blueatheart Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) Brown was suspended by Sheffield United and also arrested by the police for revealing the name of the girl Evans raped on twitter. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/apr/23/sheffield-united-connor-brown Edited June 1, 2014 by blueatheart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Brown was suspended by Sheffield United and also arrested by the police for revealing the name of the girl Evans raped on twitter. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/apr/23/sheffield-united-connor-brown Two years ago. Not 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shefflatic Posted June 1, 2014 Author Share Posted June 1, 2014 over on the oafczine; a rumour in the people apparently that Brentford want Korey £500k Rotherham want JCH £400k I know we need money and are a selling club, but seriously if we are gonna work hard to get promising players into our club, they have one decent season showing promise and we then sell them year on year WITHOUT using say £500k of the (assumed and rumoured) above fees back into the team; then why bother? If I remember, JR sold players eg Barrett £1.2m and then went and bought 2 or 3 for £300k or so each, which is fine, but would we do it nowadays? That's what turns the fans away, not so much the selling but the apparent lack of visible reinvestment. I hope if the above is true and does happen then £500k of that will be given to LJ to spend how he wishes. that's the only way we would progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 If we can bag close to a million for those two we should bite the buyers' hands off. A policy of reinvesting 75% of all fee income into playing staff would be nice too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 If we can bag close to a million for those two we should bite the buyers' hands off. A policy of reinvesting 75% of all fee income into playing staff would be nice too. ...but you & I know full well that the above will not happen O4U. In no way would 75% or anything close to that percentage of any income be invested back into the playing side at this time. We get close to a million for those 2 players and I think we all are now reasoned to accept that they will be sold on. And that the money will go nowhere near the side as reinvestment. Either to fund finishing off the stand, or to service the year on year running costs / losses? Yep. Back into the side? Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 ...but you & I know full well that the above will not happen O4U. In no way would 75% or anything close to that percentage of any income be invested back into the playing side at this time. We get close to a million for those 2 players and I think we all are now reasoned to accept that they will be sold on. And that the money will go nowhere near the side as reinvestment. Either to fund finishing off the stand, or to service the year on year running costs / losses? Yep. Back into the side? Nope. It was a bit of wishful thinking and I do accept getting the stand up and running and generating this mystical (hopefully not mythical) additional income should be a priority. But let's move on in time a few months. There's an extra few hundred at Boundary Park each week, a mixture of Lookers Stand refugees returning and new fans attracted by the improved facilities. The rental income is now being generated, plugging some of the gaps in income that have arisen in the past. There's a big shiny stadium sponsorship deal in place until the end of the decade. We seem to have a manager who's capable of wheeling and dealing and probably has got us to a position where the likes of JCH, Philliskirk, Smith and Tarky have gone from nil value to some value in a short period of time. If the gap in income and expenditure has narrowed, then a policy of reinvestment in the playing side may not be beyond the club. It may not be massive, but if we are ever going to get out of the division in the right direction then it's something that Corney should look at doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 It was a bit of wishful thinking and I do accept getting the stand up and running and generating this mystical (hopefully not mythical) additional income should be a priority. But let's move on in time a few months. There's an extra few hundred at Boundary Park each week, a mixture of Lookers Stand refugees returning and new fans attracted by the improved facilities. The rental income is now being generated, plugging some of the gaps in income that have arisen in the past. There's a big shiny stadium sponsorship deal in place until the end of the decade. We seem to have a manager who's capable of wheeling and dealing and probably has got us to a position where the likes of JCH, Philliskirk, Smith and Tarky have gone from nil value to some value in a short period of time. If the gap in income and expenditure has narrowed, then a policy of reinvestment in the playing side may not be beyond the club. It may not be massive, but if we are ever going to get out of the division in the right direction then it's something that Corney should look at doing. ...and I agree fully. If we sell key players for (relatively) decent fees, I'd want & expect a fair old chunk of that fee to be reinvested into the playing side. What i'm saying is, it won't be. You & I, and everyone else on here knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simoncorneyisgod Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) It's all well and good paying for the completion of the stand but the main question that needs answering as I don't think it has been yet (happy to be proved wrong) Do the club own the stand and retain all associated income or is it owned by a 3rd party and therefore no extra income will come through? If that's latter is the case then that leaves another massive hole in the 'sell players to pay for stand' argument Edited June 1, 2014 by Simoncorneyisgod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 It's all well and good paying for the completion of the stand but the main question that needs answering as I don't think it has been yet (happy to be proved wrong) Do the club own the stand and retain all associated income or is it owned by a 3rd party and therefore no extra income will come through? If that's latter is the case then that leaves another massive hole in the 'sell players to pay for stand' argument All comes down to the ratios of who owns what in that case. Bigger share owned by Latics = good, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaddySmoker Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Well done, comparing us to the team that finished runners up with one of the league's highest budgets has really made your point. I'm not saying we need £5m a year, just that we need players that can come off the bench and make an impact which, at the moment, we don't. Which cost money which we dont have! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 900k for the pair, beyond funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIZZO83 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Harkins and worral are in the same boat, when we signed them there was an agreement for us to keep them after their loans expired. Fees agreed and it was down to the manager if he wanted them. Sc words he gave the impression they wouldn't be coming back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 (edited) It's all well and good paying for the completion of the stand but the main question that needs answering as I don't think it has been yet (happy to be proved wrong) Do the club own the stand and retain all associated income or is it owned by a 3rd party and therefore no extra income will come through? If that's latter is the case then that leaves another massive hole in the 'sell players to pay for stand' argument If the club were not to get the extra income then they would not be paying anything for it. If Simon blitz wanted the income from the stand he would pay himself to have the stand completed and not be waiting for any Micah Richards win fall. We will get the extra money this is the latest consipracy theory brought to you by the same people who said that once the 10 year agreement on BP was up in 2014 we would be kicked out boundary park would be demolished for houses. Edited June 1, 2014 by GlossopLatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavageTheBeast Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 When have we invested money back in the squad we hardly pay fees for players. We have sold players for the undisclosed fee of 350k like: Eardley Stephens Tarkowski Baxter That's to name a few the money had not gone back into the squad to sign a player in a fee. Thisbisbwhat teason why we have never pushed above mid table since we have not invested and it won't improve until we do. You see teams paying fees and they always come there of there abouts in the league. I know we have to be cautious but are we being too Cautious when it comes to paying fees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 When have we invested money back in the squad we hardly pay fees for players. We have sold players for the undisclosed fee of 350k like: Eardley Stephens Tarkowski Baxter That's to name a few the money had not gone back into the squad to sign a player in a fee. Thisbisbwhat teason why we have never pushed above mid table since we have not invested and it won't improve until we do. You see teams paying fees and they always come there of there abouts in the league. I know we have to be cautious but are we being too Cautious when it comes to paying fees? It's easy for you to say....but it's not you that's spending it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 900k for the pair, beyond funny. Why is it beyond funny.....we got Korey for nothing and he plays one season and we make 500k and 400k for Harris who has potential but that's all it is at the moment. I'd say with add-on's that's good business in our situation and then over to LJ to hopefully pluck another couple out of the hat....that's reality my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deyres42 Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Why is it beyond funny.....we got Korey for nothing and he plays one season and we make 500k and 400k for Harris who has potential but that's all it is at the moment. I'd say with add-on's that's good business in our situation and then over to LJ to hopefully pluck another couple out of the hat....that's reality my friend. We get 500k for Smith then I'll match it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 When have we invested money back in the squad we hardly pay fees for players. We have sold players for the undisclosed fee of 350k like: Eardley Stephens Tarkowski Baxter That's to name a few the money had not gone back into the squad to sign a player in a fee. Thisbisbwhat teason why we have never pushed above mid table since we have not invested and it won't improve until we do. You see teams paying fees and they always come there of there abouts in the league. I know we have to be cautious but are we being too Cautious when it comes to paying fees? Didn't we sign four players the day Baxter departed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueatheart Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Re-investment is not just in transfer fees, it could be in wages also. When Baxter left for however much it was, we signed Lanzoni, Kusunga and Rachubka within a week. Without a doubt some of the money has gone elsewhere but years ago my dad used to say we are a selling club and we need to sell one player a season to remain afloat and pay bills. People are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think that isn't more true now than ever. Edit: I think Philiskirk's signing was a part of that also which makes it four players when Baxter left. *tips a wink to O4U* Edited June 2, 2014 by blueatheart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 It's all well and good paying for the completion of the stand but the main question that needs answering as I don't think it has been yet (happy to be proved wrong) Do the club own the stand and retain all associated income or is it owned by a 3rd party and therefore no extra income will come through? If that's latter is the case then that leaves another massive hole in the 'sell players to pay for stand' argument Or is there any actual proof to suggest the club won't own/lease it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simoncorneyisgod Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Or is there any actual proof to suggest the club won't own/lease it? Heard rumours thats all, I was speaking to the man who bought Latics for a Quid at length last week and he was saying the biggest thing Latics had in their favour when they were going to go under was owning the land......the question is whilst we have a long term lease what assets do the club actually have now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookersstandandy Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 If I remember, JR sold players eg Barrett £1.2m and then went and bought 2 or 3 for £300k or so each, which is fine, but would we do it nowadays? We sold Barrett to Aston Villa for £1.7m, then gave Villa £700k back 6 months later for Ian Olney, having used the other £1m to pay for the now Verlin stand development.....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavageTheBeast Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Missing out on Clarke going out to crawley http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/11249260.Reds_set_to_swoop_for_Clarke/?ref=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4froale Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 grounds signed for birmingham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Or is there any actual proof to suggest the club won't own/lease it? Makes it sound a state secret Jim, not in the public interest to reveal anything. Perhaps Chilcot can drip feed gists to keep everyone happy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.