Long to WBA

[AthleticoSpizz]

I thought that it was Frimmers that had that first say

...I recall my response as being something on the lines of he (Long) was just brought over as a stablemate for Doyle.

[SpaceCruiser]

Wasn't there some comments about someone being embarrassingly bad in training shortly after we'd signed Long and Doyle? I'd always assumed that was Long. He had the attributes, i.e pace, physique and could jump, but very little natural skill. So you have to hand it to the RFC training staff for turning him into the player he now is.

Tredder ISTR.

It was, wasn't it, I laugh at everytime I am reminded of that fact. Now just to see if we can humil8 him over the hoops thing....

[Hoop Blah]

but before the playoffs it was in the press that long and anyone else involved in playoff games wouldnt play in the intl games
and that stuff about cox is probably for coxes benefit. clearly long is in front of, and a better player, and better at working hard, than simon cox.shirley?
but i take your point, we just dont really know,

Interesting that Cox was preferred to Long again this evening.

[SLAMMED]

Was there really a need to dig this back up?

[Hoop Blah]

Was there really a need to dig this back up?

Not really no, I just thought it was a little interesting considering the conversation from a couple of months back.

Feel free not to read it though.

[SLAMMED]

Noted.

[Ups and Downs]

long was fantastic again for WBA. the guy interviewing Hodgson afterwards stated that it was the best upfront performance of the season. He also went on to state that shane cost 4.5 million and was a bargain. hodgsons reply was "we're not supposed to say what he cost but youre much closer than most.

4.5 million! Our big black hole must still be wanton if it was only stuffed with a wad that size.

[purleyroyal]

MotD2 were singing his praises - even Colin, who said he'd offered £2 million but Nicky Hammond had turned that down

[grey_squirrel]

long was fantastic again for WBA. the guy interviewing Hodgson afterwards stated that it was the best upfront performance of the season. He also went on to state that shane cost 4.5 million and was a bargain. hodgsons reply was "we're not supposed to say what he cost but youre much closer than most.

4.5 million! Our big black hole must still be wanton if it was only stuffed with a wad that size.

So is the inference it was less than £4.5M???? (up front maybe) but in any event I hope it was more than that!

Why are some transfers 'undisclosed' anyway when some (most) aren't?

[Svlad Cjelli]

Why are some transfers 'undisclosed' anyway when some (most) aren't?

Because some are nice straightforward sums caning hands with nothing complicated - whilst others are much more involved, with the final sum being determined with lots of add-ons - WBA staying up, number of appearances, etc etc....

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

The real question is why do RFC have to be so secretive about how much we buy or sell players for, a little openness would be nice IMHO.

[Svlad Cjelli]

The real question is why do RFC have to be so secretive about how much we buy or sell players for, a little openness would be nice IMHO.

How do you announce a figure when you don't know it (see above post). Add-ons could make a difference of £2-3M extra on a transfer.

So announce the low figure and there's criticism about how cheaply you're giving players away, and announce the high figure and there's criticism when it transpires that the actual figure in the end didn't reach that. Even say a range (£4.5M - 6.5M, for instance) and there's general confusion with everyone taking one of the figures as gospel.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

well tell us the add ons as well, most fans are not stupid, if Long is £4.5m up front, then £1m if WBA stay up, plus £1m if he scores 20 goals. Would the fans be unhappy about that opennes, it would work both ways as add ons for purchases might look better to fans who want the club to spend money on players.

[Barry the bird boggler]

Undisclosed transfers are part of the problem with the game. IMO ALL transfer details should be published to ensure transparency both to the supporters and to HMRC

[Wycombe Royal]

Undisclosed transfers are part of the problem with the game. IMO ALL transfer details should be published to ensure transparency both to the supporters and to HMRC

There is no issue with HMRC as there has to be complete transparency with the FA on all transfer deals (they won't complete the paperwork if there isn't). So the clubs can't hide anything.

[mr_number]

Isn't the point about not disclosing transfer fees that it puts you in a stronger position next time you negotiate?
If everyone knows how much money you've got, then they negotiate in certain ways accordingly... Might not be true, but I thought that was the justification behind it.

[Harpers So Solid Crew]

Isn't the point about not disclosing transfer fees that it puts you in a stronger position next time you negotiate?
If everyone knows how much money you've got, then they negotiate in certain ways accordingly... Might not be true, but I thought that was the justification behind it.

Matters not how much we sell for, everyone knows the idea is never that it all goes in to a transfer pot, it is split. So other clubs would have no idea, also as accounts are released anually everyone knows if clubs have money or not. Which is why it always surprises me that people did business with Pompy for delayed payments, up front fine, but on the never never, madness with Pompy.

[melonhead]

awesome performance


long>>>>>>>>doyle

[Simon's Church]

Isn't there someone on here who thinks Graham and Cox are both better than him? lolz

[Wimb]

Isn't the point about not disclosing transfer fees that it puts you in a stronger position next time you negotiate?
If everyone knows how much money you've got, then they negotiate in certain ways accordingly... Might not be true, but I thought that was the justification behind it.

Matters not how much we sell for, everyone knows the idea is never that it all goes in to a transfer pot, it is split. So other clubs would have no idea, also as accounts are released anually everyone knows if clubs have money or not. Which is why it always surprises me that people did business with Pompy for delayed payments, up front fine, but on the never never, madness with Pompy.

Have to disagree there, it make a big difference to your negotiating process.

For example if you sell one defender for a definitive £5 million, the club you go to for a replacement is going to say, 'well he's as good as that defender you just sold so he's worth £5m or he's at least half as good so give us £2.5" etc

Likewise the accounts never show how much money you've got in disposable income. They may show you've got big loans but they don't reveal if you've got access to a bigger loan, another overdraft facility or how much a benefactor has at his disposal.

It's exactly why Pompy were able to sign the players in the first place and how they persuaded clubs to keep doing so. They always had money 'just around the corner' or were 'rearranging their finances'. If you're an equally cash strapped club (like Watford were at the time of the Smith deal) you're going to take a gamble.

On top of that the current financial rules mean that the 'football family' would get priority in getting their money back so clubs were more inclined to take a gamble that they at the very worst would stay solvent enough to cough up a high proportion of cash.