Jump to content

The demise of Forest


ladyram

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Apparently so Srg. That's gonna be so funny if that happens and he played on the wing last time lol. Lansbury is having a medical by the sound of it. Forest are selling club LOL :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must have had to much sun, but I think its to early to write forest off. Selling players but getting them loaned back to you isnt such a daft idea, wont do the chances any harm this season at least will it? We were being told getting players on loan is no use , we need to buy players. the players on loan helped us to get as close as its possible to get to the Premier. And we signed most of them on perms anyway, Dawkins, Whitbread and Thorne.   

As much as I like the circumstances of the transfers I agree with this - wasn't that long ago that there were plenty of voices on here saying that selling Hughes and loaning back was a good idea! They have the players and potentially the income from the sale.

Some of the signings they have made we would have jumped at 18 months ago - Fryatt, Burke, Mancienne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always maintained that selling and loaning back is a bad idea. Didn't work for Zaha when Palace tried it. The player's head is never there, they're just going through the motions until they get to move "properly" to the new club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I like the circumstances of the transfers I agree with this - wasn't that long ago that there were plenty of voices on here saying that selling Hughes and loaning back was a good idea! They have the players and potentially the income from the sale.

Some of the signings they have made we would have jumped at 18 months ago - Fryatt, Burke, Mancienne

But doesn't loaning them back reduce the amount if loans they're allowed to get in.

Whereas we're still capable of getting up to 4 loans in (and we've seen how effectively Steve can use the loan market), forest can now only bring in another 2.

They've kept their players and got some money, yes, but those players now have their head in the clouds, and if they play well this season, they are guaranteed gone at the end of it, the money is just about enough to pay for a couple of months worth of losses, and they've reduced the amount if loans they could potentially get.

It was only a good idea with Hughes under certain conditions a) it was only him, b) we got a stupid amount if money for him c) we were in a position where, with his continued help, we've fit a good chance of promotion.

Forest are not in a position where they are likely to get promoted, nor are they in much danger if being relegated, so shard the point in even keeping these players?

Also, won't the players now have nice big prem contracts, which forest might have to pay part if while they're on loan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nottingham Forest chairman and owner Fawaz Al Hasawi has issued the following statement.

I would love nothing more than to hold on to our best young players. I gave both Karl Darlow and Jamaal Lascelles lengthy new contracts in August 2013 and March 2014 respectively, as well as investing in the futures of Jamie Paterson, Ben Osborn and Dimitar Evtimov.

I have demonstrated my keenness for the club to produce more players of Karl and Jamaal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So its taken the guy 2 failed promotion attempts to realise that FFP is now a real concern - quite a defeatist statement on the whole, basically what he's saying is that he's thrown a load of money at the club, wasted it and now his older brother refuses to finance the train set, so he hasn't got a pot to piss in so he's settling down for a few sensible stable years in the championship, taking FFP into consideration to 'preserve the long term sustainability of Notts Forest'. The sustainability of the club wasn't his concern when he was sacking managers and spunking money willy nilly.

The gumps on LTLF are convinced they will re-invest all the cash from player sales into the team. I would be surprised if he'll even put 10% back in, they've clearly got some serious financial worries and need cash flow to pay the bills.

I LOL'd at the sentence on changing the stadium name (which they don't even own) - I was staggered to believe that a 500 million investment only warrented a penultimate closing sentence in the statement. Surely its more deserving or more than likely the whole thing is b0llocks! And to think only last week the gumps were deciding how to spend it all, the Man City of the midlands! They honestly believe any old shlt spoonfed them its laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...