New Contracts

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, HantsRam said:

No but we could have tried for a couple of season long loans then used the breathing space to actually see if there were kids who could be developed for the following season just in case, or do some proper scouting if not.

 

Nobody would have been on Clements case for that - it was rank bad luck that the 2 were injured. But the response was poorly thoughtout, short term with high risk and in the end hasn't worked out at all well.

If those lessons have been finally learned then that's great...a bit late but good nonetheless. ?

Obviously time wearies the memory but I don't remember any posts at all suggesting that at the time.

Remember a lot of posts gloating about 'Uncle Mel' splashing the cash.

Remember a lot of posts gloating that Rush always gets his man. 

Remember a lot of posts about getting 2 players that had been POTY at their previous clubs.

Don't remember any stating that we should have relied on loans or developing our own youngsters.

Hindsight is a great thing though! 

Apologies to anyone who did actually suggest the idea though.

[Spanish]

5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

How can players have any value at the end of the contract? 

They are free to leave for free or the club can release them. 

A player without a contract clearly has 0 value to the club.

Timing.  How many contracts end by the player walking away free at the end of the contract.  My comment related to a player does have a value next n the final year of the contract, it is only on day 366 that there is nothing to value.

[therealhantsram]

6 hours ago, Dcfcsr92 said:

Surely if this true i think we would cover that easily with marriott, holmes and bogle as boyle apparently worth 8m to burnley that got to cover johnson butterfield and anya between them 3 pearce was a free if i remember correctly? 

Only repeating what others have said... A players value on the books cannot exceed the price paid for them. So in Bogles case, that would be the fee paid to Swindon, plus any signing on fees and agent fees. No more than 200k I'd imagine.

[Dcfcsr92]

2 hours ago, therealhantsram said:

Only repeating what others have said... A players value on the books cannot exceed the price paid for them. So in Bogles case, that would be the fee paid to Swindon, plus any signing on fees and agent fees. No more than 200k I'd imagine.

Oh i dont have a clue how it works, i just thought i read somebody saying about marriott being worth more so you could use him because hes worth more now then when we brought him

[Spanish]

5 minutes ago, Dcfcsr92 said:

Oh i dont have a clue how it works, i just thought i read somebody saying about marriott being worth more so you could use him because hes worth more now then when we brought him

Only if we sold him

[europia]

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

To be fair I don't think the fans would have been happy if the injured Hughes and Bryson had been replaced with someone from Scunthorpe that nobody had heard of.

There is probably a sensible solution somewhere in between. 

[G STAR RAM]

4 hours ago, Spanish said:

Timing.  How many contracts end by the player walking away free at the end of the contract.  My comment related to a player does have a value next n the final year of the contract, it is only on day 366 that there is nothing to value.

The accounts are done annually and contacts tend to end at end of June , I believe, which coincides with the accounting year end.

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, europia said:

There is probably a sensible solution somewhere in between. 

Of course.

The transfer fees and contracts handed out were ridiculous. 

Just pointing out that this has all been found out with the benefit of hindsight and next to nobody was saying that at the time.

[NottsRam77]

I’m a bit lost with all this tbh 

 

my intialy thoughts were that come this summer up to 10 odd players a lot of which are on big deals wage wise we’re due to leave us 

am I missing a huge trick in assuming that gives us wriggle room in the market in terms of adding back onto the wage bill or have some of those huge overtop transfer fees really buggered us ?

 

[VulcanRam]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Obviously time wearies the memory but I don't remember any posts at all suggesting that at the time.

Remember a lot of posts gloating about 'Uncle Mel' splashing the cash.

Remember a lot of posts gloating that Rush always gets his man. 

Remember a lot of posts about getting 2 players that had been POTY at their previous clubs.

Don't remember any stating that we should have relied on loans or developing our own youngsters.

Hindsight is a great thing though! 

Apologies to anyone who did actually suggest the idea though.

I did.

 

Just kidding. Of course I didn't. Though I have banned the horrendous phrase "Uncle Mel", which should only ever, ever be used by his nephews. At the time they both looked excellent signings.

 

[Rev]

Just now, NottsRam77 said:

I’m a bit lost with all this tbh 

 

my intialy thoughts were that come this summer up to 10 odd players a lot of which are on big deals wage wise we’re due to leave us 

am I missing a huge trick in assuming that gives us wriggle room in the market in terms of adding back onto the wage bill or have some of those huge overtop transfer fees really buggered us ?

 

No one knows for sure. It used to be easier to have a educated guess, but not now.

There does seem to be the impression that the club have been overly optimistic in valuing players, based on assumption, but if they haven't things might be better than we think.

Maybe we could do what Mel suggested and buy Bucko back for £50m, while Burton stump up the same for Johnson!

 

 

[NottsRam77]

12 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

No one knows for sure. It used to be easier to have a educated guess, but not now.

There does seem to be the impression that the club have been overly optimistic in valuing players, based on assumption, but if they haven't things might be better than we think.

Maybe we could do what Mel suggested and buy Bucko back for £50m, while Burton stump up the same for Johnson!

 

 

I’d pay 50m for bucko 

#mancrush

lol

[Rev]

51 minutes ago, NottsRam77 said:

I’d pay 50m for bucko 

#mancrush

lol

I'm hoping when he calls it a day he'll start up a gardening round in Nottm.

He'll use a scythe instead of a lawnmower, naturally, and be topless and sweaty while he works.

I'll offer him a cup of refreshing Lemon tea, and he'll knock the glass from hand with disdain, and demand a brown liquid with a foamy head.

"Pansy", he'll shout, while showing me the latest shoot pushing up from the Bucko border.

 

[MackworthRamIsGod]

1 hour ago, NottsRam77 said:

I’m a bit lost with all this tbh 

 

my intialy thoughts were that come this summer up to 10 odd players a lot of which are on big deals wage wise we’re due to leave us 

am I missing a huge trick in assuming that gives us wriggle room in the market in terms of adding back onto the wage bill or have some of those huge overtop transfer fees really buggered us ?

 

I would assume that if we were screwed financially with no wriggle room surely we wouldn't be offering 38 year old Ashley Cole any amount of money a week, let alone 15k a week if that is the case.

[Gritstone Ram]

1 hour ago, NottsRam77 said:

I’m a bit lost with all this tbh 

 

my intialy thoughts were that come this summer up to 10 odd players a lot of which are on big deals wage wise we’re due to leave us 

am I missing a huge trick in assuming that gives us wriggle room in the market in terms of adding back onto the wage bill or have some of those huge overtop transfer fees really buggered us ?

 

If it was my money I would cut back a bit on the wage bill rather than splashing out again. 

[Roboram]

So does anyone know if we’re to be getting rid of these overpriced, overpaid wasters or not?

[Derbyram1983]

5 minutes ago, Roboram said:

So does anyone know if we’re to be getting rid of these overpriced, overpaid wasters or not?

Your sentence answers itself. 

[RamNut]

32 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

I would assume that if we were screwed financially with no wriggle room surely we wouldn't be offering 38 year old Ashley Cole any amount of money a week, let alone 15k a week if that is the case.

I think we are getting players out on loan in order to free up wages to fund our offer to Cole.

ultimately championship clubs operating within FFP can only fund transfers through sales. Our wage bill has become inflated and needs to shrink back, otherwise that also has to be subsidised through sales. The need for sales is undermining whatever progress we might make. 

We are going to become more financially sustainable, but that doesn't mean we can suddenly afford big fees. 

[Rev]

7 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I think we are getting players out on loan in order to free up wages to fund our offer to Cole.

ultimately championship clubs operating within FFP can only fund transfers through sales. Our wage bill has become inflated and needs to shrink back, otherwise that also has to be subsidised through sales. The need for sales is undermining whatever progress we might make. 

We are going to become more financially sustainable, but that doesn't mean we can suddenly afford big fees. 

I think this is the bit the wider public don't get.

Take the interview Frank did with BT after the Southampton game.

They finished off by wishing him luck prising Mel's wallet open for the window, not realising that he's already funding us to the maximum allowed under the rules!

If the rules where different, maybe he would dig down the sofa for more change, maybe he wouldn't, but at this moment in time his hands are tied, and we have to wheel and deal within those limits.

[NottsRam77]

20 hours ago, Gritters said:

If it was my money I would cut back a bit on the wage bill rather than splashing out again. 

So would I