| VDH - Villa 10:39 - Feb 3 with 6586 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Was wanted by Villa last week, we wanted too much. They’ll try again in summer when he’s out of contract. They are vultures fair play.
Source - Nixon. |  | | |  |
| VDH - Villa on 18:22 - Feb 3 with 1090 views | _ |
| VDH - Villa on 18:20 - Feb 3 by union_jack |
I agree no one knows exactly what’s happening other than those on the inside.
However, there are signs that a firesale is in progress. Yes, players were bought in the summer but far more sold. In my opinion (if that’s better) I can see them stripping us bare in the summer, recouping what they can in the process and selling on to whoever they can.
Now if there are rules against this and no known loopholes feel free to enlighten me. But these things have happened to other clubs in the past. The majority owners are not in it for the love of Swansea City but for making a buck. That’s all that needs to be realised. |
There are just as many signs to suggest what you've said is paranoid nonsense as well but there you go.... |  |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 18:27 - Feb 3 with 1054 views | union_jack |
| VDH - Villa on 18:22 - Feb 3 by _ |
There are just as many signs to suggest what you've said is paranoid nonsense as well but there you go.... |
We’ll see. Hope I’m proven wrong, we keep our better players and push for a promotion place next season. I will be big enough to say I’m wrong. |  |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 18:29 - Feb 3 with 1047 views | _ |
| VDH - Villa on 18:27 - Feb 3 by union_jack |
We’ll see. Hope I’m proven wrong, we keep our better players and push for a promotion place next season. I will be big enough to say I’m wrong. |
Before being proved right or wrong you need to get to grips with our financial situation.
Then you can form real insightful opinions from that point along.
Seriously.... | |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 18:31 - Feb 3 with 1034 views | union_jack |
| VDH - Villa on 18:29 - Feb 3 by _ |
Before being proved right or wrong you need to get to grips with our financial situation.
Then you can form real insightful opinions from that point along.
Seriously.... |
👠ok. | |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 18:40 - Feb 3 with 1011 views | jasper_T |
| VDH - Villa on 18:20 - Feb 3 by union_jack |
I agree no one knows exactly what’s happening other than those on the inside.
However, there are signs that a firesale is in progress. Yes, players were bought in the summer but far more sold. In my opinion (if that’s better) I can see them stripping us bare in the summer, recouping what they can in the process and selling on to whoever they can.
Now if there are rules against this and no known loopholes feel free to enlighten me. But these things have happened to other clubs in the past. The majority owners are not in it for the love of Swansea City but for making a buck. That’s all that needs to be realised. |
There are many other valid reasons why there would be "far more sold", though, chief among them that our income dropped £60m after leaving the Premier League, and drops a further £20m in six months time when the parachute payment decreases.
I would hope they see greater financial value in keeping costs down over a number of years and letting our assets mature than a complete slash and burn between now and August, which would be very difficult to execute successfully (finding a buyer, sneaking all the cash out under the noses of 40% of the ownership etc.)
It may well be up to the football people at the club to explain that the offer we got for DJ was on the low end of what promising talent of this level can go for, and we've got a decent academy producing players that can step up and put themselves in a shop window that's broadcast worldwide. Unpopular stats man Daniel Altman said the other day that with Leeds offering us so little, and with DJ contracted until 2020, there was no good reason not to let things roll over to the summer and try to get offers in the £10-15m range for a player like him (everyone loves pace at the end of the day, always someone willing to take a risk on it even if his form dips).
That's if the goal is to make money, though. If the goal is to escape rapidly mounting debt due to the financial mistakes of the past it's another matter entirely. |  | | |
| (No subject) on 18:49 - Feb 3 with 995 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| VDH - Villa on 17:47 - Feb 3 by Cooperman |
Until it’s catergorically proven that the Americans are taking money out of the club (and I can see why some believe this to be the case based on the lack of transparency regarding accounts) then we need to get our heads around the fact the cost cutting is an absolute necessity. If the difference between administration and not going into administration is selling Dan James then I’m all for it. Unfortunately the events of the last week look like a fire sale, I fully understand this. On the other hand I’ve worked in an environment (albeit non football but the principles are the same) where the same measures have been required.
Key points here:
1. We’re absolutely busted flush and we haven’t got the proverbial pot.
2. Visibility of those accounts is absolutely essential. |
I don't think they're asset stripping but I wish they would communicate with the supporters how bad things are. If selling Dan was absolutely necessary financially then we're in a much worse situation than any of us thought. Stopping the sale was gross misconduct so Jenkins was sacked.
It's perfectly understandable that we supporters were astonished that Dan was being sold. He didn't tick the boxes. Young, low earner, high potential. The polar opposite of Bony who everyone had come to accept had to go. He was draining the club and not contributing. Dan wasn't and was contributing. We came very close to 5 players out and none in on Thursday. The message from that is that we are still in a very bad place financially. We want to see Potter given a chance to develop our young players and selling Dan seemed to go against everything Potter was achieving.
We need to know how bad it is and whether the likes of McB, Rodon, Roberts will be sold in the summer as a matter of policy or whether the policy is to keep them unless a crazy offer is tabled.
They could start by not only consulting with the Trust on the chairman post but also by divulging to the 21% shareholder how the financial situation is impacting the football decisions. |  |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 18:54 - Feb 3 with 984 views | union_jack |
| VDH - Villa on 18:40 - Feb 3 by jasper_T |
There are many other valid reasons why there would be "far more sold", though, chief among them that our income dropped £60m after leaving the Premier League, and drops a further £20m in six months time when the parachute payment decreases.
I would hope they see greater financial value in keeping costs down over a number of years and letting our assets mature than a complete slash and burn between now and August, which would be very difficult to execute successfully (finding a buyer, sneaking all the cash out under the noses of 40% of the ownership etc.)
It may well be up to the football people at the club to explain that the offer we got for DJ was on the low end of what promising talent of this level can go for, and we've got a decent academy producing players that can step up and put themselves in a shop window that's broadcast worldwide. Unpopular stats man Daniel Altman said the other day that with Leeds offering us so little, and with DJ contracted until 2020, there was no good reason not to let things roll over to the summer and try to get offers in the £10-15m range for a player like him (everyone loves pace at the end of the day, always someone willing to take a risk on it even if his form dips).
That's if the goal is to make money, though. If the goal is to escape rapidly mounting debt due to the financial mistakes of the past it's another matter entirely. |
Your ultimate paragraph makes the point though.
I’m wondering why they ever came into football to make money. That seldom happens and now they’ve a hedge fund to satisfy meaning, I believe, quicker returns than what you get in football especially due to the structure of payments.
You make valid points on the whole. We’ll see what happens in May through to August. | |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 19:57 - Feb 3 with 928 views | Flashberryjack |
| VDH - Villa on 17:46 - Feb 3 by union_jack |
If you’re asking why he wasn’t put up for sale ???? then maybe he was or is cheap enough to be part of the future - low wages. He was in the match day squad on Saturday, first time for some time I believe. |
Probably because no other club would give anywhere near £2m for him, repeat that on several other players on our payroll.
We are where we are because of gross mismanagement,incompetence, perhaps corruption, or maybe a bit of all three.
Although some of the crazy contracts we've handed out, transfer fees we've paid for very mediocre players, something doesn't smell right.
Oh! for a forensic accountant to investigate our books. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| (No subject) on 20:07 - Feb 3 with 919 views | _ |
| (No subject) on 18:49 - Feb 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
I don't think they're asset stripping but I wish they would communicate with the supporters how bad things are. If selling Dan was absolutely necessary financially then we're in a much worse situation than any of us thought. Stopping the sale was gross misconduct so Jenkins was sacked.
It's perfectly understandable that we supporters were astonished that Dan was being sold. He didn't tick the boxes. Young, low earner, high potential. The polar opposite of Bony who everyone had come to accept had to go. He was draining the club and not contributing. Dan wasn't and was contributing. We came very close to 5 players out and none in on Thursday. The message from that is that we are still in a very bad place financially. We want to see Potter given a chance to develop our young players and selling Dan seemed to go against everything Potter was achieving.
We need to know how bad it is and whether the likes of McB, Rodon, Roberts will be sold in the summer as a matter of policy or whether the policy is to keep them unless a crazy offer is tabled.
They could start by not only consulting with the Trust on the chairman post but also by divulging to the 21% shareholder how the financial situation is impacting the football decisions. |
I totally agree and it pisses me off greatly they allow so much gossip to spread when they can just come out and open up to the fans.
But i'm guessing one of the reasons they don't is because it would guarantee a fans revolt and more disgusting vitriol would be aimed at them.
I think the statement from them in the Summer was outstanding, it really hit home with me and made sense, but as usual, their stock is so low, it was derided out of town.
And on Dan James, when the offer came in, it wasn't about a low earner or an academy product, it simply became a chance to tip the financial scales back a little bit towards the black.
As much as i didnt want it and as happy i was it didn't go through, i still was able to see why. | |
| |
| (No subject) on 20:16 - Feb 3 with 893 views | icecoldjack |
| (No subject) on 20:07 - Feb 3 by _ |
I totally agree and it pisses me off greatly they allow so much gossip to spread when they can just come out and open up to the fans.
But i'm guessing one of the reasons they don't is because it would guarantee a fans revolt and more disgusting vitriol would be aimed at them.
I think the statement from them in the Summer was outstanding, it really hit home with me and made sense, but as usual, their stock is so low, it was derided out of town.
And on Dan James, when the offer came in, it wasn't about a low earner or an academy product, it simply became a chance to tip the financial scales back a little bit towards the black.
As much as i didnt want it and as happy i was it didn't go through, i still was able to see why. |
Dan James being moved on was going to tip the scales back in the Black ?
.. 
But you said a few short months back that he was part of the master plan ??
The young players were part of the yanks design to move the club forward, yet they are looking to sell their master plan and young players to a rival instead ??
You are off your fookin' head mate fair play. |  | | |
| VDH - Villa on 20:33 - Feb 3 with 852 views | jasper_T |
If the question was "is DJ worth £10m to Swansea City on the pitch" then you'd probably have a tough time getting the maths to work out. The playoff final is the £170m game but that's a big gamble even if you spend spend spend. As a business decision taking the money makes sense even if as a football fan it's horrifying.
Of course that's not what was on offer at the end. Is DJ worth £750k to Swansea City between now and the end of the season. Certainly, imo. That Leeds were offering to make it up to £10m in the summer is irrelevant as DJ is still in contract will likely attract those kinds of offers or higher elsewhere if he continues as he has.
It would have done little to balance the budget short, medium and long term, and was rightly thrown out from both a football and business perspective. The worrying thing for me is that the people still at the club following Jenkins departure seemed to be happy to go along with it.
Maybe understandable given how the "wait for a good offer" approach bit them in the summer with Jordan Ayew? Lost a lot of money there not taking the first offer on the table, however poor it seemed at the time (£8m for someone regarded as one of our better players by many iirc).
Giving Biabi a new deal was still one of the more worrying events of deadline day for me, though. I'd have fired Huw for that alone. | | | |
| (No subject) on 23:08 - Feb 3 with 757 views | Cooperman |
| (No subject) on 18:49 - Feb 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
I don't think they're asset stripping but I wish they would communicate with the supporters how bad things are. If selling Dan was absolutely necessary financially then we're in a much worse situation than any of us thought. Stopping the sale was gross misconduct so Jenkins was sacked.
It's perfectly understandable that we supporters were astonished that Dan was being sold. He didn't tick the boxes. Young, low earner, high potential. The polar opposite of Bony who everyone had come to accept had to go. He was draining the club and not contributing. Dan wasn't and was contributing. We came very close to 5 players out and none in on Thursday. The message from that is that we are still in a very bad place financially. We want to see Potter given a chance to develop our young players and selling Dan seemed to go against everything Potter was achieving.
We need to know how bad it is and whether the likes of McB, Rodon, Roberts will be sold in the summer as a matter of policy or whether the policy is to keep them unless a crazy offer is tabled.
They could start by not only consulting with the Trust on the chairman post but also by divulging to the 21% shareholder how the financial situation is impacting the football decisions. |
If it was your business / organisation / club / whatever you want to call it would you divulge the true condition? I wouldn’t and for several reasons none more so than you are simply providing more ammunition that can be fired straight back at you. |  |
| |
| VDH - Villa on 19:28 - Feb 4 with 629 views | Griffting |
“I have the option of a new contract, so it's not really a free transfer [at the end of the season]. The club has to decide if they want to activate that option”
That sounds to me like there’s a optional year or something? |  | | |
| (No subject) on 19:39 - Feb 4 with 611 views | monmouth |
| (No subject) on 23:08 - Feb 3 by Cooperman |
If it was your business / organisation / club / whatever you want to call it would you divulge the true condition? I wouldn’t and for several reasons none more so than you are simply providing more ammunition that can be fired straight back at you. |
I agree, plus it would make shark clubs like Leeds even keener to unsettle our players and jerk around with low offers and silly payment terms. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
