ramblur Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 In fairness to GSE when they first came here and spent, they seemed to be a bit naive and followed Jewell in his ultimate wisdom, rather than thinking it through, now I think they have been here long enough and from Cloughies recent interview it sounded like he'd done with players who were over the hill, although we are after a experienced midfielder, but doubt he'll be over 32 (whoever it is) Don't disagree,Ambitious.All I'm doing (with tedious regularity) is rebutting claims that the LOG left us in some kind of financial mess.Why do I do it?:- 1) Because they don't deserve it. 2)Because you never know when we might get into a mess in future.If you were a member of the LOG reading forums,would you get involved again? None of those making the claims ever challenge my facts,but it's inevitable that after the usual lull they'll resurface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 It amazes me that nobody bats an eyelid that Bywater and Leacock are now virtually worthless to us, everybody in the league knows we are desperate to get rid of them, if they stay then they will be picking up a wage for doing absolutely nothing, these are players that have won us a promotoin, so they are obviously good enough for this level, and by definition of being in a promotion winning team don't have an in-built bad attitude. If anybody needs proof of bad management then just point to these two. A manager who signed neither appears to rate neither and has brought in what he considers to be better replacements.Happens at all clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 A manager who signed neither appears to rate neither and has brought in what he considers to be better replacements.Happens at all clubs. Very true, and normally that would be the end of the argument, except he does the same with the players he's bought. What I was getting at though, is that it's all done the wrong way, we could have finished Barker's career last season when we had a perfectly capable replacement sat sulking in the stands because of another management fall out. Likewise with Bywater, if we'd needed points to stay up at the end of last season then that kid we got on loan could have cost us our league status. If there hadn't been the public falling out with both players we could have sold them both for decent money, but now that the relationship with both players has degenerated to such a level then all clubs have to do is wait until we're ready to give them away at the end of the window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambitious Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Don't disagree,Ambitious.All I'm doing (with tedious regularity) is rebutting claims that the LOG left us in some kind of financial mess.Why do I do it?:- 1) Because they don't deserve it. 2)Because you never know when we might get into a mess in future.If you were a member of the LOG reading forums,would you get involved again? None of those making the claims ever challenge my facts,but it's inevitable that after the usual lull they'll resurface. ah, I haven't read the thread but thought it was pretty much common knowledge that gadsby and gang didn't leave us in a financial mess at all, they saved us from administration and the hands of another consortium which would of left the amigos with some power of the club, how anyone cannot be greatful for that is beyond me, Gadsby did a good successful job when he was here and he sold to a bunch of people he had trust in (although last season that trust was withdrawn) I just assumed when Gadsby left he left with the best intentions, we were still in debt but not as much in debt, the americans came in and probably made it worse at first, but then over the clough years have cut back the debt and made us sustainable, but all seems pointless and annoying now ******* leicester are spending welll WELL above their means Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeds Ram Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ambitious you would be surprised by what people think, my opinion is if it wasn't for gadsby and the rest of them, would we have a derby county? i think there was another offer on the table from the people who now run Coventry but without gadsby i think things would be very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Gadsby and Co saved us from administration, invested their own money, got us promoted and left us in a better financial position than when then they arrived. GSE came in spent money in the January, some of which were covered by fees received, then gambled on free transfers and high wages to get us back up. The gamble failed and they realised it in the January and started cutting costs to counter the effect of their high wage gamble. Gadsby and Co pit in £7m in their year and half ish in charge GSE have put in £20m (Ramblur correct me if I'm wrong) in their 3 and half years in charge. Roughly the same amount invested each year. I am Quite pleased to see that our current owners have the where with all to spot their mistake and take steps to fix it, also the capital available to cover the costs of doing so. Or at least enough so we didn't have to lose all of our high earners in one season ( Unlike the trees who are shedding leaves like its Autumn Gadsby and Co obviously didn't have the money between them to pit any more into the club when we got promoted, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to borrow against the first chute payment ( not a criticism just an observation). Two different groups of owners have taken us from a club that was on the brink of going under to a club that can spend over £2m from money that has been recouped from within itself from cost cutting. Hopefully further cost savings will be focussed on the non-playing side, which Ramblur pointed out seem over inflated. The cutting was made more severe due to paying high wages by GSE, but it would have happened to some degree following relegation and no immediate promotion. Was the gamble on immediate promotion worth taking? Seems not when it didn't pay off, but that's the nature of risk taking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsdubs Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcnram Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Very true, and normally that would be the end of the argument, except he does the same with the players he's bought. What I was getting at though, is that it's all done the wrong way, we could have finished Barker's career last season when we had a perfectly capable replacement sat sulking in the stands because of another management fall out. Likewise with Bywater, if we'd needed points to stay up at the end of last season then that kid we got on loan could have cost us our league status. If there hadn't been the public falling out with both players we could have sold them both for decent money, but now that the relationship with both players has degenerated to such a level then all clubs have to do is wait until we're ready to give them away at the end of the window. Bywater and Leacock have huge weaknesses in their game and were thus not trusted to perform. Bywater last season was no better than the keeper from Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Hindsight is a wonderful thing. True, but a lot of peoples foresight has been that LOG just came in for a quick buck and left, not so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomsdubs Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 True, but a lot of peoples foresight has been that LOG just came in for a quick buck and left, not so. To be fair after the three amigos i think we are happy with anyone that keeps the debts down. GSE are just doing enough right now but not really blowing us away with personal investment! But i like the idea of the club being self sustaining, living within our means makes us stable long term. The question is, do we think GSE will ever get us in to the top flight? Will they ever meet the objectives they set out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 To be fair after the three amigos i think we are happy with anyone that keeps the debts down. GSE are just doing enough right now but not really blowing us away with personal investment! But i like the idea of the club being self sustaining, living within our means makes us stable long term. The question is, do we think GSE will ever get us in to the top flight? Will they ever meet the objectives they set out?All your points a valid, until it comes to the Premier League, very few teams that survive in, or even are able to reach it, do so living within their means,maybe only Blackpool and Reading in the last 10 or twelve 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Gadsby and Co saved us from administration, invested their own money, got us promoted and left us in a better financial position than when then they arrived. GSE came in spent money in the January, some of which were covered by fees received, then gambled on free transfers and high wages to get us back up. The gamble failed and they realised it in the January and started cutting costs to counter the effect of their high wage gamble. Gadsby and Co pit in £7m in their year and half ish in charge GSE have put in £20m (Ramblur correct me if I'm wrong) in their 3 and half years in charge. Roughly the same amount invested each year. I am Quite pleased to see that our current owners have the where with all to spot their mistake and take steps to fix it, also the capital available to cover the costs of doing so. Or at least enough so we didn't have to lose all of our high earners in one season ( Unlike the trees who are shedding leaves like its Autumn Gadsby and Co obviously didn't have the money between them to pit any more into the club when we got promoted, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to borrow against the first chute payment ( not a criticism just an observation). Two different groups of owners have taken us from a club that was on the brink of going under to a club that can spend over £2m from money that has been recouped from within itself from cost cutting. Hopefully further cost savings will be focussed on the non-playing side, which Ramblur pointed out seem over inflated. The cutting was made more severe due to paying high wages by GSE, but it would have happened to some degree following relegation and no immediate promotion. Was the gamble on immediate promotion worth taking? Seems not when it didn't pay off, but that's the nature of risk taking. I can certainly live with a reasonable assessment like that,but would make a few points.I'd readily concede that the sales of Oakley and Howard partly offset the incomings.I wasn't trying to pull wool over the eyes here-I quite deliberately didn't put a figure on the Jan business.If you add the Prem wages of Mills,Ghaly,Robert,Sav,Tito,Sterjovski,Carroll,Stubbs (less savings on Oakley&Howard) and add this to the end of year £7.899m cash,then you're already fairly close to the £10.4m required to prove that this loan could have been repaid out of 07/08 earnings,with perhaps a small contribution from fees. GSE took over (officially) on 25th Jan.Interestingly,their accounts show a player/players acquisition/s of £1.769m (in the period 25/1/08-30/6/08).Any cash paid up front in respect of this would also increase the £7.899m (if the transaction were reversed).Sav,Tito&Sterjovski all landed before 25/1/08. Not sure you could actually argue that the loan meant the LOG had no further cash to offer.There was some talk of a rift over BD at the time-in those kind of circumstances (not suggesting it was true) you might not get a universal willingness to invest further,though investing other income might be different.You could apply your argument to the current £3m "revolving loan"-does this mean that our current investors have no more to invest? One might speculate that the interest on this loan might fund a lower league youngster (or SPL) every year. I think the current cuts aren't just a product of GSE high wages,but the volume of same.Seem to remember someone saying that we used nearly 40 players in 08/09.Whilst you're probably right in saying that cuts always have to be made following failed promotion bids,we should have managed things better to launch a bid over 2 years to match the 2 years of chute payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 All your points a valid, until it comes to the Premier League, very few teams that survive in, or even are able to reach it, do so living within their means,maybe only Blackpool and Reading in the last 10 or twelve 12 years. Suspect you could add Wolves to the list,maybe even Stoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Suspect you could add Wolves to the list,maybe even Stoke.Would not include Wolves, they spent a few bob on promotion, we had a few thou out of them for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Very true, and normally that would be the end of the argument, except he does the same with the players he's bought. What I was getting at though, is that it's all done the wrong way, we could have finished Barker's career last season when we had a perfectly capable replacement sat sulking in the stands because of another management fall out. Likewise with Bywater, if we'd needed points to stay up at the end of last season then that kid we got on loan could have cost us our league status. If there hadn't been the public falling out with both players we could have sold them both for decent money, but now that the relationship with both players has degenerated to such a level then all clubs have to do is wait until we're ready to give them away at the end of the window. "Perfectly capable replacement" is a matter of opinion.If Clough had agreed,then Leacock would have played and Barker had the op.Seem to remember medical advice had said Barker wouldn't exacerbate the injury by playing on. We've taken Ward on in the knowledge that he had spats with 2 previous managers;similarly Jones was willing to take Bywater on.The latter case possibly proves that we would be better off getting other managers to rely on distant memories of certain players,as opposed to current abilities:) Clubs will have known for ages that we were trying to offload.The players' agents would have been trying to set up deals for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Would not include Wolves, they spent a few bob on promotion, we had a few thou out of them for a start. Sorry,misread your post.I was concentrating on spending once in the Prem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Suspect you could add Wolves to the list,maybe even Stoke.Sorry disreguard, getting my teams mixed up , Pearson was loaned to Stoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sorry disreguard, getting my teams mixed up , Pearson was loaned to StokeI must put more water in it, of coarse we did sell Jones to Wolves for over a ml, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramblur Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Sorry disreguard, getting my teams mixed up , Pearson was loaned to Stoke I'm always very wary of the term "loan fee" as I'm convinced that in the majority of cases the club borrowing the player doesn't actually pay the player direct,but gets invoiced by the parent club (who still pay the player full,contracted wages) for the agreed portion of wages. Take the case of Ayala,for instance,who was loaned to 2 clubs during the season.He was entitled to be paid an agreed,contracted amount by Liverpool.Would he (or his agent) be assed to go splitting tax credits/tax free allowances (whichever applies in UK) over multiple employments when he has a contract which says he doesn't need to.Think temp agencies and temps. If a company invoices another for the services of an employee,they're effectively charging a fee for same.Hence the evolution of a misunderstood (in my humble opinion) "loan fee".Where a loan fee is stipulated in addition to wages,then that's a different matter.Bullard to Ipswich,for example, was touted as being the subject of a large loan fee.A subsequent interview with AP, however, seemed to suggest this merely represented the portion of wages paid by Ipswich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiffy Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I'm always very wary of the term "loan fee" as I'm convinced that in the majority of cases the club borrowing the player doesn't actually pay the player direct,but gets invoiced by the parent club (who still pay the player full,contracted wages) for the agreed portion of wages. Take the case of Ayala,for instance,who was loaned to 2 clubs during the season.He was entitled to be paid an agreed,contracted amount by Liverpool.Would he (or his agent) be assed to go splitting tax credits/tax free allowances (whichever applies in UK) over multiple employments when he has a contract which says he doesn't need to.Think temp agencies and temps. If a company invoices another for the services of an employee,they're effectively charging a fee for same.Hence the evolution of a misunderstood (in my humble opinion) "loan fee".Where a loan fee is stipulated in addition to wages,then that's a different matter.Bullard to Ipswich,for example, was touted as being the subject of a large loan fee.A subsequent interview with AP, however, seemed to suggest this merely represented the portion of wages paid by Ipswich.Does not apply to Derby though,didn't we pay a loan fee for Ellington, and pay his wages, we really got shafted on that one I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.