peach0000 Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 When i load up a topic and start reading and then it gets to finances i just switch off. I don't know the plans for this clubs finances and no body else does apart from the people at the top. How do you know that they aren't just going to keep on spending and hope for promotion and pay the fine.
Jace Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 When i load up a topic and start reading and then it gets to finances i just switch off. I don't know the plans for this clubs finances and no body else does apart from the people at the top. How do you know that they aren't just going to keep on spending and hope for promotion and pay the fine. That's the part of FFP I don't understand with this club at the moment, if the initial objective was to spend with an open chequebook to bring in the higher caliber of players the owners want why not just continue that strategy and pay the fines?
peach0000 Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 That's the part of FFP I don't understand with this club at the moment, if the initial objective was to spend with an open chequebook to bring in the higher caliber of players the owners want why not just continue that strategy and pay the fines? If they don't get promotion then they will get a transfer embargo but if they get promoted next season they can only get a fine. Its all just whether they want to risk it.
yorkie1999 Posted 23 May 2013 Posted 23 May 2013 I thought watford were supposed to have a transfer embargo on them and look where they've ended up
cityfanlee23 Posted 24 May 2013 Author Posted 24 May 2013 When i load up a topic and start reading and then it gets to finances i just switch off. I don't know the plans for this clubs finances and no body else does apart from the people at the top. How do you know that they aren't just going to keep on spending and hope for promotion and pay the fine. Well again finances are not my forte, But im sure we are not in a position to do that anyway.. I wasnt trying to get involved too much in the financial fair play or the finances in themselves, I was stating that its more expensive to keep him and not play him (Which means not being able to sign another striker due to the fact we have an extortionate player on the books) than just to sell and take a loss.. Hardly mind blowing financial discussion
indierich06 Posted 24 May 2013 Posted 24 May 2013 When i load up a topic and start reading and then it gets to finances i just switch off. I don't know the plans for this clubs finances and no body else does apart from the people at the top. How do you know that they aren't just going to keep on spending and hope for promotion and pay the fine. I hope they don't. We've got enough debt as it is, all owed to the owners, all with 8% on it. The last thing we need is more.
dannythefox Posted 24 May 2013 Posted 24 May 2013 The only way he would ever play for us again is if Pearson left and the same for Danns!
lcfc-fan Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 Scored for Jamaica vs USA yesterday https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xFVtb4G_pic#at=255
Guest Col city fan Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 This ALL depends on whether you see Beckford as value for money? I don't... Never have
MC Prussian Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 Scored for Jamaica vs USA yesterday https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xFVtb4G_pic#at=255 Will do his confidence the world of good - however, he was lucky the goal was given. Looked like a definite offside to me.
Brenfox Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 Wasn't there something about another appearance activating another payment to Everton?
Leicesterpool Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 First pre season friendly lets have Wood and Beckford up front lets try that.
Dan Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 That's the part of FFP I don't understand with this club at the moment, if the initial objective was to spend with an open chequebook to bring in the higher caliber of players the owners want why not just continue that strategy and pay the fines? That's an awful way to go about things IMO. Never worked for us last time and it rarely seems to come off for others either - just look at QPR the year just gone. They pretty much pinned everything on Samba & Remy and they improved minimally, and came 20th.
whitwickfox Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 Christ if we are paying his wages, then he should have the chance to play what do we have to lose apart from pearsons massive ego taking a hit
Bayfox Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 Christ if we are paying his wages, then he should have the chance to play what do we have to lose apart from pearsons massive ego taking a hit And another payment into evertons coffers.
whitwickfox Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 There is no evidence we pay Everton anything but hey let's just let him sit out every game and pay his 30/40 grand a week that really makes sense
Bayfox Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 There is no evidence we pay Everton anything but hey let's just let him sit out every game and pay his 30/40 grand a week that really makes sense Ignoring the fact we agreed a fee. Didnt pay it all up front so at some point based on apps or goals we owe cash. Lets be fair i doubt the add ons were for international apps.
whitwickfox Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 Bay fox I do agree to we will hand over more dosh, but I would of thought it was more than likely should we have been promoted.
Swalker Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 I have no reason to believe this but for some reason I've got a feeling that he'll come good and we'll all eat our words. I have to say that if that happens I would happily eat my words if he starts firing like we know he can
stillwater Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 He is better than most of our other strikers. Pearson just can't handle anyone with an ego bigger than his own.
Guest Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 He is better than most of our other strikers. Pearson just can't handle anyone with an ego bigger than his own. Yawn
Scow Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 If we aim to play a regressive style of football permanently - yes.
Guest Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 If we aim to play a regressive style of football permanently - yes. This is bollocks. Beckford would hit a shed load of goals if we played football aiming to put him in behind the line. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so instead we've managed to waste the best forward we've owned in years. Just because he doesn't race around like an idiot doesn't mean he's not trying - most pros who are at the end of their careers will tell you that they learned to run less during their careers - if you're up front you save your energy for the huge sudden bursts needed to make those goals. Using the energy chasing nothing balls isn't really a good use.
Scow Posted 8 June 2013 Posted 8 June 2013 This is bollocks. Beckford would hit a shed load of goals if we played football aiming to put him in behind the line. Unfortunately that's not going to happen so instead we've managed to waste the best forward we've owned in years. Just because he doesn't race around like an idiot doesn't mean he's not trying - most pros who are at the end of their careers will tell you that they learned to run less during their careers - if you're up front you save your energy for the huge sudden bursts needed to make those goals. Using the energy chasing nothing balls isn't really a good use. Let's put this simply: a progressive team who wants to keep the ball on the floor will not benefit from having a striker who cannot control the ball. This is not a criticism of Beckford's work rate - more about his ability to fit into a team where the emphasis is on retaining the ball.
.thumb.jpg.0f95136a6257ee11e86a63a7c5a96cf3.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.