Mark_w Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 likewise your reply, pointless It's a forum, no opinion is irrelevant unless your name is stavlos tiger No it's just if you have 'tiger' in your name, Dangerous, Strovolos etc.
deep blue 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!) Good post. I can suggest a few reasons for going about it this way - selling the unwanted players before acquiring their replacements - apart from the obvious financial one. First, it removes from our squad, and from our pre-season training, the players who won't be involved next season. Silly to waste training time on them, and they might be an unwanted distraction to team gelling (e.g. being disgruntled, negative presences around the scene when they know they're not wanted). Secondly, it might be more difficult to persuade targets that they will be in the frame for first team action if they can see similar players still at the club, and this could deter them from signing for us. Thirdly, another possible financial consideration, we might have to drop the price for the unwanted players even more than at present if clubs that go for them perceive us as being desperate to get rid of them (because we would be clearly overstocked with players that are costing us money to keep). Just a thought. Anyone agree?
Bluetintedspecs 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. Couldn't agree more, as I've stated previously, Svens sweety shop transfer policy reached dangerous financial levels particularly with FFP fast approaching!
Raw Dykes 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? Why would it matter in the slightest which players have to be shipped out? They're all being paid. Good post. I can suggest a few reasons for going about it this way - selling the unwanted players before acquiring their replacements - apart from the obvious financial one. First, it removes from our squad, and from our pre-season training, the players who won't be involved next season. Silly to waste training time on them, and they might be an unwanted distraction to team gelling (e.g. being disgruntled, negative presences around the scene when they know they're not wanted). Secondly, it might be more difficult to persuade targets that they will be in the frame for first team action if they can see similar players still at the club, and this could deter them from signing for us. Thirdly, another possible financial consideration, we might have to drop the price for the unwanted players even more than at present if clubs that go for them perceive us as being desperate to get rid of them (because we would be clearly overstocked with players that are costing us money to keep). Just a thought. Anyone agree? I sort of agree. I definitely think it's better to get rid of any unwanted players as soon as possible - for the reasons you said and others, such as less risk of them getting injured and becoming impossible to sell, and also to get the squad as it will be for the new season as early as possible. I do agree that transfer targets could be swayed towards signing if they can see they have a better chance of a first team place due to fewer players who play the same position as them. Your third point isn't a reason to sell players before buying, but I do agree that it's very likely we will be making a loss on some, if not most, players we sell, but then that was always on the cards. Last summer's spending was a disaster, and now we're playing damage limitation. While I agree with your points, I don't think they'll have as much bearing on us having to sell before buying as the simple financial reason will. There'll be a set wage budget, and I expect we're probably over it at the mo. As Babylon said, spending more now before selling in the hope that other clubs will make us offers for our unwanted players is a risky game. We could subtract all the unwanted players' wages off the bill before they've gone and sign more players, hoping we can sell Mills & co. to meet the budget, but then what happens if the Mills to Bolton deal falls through? We'd be fvcked. It's counting your chickens before they hatch.
Bert Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I'd be worried if it was August. Think we'll only sign 1 or 2 more anyway.
Libertine Dream Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I'd be worried if it was August. Think we'll only sign 1 or 2 more anyway. If that was to be the case then we wont go up
Adster Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 If that was to be the case then we wont go up I have to agree with this. I don't think signing 1-2 more players will give us the firepower to get promoted next season. Especially when other teams don't seem to stop continuously recruiting and strenghtening.
Happy Fox Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I have to agree with this. I don't think signing 1-2 more players will give us the firepower to get promoted next season. Especially when other teams don't seem to stop continuously recruiting and strenghtening. Depends what positions they are in if it is a winger and a defensive minded midfielder, we would be a far better propostion as a team in terms of balance in the midfield which is the crux of our season panning out imo.
Libertine Dream Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 Depends what positions they are in if it is a winger and a defensive minded midfielder, we would be a far better propostion as a team in terms of balance in the midfield which is the crux of our season panning out imo. But yet we'd only have two centre backs
Bettsj2 Posted 3 July 2012 Posted 3 July 2012 I have to agree with this. I don't think signing 1-2 more players will give us the firepower to get promoted next season. Especially when other teams don't seem to stop continuously recruiting and strenghtening. Continuously recruiting seems to have been one of our downfalls. Wouldnt mind a summer where major overhall isnt the dominant force.
Adster Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Continuously recruiting seems to have been one of our downfalls. Wouldnt mind a summer where major overhall isnt the dominant force. True but I see no major improvement in the squad from last year. On paper anyway.
stix Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Report in the Merc states he has gone on a 3-year contract. Announcement later.
beemeroo Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 True but I see no major improvement in the squad from last year. On paper anyway. Our first game isn't for 6 weeks and the window doesn't close for another 2 weeks after that. We have to sell to buy and with our inflated wages that was always going to prove to be a difficult task. It's not rocket science, but it is a frustrating process I must agree.
rico Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Leicester-City-cut-losses-Matt-Mills-defender/story-16479448-detail/story.html
Mark_w Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 http://www.thisislei...tail/story.html Permanent :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Guest Col city fan Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Permanent :) :) :) :) :) :) :) Pearson must have really wanted him gone. A loss of possibly 2-2.5 million quid in one season! What a Fook up this last season has been. It's good that he's off the wage bill but that's a big hit. I hope Mills looks as bad in a Bolton shirt as he did in a City one.
Dr The Singh Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Good move, release funds for Pearson to hopefully make him happy
dpjfox Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 i hoppe we havent made a big mistake (especially if we fork out £3mill for Chesters who also fails to live up to inflated fee)
Guest Col city fan Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 i hoppe we havent made a big mistake (especially if we fork out £3mill for Chesters who also fails to live up to inflated fee) I don't think we have made a mistake in footballing terms, although we'll have to wait and see on that one. Time after time you can see certain players playing well for certain managers. I hope Coyle don't get the best out of Mills. However, in purely financial terms this is no way to run a football club. The 'Sven in a sweetie shop' analogy couldn't be more true in the case of Mills (yes... And the Board) It's like buying a Rover 25 one year for 5k, keeping it on the drive for a few months, then selling it for a grand. In relative terms...
nickelbyfox Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 We just have to wait and see but Pearson really doesn't accept something if he is not in complete control! Less than 2 mil having paid somewhere in the region of almost 5!
Milton Keynes Fox Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Good player no one can deny that, but lots of wages and a big ego. Pissed off we didn't even get 2 million though
Libertine Dream Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 Tuesday 6th November Tuesday 16th April Lets hope he crumbles like he did vs Reading
Babylon Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 We just have to wait and see but Pearson really doesn't accept something if he is not in complete control! Less than 2 mil having paid somewhere in the region of almost 5! We'll only have ever paid 5 with promotion etc etc. So unlikely to be anything like £5m.
Simo86 Posted 4 July 2012 Posted 4 July 2012 We just have to wait and see but Pearson really doesn't accept something if he is not in complete control! Less than 2 mil having paid somewhere in the region of almost 5! We don't know what we paid for him. The potential fee was around 5 but we don't know if the clauses were triggered or not.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.