Are we an "unprofessional" professional football club?

a1 · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 6:25 pm

Sponge wrote:

?

do you not remember ?

can only find it here

but it were everywhere at the time, not just that paper. if i remember rightly it made the bolton too..... after about 6 weeks.

owen coyle's reality distortion field triumphs again.

:/

TKIZ! · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 8:17 pm

midlands exile wrote:

TKIZ! wrote:

Young players who can stay with us for a couple of seasons and then sold on

I'm unconvinced about the "buying young players to develop and then flog" strategy.

Best case scenario - we sign a promising young player on a 4 year deal, he proves himself over a couple of seasons, then we're able to sell for a decent price as he's got a few years left on his contract.

Other scenarios - we sign a promising young player on a 4 year deal, he turns out to be mediocre, he's stuck on the wage bill for 4 years.

- we sign a promising young player on a 3 year deal, he proves himself over a couple of seasons, then we have to sell for a cut-price as he's only got a year left on his contract.

- we sign a promising young player on a 2 year deal, he proves himself over a couple of seasons, then he walks out on a free.

Basically, there's a lot of other permutations, many of which don't prove the "goldmine" option people seem to think it is.

There are also a lot of permutations when you buy any player. Liverpool spent £35m in Carroll, Chelsea spent £50m on Torres and they both scored less/same as N'Gog

midlands exile · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 10:24 pm

TKIZ! wrote:

midlands exile wrote:

TKIZ! wrote:

Young players who can stay with us for a couple of seasons and then sold on

I'm unconvinced about the "buying young players to develop and then flog" strategy.

Best case scenario - we sign a promising young player on a 4 year deal, he proves himself over a couple of seasons, then we're able to sell for a decent price as he's got a few years left on his contract.

Other scenarios - we sign a promising young player on a 4 year deal, he turns out to be mediocre, he's stuck on the wage bill for 4 years.

- we sign a promising young player on a 3 year deal, he proves himself over a couple of seasons, then we have to sell for a cut-price as he's only got a year left on his contract.

- we sign a promising young player on a 2 year deal, he proves himself over a couple of seasons, then he walks out on a free.

Basically, there's a lot of other permutations, many of which don't prove the "goldmine" option people seem to think it is.

There are also a lot of permutations when you buy any player. Liverpool spent £35m in Carroll, Chelsea spent £50m on Torres and they both scored less/same as N'Gog

Liverpool and Chelsea didn't buy either of them to make a profit selling them on though. As you say, all transfers have a risk, so it seems incredibly risky basing our finances on a transfer policy of "what we might make on them" rather than "what can they do here and now". I'm all for giving youth a chance, but it needs to be balanced with experience and some pragmatism.

TKIZ! · **Posted:** Thu May 24, 2012 11:12 pm

Well we have the experience or did we forget about Ricketts, SKD and Petrov?

Prufrock · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 12:04 am

I'm not yet convinced about this buy young and sell at a profit lark either. Only one we have sold has been Cahill, and after wages we didn't even make a profit on him! And the vast majority of the ones we do get aren't going to end up England regulars and Champions League winners. Lee should have been another one, but he could well go for nowt. Holden too.

H. Pedersen · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 3:23 am

Sponge wrote:

boltonboris wrote:

Allardyce was a great manager for us, but he was lucky with the fact that it was a different market back then. Players like Okocha and Djorkaeff aren't available, because they go abroad on MASSIVE contracts.

This. Completely different strategy needed now.

Err, right, which is why Allardyce bought Diouf and Anelka and Faye and Al-Habsi and Meite and Ben Haim and Andranik and Dzemaili . . .

Allardyce was obviously aware that a new strategy was needed and he was in the middle of undertaking that strategy. If anything it was Gartside who thought we could continue to survive on the cheap, which is why he turned down the request for investment in January 2007 and then appointed the cheap option to replace Sam and then invested pennies in Summer 2007 and then went with the cheap option to replace Lee and only started panic spending when it became obvious we were in serious trouble.

H. Pedersen · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 3:42 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Loyal White wrote:

Where has it come from that Sam wanted to double/treble ticket prices? Never heard that before.

When Lee was appointed I emailed Gartside expressing concern about the situation with the number of players we had linked with moves and an inexperienced manager. He rang me back within 5 minutes and talked about a lot of stuff. That was one of the things he mentioned.

Well, Gartside clearly had an interest in making Sam look unreasonable at that point. Not sure I would take this source as reliable.

a1 · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 12:32 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:

Well, Gartside clearly had an interest in making Sam look unreasonable at that point. Not sure I would take this source as reliable.

or , if it were false , sam wouldve sued him for slander or something or whatever by now. ergo - it must be true.

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 12:34 pm

a1 wrote:

H. Pedersen wrote:

Well, Gartside clearly had an interest in making Sam look unreasonable at that point. Not sure I would take this source as reliable.

or , if it were false , sam wouldve sued him for slander or something or whatever by now. ergo - it must be true.

I wonder how the case against Steve Kean is progressing?

Loyal White · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 1:02 pm

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Loyal White wrote:

Where has it come from that Sam wanted to double/treble ticket prices? Never heard that before.

When Lee was appointed I emailed Gartside expressing concern about the situation with the number of players we had linked with moves and an inexperienced manager. He rang me back within 5 minutes and talked about a lot of stuff. That was one of the things he mentioned.

Are you Eddie Davies?

midlands exile · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 5:03 pm

H. Pedersen wrote:

Sponge wrote:

boltonboris wrote:

Allardyce was a great manager for us, but he was lucky with the fact that it was a different market back then. Players like Okocha and Djorkaeff aren't available, because they go abroad on MASSIVE contracts.

This. Completely different strategy needed now.

Err, right, which is why Allardyce bought Diouf and Anelka and Faye and Al-Habsi and Meite and Ben Haim and Andranik and Dzemaili . . .

Allardyce was obviously aware that a new strategy was needed and he was in the middle of undertaking that strategy. If anything it was Gartside who thought we could continue to survive on the cheap, which is why he turned down the request for investment in January 2007 and then appointed the cheap option to replace Sam and then invested pennies in Summer 2007 and then went with the cheap option to replace Lee and only started panic spending when it became obvious we were in serious trouble.

This. Completely different strategy was needed in January 2007.

midlands exile · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 5:04 pm

Loyal White wrote:

BWFC_Insane wrote:

Loyal White wrote:

Where has it come from that Sam wanted to double/treble ticket prices? Never heard that before.

When Lee was appointed I emailed Gartside expressing concern about the situation with the number of players we had linked with moves and an inexperienced manager. He rang me back within 5 minutes and talked about a lot of stuff. That was one of the things he mentioned.

Are you Eddie Davies?

Prufrock · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 6:37 pm

What money exactly were we meant to 'invest'?

I get that we ended up spending loads anyway, but we didn't know that at the time. Even if we did, it's Eddie's not Phil's. Why don't we all slag off Eddie?

TKIZ! · **Posted:** Fri May 25, 2012 6:46 pm

I wouldn't like for us to end up like Leeds or Portsmouth staring at the precipice of not having a football team. If spending gets out of hand then that's where it can lead.

CAPSLOCK · **Posted:** Mon May 28, 2012 10:12 am

Prufrock wrote:

What money exactly were we meant to 'invest'?

I get that we ended up spending loads anyway, but we didn't know that at the time. Even if we did, it's Eddie's not Phil's. Why don't we all slag off Eddie?

Hadn't we just spent 8 million on Anelka

Allardyce was being backed out of one mans pocket

One story is that he wanted to buy Alan Smith for 6 million - Eddie said him and fatman could go halves

Now, this is quite possibly not true, but it has as much substance as owt the Gartside knockers throw in the mix as fact

BWFC_Insane · **Posted:** Mon May 28, 2012 10:25 am

I might be wrong but I think Eddie was initially brought in to invest so that the club could own the ground, training facilities and academy new site. In other words to make the club more stable. I think he then invested some money in to enable us to buy Diouf, and then more money later to buy the likes of Anelka and Meite etc...

I suspect he hadn't intended to be chucking millions of pounds at players when he initially came in. Though I could be wrong.....

bobo the clown · **Posted:** Mon May 28, 2012 10:31 am

BWFC_Insane wrote:

I might be wrong but I think Eddie was initially brought in to invest so that the club could own the ground, training facilities and academy new site. In other words to make the club more stable. I think he then invested some money in to enable us to buy Diouf, and then more money later to buy the likes of Anelka and Meite etc...

I suspect he hadn't intended to be chucking millions of pounds at players when he initially came in. Though I could be wrong.....

You may well be right, but he's not going to be spending all this accidentally.

What I do get concerned over is the day he gets fed up, or .... hope it's long off ... shuffles off this mortal coil. Do his family continue this blind support ? Does it get cut off within a week or so .... or is the debt covered somehow ?

boltonboris · **Posted:** Mon May 28, 2012 11:55 am

I heard that his family are set up for life, and he's not even arsed about the money that he's owed.

Mar · **Posted:** Mon May 28, 2012 11:57 am

He might not be arsed but the rest of his family might be and he might have set them up for taking over if he leaves. Hopefully our beloved benefactor won't put the club under by asking for it all back but unless you've actually sat in the board room and read the figures its just conjecture.

a1 · **Posted:** Mon May 28, 2012 2:16 pm

boltonboris wrote:

I heard that his family are set up for life, and he's not even arsed about the money that he's owed.

woot

Are we an "unprofessional" professional football club?

Who is online