Transfer rumors | Page 15 | Vital Football

Transfer rumors

mao tse tung said:
The worst of it will be over in twelve months time!

We should not be leaving recruitment to managers; even if we got through managers at something like the National average of one every 15 Months it would still be too short a tenure to trust an individual with recruitment.

The average in the Championship comes in way under the National average at a pathetic 10 Months; maybe its the way we get through managers that brings the average down

There is no chance of any manager being able to build a side in that time frame unless there is some continuity around the place.
Click to expand...
You would certainly hope so but it seems every time we have a clear out we replace it with more dead wood and round we go again.

As you say a sporting director or some such to oversee a recruitment policy would be useful.

Then again sticking with a manager would be useful too.
 
Just look at at Leicester. Nigel Pearson left in June 2015. In 2011/12 he signed Schmeicel, Morgan and Drinkwater. 12/13 Vardy. 13/14 Mahrez .14/15 Albrighton. They have had four managers in four years since then. No deadwood there. It's having a rubbish purchase transfer policy that leaves us with the deadwood, not changing the manager.
 
Deadwood depends on the manager

The title winning forest team was built with players a previous manager thought was Deadwood.

Sheffield Wednesday thought we were generous offering £1.5m for Antonio. We sold him a year later for £6m more than that
 
Basha73 said:
You would certainly hope so but it seems every time we have a clear out we replace it with more dead wood and round we go again.

As you say a sporting director or some such to oversee a recruitment policy would be useful.

Then again sticking with a manager would be useful too.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Novel concept Basha.
You may be on to something, but never fear, it won't catch on at the CG.
 
Lienking said:
Just look at at Leicester. Nigel Pearson left in June 2015. In 2011/12 he signed Schmeicel, Morgan and Drinkwater. 12/13 Vardy. 13/14 Mahrez .14/15 Albrighton. They have had four managers in four years since then. No deadwood there. It's having a rubbish purchase transfer policy that leaves us with the deadwood, not changing the manager.
Click to expand...

Pearson had marginal input into those signings; the person responsible for the signings was Steve Walsh, who was then Chief Scout
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Deadwood depends on the manager

The title winning forest team was built with players a previous manager thought was Deadwood.

Sheffield Wednesday thought we were generous offering £1.5m for Antonio. We sold him a year later for £6m more than that
Click to expand...
And therein lies part of the problem. We have genuine dead wood players such as Clough, Vellios etc and players that are deadwood in the eye of the manager.

We have seen already that certain players who got game time under AK aren’t getting it under MoN and will in all likelihood be moved on. Similar when AK took over from Warburton.
 
mao tse tung said:
Pearson had marginal input into those signings; the person responsible for the signings was Steve Walsh, who was then Chief Scout
Click to expand...

Didn't say that Pearson was responsible. The point I was making was they signed Schmeicel, Morgan and Vardy when he was there. The spine of the team. Five different managers, and because they are decent players, they are still the spine of the team (though Morgan is now getting too old). Changing the manager does not cause the deadwood. Signing poor players does.
 
If they do not go up they are in huge trouble.

They recorded losses of 32m last season which was well within the permissible losses of 61m; which, on the face of it, does not appear too bad.

Not until you see that their expenditure was 96.8m against income of 64.4m which included 35m of parachute money, which just happens to falls by 20m this season.

If I am reading things correctly they must comply with the 3 year - 39m ruling this season.

If my arithmetic is correct, which it probably is not, they have somewhere in the region of 39m to find just to comply - difference between last years losses and this years allowed losses = 19m plus loss of 20m in parachute payments.

Other than that they are a mere 123m in debt.
 
mao tse tung said:
If they do not go up they are in huge trouble.

They recorded losses of 32m last season which was well within the permissible losses of 61m; which, on the face of it, does not appear too bad.

Not until you see that their expenditure was 96.8m against income of 64.4m which included 35m of parachute money, which just happens to falls by 20m this season.

If I am reading things correctly they must comply with the 3 year - 39m ruling this season.

If my arithmetic is correct, which it probably is not, they have somewhere in the region of 39m to find just to comply - difference between last years losses and this years allowed losses = 19m plus loss of 20m in parachute payments.

Other than that they are a mere 123m in debt.
Click to expand...
If they go up I expect their owners to quietly pay the EFL off for overspending and go on their merry way.

If they don’t go up it won’t be anywhere near as quiet and you could expect to see Grealish and McGinn sold just for starters.

Ironically if you look at their net transfer spend they are within their limits (just) over 3 years.

The problem is they have a horrendous wage bill which is only reducing incrementally as player contracts end and the good Dr Xia gambled and lost when he spent £77m on new players.
 
Basha73 said:
If they go up I expect their owners to quietly pay the EFL off for overspending and go on their merry way.

If they don’t go up it won’t be anywhere near as quiet and you could expect to see Grealish and McGinn sold just for starters.

Ironically if you look at their net transfer spend they are within their limits (just) over 3 years.

The problem is they have a horrendous wage bill which is only reducing incrementally as player contracts end and the good Dr Xia gambled and lost when he spent £77m on new players.
Click to expand...


Their financial year ends on the 31st May so the accounts will not be in the public domain until next February.

If they do go up they will be fined; to date they have not broken any rules.

If they do not go up there will be a fire sale; the problem is that everyone and his dog knows what a perilous state they are in.

Attempting to sell players in that kind of environment is not conducive to maximising your expected fees.

The same goes for anyone they attempt to buy; the price will inevitably go up.

They will also need to display that they are attempting to get the situation under control; accepting bargain basement prices for outgoing players and then splashing out 20m on the likes of Lolley would hardly be classed as mitigation.

They could very well end up just like us with a load of unwanted players on big wages who no one else is interested in.

The EFL will look for clear signs of contrition backed up with actions to match; they could, on the other hand, tough it out like their near neighbour's did, and probably get the same result.

If they fall at the last we will need to strike while the iron is hot; bang in a 3m + Bridcutt bid for McGinn just to break the ice; it might just work if they are sufficiently distracted by Dan Levy giving them the runaround with Grealish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.