TRANSFER NEWS: #SWFC ‘have made an approach’ for fast-emerging Sunderland talent

[Treborowl]

5 hours ago, BC1867 said:

 

A slightly disingenuous point, but well made.

 

to my mind it's a fair and reasonable point

[RichSheffWeds]

19 hours ago, Walt said:

I have no interest in the accounts or FFP, I wouldn’t pretend to know any different or speculate on something that I don’t know anything about. You may well be bang on the money regarding FFP but all I know is that as a fanbase we were presented with two options for the way forward next season and neither mentioned FFP.

We apparently chose “Extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion” that in no way (in my book) equates to offloading big earners and signing Bosnans, If we wanted that we would have voted for option 11.

You say it doesn’t matter what the survey said, well it obviously does to me

 

 

When the FFP loss limit is £39m over 3 seasons and we are losing £20m a season, it doesn't need an expert view to realise we have a big problem.

 

No easy way to solve the problem other than to sell a player or two to sort the losses. Selling the stadium naming rights to one of the chairman's business interests might get us out of the sh!t.

 

That doesn't mean fans have been shafted by higher prices - it means the strategy of going for it over the last 2 years has failed so far.

 

[Walt]

20 minutes ago, RichSheffWeds said:

 

When the FFP loss limit is £39m over 3 seasons and we are losing £20m a season, it doesn't need an expert view to realise we have a big problem.

 

No easy way to solve the problem other than to sell a player or two to sort the losses. Selling the stadium naming rights to one of the chairman's business interests might get us out of the sh!t.

 

That doesn't mean fans have been shafted by higher prices - it means the strategy of going for it over the last 2 years has failed so far.

 

Again you are talking about FFP and you may well be right in your assumptions, that may be the actual reality of the situation...like I say I couldn't care less on such issues.

 

The fact of the matter is we as fans were asked on the way forward next season - we had two options to choose from and neither involved FFP. What you are saying is that apart from selling the stadium rights we have to more or less go down the option 11 route, but still pay the higher ticket prices, that for me represents a shafting. We did not vote for that, we voted for option 12 which in no way reads as selling our best players to makes ends meet, quite the opposite in my view.

 

BTW. I've no issue with selling players, they can sell who they want for me so long as it benefits us in either making the team stronger or keeps us sustainable as a club. Just be upfront about it.

 

[RichSheffWeds]

29 minutes ago, Walt said:

Again you are talking about FFP and you may well be right in your assumptions, that may be the actual reality of the situation...like I say I couldn't care less on such issues.

 

The fact of the matter is we as fans were asked on the way forward next season - we had two options to choose from and neither involved FFP. What you are saying is that apart from selling the stadium rights we have to more or less go down the option 11 route, but still pay the higher ticket prices, that for me represents a shafting. We did not vote for that, we voted for option 12 which in no way reads as selling our best players to makes ends meet, quite the opposite in my view.

 

BTW. I've no issue with selling players, they can sell who they want for me so long as it benefits us in either making the team stronger or keeps us sustainable as a club. Just be upfront about it.

 

We perhaps agree that the questionnaire is too simplistic and doesn't reflect all the circumstances we face.

 

What is does make clear is that if the club reduces ticket prices etc then the budget would definitely be hit and we would have to cut our cloth. The club would probably agree this is a reasonable question when taken in isolation.

 

What it doesn't make clear is the overall other conditions/circumstances effecting the budget.

 

Like I say, higher prices for us and selling players doesn't necessarily mean we have been shafted - just that the money spent has been wasted/not achieved the objective of promotion.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by RichSheffWeds

[Walt]

33 minutes ago, RichSheffWeds said:

We perhaps agree that the questionnaire is too simplistic and doesn't reflect all the circumstances we face.

 

What is does make clear is that if the club reduces ticket prices etc then the budget would definitely be hit and we would have to cut our cloth. The club would probably agree this is a reasonable question when taken in isolation.

 

What it doesn't make clear is the overall other conditions/circumstances effecting the budget.

 

Like I say, higher prices for us and selling players doesn't necessarily mean we have been shafted - just that the money spent has been wasted/not achieved the objective of promotion.

 

 

Agree 100% apart from the text in bold. You can not get away from the club statement Extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion. This applies to next season, not what has happened in the past, not what has been spent on trying to achieve promotion. We continue to pay the higher prices but the club now (potentially ?) sells it's best players...it may well be the reality of the situation and the consequences of our previous spending but that wasn't the deal that was explained to me in questions 11 & 12.

 

[Ante's Bubbly]

On 24/04/2018 at 16:50, striker said:

It's a question of perspective  5ft 7 is tall to Jos 

 

Yeah he wants somebody he can talk down to. 

[Birley Owl 1867]

1 hour ago, Walt said:

Agree 100% apart from the text in bold. You can not get away from the club statement Extend our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion. This applies to next season, not what has happened in the past, not what has been spent on trying to achieve promotion. We continue to pay the higher prices but the club now (potentially ?) sells it's best players...it may well be the reality of the situation and the consequences of our previous spending but that wasn't the deal that was explained to me in questions 11 & 12.

 

Why not? its still a strategy geared towards promotion

[Ante's Bubbly]

I've got nothing against shorter players as long as they are good enough in this division (and hopefully beyond), but having a midfield that looks like it has been signed en masse from Hobbiton is not really a good idea when they are going to be asked to play against the taller stronger type of midfield players that have already steamrollered our Hobbits on too many occasions, due to their height and strength advantage. Not trying to be funny but to last a match out against six footers, these little players have to run a lot faster in proportion to their height, just to keep up.

 

I am not saying we need no little players in midfield, just that a good mix is required, rather than just playing tall strapping midfielders, or just playing smaller petit players. For players with similar football skill levels, a mixture of height, strength, agility (mental and physical), speed, stamina is essential and is usually achieved by using a mixture of physically different players. If we are going to play with an up-tempo flexible style, as described already then surely this type of team will not consist only of players who look as though they have landed in the "Land of the Giants".

[Walt]

1 hour ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

Why not? its still a strategy geared towards promotion

Let's be clear on this:  We continue to pay the higher prices but the club now (potentially ?) sells it's best players. That is what you're saying is Extending our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion?

This would be a total u turn on our current policy of not selling our best players. I think even Alastair Cambell would have trouble spinning the above.

[Sticky belly]

3 minutes ago, Walt said:

Let's be clear on this:  We continue to pay the higher prices but the club now (potentially ?) sells it's best players. That is what you're saying is Extending our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion?

This would be a total u turn on our current policy of not selling our best players. I think even Alastair Cambell would have trouble spinning the above.

 

Suppose it means different things to  different people. But to me 'Extending our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion' means keeping your best players and adding quality players to that group 

[Hookowl]

2 minutes ago, Walt said:

Let's be clear on this:  We continue to pay the higher prices but the club now (potentially ?) sells it's best players. That is what you're saying is Extending our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion?

This would be a total u turn on our current policy of not selling our best players. I think even Alastair Cambell would have trouble spinning the above.

 

The thing is:-

1 No players have been named who are to be sold yet.

2 If players are to be sold will they be regarded by Jos as his best players ?

3 If players are sold will they be replaced by what Jos considers to be better players ?

[Walt]

26 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

The thing is:-

1 No players have been named who are to be sold yet.

2 If players are to be sold will they be regarded by Jos as his best players ?

3 If players are sold will they be replaced by what Jos considers to be better players ?

Which is true, and is of now hypothetical but it also veers away from fundamental point of the discussion with Rich Sheff Weds.  

 

[Birley Owl 1867]

58 minutes ago, Walt said:

Let's be clear on this:  We continue to pay the higher prices but the club now (potentially ?) sells it's best players. That is what you're saying is Extending our ongoing strategy geared towards promotion?

This would be a total u turn on our current policy of not selling our best players. I think even Alastair Cambell would have trouble spinning the above.

To me, it means well be continuing with the same side without selling anyone, as well as not spending too much cash. Any signings will be free transfer or loans. To me that's not breaking the policy in the question.

[Walt]

42 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said:

To me, it means well be continuing with the same side without selling anyone, as well as not spending too much cash. Any signings will be free transfer or loans. To me that's not breaking the policy in the question.

Which is a totally different scenario to the one me and Rich Sheff Weds were talking about.

[Guest ka58]

Just watching Sunderland - honeyman looks tidy enough.

mcnair would be great for us.

 

 

[mike312]

11 minutes ago, ka58 said:

Just watching Sunderland - honeyman looks tidy enough.

mcnair would be great for us.

 

 

The lad that scored looks more like what we need, tricky winger even before he scored.

[Hougoumont]

Not been impressed by Honeyman tonight. Very ordinary.

[S36 OWL]

45 minutes ago, Hougoumont said:

Not been impressed by Honeyman tonight. Very ordinary.

 

Watched the game and kept an eye on him . probably not his best game , but to be fair he didnt see much of the ball. 

[cognacbarnowl]

2 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Watched the game and kept an eye on him . probably not his best game , but to be fair he didnt see much of the ball. 

 

 

That's all we need. Another player with an Abdi eye injury  

 

 

FFS

[legendaryswan]

Hes not what we need,we need some height and muscle in MF,fake news,not many players in that squad youd wanna buy at any price to be fair its a mess up there,but everyone bar their board saw this comming,westbrom or stoke could quite easily be the next,not that the top6 in the prem could care a throw.

English footballs run by 6 clubs,needs to change and QUICK

Edited April 27, 2018 by legendaryswan