Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
BearSmog

The Transfer Thread.

Recommended Posts

Either that, or some journo has gotten the info from a source, within the club, that we were interested in a striker (which was actually Vassell), but given no more info than that and assumed it was Adams, and gambled on that to try to get his story out first.

And another journalist has gotten the same line and has guessed at it being Jutkiewicz.

Then, hey presto, it seems to the readers like we're looking at all three.

 

I suppose that's possible although it would be a more unlikely set of circumstances in my opinion.  I thought the first link we had was with Juke rather than Adams?  Vassell was also named a week ago as well if I remember rightly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad

 

I'm pretty sure that money has gone on re-couping the money we wasted on big transfers fees/wages during the Monk period. 15m Britt, 9m Braithwaite, 7m Fletcher, 5m Howson, 5m Randolph, 3.5m Christie. Britt and Braithwaite probably on 40-45k each. Rest will have been anything between 20-35k. That's what Pulis means when he says the club "spent a lot" and needed to "balance the books".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad

 

Do you think he has taken it all as dividends? I'd hope he hasn't and that he is holding it back to protect us mid to long term being in this league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

 

Gibson employs Bausor. He should be there to run the club financially. 

 

We should then have a clear strategy of where the club wants to go. This should be directed by Gibson. We don't, it changes upon his mood after how a manager has done or how he feels the club should be doing. 

 

He does interfere, not as much as some owners but he definitely does. 

 

He's given Pulis a remit, by what Pulis is saying then he's carrying it out. Therefore, the blame has to lie with Gibson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure that money has gone on re-couping the money we wasted on big transfers fees/wages during the Monk period. 15m Britt, 9m Braithwaite, 7m Fletcher, 5m Howson, 5m Randolph, 3.5m Christie. Britt and Braithwaite probably on 40-45k each. Rest will have been anything between 20-35k. That's what Pulis means when he says the club "spent a lot" and needed to "balance the books".

 

We weren't paying Braithwaite's wages for a period.  That doesn't seem to get mentioned when his salary is brought up.  We sold Christie for more than we paid didn't we?  We also sold Forshaw in that window for £4m or so.  We clearly overpaid for Britt but then again we won't get value for money if we aren't prepared to play him.  I'd be surprised if some of those wages are accurate but who knows.  Randolph has been a key player for us, you could say Howson has I suppose.  Both have produced more than the signings we've made since then, which is a bigger issue but one that Pulis is unlikely to give much credence to for obvious reasons.  

 

Beyond all of that though is one simple fact that needs to be remembered - Gibson signed off on all of those transfers.  I don't believe for a second that in the space of a few months the financial position of the club deteriorated to the extent that we now have all of these problems.  So either Gibson took a massive gamble, in which case it's entirely on him, or the rhetoric coming from the club and Pulis in particular is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad

 

as of late 2018 Leeds had paid us a grand total of £0 for Paddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gibson employs Bausor. He should be there to run the club financially. 

 

We should then have a clear strategy of where the club wants to go. This should be directed by Gibson. We don't, it changes upon his mood after how a manager has done or how he feels the club should be doing. 

 

He does interfere, not as much as some owners but he definitely does. 

 

He's given Pulis a remit, by what Pulis is saying then he's carrying it out. Therefore, the blame has to lie with Gibson.

 

Of course it does.  He signs off on everything that happens at the club.  Bausor may make operational decisions but everything comes back to Gibson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is it taking Sunderland to sign Leadbitter? He's been having a medical for about 5 days now hasn't he?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is it taking Sunderland to sign Leadbitter? He's been having a medical for about 5 days now hasn't he?!

 

He is pretty slow these days..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad

 

as of late 2018 Leeds had paid us a grand total of £0 for Paddy

 

If that’s true then it just makes the club even more incompetent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad

 

Probably used to cover some debt? 

We made something like £11m in profit in the premier league season. The cost of promotion was something like £25m. Then comes all the wages, loss (I guess?) of sponsorship(s), TV revenue, parachute payments gone soon.

 

Sure, most of our loan(s) is/are repayable on demand. This is an unpopular opinion, but that - to me - is not exactly reassuring in an legislative environment in which FIFA are changing rules often. More concerning is if Gibson decides to no longer support the club. Then what? Debt (that is not owed to Gibson) has increased during our Premier League season, not decreased. 

 

Maybe this is Gibson saying the club should aim to run sustainably without the luxury of Premier League TV money.   

 

I may have misread or misinterpreted the annual account, but I understand why we are not splashing money even if we did sell players.

 

EDIT: Latest annual report shows no dividend was paid. Next annual report should be available 15 April 2019.

 

EDIT 2: It's not really a huge problem if Leeds have not paid anything for Paddy (yet). The balance books will just show we have money due, which is fine as long as cash flow allows us to pay wages etc.. As far as I remember, we are somewhat 'insured' when it comes to transfer fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either that, or some journo has gotten the info from a source, within the club, that we were interested in a striker (which was actually Vassell), but given no more info than that and assumed it was Adams, and gambled on that to try to get his story out first.

And another journalist has gotten the same line and has guessed at it being Jutkiewicz.

Then, hey presto, it seems to the readers like we're looking at all three.

 

I suppose that's possible although it would be a more unlikely set of circumstances in my opinion.  I thought the first link we had was with Juke rather than Adams?  Vassell was also named a week ago as well if I remember rightly?

 

Yeah Juke was linked first, but that was a weird link that seemed to come from nowhere and then disappear just as quickly, which is why I don't think there was ever anything in it.

 

I think my main gripe with the way people respond to rumours on social media is that I don't think people realise quite how much guesswork is involved in journalism. As those lists I put up the other week show, a club will probably sign, on average about 5% of the players that they actually get credited with an interest in. Yet every time a new rumour appears, people seem to go back to that default of believing it, and then using those rumours to suit their narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long is it taking Sunderland to sign Leadbitter?  He's been having a medical for about 5 days now hasn't he?!

 

Apparently he was with us training all over the weekend and only went up there today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Juke was linked first, but that was a weird link that seemed to come from nowhere and then disappear just as quickly, which is why I don't think there was ever anything in it.

 

I think my main gripe with the way people respond to rumours on social media is that I don't think people realise quite how much guesswork is involved in journalism. As those lists I put up the other week show, a club will probably sign, on average about 5% of the players that they actually get credited with an interest in. Yet every time a new rumour appears, people seem to go back to that default of believing it, and then using those rumours to suit their narrative.

 

Yeah but the key figure isn't the percentage who are signed but the percentage we actually are interested in, isn't it?  A club may only sign a relatively small percentage but the number will be much higher if you just look at players they are interested in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Gibson has some questions to answer

 

I think this is a bit unfair.

 

I think he gives his managers total control and doesn't interfere the way that, for example, Forest's owner/chairmen do.

 

I also dont think the recruitment department are to blame either if Pulis is having final say on which players we end up buying.

 

For me, the blame is squarely on Pulis and Bausor. Bausor runs things on a day to day basis, not Gibson.

 

I meant that despite record premier league tv Money, parachute payments, 3 big sales in the summer we still are relying on loans and low fee players. Where has the money from Gibson, Traore and Bamford gone and why isn’t it being invested in this squad

 

Probably used to cover some debt? 

We made something like £11m in profit in the premier league season. The cost of promotion was something like £25m. Then comes all the wages, loss (I guess?) of sponsorship(s), TV revenue, parachute payments gone soon.

 

Sure, most of our loan(s) is/are repayable on demand. This is an unpopular opinion, but that - to me - is not exactly reassuring in an legislative environment in which FIFA are changing rules often. More concerning is if Gibson decides to no longer support the club. Then what? Debt (that is not owed to Gibson) has increased during our Premier League season, not decreased. 

 

Maybe this is Gibson saying the club should aim to run sustainably without the luxury of Premier League TV money.   

 

I may have misread or misinterpreted the annual account, but I understand why we are not splashing money even if we did sell players.

 

EDIT: Latest annual report shows no dividend was paid. Next annual report should be available 15 April 2019.

 

EDIT 2: It's not really a huge problem if Leeds have not paid anything for Paddy (yet). The balance books will just show we have money due, which is fine as long as cash flow allows us to pay wages etc.. As far as I remember, we are somewhat 'insured' when it comes to transfer fees.

 

Nics you are spot on. I've repeated this a few times, but it seems to just get ignored.

 

We have run at a loss since our relegation under Southgate. So 1 seasom where we made £10 million profit, does not in anyway mean we are rolling in cash or have a huge reserve tucked away.

 

The next set of accounts will be for the season immediately after relegation. They will give us a much better indication of our current postion. In my opinion, it will not be surprising at all if we have run at a loss for the 17/18 season. Regardless of parachute payments.

 

The transfer fees of players are spread over the length of the contract and accounted for as such. But then to make things a bit more confusing we can choose to pay for players in instalments too, for example De Roon's transfer agreement is on companies house for all to see.

Share this post


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


  • Latest Posts

    • Two scoring draws last term between the teams and always a close call before that. Forest you would expect to shrug off their poorish start and to progress, but they will also be desperate to start winning. However I would suspect Houghton will be content with a point at the Riverside but for Boro we need to start winning back to back games and I believe we will be too much for Forest and achieve a rare event of late. Maybe travelling teams will be showing a bit more respect towards us as a whole but I do think the game will be very different than seen against Coventry. Going for a home win though at start of season would have been ok with a draw  
    • Forest have so many attacking options, IF we win this it'll set a great marker for where we are heading.
    • I can see Spence dropping to the bench and one of bola or Johnson stepping in, with tav on the right. I assume that was the purpose of the subs the other night. roberts back to the bench as well perhaps.... if no akpom, I’m comfortable with Browne starting, he has done everything asked of him so far. Midfield and defence picks itself, barring injury 
    • So I've seen lots of highlights recently where both penalties and red cards were given, I thought they'd moved away from red cards if it was a penalty, or is it still a red card for being last man?
    • Hopefully Akpom is fit and if he is I would go to a 3.5.2. I would also bring Coulson in. I want him to succeed here and NW said he looked bright in training. Betti Dijk Fry Paddy Tav Howson Morsy Sav Coulson Britt Akpom I would love a win but i rate forest. Would not be too disappointed with a draw.  
×
×
  • Create New...