Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
boksicdink

Summer Transfer Thread, (Closes 8pm tonight)

Recommended Posts

isaac success was mentioned earlier but him along with Musa are supposed to be off to Hull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs can we not turn this in to yet another gazette, transparency, fees debate. Who honestly gives a *** about any of that crap.

 

I do, everyone should.

 

Why

 

Because I want to know what we are spending and on who.

 

Especially in this age of 'transparency'. Every club that deals with us apparently wants a 'disclosure clause' in the deal but are happy for other clubs to disclose fees? It's absolute nonsense and the club are blatantly lying to its fans. The question we should be asking is why does our club not want us to know the cost of players.

 

Suppose it's for another thread though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs can we not turn this in to yet another gazette, transparency, fees debate. Who honestly gives a *** about any of that crap.

 

I do, everyone should.

 

Why

 

Because the club shouldn't be able to get away with making a big fuss about it and about how they'd be transparent and then get away with the *** they pull now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colchester fans on twitter seem to think we're getting a lad called Sam Szmodics off them.

 

No idea who he is. Any lower league specialists about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@untypicalboro

 

The best Marvin since Emnes. Due to a confidentially clause Boro can't reveal the fee, an initial £2.5m rising with Motherwell getting 25%

 

Hahaha. Love this. You aren't going to tell us so we'll just put a figure in there. What's the worst than can happen, you correct us in 3 years and ban our reporters.....oh wait...

 

Let's face it though, if there's a clause in a contract that the other team has to give a percentage away, they're not gonna want to give away how much of the fee they have to pass on.

 

I doubt they can get away with telling the wrong fee and not paying what they have to.

 

Was more referring to press and fans rather than the other club. Ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really should have prioritised a high quality creative player over spending £6.5 million on a 3rd/4th choice raw striker (Fletcher). It's an utterly bizarre transfer decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs can we not turn this in to yet another gazette, transparency, fees debate. Who honestly gives a *** about any of that crap.

 

I do, everyone should.

 

Why

 

Because the club shouldn't be able to get away with making a big fuss about it and about how they'd be transparent and then get away with the *** they pull now.

 

This. The club took a huge shot at the Gazette and claimed it was in the interest of transparency, since doing that there have been more than 10 transfers (in and out) and I think, from memory, that we've only announced the fees on two of them, Fletcher and Randolph. The club don't care about transparency, they cared about smearing the Gazettes name. No matter what I've thought about the Gazettes reporting in the past a football club should not be trying to control who is reporting on them or what they are reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really should have prioritised a high quality creative player over spending £6.5 million on a 3rd/4th choice raw striker (Fletcher). It's an utterly bizarre transfer decision.

 

I agree although it'll be alot of add ons but still id have preferred a creative midfielder ala Jota in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs can we not turn this in to yet another gazette, transparency, fees debate. Who honestly gives a *** about any of that crap.

 

I do, everyone should.

 

Why

 

Because I want to know what we are spending and on who.

 

Especially in this age of 'transparency'. Every club that deals with us apparently wants a 'disclosure clause' in the deal but are happy for other clubs to disclose fees? It's absolute nonsense and the club are blatantly lying to its fans. The question we should be asking is why does our club not want us to know the cost of players.

 

Suppose it's for another thread though

 

The answer to that is surely that spreading information of financial spend (especially during the given window) affects the potential for other financial spend, either positively or negatively. Some clubs might look at some deals and say "Well you've got him for quite cheap, surely there's more in the bank?". Or another club might look at a large deal, indeed like Britt's, and say "Well you were willing to spend big on him, we value him the same way as Forest valued Britt. Meet the valuation or get lost." Gibson didn't help himself there with the 'best resourced club' statement, I'd argue.

 

The club can want or aim to be transparent with their dealings whilst also simultaneously wanting to avoid the negative effects of doing so. They want transparency with the fans but want to avoid having to overspend elsewhere as a result of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, even the Gazette know it isn't about transfer fees, so why are we making it about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs can we not turn this in to yet another gazette, transparency, fees debate. Who honestly gives a *** about any of that crap.

 

I do, everyone should.

 

Why

 

Because I want to know what we are spending and on who.

 

Especially in this age of 'transparency'. Every club that deals with us apparently wants a 'disclosure clause' in the deal but are happy for other clubs to disclose fees? It's absolute nonsense and the club are blatantly lying to its fans. The question we should be asking is why does our club not want us to know the cost of players.

 

Suppose it's for another thread though

 

The answer to that is surely that spreading information of financial spend (especially during the given window) affects the potential for other financial spend, either positively or negatively. Some clubs might look at some deals and say "Well you've got him for quite cheap, surely there's more in the bank?". Or another club might look at a large deal, indeed like Britt's, and say "Well you were willing to spend big on him, we value him the same way as Forest valued Britt. Meet the valuation or get lost." Gibson didn't help himself there with the 'best resourced club' statement, I'd argue.

 

The club can want or aim to be transparent with their dealings whilst also simultaneously wanting to avoid the negative effects of doing so. They want transparency with the fans but want to avoid having to overspend elsewhere as a result of doing so.

 

Listen, if keeping prices quiet is the way to go every club would do it with every signing. It's a load of nonsense. There is an underlying reason for keeping the prices quiet. Either that or the hierarchy believe what you have written meaning that on occasion they get it wrong themselves by disclosing fees and they think every other club is run by morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, even the Gazette know it isn't about transfer fees, so why are we making it about that?

 

Mainly because that is what the club made it about. Do you deliberately play dumb at times?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ffs can we not turn this in to yet another gazette, transparency, fees debate. Who honestly gives a *** about any of that crap.

 

I do, everyone should.

 

Why

 

Because I want to know what we are spending and on who.

 

Especially in this age of 'transparency'. Every club that deals with us apparently wants a 'disclosure clause' in the deal but are happy for other clubs to disclose fees? It's absolute nonsense and the club are blatantly lying to its fans. The question we should be asking is why does our club not want us to know the cost of players.

 

Suppose it's for another thread though

 

The answer to that is surely that spreading information of financial spend (especially during the given window) affects the potential for other financial spend, either positively or negatively. Some clubs might look at some deals and say "Well you've got him for quite cheap, surely there's more in the bank?". Or another club might look at a large deal, indeed like Britt's, and say "Well you were willing to spend big on him, we value him the same way as Forest valued Britt. Meet the valuation or get lost." Gibson didn't help himself there with the 'best resourced club' statement, I'd argue.

 

The club can want or aim to be transparent with their dealings whilst also simultaneously wanting to avoid the negative effects of doing so. They want transparency with the fans but want to avoid having to overspend elsewhere as a result of doing so.

 

The club have no desire or aim to become more transparent, that is, ironically, very clear to see.

 

If it is to protect our own position why were we so happy to announce our new record transfer? And issue a correction to our local paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its Transfer Deadline Day and people are rehashing the same arguments about the merits/demerits of the club vs gazette. I dont give a damn about that , if people still want to continue it fine, but will they use a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...