Wilko Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I won't lie, if we end this transfer window having sold Commons and Moxey and only brought in Ben Davies and Ayala on loan, I'll be annoyed. If Moxey brings in the £500,000 reported, added to the £300,000 for Commons that gives us £800,000 and £15,000p/w on wages to spend. Why are we not offering that for Sammon? If we haven't had a bid accepted now, there's no way we'll get him down to Moor Farm in time for him to agree terms and complete a medical before the deadline. With Waghorn not coming in either, I'm seriously wondering what's going on. If Nige honestly thinks Roberts is better than Moxey, then we've got problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastKentRam Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I won't lie, if we end this transfer window having sold Commons and Moxey and only brought in Ben Davies and Ayala on loan, I'll be annoyed. If Moxey brings in the £500,000 reported, added to the £300,000 for Commons that gives us £800,000 and £15,000p/w on wages to spend. Why are we not offering that for Sammon? If we haven't had a bid accepted now, there's no way we'll get him down to Moor Farm in time for him to agree terms and complete a medical before the deadline. With Waghorn not coming in either, I'm seriously wondering what's going on. If Nige honestly thinks Roberts is better than Moxey, then we've got problems. You know things arent right when even Wilko is starting to get annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfc_kev Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Roberts will come good mate, wait and see! We will need cover though. Moxey is average at best, and him leaving is the least of our problems! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilko Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You know things arent right when even Wilko is starting to get annoyed. Blind-faither me, but this is beyond my rose-tinted threshold (which sounds dodgier than I like) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 One thing occurs to me (and it's only a thought).The Gadsby bid looked as though it might have given the investors a reasonable return in sterling terms,though little in dollar terms.However,GSE would presumably need something positive to tell future investors in any forthcoming venture.As far as the Gadsby bid goes,they could have pointed to a small profit for investors and talked of debt reduction,but would that be enough? Whilst it's impossible to predict future profits with reference to past results (too many unknown one offs like contract buy outs),we can see that wages have been slashed and a new lucrative tv deal is in place,allied to a significantly reduced interest bill.I'd also estimate that players' amortisation may now be running at about £1m (a by product of spending relatively little in recent years),which represents a massive reduction. Looking at our recent sales,there's a good chance that they could all show book profits,as you effectively compare the depreciated book value to the selling price.Hulse,for instance,although sold at less than we bought him for,may well show a book profit.Commons would be all profit and Moxey would show a greater profit than the mere difference between buying and selling prices.Could all of this bring about an overall profit for this year? If so,GSE could point to a profit, after inheriting a club that had previously been recording heavy losses,allied to debt reduction and commercial enhancement-a much better cv than last year. All pure conjecture,however. Would that only serve to make us sellable? Or could it also be used by GSE to encourage more money from the investors? In your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 that gives us £800,000 and £15,000p/w on wages to spend. Why are we not offering that for Sammon? Is a punt on a forward from Kilmarnock worth that sort of money? I think negotiations are ongoing because he's probably not worth that sort of figure and £400-600k ish is more realistic. The problem with football is we think of it as "only" a few hundred thousand. Think about it, £425k is a helluva lot of money - particularly on an unproven player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I won't lie, if we end this transfer window having sold Commons and Moxey and only brought in Ben Davies and Ayala on loan, I'll be annoyed. If Moxey brings in the £500,000 reported, added to the £300,000 for Commons that gives us £800,000 and £15,000p/w on wages to spend. Why are we not offering that for Sammon? If we haven't had a bid accepted now, there's no way we'll get him down to Moor Farm in time for him to agree terms and complete a medical before the deadline. With Waghorn not coming in either, I'm seriously wondering what's going on. If Nige honestly thinks Roberts is better than Moxey, then we've got problems. I'll be f00kin apoplectic!!! If we don't sign at least one striker it's conclusive proof that the board and Nigel do not know there @rse from their elbows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inglorious01 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is a punt on a forward from Kilmarnock worth that sort of money? I think negotiations are ongoing because he's probably not worth that sort of figure and £400-600k ish is more realistic. I agree, but, what is Plan B, Plan C etc? Surely Nigel and the scouts should have a long list of alternatives they could work on bringing in? Maybe they have, but I'm not confident about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I've heard that they bid and it's Nigel who has accepted it. This has annoyed me, but it was apprently Nigels decision. Which is probable, after his comments recently about Moxey. As a fan that's always been happy to give the board time and always backed Nigel are you starting to get fed up now? Some people are forever negative on here. Just wonder how the Pro-Board among us are feeling. For me the board say all the right things but their actions never quite match the grand words. It's all very good talking about a bright future but letting first choice players go and not getting good enough replacements is never part Glicks speeches. How will Roberts (one for retirement soon) compare to Moxey (one for the future!!) How has Porter compared to Hulse? Will a 29yr old Davies fill Commons boots? How many more times will Green be played at RB because we lack cover? Come ST renewal time i'm sure Glick will promise a bright future again. But he's becoming less convincing every transfer window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex W Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 As a fan that's always been happy to give the board time and always backed Nigel are you starting to get fed up now? Some people are forever negative on here. Just wonder how the Pro-Board among us are feeling. For me the board say all the right things but their actions never quite match the grand words. It's all very good talking about a bright future but letting first choice players go and not getting good enough replacements is never part Glicks speeches. How will Roberts (one for retirement soon) compare to Moxey (one for the future!!) How has Porter compared to Hulse? Will a 29yr old Davies fill Commons boots? How many more times will Green be played at RB because we lack cover? Come ST renewal time i'm sure Glick will promise a bright future again. But he's becoming less convincing every transfer window. Until I hear from Nigel that the board have sold Moxey, then I will take it up to now that it was his decision as I have heard. If that be the case, I am annoyed at Clough. More so that hes gone and left us with a worse option and no cover. This I would hope would be dealt with in the following days once the loan market opens up. I don't think they could do anything with Commons, hes f*ck*d us over well enough himself so I don't blame them at all for that. And comparing Porter to Hulse is harsh when Porter will take a long time to get fully fit again. I think this summer is huge for the board and the team. They need to spend to progress the team forward, and they need to get a striker in to spearhead our side. Fielding must be an option surely, and a few other spots need shoring up. This summer is the big moment for them to prove themselves. If we end up with a worse squad and a sub-standard loan in at striker I will be switching my side of the argument to anti-board. I remain in hope that what they have said is true and that we invest in the summer properly. Until then, i'll stick to what I think now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteDerby Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 As a fan that's always been happy to give the board time and always backed Nigel are you starting to get fed up now? Some people are forever negative on here. Just wonder how the Pro-Board among us are feeling. For me the board say all the right things but their actions never quite match the grand words. It's all very good talking about a bright future but letting first choice players go and not getting good enough replacements is never part Glicks speeches. . I made this point in the Moxey transfer thread, but it fits better here given the 'replacements' issue you raise. For me, I'd be perfectly happy to have players with the ability of Howard, Oakley, Jones, Miller, Earnshaw, Mears, Commons, Hulse just off the top of my head as players who have been moved on for fees and not been replaced like for like. Some of them didn't want to stay, but that's not the point. If Torres goes from Liverpool, for example, they won't be trying to replace them with someone from Wigan reserves, but replacing him like for like. In any business selling something proven and replacing it with something cheaper, inferior or unproven - and spending the deal profit on propping the business up rather than investing is, in my view, stripping out the assets. Aside from the criminal activity, there's not a great deal of difference between GSE and the three amigos; good talk, no money, rely on selling and loans as a result. They've got no choice but to sell off assets, because they've got no money and no investors who have a progressive vision for DCFC that they want invest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CornwallRam Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Is a punt on a forward from Kilmarnock worth that sort of money? I think negotiations are ongoing because he's probably not worth that sort of figure and £400-600k ish is more realistic. The problem with football is we think of it as "only" a few hundred thousand. Think about it, £425k is a helluva lot of money - particularly on an unproven player. If he's not worth £800k why are we interested? We have Davies, Porter, Cwyka and Ball who can play upfront. We don't need another body - we need a player to lead the line and get us another 30 goals (not score, but score, create and make space for other players to create/score) this season. Such a player is worth £800k. If that's not Sammon, why bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I made this point in the Moxey transfer thread, but it fits better here given the 'replacements' issue you raise. For me, I'd be perfectly happy to have players with the ability of Howard, Oakley, Jones, Miller, Earnshaw, Mears, Commons, Hulse just off the top of my head as players who have been moved on for fees and not been replaced like for like. Some of them didn't want to stay, but that's not the point. If Torres goes from Liverpool, for example, they won't be trying to replace them with someone from Wigan reserves, but replacing him like for like. In any business selling something proven and replacing it with something cheaper, inferior or unproven - and spending the deal profit on propping the business up rather than investing is, in my view, stripping out the assets. Aside from the criminal activity, there's not a great deal of difference between GSE and the three amigos; good talk, no money, rely on selling and loans as a result. They've got no choice but to sell off assets, because they've got no money and no investors who have a progressive vision for DCFC that they want invest in. Be careful who you compare GSE to Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteDerby Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think it's entirely reasonable, Boycie - emphasis on 'aside from the criminal activity'. Both parties talked a good job but didn't have the financial clout to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Simple maths says we need a goal scorer 39 goals scored so far this season. 22 of them were by 5 players no longer at club (4 of whom are strikers) Kris Commons 13 Luke Moore 4 Dean Moxey 2 Shefki Kuqi 2 Rob Hulse 1 17 by the rest (none of which are particularly prolific) Tomasz Cywka 4 Alberto Bueno 3 Robbie Savage 2 Chris Porter 2 Paul Green 2 Dean Leacock 1 John Brayford 1 James Bailey 1 Shaun Barker 1 We've already seen our goals tally dry up in the last few weeks. Nigel is clutching at straws now suggesting that Cwyka can be our centre-forward - based on him being our highest scoring midfielder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelovebelow Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Do you know of any other clubs that have a management firm running it for investors or are we the only ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Teale Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think our long term plan is to buy young hungey players from lower league clubs, then sign a 31 year old to replace them who doesnt play as well and then sell the young lad on for a massive 100k profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Would that only serve to make us sellable? Or could it also be used by GSE to encourage more money from the investors? In your opinion. It was more aimed at trying to separate out the needs of investors and GSE.If GSE/investors were to sell up,and GSE move onto another franchise,then I guess their targetted worldwide investors might be more interested in financial data than playing strength.Hence their perceived achievements might be more 'sellable' to investors. Not sure that reporting a profit per se would particularly influence potential DCFC buyers,because they would no doubt guess that it could have been achieved at the expense of the playing side,which new owners would have to rectify. In answer to your question,I personally see little hope of inward investment on players for the foreseeable future,and I don't either see it as signalling an imminent sale-who knows,they may want to show consecutive profits (or even get us to the Prem!). I noticed that Glick intimated that spending big money like other sides (when questioned by Gibson) would get us in trouble on the operations side.If we were talking about inward investment,whilst still maintaining a prudent wage budget,then the club wouldn't get into difficulties.For instance,if investors put in £2/3m to buy a replacement for Commons (on wages similar to those offered to Commons),then the club wouldn't face the risk,it would be the investors (in common with businesses the world over-invest in the hope of returns).The fact that Glick didn't factor in inward investment leads me to suspect it may not be on the agenda. All of this is of course pure opinion and should be treated as such. Finally,my o' key is playing up badly,so in future posts I'll be using the '0' key.Sincere apologies if it makes posts hard to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It was more aimed at trying to separate out the needs of investors and GSE.If GSE/investors were to sell up,and GSE move onto another franchise,then I guess their targetted worldwide investors might be more interested in financial data than playing strength.Hence their perceived achievements might be more 'sellable' to investors. Not sure that reporting a profit per se would particularly influence potential DCFC buyers,because they would no doubt guess that it could have been achieved at the expense of the playing side,which new owners would have to rectify. In answer to your question,I personally see little hope of inward investment on players for the foreseeable future,and I don't either see it as signalling an imminent sale-who knows,they may want to show consecutive profits (or even get us to the Prem!). I noticed that Glick intimated that spending big money like other sides (when questioned by Gibson) would get us in trouble on the operations side.If we were talking about inward investment,whilst still maintaining a prudent wage budget,then the club wouldn't get into difficulties.For instance,if investors put in £2/3m to buy a replacement for Commons (on wages similar to those offered to Commons),then the club wouldn't face the risk,it would be the investors (in common with businesses the world over-invest in the hope of returns).The fact that Glick didn't factor in inward investment leads me to suspect it may not be on the agenda. All of this is of course pure opinion and should be treated as such. Finally,my o' key is playing up badly,so in future posts I'll be using the '0' key.Sincere apologies if it makes posts hard to read. Thanks ramblur, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Roberts will come good mate, wait and see! We will need cover though. Moxey is average at best, and him leaving is the least of our problems! Tend t0 agree,Kev.As 0ne wh0 watched Nish struggle f0r ages bef0re c0ming g00d (experiment with 0 not working),I'd always give players a chance,especially those who appear to be performing below known ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.