by Extended-Phenotype » 20 Jan 2012 14:02
by Snowball » 20 Jan 2012 14:07
by Extended-Phenotype » 20 Jan 2012 14:19
by melonhead » 20 Jan 2012 15:37
by Extended-Phenotype » 20 Jan 2012 16:07
by Ian Royal » 20 Jan 2012 16:10
Extended-Phenotype You don't make a loss if you get promoted. Cheers for the vote of confidence JM.
And we have run at a bigger loss than 3m. Plus, who even wants us to spend that much?
Even you are struggling to defend this nonsense.
Lame.
by sandman » 20 Jan 2012 17:55
sandman Or maybe the current regime is on its way out.
by LoyalRoyalFan » 20 Jan 2012 17:56
sandmansandman Or maybe the current regime is on its way out.
by FiNeRaIn » 20 Jan 2012 18:00
Ian RoyalExtended-Phenotype You don't make a loss if you get promoted. Cheers for the vote of confidence JM.
And we have run at a bigger loss than 3m. Plus, who even wants us to spend that much?
Even you are struggling to defend this nonsense.
Lame.
You might want to report our fraudulent accounts from 2005/06 then. As they state we made a fairly hefty loss that season.
FACTS: irrelevant to [some of] the "we should spend" camp.
by Rex » 20 Jan 2012 18:01
by Harpers So Solid Crew » 20 Jan 2012 18:14
FiNeRaIn
The reason we made a loss is because some smart individuals decided to pay our championship players wages equal to the likes of frank lampard...somehow amassing an outrageous 40 million or so on wages or whatever it was.
Hopefully they'll use their brains if there is ever a next time and not ruin the next decade for the club.
by melonhead » 20 Jan 2012 20:55
FiNeRaInIan RoyalExtended-Phenotype You don't make a loss if you get promoted. Cheers for the vote of confidence JM.
And we have run at a bigger loss than 3m. Plus, who even wants us to spend that much?
Even you are struggling to defend this nonsense.
Lame.
You might want to report our fraudulent accounts from 2005/06 then. As they state we made a fairly hefty loss that season.
FACTS: irrelevant to [some of] the "we should spend" camp.
The reason we made a loss is because some smart individuals decided to pay our championship players wages equal to the likes of frank lampard...somehow amassing an outrageous 40 million or so on wages or whatever it was.
.
by Hoop Blah » 25 Jan 2012 14:11
Hoop Blah We have this debate over their 'no money' quotes every transfer window and then we follow it up by spending very little.
I still don't buy the justification that they're trying to keep down prices when we're negotiating or putting agents off the scent etc etc. The industry is very incestuous and clubs know what their players are worth to them and they pretty know the positions any buying clubs are in so a little bit of bemoaning the lack of funds in the local rag isn't going to change any clubs asking price.
I'm sure it's a lot more about managing down fans expectations and a fair bit of just giving the hacks something to write about at the same time.
It's interesting to see the choice of phrase McDermott uses with the 'this regime' quote. Not really sure what to read into that, if anything...
by Vision » 25 Jan 2012 14:15
Hoop BlahHoop Blah We have this debate over their 'no money' quotes every transfer window and then we follow it up by spending very little.
I still don't buy the justification that they're trying to keep down prices when we're negotiating or putting agents off the scent etc etc. The industry is very incestuous and clubs know what their players are worth to them and they pretty know the positions any buying clubs are in so a little bit of bemoaning the lack of funds in the local rag isn't going to change any clubs asking price.
I'm sure it's a lot more about managing down fans expectations and a fair bit of just giving the hacks something to write about at the same time.
It's interesting to see the choice of phrase McDermott uses with the 'this regime' quote. Not really sure what to read into that, if anything...
Now that this deal is out in the open and we're admitting to the world that we have funds available can we put to bed the idea that the 'we've got no funds' was just a negotiating tool the club used to plead poverty to clubs and agents to keep fee's and wages down.
by Hoop Blah » 25 Jan 2012 14:27
by Vision » 25 Jan 2012 14:49
Hoop Blah Probably to manage fan/media expectations more than anything else.
It also doesn't seem that we have oodles of cash to spend in this window (hence the targets we're being linked with) so it's still true that we haven't got a bottomless pit for McDermott to dip into.
by Hoop Blah » 25 Jan 2012 14:53
by Vision » 25 Jan 2012 14:55
Hoop Blah Of course it does!
I need to start making room in the bonnet for some new bees.
by Hoop Blah » 31 Jan 2012 09:42
McDermott said not Now that this deal is out in the open and we're admitting to the world that we have funds available can we put to bed the idea that the 'we've got no funds' was just a negotiating tool the club used to plead poverty to clubs and agents to keep fee's and wages down.
by Svlad Cjelli » 31 Jan 2012 10:27
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 137 guests