Rhodes To Celtic

[i used to be sc_owl]

Nothing surprises me anymore with our club. Nothing. 
 

I have no idea if this is true, but it’s believable with what we’ve experienced in the last few years. 

[james o connor]

1 hour ago, pazowl55 said:

Perhaps we needed the 1m fee or we would have been worse off in terms of FFP for this season. In regards to what we owe Boro for him.

 

We are stupid. But are we that stupid. Clearly Monk would have said he wasnt going to play what with all the strikers we signed.

 

I just think before we all have another pop at the club. We should probably know all the facts.

 

Agreed In principle , but chansiri really is that stupid 

[pazowl55]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

Nothing in the sort they pay his wages we are better off. DC has no business sense and clearly does not communicate with Monk.

 

And saving is a saving.

 

DC asks for loan fees, he asks for silly transfer fees all that happens we sell no players, they sit in the stands never playing on silly money, then we break the losses and the only losers are the fans.

It says all agreed then, we asked for a 1m loan fee. So to me that says someone has reminded him of the loss we make on Rhodes if he leaves on the cheap. Or they thought ok he is out the door then thought why should we post a loss on him this season when we can keep him and be better off.

 

There are players here where Monk would have said to Chansiri, look they aren't in my plans get what you can for them. Rhodes, Winnall and as we have now learnt Westwood. Surprisingly enough all the players linked with moves away.  So unless the offers were look we want theses players for free or for next to nothing then there is no reason to say no and get money in when we need it.

[JackSWFC]

“According to a report from HITC...”

 

I stopped reading the article at that point, don’t think they’ve ever had a story come true.

[Blue and white]

6 minutes ago, JackSWFC said:

“According to a report from HITC...”

 

I stopped reading the article at that point, don’t think they’ve ever had a story come true.

Good for you fella.

Sadly it's not just HITC that's reported it.

There have been the same rumours with Westwood and Winnall, then there was the incident when we turned down an offer from Norwich who publicly came out and said it how it was.

It's not like we haven't got form for it.

[edinburghowl]

Doubtful. I don’t see how or where he would have got in Celtic’s team. No way would they be paying his full wages for him to sit on the bench either.

[Brommers]

19 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

It says all agreed then, we asked for a 1m loan fee. So to me that says someone has reminded him of the loss we make on Rhodes if he leaves on the cheap. Or they thought ok he is out the door then thought why should we post a loss on him this season when we can keep him and be better off.

 

There are players here where Monk would have said to Chansiri, look they aren't in my plans get what you can for them. Rhodes, Winnall and as we have now learnt Westwood. Surprisingly enough all the players linked with moves away.  So unless the offers were look we want theses players for free or for next to nothing then there is no reason to say no and get money in when we need it.

Do you know the difference between a loan and a sale?

[pazowl55]

13 minutes ago, Brommers said:

Do you know the difference between a loan and a sale?

Still the same in regards to FFP for that season though is it not.

[bobness]

2 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Perhaps we needed the 1m fee or we would have been worse off in terms of FFP for this season. In regards to what we owe Boro for him.

 

We are stupid. But are we that stupid. Clearly Monk would have said he wasnt going to play what with all the strikers we signed.

 

I just think before we all have another pop at the club. We should probably know all the facts.

 

 

Assuming the story is true, it suggests the fee was brought up at the last minute. If we knew we needed it, but decided to bring it up only at the last minute, it's not going to win us many friends, and may even prevent other clubs from  bothering to make offers. 

 

It's been mentioned many times on here that we cannot cut our losses on players because it harms our FFP standing. But if we were that on top of things, how the bloody hell did we sell the stadium in the wrong year? 

 

Unfortunately everything about this club stinks of ineptitude. Yes, we don't have all the facts, but I think we've seen enough to be sick of hearing excuses. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by bobness

[pazowl55]

3 minutes ago, bobness said:

 

Assuming the story is true, it suggests the fee was brought up at the last minute. If we knew we needed it, but decided to bring it up only at the last minute, it's not going to win you many friends, and may even prevent other clubs from  bothering to make offers. 

 

It's been mentioned many times on here that we cannot cut our losses on players because it harms our FFP standing. But if we were that on top of things, how the bloody hell did we sell the stadium in the wrong year? 

 

Unfortunately everything about this club stinks of ineptitude. Yes, we don't have all the facts, but I think we've seen enough to be sick of hearing excuses. 

Couldn't agree more. But to have the full wages of a player not going to play for us again, big wages at that of the books. Then to move the goal posts at the last minute just doesn't add up to me.

[S36 OWL]

Westwood

Hutchinson

Rhodes

Winnall 

 

Thats a lot of money sat in the stands every week doing nothing. 

[bobness]

3 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Couldn't agree more. But to have the full wages of a player not going to play for us again, big wages at that of the books. Then to move the goal posts at the last minute just doesn't add up to me.

I'm not convinced by the story either, but didn't something similar happen in the summer with Norwich? Although I can't recall if they only agreed to cover a portion of his salary. 

[TomtheOwl95]

Very much doubt the loan fee was a last minute thing. Deals just don't work like that.

 

I think there probably is some truth in the story but it won't be as cut and dry as Chansiri asking for a loan fee at the last minute, there will have been negotiations going on for a while. I think the bigger question is probably is it worth having a player not playing who is on decent money rather than allowing him to go out on loan with his wages paid. I'd argue we were probably in a bit of a lose/lose scenario either way.

[Holmowl]

5 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

Westwood

Hutchinson

Rhodes

Winnall 

 

Thats a lot of money sat in the stands every week doing nothing. 

 

TBF if they sit in the South Stand and pay our prices that’s quite an income stream. 

[pazowl55]

11 minutes ago, bobness said:

I'm not convinced by the story either, but didn't something similar happen in the summer with Norwich? Although I can't recall if they only agreed to cover a portion of his salary. 

Something similar apparently. But again. we only know what they want us to hear not what actually might have gone on.

 

His whole reign here Chansiri has supposedly turned down money left right and centre for players he knows wont kick a ball. Seemingly preferring to pay the wages himself. So what he can still say hello to them every day.

I dont believe half the we had all the wages covered and a 2m loan fee or whatever but Chansiri wanted 10m. 

None of it makes sense. 

[Groundhopping Owl]

1 hour ago, SiJ said:

It wouldn't surprise me if in his warped little world that even having to sell a player (particularly an expensive one) is an admission of failure that he is simply unwilling to accept. 

 

You know, because he bought these players, then they have to be good. 

 

Could be a load of rubbish, but the word crackpot springs to mind. 

When DC stopped Forestieri going to Derby we praised it as showing strength/ambition, but there was the sense that Derby could have offered £100m and we’d have still turned it down. We must have sold the least players of anyone in the championship by a mile. Stevie May, Hunt, Joao and Thorniley are the only ones I can think of since DC took over.
 

There’s just a lack of business sense across the whole club.

[bobness]

there is one undeniable fact regardless of the nuances surrounding these stories: we have been unable to shift players. 

 

Whatever the causes might be, it ultimately boils down to Chansiri. Only an idiot would ignore an obvious pattern

[bobness]

31 minutes ago, TomtheOwl95 said:

Very much doubt the loan fee was a last minute thing. Deals just don't work like that.

 

I think there probably is some truth in the story but it won't be as cut and dry as Chansiri asking for a loan fee at the last minute, there will have been negotiations going on for a while. I think the bigger question is probably is it worth having a player not playing who is on decent money rather than allowing him to go out on loan with his wages paid. I'd argue we were probably in a bit of a lose/lose scenario either way.

 

It can't be healthy for a team's morale to have dead weight hanging about.

 

Cutting losses is about accepting the facts and making a sometimes difficult decision for the greater good. 

[TomtheOwl95]

4 minutes ago, bobness said:

 

It can't be healthy for a team's morale to have dead weight hanging about.

 

Cutting losses is about accepting the facts and making a sometimes difficult decision for the greater good. 

Without being on the inside I don't think anyone can really say. I don't see Rhodes as being a bad influence on the team personally. I accept and do agree with the point about accepting sometimes you have to cut your losses but I can see why maybe we didn't let him go. Feel the whole thread was set up as a bit of a dig at Chansiri regardless of how true the story was.

[Dick_Turpin]

4 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Perhaps we needed the 1m fee or we would have been worse off in terms of FFP for this season. In regards to what we owe Boro for him.

 

We are stupid. But are we that stupid. Clearly Monk would have said he wasnt going to play what with all the strikers we signed.

 

I just think before we all have another pop at the club. We should probably know all the facts.

 

Surely the amortisation of the original Rhodes transfer fee shouldn’t be affected by loaning him out. He costs the P&L account £2m a year - assuming he was on a 4 year contract and cost £8m - regardless.

 

Acceleration of that cost only happens if we sell him for less than the amount we haven’t already amortised. Next year we can give him away and the net effect is nil as he will cost us £2m when it comes to FFP anyway - plus we’ll save on his wages.