Filberts Treat Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 That's kinda my point Babylon. Seems to panic regardless of this.
Jace Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Pretty sure this time last summer we still hadn't signed anyone and all the panic police were saying Top & Co had done a runner with all the money and had left Sven high and dry
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 People do realise the transfer window only opened two days ago don't they?
TrentFox Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Pretty sure this time last summer we still hadn't signed anyone and all the panic police were saying Top & Co had done a runner with all the money and had left Sven high and dry Whereas by this summer, it's Sven that's done a runner with all the money and left Top and Co high and dry !
Leicfox Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 So basically what you are suggesting is that we keep pumping stupid money in, raising our debts to ever more ridiculous levels, in the hope that we get promoted. If we sign player now they are going to want 3 possibly 4 year contracts. On top of the ridiculous unsustainable wage bill and long contracts we currently have. Why not just accept that we need to cut back a bit and at least start to prepare for what's coming. I'm not suggesting that. I know we need to get rid of investments that are not committed as if not that could cause us a problems when FFP does kick in and now is definitely the right time to do that. What I am saying though is I don't believe it's a case of we HAD to wait until we got/get rid of Mills/Sol/Pelts before we could possibly sign anyone else if that's what we wanted to do.
Fox92 Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Whereas by this summer, it's Sven that's done a runner with all the money and left Top and Co high and dry ! I was just about to put this, this year it's the other way around! lol
jock2612 Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Bolton news has stated Mills passed medical and agreed terms and is due to put pen to paper today to be announced tomorrow,so hopefully this is done . I think NP will then move in the transfer/loan market.
Mark_w Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Bolton news has stated Mills passed medical and agreed terms and is due to put pen to paper today to be announced tomorrow,so hopefully this is done . I think NP will then move in the transfer/loan market.
Grey Fox Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Why are people panicking about us not singing players yet? Out of interest I thought I would have a quick look where we were at with signings this time last year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/05/leicester-city-david-nugent That seems to suggest that by the end of this week (last year) we had made 5 signings. So far we have made 3 this time around. It's not as bad as some make out, but I think it's the time since the last one and the fact that we start training again next week that people are thinking about. It would have been good to have an almost full squad for the whole of pre season training IMO, and I still think we are 2-3 good players away from top 2 contention, even if what we do have does gel. Just my opinion.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Why are people panicking about us not singing players yet? We only sing when we're winning.
Grey Fox Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 We only sing when we're winning. Lets all sing for some more new signings. Then Pearson might see that as a sign and sign a few more.
Babylon Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 What I am saying though is I don't believe it's a case of we HAD to wait until we got/get rid of Mills/Sol/Pelts before we could possibly sign anyone else if that's what we wanted to do. And what if both players decided to stay, or deals couldn't be agreed... and we then have even more players stuck on the wage bill. I'm sure we could get replacements now if we wanted to, but that's a risk, and it means risking a lot of money. So really you are suggesting we risk more money.
Guest Col city fan Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 And what if both players decided to stay, or deals couldn't be agreed... and we then have even more players stuck on the wage bill. I'm sure we could get replacements now if we wanted to, but that's a risk, and it means risking a lot of money. So really you are suggesting we risk more money. I believe you suggested that we 'have to' get rid of these players? I don't believe you are correct in this assertion and that Pearson appears to be getting rid of the players he simply does not want anymore. Nothing you have suggested since, in my opinion, changes this. Wages, money etc I can understand. But I feel it's no coincidence that Pearson has sold Bamba, loaned out Mills and is probably selling Peltier too. Some other clubs, who will also be affected by FFP of course, still appear to be signing players. Most notably Bolton and Blackburn who have only today brought in three new signings I believe? As I said before, getting rid of Peltier for 325 k and his wages will not make much an impact on our finances I wouldn't have thought...
Babylon Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I believe you suggested that we 'have to' get rid of these players? I don't believe you are correct in this assertion and that Pearson appears to be getting rid of the players he simply does not want anymore. Nothing you have suggested since, in my opinion, changes this. Wages, money etc I can understand. But I feel it's no coincidence that Pearson has sold Bamba, loaned out Mills and is probably selling Peltier too. Some other clubs, who will also be affected by FFP of course, still appear to be signing players. Most notably Bolton and Blackburn who have only today brought in three new signings I believe? As I said before, getting rid of Peltier for 325 k and his wages will not make much an impact on our finances I wouldn't have thought... Yes, we HAVE to get rid of these players if we want to replace them. I'm not suggesting we have to get rid and can't get anyone else in as a replacement. What I have said, and what I am saying is that their replacements will not be signed until we have got rid of the players he doesn't want. Bolton and Blackburn are not effected by FFP in the first year in anyway at all, they just have to conform to premier league rules. They also have huge amounts from parachute payments guaranteed for several years.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Yes, we HAVE to get rid of these players if we want to replace them. I'm not suggesting we have to get rid and can't get anyone else in as a replacement. What I have said, and what I am saying is that their replacements will not be signed until we have got rid of the players he doesn't want. Bolton and Blackburn are not effected by FFP in the first year in anyway at all, they just have to conform to premier league rules. They also have huge amounts from parachute payments guaranteed for several years. Has your insider (I'm presuming it's not Bert) told you WHO we HAVE to get rid of?
Guest Col city fan Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Has your insider (I'm presuming it's not Bert) told you WHO we HAVE to get rid of? That's an interesting question....
Babylon Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Has your insider (I'm presuming it's not Bert) told you WHO we HAVE to get rid of? Are people not understanding me? The manager can get rid of whomever he wishes. What I am saying is that I believe (from using my own eyes and ears, and what someone told me) is we have to sell to buy at this moment in time. I'm not saying anyone is being forced to sell, just that if they don't like them, or think they can get better there needs to be an out before an in if we're talking half decent money. I think people should look back at what I was replying to, it's quite clear what was being said in my eyes.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Are people not understanding me? The manager can get rid of whomever he wishes. What I am saying is that I believe (from using my own eyes and ears, and what someone told me) is we have to sell to buy at this moment in time. I'm not saying anyone is being forced to sell, just that if they don't like them, or think they can get better there needs to be an out before an in if we're talking half decent money. I think people should look back at what I was replying to, it's quite clear what was being said in my eyes. Sadly I'm getting more and more confused. Let's see if I get it. We don't HAVE to get rid of anyone. Unless we want someone. If we want someone, we HAVE to get rid of someone. If we want no-one we don't HAVE to get rid on anyone. So anyone can stay unless we want someone, but if we want someone then someone must go unless someone is no-one. Is that right? with regards the more interesting point, your insider hasn't specifically mentioned anyone. Whether the player is Peltier or Beckford makes no difference and no difference was made. okay?
Babylon Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Sadly I'm getting more and more confused. Let's see if I get it. We don't HAVE to get rid of anyone. Unless we want someone. If we want someone, we HAVE to get rid of someone. If we want no-one we don't HAVE to get rid on anyone. So anyone can stay unless we want someone, but if we want someone then someone must go unless someone is no-one. Is that right? with regards the more interesting point, your insider hasn't specifically mentioned anyone. Whether the player is Peltier or Beckford makes no difference and no difference was made. okay? Look back at the first post it will all make sense. As for the "insider" it was someone I worked with at city 15+ years ago, who was a city fan who still knows people there. I've seen about 3 times since then. I might not see them again for another 5 years. I'm not going to claim to have some kind of inside track, as I don't.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 What Babylon has said makes perfect sense and sums up my own view of the situation. It's clear we are selling on a number of players (Peltier, Mills etc) and probably for less than we paid and it's quite likely that the wait for these sales to go through is holding up any offers we might make. I don't think we have to sell in order to stay afloat or anything but I would think that Top had told NP that any major acquisitions will need to be, at least substantially, funded through sales as I'd imagine the Thai's want to make sure the wage bill reduces whilst trying to come close to breaking even on transfer fees. I'd suggest its not a pound for pound equation, more of a balance between the need for improvement and a requirements to not make our ongoing funding needs significantly increase. So we could see Mills go for say £2m taking 30k a week off the wage bill then pay £3m for Chester and pay him 20k a week for instance (assuming we could talk Hull into selling!)
Babylon Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 What Babylon has said makes perfect sense and sums up my own view of the situation. It's clear we are selling on a number of players (Peltier, Mills etc) and probably for less than we paid and it's quite likely that the wait for these sales to go through is holding up any offers we might make. I don't think we have to sell in order to stay afloat or anything but I would think that Top had told NP that any major acquisitions will need to be, at least substantially, funded through sales as I'd imagine the Thai's want to make sure the wage bill reduces whilst trying to come close to breaking even on transfer fees. I'd suggest its not a pound for pound equation, more of a balance between the need for improvement and a requirements to not make our ongoing funding needs significantly increase. So we could see Mills go for say £2m taking 30k a week off the wage bill then pay £3m for Chester and pay him 20k a week for instance (assuming we could talk Hull into selling!) Glad it wasn't me going insane!
artursteppe Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 What Babylon has said makes perfect sense and sums up my own view of the situation. It's clear we are selling on a number of players (Peltier, Mills etc) and probably for less than we paid and it's quite likely that the wait for these sales to go through is holding up any offers we might make. I don't think we have to sell in order to stay afloat or anything but I would think that Top had told NP that any major acquisitions will need to be, at least substantially, funded through sales as I'd imagine the Thai's want to make sure the wage bill reduces whilst trying to come close to breaking even on transfer fees. I'd suggest its not a pound for pound equation, more of a balance between the need for improvement and a requirements to not make our ongoing funding needs significantly increase. So we could see Mills go for say £2m taking 30k a week off the wage bill then pay £3m for Chester and pay him 20k a week for instance (assuming we could talk Hull into selling!) What Babylon has said makes perfect sense and sums up my own view of the situation. It's clear we are selling on a number of players (Peltier, Mills etc) and probably for less than we paid and it's quite likely that the wait for these sales to go through is holding up any offers we might make. I don't think we have to sell in order to stay afloat or anything but I would think that Top had told NP that any major acquisitions will need to be, at least substantially, funded through sales as I'd imagine the Thai's want to make sure the wage bill reduces whilst trying to come close to breaking even on transfer fees. I'd suggest its not a pound for pound equation, more of a balance between the need for improvement and a requirements to not make our ongoing funding needs significantly increase. So we could see Mills go for say £2m taking 30k a week off the wage bill then pay £3m for Chester and pay him 20k a week for instance (assuming we could talk Hull into selling!) The sums regarding Mills and Chester work over two years, not one.
Babylon Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 The sums regarding Mills and Chester work over two years, not one. He didn't say it saved a million instantly, but it does over two and more over the three remaining on Mills contract.
Guest Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 He didn't say it saved a million instantly, but it does over two and more over the three remaining on Mills contract. which would be great.....if the Mills figures are correct and if we signed Chester for that amount and those wages. Seems all a bit irrelevant to me.
Lesta Legend Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 which would be great.....if the Mills figures are correct and if we signed Chester for that amount and those wages. Seems all a bit IRRELEVANT to me. likewise your reply, pointless It's a forum, no opinion is irrelevant unless your name is stavlos tiger
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.