Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

'Other Boro stuff'


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

TBF, after the last couple of seasons, the club was probably expecting to lose a lot of season ticket holders anyway, so that was probably in mind when increasing the price to try and balance it out. Given what most have said in response to their fan surveys when not renewing (going by on here anyway), the price was a much less significant factor than the manager so it doesn't seem like they were far wrong. In expecting to lose a large percentage anyway, they'd want to try and ensure they made up some of those losses through a price increase, in the hope that an extra £23+ wouldn't sway the 'hardcore customers'. And as mentioned before, the post-early bird period was always going to see a huge hike for anyone who did want to come back and it seems that also worked as there are probably a few of those lost in early-bird who will look to renew now that Pulis is gone and the club is talking the talk that people want to hear.

With that logic we'd be putting up prices for every bad season we have. It's a slippery slope. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Great quote from Kevin Blackwell in the Athletic today 🤣🤣🤣

It's my birthday today, meant to be my 30th but I've refused to allow that in current circumstances of not being able to celebrate it. I usually get my age on the back of one of my shirts so I re

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/neil-warnock-obvious-choice-manage-18614026.amp?__twitter_impression=true "Gibson is a hands-on owner and Bausor is a hands-on chief exe

Posted Images

But yeah I know what their thinking is and why they are doing it.  They want people to commit as much funds up front as they can via season tickets so they try and 'encourage' people to buy them.  From a business point of view they'd rather it that way so they can more easily plan budgets etc and of course they are worried that if most people purchase tickets on a match by match basis then attendances could tumble if we're not playing well - what would our attendances have been during last season if the majority of people weren't season ticket holders?  That still isn't justification for it and what's worse is that we've made a big deal of being a community club for ages.  This absolutely demonstrates that we aren't in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Mr_Maz said:

yeah, sounds like it all comes down to whether the courts beleive they acted in "bad faith"

I'd think they'd look at it in a similar vein to insider trading potentially. Monk was informing his agent of our interest in players and his agent was then acting either for the players or their clubs to gain a slice of the fee.

Very bad for Monk going forward. Hopefully we can get some of that wasted cash back off him and his agent!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

I'd think they'd look at it in a similar vein to insider trading potentially. Monk was informing his agent of our interest in players and his agent was then acting either for the players or their clubs to gain a slice of the fee.

Very bad for Monk going forward. Hopefully we can get some of that wasted cash back off him and his agent!

Except that he wasn't acting for the players or their clubs unless I'm missing something?  The only one he was involved in was the Cyrus Christie transfer and I'm really struggling to understand how we conducted negotiations with someone without knowing it was them?  If he wasn't part of the negotiations then what does it matter whether Derby paid him or not and just because we wanted to pay a certain amount doesn't mean that Derby were willing to sell for that amount.  I suppose if the club can prove that Derby were willing to settle for a lesser amount and that this guy's actions directly lead to them holding out for more than there might be some kind of case there but that's about it.  The other transfers he would seem not to have been involved in whether he wanted to be or not.

The rules and regulations around agents are a shambles obviously and that's intentional on the part of the footballing authorities because agents wield so much clout nowadays and wherever there is money you'll find opportunists and that includes within the authorities themselves.   Agents trying to get in on deals is unfortunately happening all over the place and has been for ages.

I'd love to see how we as a club do business and negotiate various things because we sound absolutely inept.  We don't want to spend much on a player but then we do anyway?  We appear to know that this fella has attempted to get involved in deals and we carry on with them regardless?  Did you really need to be an expert to form an opinion that £6.5m is way too much for Fletcher and £3m or whatever was too much for Johnson?  Also it would appear that we really did spend £6.5m on Fletcher and not the lower amount with add ons that it was claimed some time afterwards when it turned out he wasn't very good.

I think the reality is that clubs turn a blind eye to all kinds of things when it suits them.  Conflicts of interest come in different forms, such as paying a manager a percentage of transfer fee sales and then wondering why he seems to want to alienate some of the most valuable players at the club.  Not to worry though, in Gibson we trust.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Except that he wasn't acting for the players or their clubs unless I'm missing something?  The only one he was involved in was the Cyrus Christie transfer and I'm really struggling to understand how we conducted negotiations with someone without knowing it was them?  If he wasn't part of the negotiations then what does it matter whether Derby paid him or not and just because we wanted to pay a certain amount doesn't mean that Derby were willing to sell for that amount.  I suppose if the club can prove that Derby were willing to settle for a lesser amount and that this guy's actions directly lead to them holding out for more than there might be some kind of case there but that's about it.  The other transfers he would seem not to have been involved in whether he wanted to be or not.

The article states it was Fetherston that told Derby to hold out for more. You would have to think there's some evidence to back that up.

Furthermore, it's not just that he was involved in that one (which btw is weird because he happened to be involved in that one just after Monk decided he was okay with signing Christie) but that he tried to get involved in many more, even with the club repeatedly telling him to stop and go away. 

I will say CT that you're true to form with your post on the topic, always taking the other side to the majority of posters ?

The bit about the other transfers you're either not understanding or wilfully ignoring because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't seem to be whether the agent was involved, more that Monk repeatedly kept telling his agent about club targets despite being under strict orders to do no such thing.

Edited by Brunners
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

Except that he wasn't acting for the players or their clubs unless I'm missing something?

No but Featherstone actively tried to become involved with the transfers in order to act on behalf of the players and clubs. That's what the article states, but it is the daily mail. There is a Times article on all this too (which looks like it may go into more detail), but you need a subscription to read that. 

It's also pretty telling that we asked Derby about the deal and about Featherstone and they were happy to oblige and tell us about when and how he became involved. Which very coincidentally was less than 24 hours after we decided to pursue him.

Plus once we decided to go after Fletcher, Featherstone once again crops up and trys to muscle in on the deal. Only to be told by us to fo one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that's because I read and understand facts better than the majority of posters it would seem.

The article does state that about the Christie transfer and as I said if he was responsible then we'd clearly have a case there but if that's just the newspaper or God forbid ourselves jumping to a conclusion then I guess it would come down to what Derby valued him at the time.  Maybe Boro already have that information from Derby, I have no idea, which is why I said there might some kind of case there.

The furthermore bit means what exactly?  He tried to do something but didn't so are we going to sue him for intent?  Let's say that he wanted to get involved in those transfers so he could coin it in but he wasn't able to.  If we feel we've overpaid for those players then how exactly would we hold him responsible for that when he wasn't involved?  That's the bit I'm trying to work out from our point of view unless he was involved but the article seems to suggest that he wasn't and his efforts were thwarted on each occasion other than the Christie transfer.  Coming back to that I'm again struggling to understand how he acted on behalf of Derby but we didn't know about it.  Who were we negotiating with would seem to be an obvious question and why did they list him as acting on their behalf if he actually wasn't.

If the club can claw back some money then great but all I see is Gibson employing people who can't do their jobs properly while he has clearly taken his eye completely off the ball for the past couple of years.  Maybe we'd be better off hiring capable people and not putting ourselves in a position where we can get potentially get done over?  I would guess we're now looking for anything that can tie this fella to the other transfer deals beyond the fact that he wanted to be involved.  Him trying to represent Fletcher wouldn't have made us pay West Ham £6.5m, I'm sure you can see that?  So he would have had to involve himself on the selling club side of things as with the Christie transfer.   But anyway, when we stop sending them letters and actually take them to court we'll know we are serious and Gibson can begin another crusade against all of the people who are keeping us down.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said:

No but Featherstone actively tried to become involved with the transfers in order to act on behalf of the players and clubs. That's what the article states, but it is the daily mail. There is a Times article on all this too (which looks like it may go into more detail), but you need a subscription to read that. 

It's also pretty telling that we asked Derby about the deal and about Featherstone and they were happy to oblige and tell us about when and how he became involved. Which very coincidentally was less than 24 hours after we decided to pursue him.

Plus once we decided to go after Fletcher, Featherstone once again crops up and trys to muscle in on the deal. Only to be told by us to fo one.

It says he tried to represent Fletcher in the deal and was told to do one.  Can you explain to me how that would make us pay £6.5m for him because I can't see any link whatsoever?  If he'd managed to represent Fletcher and then somehow he and we negotiated a crazy contract then that might be something but that's not what the article says. 

It's a funny thing but when Karanka was appointed lots of people on here were excited at the idea of Mendes sending us some players.  What's the difference other than we'd have been complicit in it?  Wouldn't that have been the agent of the manager sourcing players for us and benefiting from it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Posts

    • I was much happier with Boro's performance but the defence looked brittle to non existent against a struggling side.
    • Do hope his training ground nickname is Willy Kok or I'll have lost all respect for our lads.
    • Scene 1: Int (Night) [It’s 3am in a kitchen lit by the glow of the moon. Neil Warnock walks in yawning, wearing Paddington Bear pyjamas and fluffy slippers. He opens the fridge and takes out a bottle of milk. When he shuts the door, a ghostly white apparition has appeared behind it] WARNOCK [dropping the milk]: Jesus Christ! APPARITION: Not quite. [The ghostly white features move closer] No use crying over it, though, eh? WARNOCK: G…Garry? APPARITION: Yes. It is me. Garry. WARNOCK [looking around wildly]: How the hell did you get into my kitchen? MONK: I go wherever I want, and nobody ever seems to stop me. I find it quite peculiar. Middlesbrough…Birmingham…Sheffield Wednesday…Sky…I have the ability to slither in without invitation and then hang around until the scales fall off people’s eyes and they see me for what I really am. WARNOCK [composing himself]: So why are you in my house, Friar Took-all-the-money? MONK: I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed watching the Rotherham game on Wednesday. WARNOCK: I bloody didn’t. I had to fill the bench with kids. They had an average age of 11. MONK: No, I didn’t enjoy watching Middlesbrough. I enjoyed watching Rotherham. I get a certain pleasure from watching teams getting relegated. I mean, I get a lot of pleasure. It gives me a semi-final feeling. WARNOCK: Well, you certainly gave relegation a good go with my lot. MONK: I did my best, but my plan didn’t work at Middlesbrough. I was hoping to bankrupt them, but Mr Gibson found a Post-It note with my calculations of how many strikers I needed to buy to guarantee liquidation. He made me leave before I could finish the job. I did hope Tony Bent would finish what I started, but he spent all the money on defenders so they ended up drawing every game 0-0. Even the village idiot couldn’t find his way to League One. And then you came along with your mid-table mediocrity. [Hisses] You hero. WARNOCK: Hero? We’re tenth. And we’re bloody broke, thanks to you. I only found Watmore cos he was working in the local Sainsbury's garage when I went to fill up the Montego. His signing-on fee was a Big Mac meal cos he hadn’t eaten for three days. MONK: You’re still not going to be relegated, though. Such a disappointment. But my greatest project is Sheffield Wednesday. I've really put them through it, haven't I? Oh, that's managers for you; they always know which buttons to press. WARNOCK: The self-destruct one in your case. I still can’t believe what a shambles you made of that transfer kitty. I’m having to let Fletcher and Assombalonga leave for free cos we can’t afford to pay them any more. We've even prised all the 50p pieces out of the electricity meter, and it's still not enough. MONK [runs his tongue over his teeth]: I did my best. In the end, I couldn’t get Boro relegated, but I sowed the seeds of the club's decline. They'd be established in the Premier League if I hadn't buggered up the finances so much. Which means you'd be a Premier League manager, instead of a Championship one again. It was all me, Neil. It’s always been me. The author of all your pain. Scene 2: Int (Night) [The Warnock marital bed. Mrs W is wearing a Bri-Nylon nightie and an eye mask, sitting up as her husband rolls around screaming] MRS W [shaking Warnock awake]: Neil? Neil? Wake up! WARNOCK [trembling]: Oh God, that was awful. MRS W: The James Bond dream again? WARNOCK: Yes. But this time, the baddy was a snake. MRS W [calmly]: Oh, it was Monk this time, was it? You really need to stop eating Stilton before bed. You know it gives you nightmares. WARNOCK [rubbing eyes]: I'll give you nightmares. Have you seen my injury list? [Ends]   Match details: It’s a 3pm kick-off on Saturday, at ‘fortress’ Riverside.   Form guide: We’re mired in mid-table mediocrity, but Wednesday may be about to follow Boro’s example of being relegated due to a points deduction. At least their descent will be less high-profile than their near neighbours United, who are about to follow Boro’s example of being relegated with less than 30 points.   View from the other side: No MDT from the familiar-looking Owlstalk forum yet, but there is a thread called “Colin loves us really”, which is worth a read.   Questions for the audience: 1.       Who makes your starting XI? 2.       Given Connor Malley’s man-of-the-match debut, which other youngsters would you like to see in the squad/team? 3.       If you could only choose one, would you prefer to see Wednesday or Derby go down?
    • Nah, you're thinking of that Reg Dwight fella. Mind you, when you're born Reginald Kenneth Dwight, Elton Hercules John is a big improvement. 😮  
    • "FENTON, FENTON...FENTON JOHN, WHEN YA GONNA BRING HIM ON?"  

×
×
  • Create New...