Perky1106 Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 I pay not attention to transfer fees. They mean nothing because: 1. Every newspaper cites a different figure. 2. There are so many complications to each "fee" like add-ons, sell on clauses and signing on fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodleyRam Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 It's what you do with it that counts. Or so i'm told... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoneedshuls Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Can't we use some of the funds to pay of the deadwood to end there contracts so atleast by January well have some wages free to have a playoff push after the window closes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notts_ram Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 What are everyone's thoughts on the transfer activity? Have we spent wisely? I will answer that question on May the 3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I'm with anybody who doesn't care about transfer fees. Torres wouldn't get as much stick if he was scoring 20 every season. But £50m is still way too much for a footballer? People only care about fees usually with hindsight. Russell will be a waste of near on a million if he scores 2 in 46 games and is rubbish. If he scores 20 in 40 games and plays well he'll be a bargain at just over half a million. Bale isn't worth £90m. But if he goes to Real for that (lol) and he and Ronaldo are the basis for 5 years of utter dominance then people will see Real as buying success instead of throwing unnecessary money about. It's fickle isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I will answer that question on May the 3rd Exactly. We judge players and not fees. I don't like it when people judge Sammon based on a rumoured fee. Isn't judging him on his ability enough to make up our minds on whether he was a good signing or not? David Martin was cheap. Still not a good signing though. Unless you know the ins and out of all fees/wages involved and you enjoy your football played in board rooms and bank accounts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I pay not attention to transfer fees. They mean nothing because: 1. Every newspaper cites a different figure. 2. There are so many complications to each "fee" like add-ons, sell on clauses and signing on fees. And we don't know agents percents or signing fees. Just to look at those media guesses which in reality are kept undisclosed secrets, doesn't really mean a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 It's still frustrating. Rush said at a q&a that our budget for transfers will be fair higher than last year. Has it been? Not as of yet. Ill reserve my judgement until the end of the window. . If you take away the Brayford sale, as they were expecting to keep him, then yes, the transfer budget has been higher than last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North_Stand_Ram Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 If you take away the Brayford sale, as they were expecting to keep him, then yes, the transfer budget has been higher than last year. But Brayford has gone, and last summer we spent in excess of 3m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I'd say that by the time loan fees, agents fees and signing on fees are included the club will have pretty much broken even on transfers this summer at present. For the last few seasons Nigel appears to have been given around £1m to spend on transfer fees. Given that, and Rush's statements about higher budgets this season, I reckon that Nigel probably still has a chunk of money still available to him. However, with Tyson, Robinson, Naylor, Bailey, Legzdins and O'Connor still drawing wages I'd guess that wages are the stumbling block. If we can offload a couple of the above we'll see a permanent centre-half, if not we'll try to get by and loan a body if we get an emergency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I'd say that by the time loan fees, agents fees and signing on fees are included the club will have pretty much broken even on transfers this summer at present. For the last few seasons Nigel appears to have been given around £1m to spend on transfer fees. Given that, and Rush's statements about higher budgets this season, I reckon that Nigel probably still has a chunk of money still available to him. However, with Tyson, Robinson, Naylor, Bailey, Legzdins and O'Connor still drawing wages I'd guess that wages are the stumbling block. If we can offload a couple of the above we'll see a permanent centre-half, if not we'll try to get by and loan a body if we get an emergency. I wonder if this has been the case all along. If Nige asked for £1.5m or £2m for a player he would probably get it. However, the balancing act seems to be with the wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stedcfc Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 I'd say that by the time loan fees, agents fees and signing on fees are included the club will have pretty much broken even on transfers this summer at present. For the last few seasons Nigel appears to have been given around £1m to spend on transfer fees. Given that, and Rush's statements about higher budgets this season, I reckon that Nigel probably still has a chunk of money still available to him. However, with Tyson, Robinson, Naylor, Bailey, Legzdins and O'Connor still drawing wages I'd guess that wages are the stumbling block. If we can offload a couple of the above we'll see a permanent centre-half, if not we'll try to get by and loan a body if we get an emergency. Spot on I think this is blatently the case. I dont think any of us thought all 6 would go easily but I definitely expected to of shifted Bailey and Robinson fairly easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Are they classed as bad signings as they aren't good enough and no one wants them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Are they classed as bad signings as they aren't good enough and no one wants them?Tyson and O'Connor clearly were - we'll have to pay them off. Theo and Bailey have at least contributed in the past, and should at least seem like reasonably attractive free transfers for someone. Naylor - I'm still not sure how he's moved from possible replacement for Brayford to total outcast in the space of twelve months, but he ought to be cheap to get rid of. I reckon that Leggy will stay on as Grant's no.2 and sign a new (albeit lower) contract. Hopefully Deeney will replace him on the unwanted list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMuffin Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Looks like we're lumbered with alot of dead wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Are they classed as bad signings as they aren't good enough and no one wants them? Yes. BCO. Now a sensible answer... They were decent signings at the time because they were better than we had. Time has moved on and now they are no longer better than the players around them, therefore they are cover at best and are therefore surplus to requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Looks like we're lumbered with alot of dead wood. Most of it posts on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Most of it posts on here. Four logs to my count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Legzdins has been given a squad number now (26), looks like he'll be no. 2 going into the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted July 31, 2013 Share Posted July 31, 2013 Yes. BCO. Now a sensible answer... They were decent signings at the time because they were better than we had. Time has moved on and now they are no longer better than the players around them, therefore they are cover at best and are therefore surplus to requirements. I knew clough could do no wrong. Were they really better than what we had? Tyson, o'conner, bailey, Lego, did they really improve us? When they are not being used they have been basically wasting space on the wage bill. They didn't improve us and haven't played that many games. Now no one wants them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.