| That Piroe header 10:46 - Aug 21 with 2988 views | KeithHaynes |
Will most certainly see his value drop.
Clubs spending millions want a striker who does more than he has in his locker.
|  |
| |  |
| That Piroe header on 11:39 - Aug 21 with 2096 views | magicdaps10 |
A lot of pressure on him to reproduce his show from last season, I feel a little bit for the lad but he is young and inconsistency is a tough thing to handle especially when you are striving for that 1st goal of a new season.
I said a few weeks back, Leeds seem to be the name mentioned with him in dispatches and that would be a deal we should be interested in especially with Cody Dramah possibly being part of anything. The issue is, as he struggles with goals and the window coming up faster, 15M will easily become 10M.
And I believe that Watford might also be playing the waiting game aswell along with 1 or 2 others.
Hold onto your hats because if things go as the club want, the last day of the window is going to be a busy one at the .Com |  |
| |
| That Piroe header on 11:42 - Aug 21 with 2088 views | onehunglow |
He looks shot to pieces .
I may be wrong but he doesn't look happy. |  |
| |
| That Piroe header on 12:02 - Aug 21 with 2072 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 11:42 - Aug 21 by onehunglow |
He looks shot to pieces .
I may be wrong but he doesn't look happy. |
That's obvious OHL.
He is young, he scored over 20 goals last season and he hasn't scored yet......he has had chances so its becoming a mind thing for him now.
Clearly from what Martin said yesterday, it looks like the club are trying to get him out to create funds to get 3/4 in.
In saying that, I think that Martins words will create a bit of buzz with the owners, he's clearly had a knock at them......its either going to give the owners a kick up the rear or the owners give Martin a big kick out the door.
We are paying the price for the big wages, the loans over the last 3 years were always going to cripple us also and we have reached that point.
There have been hell of a lot of mistruths posted on this forum about our loan signings, fees and costs...
...i have tried to along with others say that they have cost us and that's certainly proven the point.
Ultimately we have brought in players with fees and wages that has cost us millions and ultimately as they are not our players, we make nothing on them, it was never sustainable and coupled with wages we paid for Ayew, Bennett and Fultons increase......we find ourselves where we are today, unable to pay even a signing on fee for a loan signing.
Its going to hurt some, denial will always be a route for some but ultimately the proof us in the pudding.
If we used the money used for Gallagher, Brewster(he was the only loan with no initial fee) Hourihane, Woodman, Gibbs White, Gykores, Kasey Palmer, Wilmot, Laird, Christie on signing permant players then we would be in a far better position off the field, ultimately league position in one or 2 of the seasons would have been lower but as a club we would have had a far more solid foundation to where we are today.
Those loans have cost us millions! If we hadn't have gone down that route do heavily, we would have been in a far better position and could have been looking at bringing in free agents such as Kane Wilson for example.
Its been a shiite show for many a season frankly. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 12:10 - Aug 21 with 2047 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 12:02 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
That's obvious OHL.
He is young, he scored over 20 goals last season and he hasn't scored yet......he has had chances so its becoming a mind thing for him now.
Clearly from what Martin said yesterday, it looks like the club are trying to get him out to create funds to get 3/4 in.
In saying that, I think that Martins words will create a bit of buzz with the owners, he's clearly had a knock at them......its either going to give the owners a kick up the rear or the owners give Martin a big kick out the door.
We are paying the price for the big wages, the loans over the last 3 years were always going to cripple us also and we have reached that point.
There have been hell of a lot of mistruths posted on this forum about our loan signings, fees and costs...
...i have tried to along with others say that they have cost us and that's certainly proven the point.
Ultimately we have brought in players with fees and wages that has cost us millions and ultimately as they are not our players, we make nothing on them, it was never sustainable and coupled with wages we paid for Ayew, Bennett and Fultons increase......we find ourselves where we are today, unable to pay even a signing on fee for a loan signing.
Its going to hurt some, denial will always be a route for some but ultimately the proof us in the pudding.
If we used the money used for Gallagher, Brewster(he was the only loan with no initial fee) Hourihane, Woodman, Gibbs White, Gykores, Kasey Palmer, Wilmot, Laird, Christie on signing permant players then we would be in a far better position off the field, ultimately league position in one or 2 of the seasons would have been lower but as a club we would have had a far more solid foundation to where we are today.
Those loans have cost us millions! If we hadn't have gone down that route do heavily, we would have been in a far better position and could have been looking at bringing in free agents such as Kane Wilson for example.
Its been a shiite show for many a season frankly. |
Christie, Williams, Wolf, Laird, Sorinola, Burns.
If he didn’t waste money on all the above loans we may have enough for a decent permanent wing back. |  |
| |
| That Piroe header on 12:15 - Aug 21 with 2041 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 12:10 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Christie, Williams, Wolf, Laird, Sorinola, Burns.
If he didn’t waste money on all the above loans we may have enough for a decent permanent wing back. |
Exactly as I am trying to point out.
Its been poorly run with no real direction for the last 3 years.
I tried to name the players who have cost us the most in loans, put my hand up that I forgot Wolf who certainly would be up there. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 12:25 - Aug 21 with 2024 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 12:15 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
Exactly as I am trying to point out.
Its been poorly run with no real direction for the last 3 years.
I tried to name the players who have cost us the most in loans, put my hand up that I forgot Wolf who certainly would be up there. |
They haven’t though.
Gallagher was free
Guehi was free
Brewster was free
Hourihane was a few hundred thousand (cant remember exactly £240k rings a bell)
Wilmott was free
Kalulu ???
Woodman ???
Surridge???
We were in that market because we had such little disposable income. These youth products were big risks and gambles, many only had youth experience only. Chelsea are notorious for not charging fees for their loan army.
We didn’t pay a fee for Tammy Abraham either.
I’d say we probably spent as much under Martin on loans in 1 season than we did under Cooper in 2.
Hourihane was the only “significant” signing but it was no more than Ogbeta for example. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 12:36 - Aug 21 with 2000 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 12:25 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
They haven’t though.
Gallagher was free
Guehi was free
Brewster was free
Hourihane was a few hundred thousand (cant remember exactly £240k rings a bell)
Wilmott was free
Kalulu ???
Woodman ???
Surridge???
We were in that market because we had such little disposable income. These youth products were big risks and gambles, many only had youth experience only. Chelsea are notorious for not charging fees for their loan army.
We didn’t pay a fee for Tammy Abraham either.
I’d say we probably spent as much under Martin on loans in 1 season than we did under Cooper in 2.
Hourihane was the only “significant” signing but it was no more than Ogbeta for example. |
Aside from Brewster, we paid some sort of fee to get those players on loan.
I think with Gallagher we had to pay an additional fee to cut his loan at Charlton short.
The Kasey Palmer one was and should be questioned, paying a loan fee and the majority of a rumoured 30k a week wage for a handful of months was an absolute joke. Around 300k for a few months......you could imagine what the others set us back taking that Palmer deal into account. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 12:41 - Aug 21 with 1989 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 12:36 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
Aside from Brewster, we paid some sort of fee to get those players on loan.
I think with Gallagher we had to pay an additional fee to cut his loan at Charlton short.
The Kasey Palmer one was and should be questioned, paying a loan fee and the majority of a rumoured 30k a week wage for a handful of months was an absolute joke. Around 300k for a few months......you could imagine what the others set us back taking that Palmer deal into account. |
We didn’t, all which were stated as free were free.
It’s a common misconception among those that don’t know how they work.
As I said Chelsea often do not charge a fee for their youngsters. It’s a mutually beneficial deal as the clubs want to get their youngsters playing competitive football.
The others would be minimal fees, if any. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| That Piroe header on 12:50 - Aug 21 with 1979 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 12:41 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
We didn’t, all which were stated as free were free.
It’s a common misconception among those that don’t know how they work.
As I said Chelsea often do not charge a fee for their youngsters. It’s a mutually beneficial deal as the clubs want to get their youngsters playing competitive football.
The others would be minimal fees, if any. |
Football is a business.
Ultimately those loans, we wouldn't have been the only team in for them, the parent club Wil take into account the level the team wanting to loan in, the amount the club are willing to pay for the loan and how much of the wage.
I can't say too much about Chelsea not asking for fees for loaning out but as I say, I can rember we had to pay some sort of fee to due to Chelsea cutting his season long loan short at Charlton.
Woodman certainly cost us a pretty penny coming back for his 2nd season on loan. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:00 - Aug 21 with 1966 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 12:50 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
Football is a business.
Ultimately those loans, we wouldn't have been the only team in for them, the parent club Wil take into account the level the team wanting to loan in, the amount the club are willing to pay for the loan and how much of the wage.
I can't say too much about Chelsea not asking for fees for loaning out but as I say, I can rember we had to pay some sort of fee to due to Chelsea cutting his season long loan short at Charlton.
Woodman certainly cost us a pretty penny coming back for his 2nd season on loan. |
It is a business yes, that’s why they want their assets to grow.
Brewster came on loan to us and was sold for £23.5m
Guehi came on loan to us and was sold for £20m
Gallagher came on loan to us and is now worth £50m
Abraham came on loan to us and was sold for £35m
The business is in their development at the correct club. not the pittance they would get by going to the highest pittance bidder.
As I said, the majority of loans you have listed cost us nada, zilch, nothing. The rest were negligible, apart from Hourihane which was modest - probably around the same as Wolf.
Just read your post and noticed you say Woodman was “a pretty penny”, he wasn’t. Can’t remember the amount but it was negligible. The cost is in covering the salary.
He then went to cash strapped Preston for almost nothing. [Post edited 21 Aug 2022 13:08]
| |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:25 - Aug 21 with 1927 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 13:00 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
It is a business yes, that’s why they want their assets to grow.
Brewster came on loan to us and was sold for £23.5m
Guehi came on loan to us and was sold for £20m
Gallagher came on loan to us and is now worth £50m
Abraham came on loan to us and was sold for £35m
The business is in their development at the correct club. not the pittance they would get by going to the highest pittance bidder.
As I said, the majority of loans you have listed cost us nada, zilch, nothing. The rest were negligible, apart from Hourihane which was modest - probably around the same as Wolf.
Just read your post and noticed you say Woodman was “a pretty penny”, he wasn’t. Can’t remember the amount but it was negligible. The cost is in covering the salary.
He then went to cash strapped Preston for almost nothing. [Post edited 21 Aug 2022 13:08]
|
As I said, couldn't say about the Chelsea situation you have mentioned only that we paid a fee to break his loan at Charlton but others most certainly cost something aswell as the wages.
As stated, those fees that we created, we would have been far better off getting our own players and creating fees for our own players rather than wasted money on these loan players that are not ours.
Ultimately we would have been in a stronger position now if we done that......so these loan signings have really killed us, a point I have tried across in my first post on this thread. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:28 - Aug 21 with 1921 views | jasper_T |
He had a good attempt in the first half, difficult bit of control and he put it towards the bottom corner. Defender made an excellent block. The quality is still there but must be finding it frustrating playing so far from goal in a side struggling to create for him. | | | |
| That Piroe header on 13:33 - Aug 21 with 1909 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 13:25 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
As I said, couldn't say about the Chelsea situation you have mentioned only that we paid a fee to break his loan at Charlton but others most certainly cost something aswell as the wages.
As stated, those fees that we created, we would have been far better off getting our own players and creating fees for our own players rather than wasted money on these loan players that are not ours.
Ultimately we would have been in a stronger position now if we done that......so these loan signings have really killed us, a point I have tried across in my first post on this thread. |
Yeah, we didn’t though.
Charlton didn’t pay a loan fee for Gallagher and had to be convinced to take him. Bowyer was concerned about taking him due to his little experience.
Chelsea had the right to call him back and did so, they then farmed him out to us because their loan team believes it were a better environment to thrive and develop. We paid nothing for Gallagher.
These being youth players, their salaries are also often negligible. Abraham’s was expensive as he signed a contract prior to coming. But the likes of Guehi were less than £5k a week.
The loan signings were essential due to the limited budgets we had. In fact they were vital to keep us above water as we tried to steady the ship with permanent sales.
There is a reason Cooper was given almost nothing to spend (£495k on his first season). The loans were the only option, not the preferred option. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:45 - Aug 21 with 1875 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 13:33 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yeah, we didn’t though.
Charlton didn’t pay a loan fee for Gallagher and had to be convinced to take him. Bowyer was concerned about taking him due to his little experience.
Chelsea had the right to call him back and did so, they then farmed him out to us because their loan team believes it were a better environment to thrive and develop. We paid nothing for Gallagher.
These being youth players, their salaries are also often negligible. Abraham’s was expensive as he signed a contract prior to coming. But the likes of Guehi were less than £5k a week.
The loan signings were essential due to the limited budgets we had. In fact they were vital to keep us above water as we tried to steady the ship with permanent sales.
There is a reason Cooper was given almost nothing to spend (£495k on his first season). The loans were the only option, not the preferred option. |
So, going off a little here, answer me this.
Why after us loaning out Joseph and Garrick in the last week can we not then go out and get a loan wing back?
Surely with the 2 going we have now opened up a wage for a new player on loan especially given as you explain that these clubs don't ask for loan fees. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:50 - Aug 21 with 1866 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 13:45 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
So, going off a little here, answer me this.
Why after us loaning out Joseph and Garrick in the last week can we not then go out and get a loan wing back?
Surely with the 2 going we have now opened up a wage for a new player on loan especially given as you explain that these clubs don't ask for loan fees. |
You would have to ask the ownership that. Could be a multitude of reasons.
1. Clubs don’t want to send their assets here after what Martin did with Williams, Burns et al with Man Utd even taking Laird back.
2. When signing the likes of Darling they did so knowing that a loan deal for these was extremely likely.
3. Whatever player we have identified don’t want to come here. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:58 - Aug 21 with 1857 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 13:50 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
You would have to ask the ownership that. Could be a multitude of reasons.
1. Clubs don’t want to send their assets here after what Martin did with Williams, Burns et al with Man Utd even taking Laird back.
2. When signing the likes of Darling they did so knowing that a loan deal for these was extremely likely.
3. Whatever player we have identified don’t want to come here. |
But we can't bring in players, we have to sell before we can bring players in.
I think that's a clear indication why we can't bring players in, we need the cash to pay the loan fees!
The wages have been opened up but we can't afford to sign anyone until we generate some cash..... Cash to pay transfer fees, cash to pay loan fees.
Its that simple. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 13:59 - Aug 21 with 1850 views | builthjack |
My Grandmother could have headed that in. Poor effort. He spent a lot of time covering right mid, and right back. He shouldn't be having to cover at right back. |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| That Piroe header on 14:00 - Aug 21 with 1848 views | onehunglow |
| That Piroe header on 13:45 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
So, going off a little here, answer me this.
Why after us loaning out Joseph and Garrick in the last week can we not then go out and get a loan wing back?
Surely with the 2 going we have now opened up a wage for a new player on loan especially given as you explain that these clubs don't ask for loan fees. |
My way of thinking
We've been told they were being loaned to help us pay for replacements.
I see that as simple lies .
We have given away players and not replaced them. Unforgivable.
Not unlike when we have sold HOPING to bring in someone better
We are being run in a shocking manner and in that regard I have a little sympathy for Martin . | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 14:02 - Aug 21 with 1839 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 13:58 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
But we can't bring in players, we have to sell before we can bring players in.
I think that's a clear indication why we can't bring players in, we need the cash to pay the loan fees!
The wages have been opened up but we can't afford to sign anyone until we generate some cash..... Cash to pay transfer fees, cash to pay loan fees.
Its that simple. |
What loan fees? For who?
Even if someone was on 5k a week who is free loan, that’s still £250k a year. £250k we clearly don’t have.
You have no idea what our overheads are. We may be running at a loss with the likes of Joseph and Garrick on the books, needing them to be covered in order to break even.
Just because we have loaned them out it doesn’t mean their wages are free to be replaced. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 14:03 - Aug 21 with 1831 views | Paxton |
| That Piroe header on 12:25 - Aug 21 by Dr_Parnassus |
They haven’t though.
Gallagher was free
Guehi was free
Brewster was free
Hourihane was a few hundred thousand (cant remember exactly £240k rings a bell)
Wilmott was free
Kalulu ???
Woodman ???
Surridge???
We were in that market because we had such little disposable income. These youth products were big risks and gambles, many only had youth experience only. Chelsea are notorious for not charging fees for their loan army.
We didn’t pay a fee for Tammy Abraham either.
I’d say we probably spent as much under Martin on loans in 1 season than we did under Cooper in 2.
Hourihane was the only “significant” signing but it was no more than Ogbeta for example. |
We didn't pay a fee for Tammy
Abraham, but it was an expensive package! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/06/28/tammy-abraham-sign-50k-a-week-ch | | | |
| That Piroe header on 14:06 - Aug 21 with 1810 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| That Piroe header on 14:00 - Aug 21 by onehunglow |
My way of thinking
We've been told they were being loaned to help us pay for replacements.
I see that as simple lies .
We have given away players and not replaced them. Unforgivable.
Not unlike when we have sold HOPING to bring in someone better
We are being run in a shocking manner and in that regard I have a little sympathy for Martin . |
It’s a bit like having a £30,000 car.
Owing £30,000 elsewhere.
Selling the car to service the debt and your wife saying “well you have sold the car so you should now have that money to invest in another”.
It doesn’t work like that.
Selling players or farming them on loan generates/saves money, but not necessarily for the purpose of redirecting that saved money to even more transfers. It’s extremely likely that that money is already earmarked elsewhere. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 14:15 - Aug 21 with 1794 views | Dr_Parnassus |
It was relative to the division we were in. As I said, he signed a new contract before signing so we had to cover his salary.
But Chelsea don’t tend to charge fees for their youth players and neither do Liverpool, I doubt whether we paid a fee for Williams either, don’t know that for a fact but that would be my guess. | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 14:40 - Aug 21 with 1768 views | jasper_T |
| That Piroe header on 13:45 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
So, going off a little here, answer me this.
Why after us loaning out Joseph and Garrick in the last week can we not then go out and get a loan wing back?
Surely with the 2 going we have now opened up a wage for a new player on loan especially given as you explain that these clubs don't ask for loan fees. |
Because we were operating over budget before sending those players out. If we're spending 150% of our income on wages, cutting 5% of the bill doesn't automatically "open up a wage", especially as we've signed 4 players and Garrick was already out on loan last season. | | | |
| That Piroe header on 14:49 - Aug 21 with 1754 views | magicdaps10 |
| That Piroe header on 14:40 - Aug 21 by jasper_T |
Because we were operating over budget before sending those players out. If we're spending 150% of our income on wages, cutting 5% of the bill doesn't automatically "open up a wage", especially as we've signed 4 players and Garrick was already out on loan last season. |
Yeah I understand that, are we operating over our budget or are we on par currently? | |
| |
| That Piroe header on 15:30 - Aug 21 with 1690 views | jasper_T |
| That Piroe header on 14:49 - Aug 21 by magicdaps10 |
Yeah I understand that, are we operating over our budget or are we on par currently? |
We're definitely spending far more than we make, that's how this league works. It's just a question of how much the board are willing to overspend and increase debt/gamble on future player sales. £15m a year turnover doesn't go very far when you've got senior players excluded from first team duties, however much a manager might whinge and moan in the media. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
