GavinO'Driscoll Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11719_6939063,00.html looks like stephens will be on his way for sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midsblue Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Whatever we receive for him is additional to the playing budget already agreed for next season. Basically it's not being ploughed back into the club to pay the debts. Sorry to see Stephens go (and possibly Taylor for that matter) but if we can replace him with two or three decent additions then this will only benefit the future success of the club on the pitch. Feeney apart, I trust PD's judgement and if we can secure a suitable replacement in the middle to replace Dale plus add a striker and secure M'Voto then it's only good news for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Nowt we didnt know really, he is only telling us the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancy lad Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Unfotunately we have to be a selling club because we only get 3k fans to home games. May even have to sell 1 or 2 others aswell, but I would rather that than us go to the wall. Hopefully we can find decent replacements! In Dickov we trust! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) We always have and always will be a selling club... Nothing wrong with it and why we need to have a good youth system... Edited May 19, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I dont see why people go on about us being a 'selling club' Every player has a price these days. Every club is a selling club and contracts dont mean much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I dont see why people go on about us being a 'selling club' Every player has a price these days. Every club is a selling club and contracts dont mean much. Even Manchester United could not turn down the money offered for Ronaldo... but I think only the top 4 really retain choice if they sell someone or not... Rest are defo selling clubs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaskedOwl Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Spurs have said that if they are offered 40m+ for Bale then they will let him decide. Players that have the power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ony trouble is we can never afford a replacement that is anywhere near as good as the ones we let go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz_Oafc Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Spurs have said that if they are offered 40m+ for Bale then they will let him decide. Players that have the power. For a winger who has 1 assist in 30 premierleague games, are they avin a larfff?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 For a winger who has 1 assist in 30 premierleague games, are they avin a larfff?? But he scored a hat-trick on telly once, in a game that was already lost! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ony trouble is we can never afford a replacement that is anywhere near as good as the ones we let go. We sell Dale Stephens for £300k and get someone on a Bosman and pay them £2.5k a week for 3 years (a lot of money at this level), if we assume Dale was on £1.5k/week that is still profit of £150k (less other costs- but remember I think we owe Bury a % of his transfer fee). In fact one of our best players this season has been Mvoto, I doubt we were paying him what we were paying Stephens once Stephens had signed a new contract. That is the one advantage of having a young sqaud their wage demands are not as high as those with more experience, they have the potential to be worth a bit in the transfer market and provided they are under 23 if they move within England/Wales professionally we get compensation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) We sell Dale Stephens for £300k and get someone on a Bosman and pay them £2.5k a week for 3 years (a lot of money at this level), if we assume Dale was on £1.5k/week that is still profit of £150k (less other costs- but remember I think we owe Bury a % of his transfer fee). In fact one of our best players this season has been Mvoto, I doubt we were paying him what we were paying Stephens once Stephens had signed a new contract. That is the one advantage of having a young sqaud their wage demands are not as high as those with more experience, they have the potential to be worth a bit in the transfer market and provided they are under 23 if they move within England/Wales professionally we get compensation. Bury was 20% I am not sure I get your point on Mvoto. But Mvoto's wage was guessing about 75% paid by Sunderland. Of course we were paying Stephens less, we were only paying 25% of Mvotos wage. If we sign him we'd have to pay all of it. But we have all seen the effects of too many loan players. For every Mvoto, there are 10 Todd's, Whites, Trotmans, etc etc Edited May 19, 2011 by singe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Bury was 20% I am not sure I get your point on Mvoto. But Mvoto's wage was guessing about 75% paid by Sunderland. Of course we were paying Stephens less, we were only paying 25% of Mvotos wage. If we sign him we'd have to pay all of it. But we have all seen the effects of too many loan players. For every Mvoto, there are 10 Todd's, Whites, Trotmans, etc etc What's the maximum of long-term loans we had here in the last 6 years (I'm not counting 3 month ones). Too many short-term loans has a detrimental effect but I'm not yet convinced that having 4 season-long loans has the same effect, its not too much different with signing 4 people for 1 year. Mvoto and Stephens are off a similar age, they are of similar ability, a replacement for Stephens in a youngster on the books of a higher up team could easily be as good if not better than Stephens. Yes you are right for every Mvoto there is a Cwyka but for every Mvoto there is also a Defoe/Sczensy (sp?). Using the loan system well can mean performing better than expected, or would be reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singe Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 What's the maximum of long-term loans we had here in the last 6 years (I'm not counting 3 month ones). Too many short-term loans has a detrimental effect but I'm not yet convinced that having 4 season-long loans has the same effect, its not too much different with signing 4 people for 1 year. Mvoto and Stephens are off a similar age, they are of similar ability, a replacement for Stephens in a youngster on the books of a higher up team could easily be as good if not better than Stephens. Yes you are right for every Mvoto there is a Cwyka but for every Mvoto there is also a Defoe/Sczensy (sp?). Using the loan system well can mean performing better than expected, or would be reasonable. I was trying to work out the nubmer of players the other week it is hoorific. I do agree you ahve to get the balance right. Do you think we have jsut tried to use the loan system to get players ont he cheap, I don't knwo the percentage, and Dickov meant better to get 1 decent player than 4 loans signings, you referred to? It is a fine balance. Ironically, and of the top of my head Iwill probably be prvoed wrong but I do think the season long loans have generally been beeter acquisitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I was trying to work out the nubmer of players the other week it is hoorific. I do agree you ahve to get the balance right. Do you think we have jsut tried to use the loan system to get players ont he cheap, I don't knwo the percentage, and Dickov meant better to get 1 decent player than 4 loans signings, you referred to? It is a fine balance. Ironically, and of the top of my head Iwill probably be prvoed wrong but I do think the season long loans have generally been beeter acquisitions. The loan system is often used to get players on the cheap unless its to get someone in where we are lacking fit or available players- such as O'driscoll. We got Dean Windass on loan to supposedly give us that extra bit of quality we were lacking and that quality isnt available cheaply or readily, it looked like a good move after a couple of weeks but in the end it looked to be a very expensive mistake. As we know you can have too many loan signings as only 5 can be in the squad (I think) but a good quality loan signing can be of significant value at this level, and even in the PL (Sturridge at Bolton for example). My original point is if we sell Dale Stephens, and this looks almost certain, a good quality replacement is available cheaply if we can find it. Dickov has not done that badly in the transfer market and in some ways I'd like to see what he can do when he doesn't have players he doesn't want clogging up the wage bill, as he had last season until January. 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.