| Accounts 23:34 - Feb 11 with 20075 views | leedsdale |
|  | | |  |
| Accounts on 10:18 - Feb 14 with 1915 views | James1980 |
I read that article, would be interesting to know who the other two clubs were.
Also were Wolves the only club willing to loan Luke back to us and to accept the add ons. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 10:31 - Feb 14 with 1883 views | AtThePeake |
| Accounts on 10:18 - Feb 14 by James1980 |
I read that article, would be interesting to know who the other two clubs were.
Also were Wolves the only club willing to loan Luke back to us and to accept the add ons. |
To me it sounds like they were the only club to make a genuine offer so we don't know what the other interested clubs would've offered. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 10:46 - Feb 14 with 1855 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 10:31 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
To me it sounds like they were the only club to make a genuine offer so we don't know what the other interested clubs would've offered. |
In the absence of a bidding war between Wolves and 1 or more other club it sounds like a good deal really. As long as the add ons come to fruition. | |
| |
| Accounts on 10:52 - Feb 14 with 1851 views | AtThePeake |
| Accounts on 10:46 - Feb 14 by James1980 |
In the absence of a bidding war between Wolves and 1 or more other club it sounds like a good deal really. As long as the add ons come to fruition. |
But they were interested. We didn't have to sell this January. | |
| |
| Accounts on 11:19 - Feb 14 with 1819 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 10:52 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
But they were interested. We didn't have to sell this January. |
But if we hadn't sold Matheson in January how would that have sat with the ethos of not holding back a player from progressing if the opportunity arises | |
| |
| Accounts on 11:33 - Feb 14 with 1811 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 11:19 - Feb 14 by James1980 |
But if we hadn't sold Matheson in January how would that have sat with the ethos of not holding back a player from progressing if the opportunity arises |
Two years in the first team was the model laid down by Chris Dunphy. Any less than that and the player doesn't have enough experience to have maximum impact, any more than that and he prevents the next player coming through.
Doesn't look like that model exists anymore. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 11:45 - Feb 14 with 1783 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 09:22 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
Whilst I think 'fire sale' might be an exaggeration, I'm still not happy with the way the Matheson deal was concluded. The recent article in the Athletic from the Wolves correspondent (whose name now escapes me) suggests that although there was interest from elsewhere, they were the first team to make a concrete bid. I know there are add-ons, but I still think he's worth far more than the deal we got for him in the current market. The way that fans of other clubs have reacted to the news ("only £1m?!") tells a story. |
It's possible to have a different view, as you and others have, on whether the upfront deal was good value; it's the use of terms like "fire sale" that i was disputing, along with trying to establish whether the poster who used that term has an hidden agenda, which his constant and solely financial posting might suggest
I doubt we'll find out either way, but i also doubt i'm the only one with suspicions
[Post edited 14 Feb 2020 11:47]
|  |
| |
| Accounts on 11:45 - Feb 14 with 1783 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 11:33 - Feb 14 by fitzochris |
Two years in the first team was the model laid down by Chris Dunphy. Any less than that and the player doesn't have enough experience to have maximum impact, any more than that and he prevents the next player coming through.
Doesn't look like that model exists anymore. |
But was that ever tested with a bid from a Premier League club or Championship club pushing for promotion?
Would Dunphy have stuck to his guns in your opinion? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Accounts on 11:49 - Feb 14 with 1762 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 11:33 - Feb 14 by fitzochris |
Two years in the first team was the model laid down by Chris Dunphy. Any less than that and the player doesn't have enough experience to have maximum impact, any more than that and he prevents the next player coming through.
Doesn't look like that model exists anymore. |
I think it was sweetcorn who suggested Matheson's current stock might well be at it's peak
It's certainly arguable | |
| |
| Accounts on 12:07 - Feb 14 with 1737 views | Plattyswrinklynuts |
| Accounts on 11:45 - Feb 14 by D_Alien |
It's possible to have a different view, as you and others have, on whether the upfront deal was good value; it's the use of terms like "fire sale" that i was disputing, along with trying to establish whether the poster who used that term has an hidden agenda, which his constant and solely financial posting might suggest
I doubt we'll find out either way, but i also doubt i'm the only one with suspicions
[Post edited 14 Feb 2020 11:47]
|
The “fire sale” alluded to had nothing to do with Matheson. McGahey, Raff & Cannon were all sold in that Jan transfer window, the prevailing consensus being that it was those sales that were pushed through to provide money for the compensation due to Hill & Beech. |  | | |
| Accounts on 12:10 - Feb 14 with 1724 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 11:45 - Feb 14 by James1980 |
But was that ever tested with a bid from a Premier League club or Championship club pushing for promotion?
Would Dunphy have stuck to his guns in your opinion? |
The only player who broke this mould was Hogan and that was down to the player.
Would Dunphy have sold Matheson for £1 million? Who knows. We also had different CEOs during his reign, who all may have advised differently and negotiated differently. | |
| |
| Accounts on 12:12 - Feb 14 with 1719 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 12:07 - Feb 14 by Plattyswrinklynuts |
The “fire sale” alluded to had nothing to do with Matheson. McGahey, Raff & Cannon were all sold in that Jan transfer window, the prevailing consensus being that it was those sales that were pushed through to provide money for the compensation due to Hill & Beech. |
Precisely | |
| |
| Accounts on 12:32 - Feb 14 with 1681 views | AtThePeake |
| Accounts on 11:19 - Feb 14 by James1980 |
But if we hadn't sold Matheson in January how would that have sat with the ethos of not holding back a player from progressing if the opportunity arises |
There's accentuating circumstances in all of these arguments. If we have to sell a player every time a bigger club comes in simply because we can't be seen to be standing in their way, then why would they even offer £1m? If they offered £250k would we have had to accept that because can't be seen to be standing in their way? We still have to get full worth for the player. | |
| |
| Accounts on 12:41 - Feb 14 with 1661 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Accounts on 12:07 - Feb 14 by Plattyswrinklynuts |
The “fire sale” alluded to had nothing to do with Matheson. McGahey, Raff & Cannon were all sold in that Jan transfer window, the prevailing consensus being that it was those sales that were pushed through to provide money for the compensation due to Hill & Beech. |
and that the ‘relative’ loosening of the purse strings had proved a disaster and the club had to seriously contemplate life in league 2 the following season. | |
| |
| Accounts on 14:21 - Feb 14 with 1512 views | tony_roch975 |
| Accounts on 12:32 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
There's accentuating circumstances in all of these arguments. If we have to sell a player every time a bigger club comes in simply because we can't be seen to be standing in their way, then why would they even offer £1m? If they offered £250k would we have had to accept that because can't be seen to be standing in their way? We still have to get full worth for the player. |
We've debated this before - our player will in all probability have a release clause which has to be low enough he gets his wish to move up the food chain at the first opportunity and high enough the club reaps some of what it's sown through the Academy - once a bidding club offers that release clause amount the sale proceeds and any other club might outbid, which apparently didn't happen with Luke. We only have to accept an offer if it reaches the contractural obligation (release clause) we have with our player - without which that player wouldn't have signed with us. | |
| |
| Accounts on 14:23 - Feb 14 with 1506 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 12:32 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
There's accentuating circumstances in all of these arguments. If we have to sell a player every time a bigger club comes in simply because we can't be seen to be standing in their way, then why would they even offer £1m? If they offered £250k would we have had to accept that because can't be seen to be standing in their way? We still have to get full worth for the player. |
Hopefully there is flexibility from both parties when these deals are struck. We won't hold a player back as long as the price is right. | |
| |
| Accounts on 14:36 - Feb 14 with 1481 views | judd |
| Accounts on 14:21 - Feb 14 by tony_roch975 |
We've debated this before - our player will in all probability have a release clause which has to be low enough he gets his wish to move up the food chain at the first opportunity and high enough the club reaps some of what it's sown through the Academy - once a bidding club offers that release clause amount the sale proceeds and any other club might outbid, which apparently didn't happen with Luke. We only have to accept an offer if it reaches the contractural obligation (release clause) we have with our player - without which that player wouldn't have signed with us. |
What if there was no release clause - entirely plausible that there was not one, isn't it? |  |
| |
| Accounts on 14:58 - Feb 14 with 1446 views | kiwidale |
| Accounts on 11:45 - Feb 14 by D_Alien |
It's possible to have a different view, as you and others have, on whether the upfront deal was good value; it's the use of terms like "fire sale" that i was disputing, along with trying to establish whether the poster who used that term has an hidden agenda, which his constant and solely financial posting might suggest
I doubt we'll find out either way, but i also doubt i'm the only one with suspicions
[Post edited 14 Feb 2020 11:47]
|
A hidden agenda sounds a bit cloak and dagger, what are these suspicions you mention? Maybe the poster in question is posting his thoughts on club finances on a thread titled Accounts nothing more. | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Accounts on 14:58 - Feb 14 with 1444 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 14:36 - Feb 14 by judd |
What if there was no release clause - entirely plausible that there was not one, isn't it? |
Didn't a fellow poster say there wasn't a sell on clause in Luke's contract?
Maybe there was an unwritten gentleman's agreement. If a club offers £1Million or more and will sign off on our usual list of add ons you can move on. | |
| |
| Accounts on 14:59 - Feb 14 with 1443 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 14:21 - Feb 14 by tony_roch975 |
We've debated this before - our player will in all probability have a release clause which has to be low enough he gets his wish to move up the food chain at the first opportunity and high enough the club reaps some of what it's sown through the Academy - once a bidding club offers that release clause amount the sale proceeds and any other club might outbid, which apparently didn't happen with Luke. We only have to accept an offer if it reaches the contractural obligation (release clause) we have with our player - without which that player wouldn't have signed with us. |
Luke Matheson did not have a release clause in his contract. Not one of our current players do. | |
| |
| Accounts on 14:59 - Feb 14 with 1438 views | dingdangblue |
| Accounts on 14:36 - Feb 14 by judd |
What if there was no release clause - entirely plausible that there was not one, isn't it? |
Fitz has already posted that he's been told there was no release clause with Matheson. £1 million is the new £300k. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 15:01 - Feb 14 with 1431 views | kiwidale |
| Accounts on 14:59 - Feb 14 by fitzochris |
Luke Matheson did not have a release clause in his contract. Not one of our current players do. |
Has that always been the case or just the current situation? | |
| This is not the time for bickering.
|
| |
| Accounts on 15:03 - Feb 14 with 1423 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 15:01 - Feb 14 by kiwidale |
Has that always been the case or just the current situation? |
It's the current situation. | |
| |
| Accounts on 15:07 - Feb 14 with 1418 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 15:03 - Feb 14 by fitzochris |
It's the current situation. |
Anno Bottomley? Don't know the correct convention my comprehensive didn't teach Latin. | |
| |
| Accounts on 16:56 - Feb 14 with 1333 views | tony_roch975 |
| Accounts on 14:36 - Feb 14 by judd |
What if there was no release clause - entirely plausible that there was not one, isn't it? |
yes and entirely plausible that there was | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
