CosbehFox Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Anyway I ended up writing to much there it seems haha. Hopefully you guys can understand that we don't intend to sound arrogant at all. I don't know who Nicky will be going to, but whoever gets him is very lucky and in my opinion he is the best striker in the NPC. I don't think it's arrogant at all. The difference between the teams at this level is minimal and the case where it's not, normally the marathon-esque 46 games makes it a bit of leveller as you need deep squads. Generally, good Championship players do not sign for similar Championship clubs except one reason. That reason is wages. We can offer Maynard a daft amount of wages for his ability and I personally feel this is where they could be a problem for Bristol City. His agent will speak to him next week (no doubt after his agent's asked us what wage we're willing to offer) and say we can double your wages for the next two years, then see if a Premiership club wants him. As soon as the player says he wants off, the power is with him. It's the reason the Bosman rule is such a bitch.
Maybes Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Sky Sports claimed numerous Premier league clubs were after him before his injury in the summer last season. Of course there's been lots of silly rumours in the papers as well, one claiming Liverpool were interested haha. Maynard has improved incredibly since he joined us. In his first season he definitely struggled coping with the pace in the division but since then he has been fantastic. He even returned from a long term injury and began scoring for fun last season. I understand why £4M sounds ludicrous but any lower and for me personally it wouldn't be worth it and we may as well take a gamble. I know some City fans would disagree with me in that aspect, it's just my personal opinion. We are definitely not in need of cash however. Wanting so much for Nicky shows this as if we needed cash we would be risking clubs dropping interest in him. We did announce £12M losses last year and the club have said we will be cutting back on the amount we spend on transfer fees but would still be spending a respectable amount. It's not as if we need more money, we just have to cut back on our losses. I know you'll say well that's the reason why we're selling Maynard, but at no point has the club officially said he is for sale yet. In all honesty the club are not going to come out and say he's for sale. That would just be weak on the negotiation front. They need to build his price up as much as they can.....doing a good job too it seems!!
MC Prussian Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 I've changed my mind I'd happily see us pay £4 million for some of those goals, class. If we can offload Howard and Waghorn in the meantime it's a good deal. I'm not saying Maynard is not talented, but looking at some of those goals, you have to ask yourself what the opposing defense was thinking. Some of the marking on there is simply shocking.
Simmo86 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 LcfcInfoMan LcfcInfoMan @TomSimmonds_86 another bid entered 2 minutes ago
Babylon Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 I've got a headahce... who the feck are we supposed to believe. Did anyone actually hear this new bid story, or we just taking someones word for it?
Bert Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Is that seriously what we've offered? Sven must want him pretty bad! But if we're that desperate, why not just pay the cash? We'd probably get more for Waghorn if we sold him to another club rather than include him in a deal. Would we? Waghorn was hugely inflated because a, it was a transfer deadline day deal, b, Sunderland knew we were desperate to sign him, c, we only paid £2m up front. I'd be very surprised if we could get more than £1.5m for him. Simmo, I just hears that we wod be going back in with another bid sometime this week.
Simmo86 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 What does that mean? He tweeted Du Du Du Nicky Maynard, so I asked him why and that was his response
MC Prussian Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Sky Sports claimed numerous Premier league clubs were after him before his injury in the summer last season. Of course there's been lots of silly rumours in the papers as well, one claiming Liverpool were interested haha. Maynard has improved incredibly since he joined us. In his first season he definitely struggled coping with the pace in the division but since then he has been fantastic. He even returned from a long term injury and began scoring for fun last season. I understand why £4M sounds ludicrous but any lower and for me personally it wouldn't be worth it and we may as well take a gamble. I know some City fans would disagree with me in that aspect, it's just my personal opinion. We are definitely not in need of cash however. Wanting so much for Nicky shows this as if we needed cash we would be risking clubs dropping interest in him. We did announce £12M losses last year and the club have said we will be cutting back on the amount we spend on transfer fees but would still be spending a respectable amount. It's not as if we need more money, we just have to cut back on our losses. I know you'll say well that's the reason why we're selling Maynard, but at no point has the club officially said he is for sale yet. You're not in need of cash but announced £12m in losses last season? I can see why Maynard's suddenly "worth" £4m... It all makes sense. And you know it, too.
BCFC Fan94 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 You're not in need of cash but announced £12m in losses last season? I suddenly see why Maynard's suddenly "worth" £4m... It all makes sense. And you know it, too. Our chairman (now owner) is rich. The only debt we have is to him and it's not as if he would ask for it all back. You don't know him well though so may believe that he's one of those dodgy chairmen you get around clubs often these days. If you thought that you couldn't be more wrong. He's a City legend and is one of the reason we're close to getting a new ground.
Simmo86 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Our chairman (now owner) is rich. The only debt we have is to him and it's not as if he would ask for it all back. You don't know him well though so may believe that he's one of those dodgy chairmen you get around clubs often these days. If you thought that you couldn't be more wrong. He's a City legend and is one of the reason we're close to getting a new ground. How big is this new ground going to be though? No point having 15k+ seats empty every week
CosbehFox Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 You're not in need of cash but announced £12m in losses last season? Look up their owner, they have no problems with money. He's worth as much as King Power. New stadium is going to be completed funded off the sale of Ashton Gate.
MC Prussian Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Our chairman (now owner) is rich. The only debt we have is to him and it's not as if he would ask for it all back. You don't know him well though so may believe that he's one of those dodgy chairmen you get around clubs often these days. If you thought that you couldn't be more wrong. He's a City legend and is one of the reason we're close to getting a new ground. The same Colin Sexstone who publically announces that "the days of paying overinflated transfer market fees are over" demands a whopping £4m for his best striker to minimize financial losses from last season. The same Colin Sexstone who, prior to becoming chairman, was part of paying overinflated transfer fees and wages himself: NEW Bristol City chairman Colin Sexstone has warned that the days of paying inflated prices in the transfer market are over.Although majority shareholder and former chairman Steve Lansdown will continue to invest in the Championship club, Sexstone is under pressure to reduce losses that amounted to £11.8 million in the last financial year. And that means current manager Keith Millen will not be afforded the same latitude as some of his predecessors when it comes to strengthening his squad this summer. Lansdown backed previous City managers Gary Johnson and Steve Coppell in the transfer market, but both were guilty of recruiting expensive players, who fell short of expectations on the pitch. Aware of the need to reduce a spiralling wage bill, Sexstone insisted future signings will only be sanctioned if they are deemed "value for money." Sexstone said: "As our major investor, Steve Lansdown is very ambitious, but the watchword has to be value for money. "We will try and support Keith Millen in terms of the players he wants to bring in, but we have learned our lesson. "We have paid over the top in the past and have not always had value for money." Lee Trundle, Evander Sno, Peter Styvar, Alvaro Saborio and Nicky Hunt have all proved expensive flops in recent seasons and Sexstone, pictured below, insisted City have paid the price for chopping and changing manager. He explained: "My experience of football clubs is that they tend to start spending whenever they change manager. We had three in the space of a few months last year and that is a very expensive business. "It cost us a lot of money and made us realise that continuity is all important. Keith Millen went through that with us and he fully understands the danger of paying over the odds." Millen is in the market for a right-back, a left-back, a centre-half and a creative central midfield player and Lansdown has promised to back the Londoner in his bid to assemble a squad capable of challenging for promotion to the Premier League. But Sexstone said: "Value for money means signing improving players whose value is going to go up. We cannot afford to say 'we want such and such a player, no matter what it cost.' "People tend to panic as the end of a transfer window approaches and decisions made then are not always the right ones. We need to avoid that. "We must avoid some of the mistakes we have made in the past and that means involving more people in the process of bringing players in and making sure we are more thorough in doing our homework. "That means having the right back-up staff to ensure we are doing due diligence and bringing in the right players that we really need." Meanwhile, Football League chairman Greg Clarke hailed yesterday's (FRI) vote by the 72 clubs to adopt UEFA's financial fair play system as a decision that could change the landscape of football finances in England. Championship clubs will only be allowed to spend what they earn from the 2012-13 season, while sides in League One and Two will not be permitted to spend more than 55 per cent of their turnover on player wages. Clubs who transgress the rules are likely to be handed a transfer ban as a first sanction with possible points deductions for major offenders. Clarke said: "This could be a seminal event that reshapes football finances in England. "The clubs are aware of the ground-breaking decision they have taken and we will work hard now to make it happen." http://www.thisisbri...tail/story.html Greedy fvcker. If he was such a nice guy with an impressive wallet and if he was so social and whatnot, surely he could lower the price for Maynard to a reasonable amount? It's the same self-declared benefactor who announces a new 30'000-seater stadium for Bristol City in May 2010, expects it to be completed in two years (August 2012), when a smaller stadium in Brighton took more than three years to be finalized. http://www.southwest...il/article.html I seriously hope our investors don't fall for this trap and go for better deals than £4m for Maynard.
Itsthejoeker Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Our chairman (now owner) is rich. The only debt we have is to him and it's not as if he would ask for it all back. You don't know him well though so may believe that he's one of those dodgy chairmen you get around clubs often these days. If you thought that you couldn't be more wrong. He's a City legend and is one of the reason we're close to getting a new ground. Your being stopped by a bunch of dog walkers!!
Mark_w Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Our chairman (now owner) is rich. The only debt we have is to him and it's not as if he would ask for it all back. You don't know him well though so may believe that he's one of those dodgy chairmen you get around clubs often these days. If you thought that you couldn't be more wrong. He's a City legend and is one of the reason we're close to getting a new ground. Nice to see a reasonable sounding Bristol City fan, but realistically we stand a far greater chance of promotion which Maynard will realize, we can offer more money which is all players seem to care about and a Stadium that will be finished two years after his contract runs out isn't much of an incentive for Maynard to stay really. I'm confident that Maynard will leave Bristol City, just hope that it's to us. <_<
Bernie's Love Child Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Would we? Waghorn was hugely inflated because a, it was a transfer deadline day deal, b, Sunderland knew we were desperate to sign him, c, we only paid £2m up front. I'd be very surprised if we could get more than £1.5m for him. Simmo, I just hears that we wod be going back in with another bid sometime this week. True. It was a huge fee at the time. Have we made this offer to Bristol? They'd have to accept that, surely!
BCFC Fan94 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 How big is this new ground going to be though? No point having 15k+ seats empty every week 30,000. It's true our support is terrible when you compare it to the size of the area we're in. I can't remember the specific figuers but normally attendances rise by about 5,000 in new grounds which would take us to about 20-22 thousand attendances. Attendances increase with success though and the ground is ultimately being built for if/when we reach the Premier league. Our ex chairman now owner said one of the main reasons the stadium is being built, is to allow the club to become self sustainable. At Ashton Gate our facilities are very poor whereas at Ashton Vale, various events will be held at the ground (concerts etc) to increase income coming into the club. Disablity facilities are poor at Ashton Gate as well and numerous other things. Basically the stadium isn't being built simply for attendances. The club is still aiming to increase attendances though.
tylesta Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Look up their owner, they have no problems with money. He's worth as much as King Power. New stadium is going to be completed funded off the sale of Ashton Gate. i think our owners are worth more than what is seen online. £113m would leave them about skint now with buying the club for 40m.
BCFC Fan94 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 Colin Sexstone isn't the person I'm on about. Steve Lansdown is our ex chairman and now owner. He's loaded believe me. The Village Green was overruled last week. It seems like now all we have to do is wait and see if they are appealing or not. If they don't which hopefully they will not at it will have to be a judicial review if they do. It's just a matter of time before the diggers are in.
Simmo86 Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 30,000. It's true our support is terrible when you compare it to the size of the area we're in. I can't remember the specific figuers but normally attendances rise by about 5,000 in new grounds which would take us to about 20-22 thousand attendances. Attendances increase with success though and the ground is ultimately being built for if/when we reach the Premier league. Our ex chairman now owner said one of the main reasons the stadium is being built, is to allow the club to become self sustainable. At Ashton Gate our facilities are very poor whereas at Ashton Vale, various events will be held at the ground (concerts etc) to increase income coming into the club. Disablity facilities are poor at Ashton Gate as well and numerous other things. Basically the stadium isn't being built simply for attendances. The club is still aiming to increase attendances though. Thats fair enough. Hopefully for your sake they'd only build it if you became a established Prem team, nothing worse playing in a souless bowl with empty seats!
artursteppe Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 It seems to me that if we have offered £4m + Waghorn, that may actually be true value in today's market. If today's reports are true that Doncaster have turned down a did of £2.5m for Billy Sharp from a Championship club, and Peterborough have accepted bids of £3m for Mackail-Smith from three clubs, two Prem and one Championship, I think £5.5m for Nicky Maynard would be my choice every time. ( Carrol went from Newcastle to Liverpool for £35M, and he ain't worth 6 Nicky Maynards ).
Zingari Posted 23 June 2011 Posted 23 June 2011 the Waghorn plus cash deal would be a great solution if true
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.