Derbiean Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Adkins didn't have to rebuild the squad inherited from Paul Jewell and as far as i know Adkins didn't have to reduce the wage bill at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 So after all this, net spend wise, NC spent more than Adkins had done at Southampton? Yet they're in the PL and we're midtable in the NPC er ....we did the comparison with southampton and norwich a couple of weeks back..... just before you ruined my argument by arguing southampton were right to sack Atkins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 er ....we did the comparison with southampton and norwich a couple of weeks back..... just before you ruined my argument by arguing southampton were right to sack Atkins. Bahhhhhhhhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 He would probably be right because he was talking about inward investment on players,which obviously implies net spend,as opposed to gross spend. Well in your original response you told him that he was wrong. Can we clear up which one it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm shutting down for a few days this has done my head in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Well in your original response you told him that he was wrong. Can we clear up which one it is? Anyone who bothered to read would know that I originally thought he was talking about net spend since they came in (i.e. including Jewell).I subsequently realised that he was probably talking about Nigel's reign and based my figures on that (which should have been pretty clear to most people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Bahhhhhhhhhhhh I see you've been sniffing that lacquer thinner again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Anyone who bothered to read would know that I originally thought he was talking about net spend since they came in (i.e. including Jewell).I subsequently realised that he was probably talking about Nigel's reign and based my figures on that (which should have been pretty clear to most people). Lots of assumptions about what he was talking about all gleaned from him saying that the owners have invested hardly any money in players. Sorry ignore that. Just out of interest then, what figure do you put on the current squad of players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Lots of assumptions about what he was talking about all gleaned from him saying that the owners have invested hardly any money in players. Sorry ignore that. Just out of interest then, what figure do you put on the current squad of players? But this is what you replied to me when asked about it, I'm still not having a "pop" just intrigued if you think he may have been right given you also thought he was talking about the time NC was in charge. I haven't researched so its a genuine question about something I could guess at and probably be wrong to. " I told B4 to research his comment about us not even spending £6 million on players during NC reign, please get your facts right if you are going to take a pop." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Lots of assumptions about what he was talking about all gleaned from him saying that the owners have invested hardly any money in players. Sorry ignore that. Just out of interest then, what figure do you put on the current squad of players? That list of players in and out on the last page shows that they haven't spent a lot on transfers, £1.5m over 4 1/2 years. All the money's gone on wages for **** like Savage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 But this is what you replied to me when asked about it, I'm still not having a "pop" just intrigued if you think he may have been right given you also thought he was talking about the time NC was in charge. I haven't researched so its a genuine question about something I could guess at and probably be wrong to. " I told B4 to research his comment about us not even spending £6 million on players during NC reign, please get your facts right if you are going to take a pop." No I don't think he is right, someone even listed the players and assumed fees which made up to roughly £6million even with players missing from the list. Having read back through the thread though I can see nowhere did he mention NCs reign and I only took this from what Ramblur later said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 That list of players in and out on the last page shows that they haven't spent a lot on transfers, £1.5m over 4 1/2 years. All the money's gone on wages for **** like Savage. Well my figure of £6million for the current squad comes from:- Barker £1million Ben Davies £350k Brayford/Bailey £1million Naylor £100k Ward £600k Bryson £450k Fielding £300k Legzdins £200k Sammon £1.2million Keogh £1.1million Coutts £150k Jacobs £550k Total £7million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Lots of assumptions about what he was talking about all gleaned from him saying that the owners have invested hardly any money in players. Sorry ignore that. Just out of interest then, what figure do you put on the current squad of players? I can't give it as a fact,but my estimate would be around £6m.I've never disputed the £6m,just the fact it could be proven from the accounts.Just so that others are clear on this,I'm not talking net cost,which would be less.I'm talking expenditure (including extras) on the squad members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladyram Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm shutting down for a few days this has done my head in. Don't stick around on here, this thread'll lower your life expectancy by about 10 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I can't give it as a fact,but my estimate would be around £6m.I've never disputed the £6m,just the fact it could be proven from the accounts.Just so that others are clear on this,I'm not talking net cost,which would be less.I'm talking expenditure (including extras) on the squad members. Do you think any figures on the list I have just posted up to be wildly wrong and disproven by figures in the accounts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearson Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Millwall.MK Dons,Luton,Leeds all beat bigger clubs.Brighton took Arsenal to the wire.Huddersfield drew wih Leicester.Loads of smaller clubs gave big clubs a fright.They played with passion and fought hard.We didnt.We have no excuses. In a sense Top 6, you are compounding my point in an attempt to make yet another negative post. Ourselves and Blackburn from the same league with a similiar mindset, just so happens that Blackburn proved stronger on the day with their superior players. I can live with that. Have you ever managed a football team, or given any credence to the psychology of football? Let me assure you, it is extremely difficult to have a side "up for it" each and every game. In each of the above examples the Psyche of Spurs, Norwich etc is that mentally they only have to turn up to progress in to the next round. Dosen't matter what the manger says, the mental approach is not there from the off and as consequence the work rate drops. There are exceptions but by and large this is what can happen. The managers of MK Dons and Luton on the other hand will have it easy, nothing to lose, backs against the wall, players wanting to make a name etc. Celtic lost to St Mirren today after turning over Barcelona and Spartak Moscow only a few weeks ago. Does that make Lennon a bad manager, or did the psychological element of football kick in? Pearson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbobram Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 In a sense Top 6, you are compounding my point in an attempt to make yet another negative post. Ourselves and Blackburn from the same league with a similiar mindset, just so happens that Blackburn proved stronger on the day with their superior players. I can live with that. Have you ever managed a football team, or given any credence to the psychology of football? Let me assure you, it is extremely difficult to have a side "up for it" each and every game. In each of the above examples the Psyche of Spurs, Norwich etc is that mentally they only have to turn up to progress in to the next round. Dosen't matter what the manger says, the mental approach is not there from the off and as consequence the work rate drops. There are exceptions but by and large this is what can happen. The managers of MK Dons and Luton on the other hand will have it easy, nothing to lose, backs against the wall, players wanting to make a name etc. Celtic lost to St Mirren today after turning over Barcelona and Spartak Moscow only a few weeks ago. Does that make Lennon a bad manager, or did the psychological element of football kick in? Pearson. Is this Nigel Pearson ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Do you think any figures on the list I have just posted up to be wildly wrong and disproven by figures in the accounts? Clough said that Brayford/Bailey came for a small upfront fee,which could rise to £800k with incentives.I sometimes wonder if Bailey had got close to a possible appearances threshold that the club didn't fancy paying.I think you're high on Ward and,like everyone else,don't know about the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc88888 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Clough said that Brayford/Bailey came for a small upfront fee,which could rise to £800k with incentives.I sometimes wonder if Bailey had got close to a possible appearances threshold that the club didn't fancy paying.I think you're high on Ward and,like everyone else,don't know about the rest. High on paint thinner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Clough said that Brayford/Bailey came for a small upfront fee,which could rise to £800k with incentives.I sometimes wonder if Bailey had got close to a possible appearances threshold that the club didn't fancy paying.I think you're high on Ward and,like everyone else,don't know about the rest. But you would agree that it is highly plausible, based on the figures provided, that we have a squad which has cost £6million or more (no matter where the money has come from) to assemble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.