Jump to content

Michael Smith


DCFC1388

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

It made no sense to me, so why on earth waste time on targets never likely to come to fruition.

17 goals for a team promoted and we go and ask to take him on loan, absolite amateurs 

 I understand it makes no sense to you, there is much that doesn't seem to.

What works in League One doesn't work in the Championship and what works there doesn't work in the EPL. Any old enough to remember Bobby Davison can testify to that, God for us til we got to the top flight but that league wasn't for him.

But, before you go calling us amateurs do note there is no confirmation we've bid for him, asked for him on loan or even spoken to the Wendies about him. Or, if we have, that this is a closed topic.

It's just amazing - two goals conceded and suddenly everyone wants to go back to Morrisland. As @i-Ram, seems sustainability isn't too appealing to many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, CBX1985 said:

What is to say we are not allowed to make those transfers.  Even if Saudi Arabia decides, madly, to buy us, we might be limited to what we are doing now until the end of the season.

We were told the restrictions against us had been loosened, note: not removed.

Precisiely - folk calling the club amateurs because they've tried to loan a player rather than put in a bid to buy are ridiculous - maybe we CAN'T buy because the EFL won't let us sign anyone other than on a free or on loan? - maybe some folk have short memories? We simply don't know what restrictions we're under and DC is highly unlikely (quite rightly) to make the details public until we're free of EFL interference....

Edited by Gaspode
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, CBX1985 said:

What is to say we are not allowed to make those transfers.  Even if Saudi Arabia decides, madly, to buy us, we might be limited to what we are doing now until the end of the season.

We were told the restrictions against us had been loosened, note: not removed.

We might be, but my instincts are that our restrictions are tighter internally than perhaps the EFL might have imposed. Not that that is a criticism of Clowes or the club. He wants it run sustainably whilst he is in charge, and I am not going to question him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, i-Ram said:

We might be, but my instincts are that our restrictions are tighter internally than perhaps the EFL might have imposed. Not that that is a criticism of Clowes or the club. He wants it run sustainably whilst he is in charge, and I am not going to question him.

No they had been lifted completely and we are free spend fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

No they had been lifted completely and we are free spend fees.

We're working within mutually agreed business plan, which will restrict fees and wages spent compared against the lax free spending days or even spending to our maximum potential. 

As mentioned by i-ram, from the looks of things, I also believe that the budget is lower than it could be due to long term sustainability plans.

For example, when I last moved house we bought for nearly £100k less than we could have maxed out on. The new house ticked our boxes and was fantastic value. We got caught out by rates in the credit crunch last time so didn't want to chance our arm this time, even though the banks said we could afford to. When our fix runs out, it'll be annoying with the higher payment but still affordable. If we'd maxed out, we'd have to sell. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B4ev6is said:

No they had been lifted completely and we are free spend fees.

No mate, we have to stick to a "Business Plan" that the EFL have to agree to. We are not free to spend what we want (within the normal guidelines).

Its less restrictive than last season but its still part of the punishment we received for annoying Steve Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We’re desperate at this point so whatever I guess but I think it shows a fairly damning lack of imagination to have ended up here, if indeed he is signing. A probable significant fee and (relatively) very large wages on a 30 something Warne used to manage.

Further evidence we are all in on Warne too which I just don’t think is sensible. That would go for any manager, not a Warne specific criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...