For a club with no money, do we spend what we have wisely?

[andybaha]

For a club that's got no money we do some very stange things

1)We have a first team squad of approaching 30 players, many of which are of similar limited ability. Wouldn't we be better with a smaller squad of better quality players.

2)Loan players are meant to enhance a squad, we have a habit of loaning pretty mediocre players or ones which are injured. All on the wageroll.

3)We started the season which an international goalkeeper, one with loads of experience at this level and two England youth keepers, yet two thirds of the way through the season we are paying to borrow a keeper from Palace.

4)CKR to Sheffield United for £150K. He's played pretty regularly in the Premiership and whilst he is not a world beater he is worth more than £150K. After all we paid Bury £250K for him.

5)Who negotiated contracts that meant that we had to have some of our most experienced players in the reserves for fear or having to give them new contracts on equal terms. And if it's true whoever thought that Kuipers was worth £6K a week.

6)I thought I read that McGee isn't rushing to get a job because we are still paying him. If we lose the first six games of next season we might be paying Wilkins as well. Whilst I think Wilkins deserves a chance, how on earth did he get a three year contract.

7)There will need to be some hard decisions made re Oatway, Mayo, Hart, Butters, Kuipers etc as to whether they offer value for money for another season (not three seasons). In retrospect Carpenter was given a season too many.

 

[Dave the OAP]

you mustnt ask such negative questions


bad bad fan

 

[Barrel of Fun]

1)Alot of them our former youth players and considering we are a selling club, it was sensible to sign them up. If you look at our successes like Harding and Virgo, they were not particularly good straight away, but came on well. Plus it is the cheap option to fill the ranks with youth players.

2)The injuries are unlucky, but I would imagine decent loan players are snapped up by the bigger clubs. Again, we may be going for the cheap option.

3)True.

4)He didn't do anything to enhance his value and it was clear that we needed to part company - whatever happened, the damage was done. We have a sell on clause, but I won't hold my breath.

5) I think it is standard practice at a lot of clubs. If you want players to accept what is on offer, then you have to add incentives.

6) Apparently there is a clause in his contract that means DK will only have to pay up a small proportion of his contract. I would have offered a two year deal with an extension option, but the whole board made the decision. Deano won't get the sack after six games next season. He should be judged on his signings and how they have gelled.

7) True. I think BUtters is the only one to have proven he is worth a new contract. Oatway probably deserves a chance if he is fit enough. I would offer him a short deal. Not sure about Hart & Mayo. It depends who we can get in as replacements. SO the board need to act fast this time.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I heard that Turienzo was on 3K a week and that it only emerged when he was bitching in the dressing room about how he thought he was being underpaid. Cue sound of the rest of the players jaws dropping to the ground

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I heard that Turienzo was on 3K a week and that it only emerged when he was bitching in the dressing room about how he thought he was being underpaid. Cue sound of the rest of the players jaws dropping to the ground

Shows how desperate we were to find that elusive striker. What a waste of money!

 

[Beach Hut]

If we decided to spend £3k a week on Turienzo on the strength of a video then the club needs to think again.

 

[El Presidente]

If we decided to spend £3k a week on Turienzo on the strength of a video then the club needs to think again.

Especially as it was one of my 'private' videos.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

Very few clubs have amazing loan players... I don't think we've done too badly on that score

 

[Beach Hut]

Especially as it was one of my 'private' videos.

If it was one of yours it would be way over £3K

 

[andybaha]

I heard that Turienzo was on 3K a week and that it only emerged when he was bitching in the dressing room about how he thought he was being underpaid. Cue sound of the rest of the players jaws dropping to the ground

8) I'd forgotten about Turienzo. £3K a week? And he cost us £150K as well didn't he.

 

[timbha]

and look at the list of non playing staff listed in the programme who are on the payroll

 

[desprateseagull]

...

6)I thought I read that McGee isn't rushing to get a job because we are still paying him. If we lose the first six games of next season we might be paying Wilkins as well. Whilst I think Wilkins deserves a chance, how on earth did he get a three year contract. [/B]

why are BHA still paying someone who is no longer with the club?

in any other job, if you quit / got sacked, thats it (maybe a month's pay in lieu of notice)..

just who is writing up these contracts ffs!

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: For a club with no money, do we spend what we have wisely?

why are BHA still paying someone who is no longer with the club?

in any other job, if you quit / got sacked, thats it (maybe a month's pay in lieu of notice)..

just who is writing up these contracts ffs!

McGhee was on a contract until the end of the season - that means up until 30th June. It sounds like rather than pay the remainder of the contract in one lump sum (a fair whack of cash almost certainly), it was considered prudent - I suspect in terms of cashflow - to carry on paying his salary until the end of June.

If it is to do with cashflow, and this was an arrangment all parties were satisfied with, I would have said McGhee was being quite magnanimous - especially as he would have been entitled to ask for all his dosh upfront.

 

[timbha]

Re: Re: Re: For a club with no money, do we spend what we have wisely?

McGhee was on a contract until the end of the season - that means up until 30th June. It sounds like rather than pay the remainder of the contract in one lump sum (a fair whack of cash almost certainly), it was considered prudent - I suspect in terms of cashflow - to carry on paying his salary until the end of June.

If it is to do with cashflow, and this was an arrangment all parties were satisfied with, I would have said McGhee was being quite magnanimous - especially as he would have been entitled to ask for all his dosh upfront.

and Bob Booker

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: Re: For a club with no money, do we spend what we have wisely?

and Bob Booker

Don't know if Booker was on a contract.

I assume he was.

 

[surrey jim]

I heard that Turienzo was on 3K a week and that it only emerged when he was bitching in the dressing room about how he thought he was being underpaid. Cue sound of the rest of the players jaws dropping to the ground

£3000/wk

Virgo was only on £90k