilding’ with ‘appointing an insolvency expert to run the club’.

The rest of it, your opinion, mine differs, that’s life.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 10:30 - Mar 10 with 478 viewsPanicStations

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:25 - Mar 10 by jack247

It’s not as if we weren’t in a strong enough position to attract players. We had just sold Siggy and Cork, were on the verge of selling Llorente.

We saw off Newcastle for Abraham, god knows how many clubs for Sanches and paid Bony £100k per week. £15m or so for Clucas, I don’t remember what Mesa cost but he was a marquee signing of sorts, neither would have been on bad wages. We paid £20m and presumably West Ham wages for Ayew in January.

You can’t pretend we weren’t in a position to attract good players, or even that we didn’t try. The fact (ok technically my opinion) is all 6 of them were bad signings. If you break it down, two of them had mental problems, one of them had been injured for the majority of the last 2 years and remained injured, Abraham was fed to the lions a bit as he’s no way suited to playing up front with no support, Clucas was vastly overpriced and Ayew was a panic buy.

Yes, that’s with hindsight and I was as excited as anyone when we signed Sanches, but I would have expected the club to do a bit of research on these players before committing that kind of money.

Even after that, had we not lost to Southampton right at the end, we probably would have stayed up, so yes, one decent signing would have made a massive difference.

Re. Huddersfield - I’m sure they would, not convinced they would if you replaced ‘period of rebuilding’ with ‘appointing an insolvency expert to run the club’.

The rest of it, your opinion, mine differs, that’s life.


We signed Abraham and Sanches simply because of Clement, neither would have come otherwise. In short, it was certainly not the club that attracted them, and both were safe in the knowledge they were loans. Ayew, Bony etc came to us simply because it was their only realistic choice apart from prematurely being farmed out to Turkey. We were not an attractive club for new players and no doubt had to be creative with payments owed, let’s just say it’s orobably not a coincidence that we re-signed players.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 10:44 - Mar 10 with 462 viewsjasper_T

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:30 - Mar 10 by PanicStations

We signed Abraham and Sanches simply because of Clement, neither would have come otherwise. In short, it was certainly not the club that attracted them, and both were safe in the knowledge they were loans. Ayew, Bony etc came to us simply because it was their only realistic choice apart from prematurely being farmed out to Turkey. We were not an attractive club for new players and no doubt had to be creative with payments owed, let’s just say it’s orobably not a coincidence that we re-signed players.


Abraham was signed on Brian Flynn's recommendation.

It was the money and the PL that attracted him, not the manager.
1
(No subject) (n/t) on 10:56 - Mar 10 with 449 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:30 - Mar 10 by PanicStations

We signed Abraham and Sanches simply because of Clement, neither would have come otherwise. In short, it was certainly not the club that attracted them, and both were safe in the knowledge they were loans. Ayew, Bony etc came to us simply because it was their only realistic choice apart from prematurely being farmed out to Turkey. We were not an attractive club for new players and no doubt had to be creative with payments owed, let’s just say it’s orobably not a coincidence that we re-signed players.


Not going to argue with the first half of that.


You can’t seriously think we wouldn’t be able to attract half decent players with the kind of wages we paid out though? As I said, it’s not as if we didn’t attempt to (Mesa being an unconnected and reasonably sought after player) we just screwed it up. Six times.

The Ayew one was criminal.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:02 - Mar 10 with 444 viewsDarran

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:44 - Mar 10 by jasper_T

Abraham was signed on Brian Flynn's recommendation.

It was the money and the PL that attracted him, not the manager.


Did his wages increase when he signed for us on loan then? 🤷🏻‍♂️

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:03 - Mar 10 with 443 viewsjasper_T

(No subject) (n/t) on 11:02 - Mar 10 by Darran

Did his wages increase when he signed for us on loan then? 🤷🏻‍♂️


Yes, same as they have this season at Villa. He's making an extra £15-20k a week to go on loans supposedly.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:07 - Mar 10 with 438 viewsDarran

(No subject) (n/t) on 11:03 - Mar 10 by jasper_T

Yes, same as they have this season at Villa. He's making an extra £15-20k a week to go on loans supposedly.


I don’t believe he was earning an extra £15-20k a week playing for us sorry.

The first ever recipient of a Planet Swans Lifetime Achievement Award.
Poll: Who’s got the most experts

0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:13 - Mar 10 with 432 viewsAlarmBells

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:44 - Mar 10 by jasper_T

Abraham was signed on Brian Flynn's recommendation.

It was the money and the PL that attracted him, not the manager.


That may be why we were interested in him, but Clement is why he came. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’d never heard of Brian Flynn.

They knew each other from Chelsea. He was on 50k a week regardless of whether he came to us or not.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:17 - Mar 10 with 423 viewsAlarmBells

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:56 - Mar 10 by jack247

Not going to argue with the first half of that.


You can’t seriously think we wouldn’t be able to attract half decent players with the kind of wages we paid out though? As I said, it’s not as if we didn’t attempt to (Mesa being an unconnected and reasonably sought after player) we just screwed it up. Six times.

The Ayew one was criminal.


Yep I do. It’s not a computer game where we just ask and pay a fee and wages and they come.

I can’t think of a single player that would come to us who would be so good they could get us out of the problems singlehandedly. And if they were available not attract interest from elsewhere.

I just don’t see it. When the club is going down, then the likes of injured players or out of favour players is all you can rely on. Have you seen the Sunderland documentary? Getting players in for them was almost impossible

With the players we were forced into looking at, they are risky. If they come off then they work, I’d they don’t then they won’t. For us, on this occasion / it didn’t. That’s football. And that’s why every single club like us will get relegated, but very few will have our success.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:20 - Mar 10 with 420 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 10:44 - Mar 10 by jasper_T

Abraham was signed on Brian Flynn's recommendation.

It was the money and the PL that attracted him, not the manager.


Of course it was. As it is for pretty much every player.

Regardless of whether he would have gone to Newcastle had Clement not been here, we had £50k a week to spend on a striker. We loaned Abraham who is probably very good in the right system, but was woeful for us. We could and should have done a lot better.

Last sentence probably applies to Mesa too.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:24 - Mar 10 with 417 viewsjack247

(No subject) (n/t) on 11:17 - Mar 10 by AlarmBells

Yep I do. It’s not a computer game where we just ask and pay a fee and wages and they come.

I can’t think of a single player that would come to us who would be so good they could get us out of the problems singlehandedly. And if they were available not attract interest from elsewhere.

I just don’t see it. When the club is going down, then the likes of injured players or out of favour players is all you can rely on. Have you seen the Sunderland documentary? Getting players in for them was almost impossible

With the players we were forced into looking at, they are risky. If they come off then they work, I’d they don’t then they won’t. For us, on this occasion / it didn’t. That’s football. And that’s why every single club like us will get relegated, but very few will have our success.


Unless you’re talking about Ayew, we weren’t going down. We were 5th or 6th favourites for the drop at the start of the season.

We needed to either win one of our last 7 games or draw with Southampton at home. We wouldn’t have needed Salah.
0
At the end of the day on 11:25 - Mar 10 with 416 viewsBillyChong

At the end of the day on 23:14 - Mar 8 by The_E20

We have had investment though.

In fact we spent more this season than we ever have at this level in our history. What you are saying is you “wanted even more”.

Every clubs supporters no doubt want even more. Unfortunately it is often unrealistic.


Yeah, but that was after coming up not after leaving a lucrative division. Completely different scenario.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 11:51 - Mar 10 with 395 viewsjasper_T

(No subject) (n/t) on 11:07 - Mar 10 by Darran

I don’t believe he was earning an extra £15-20k a week playing for us sorry.


You don't have to believe it but it's widely reported. He got over and above his Chelsea wage with us and Villa.
1
At the end of the day on 12:22 - Mar 10 with 376 viewsBobbyBacala

At the end of the day on 11:25 - Mar 10 by BillyChong

Yeah, but that was after coming up not after leaving a lucrative division. Completely different scenario.


And it's only relevent if the levels of investment in the Championship are the same as they were in 2010/11.

It's true saying this is the most we've ever spent at this level, but if it's less than say, 12 other clubs in this division, it's a bit disingenuous.
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024