Trio of clubs eye up Thompson brothers

The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald: Louis (left) and Nathan Thompson are attracting significant interest from across the Football League Louis (left) and Nathan Thompson are attracting significant interest from across the Football League

SWINDON Town look to have a battle on their hands to keep Nathan and Louis Thompson, with Wolves the latest club to show an interest in one or both of the two brothers.

The Advertiser understands the Molineux outfit are keeping a keen eye on Louis, 19, who enjoyed a breakthrough season with Town in 2013/14, though no formal approach has been made to Town. The midfielder made 35 appearances for the Robins as they finished eighth in League One, scoring two goals, and has also been the subject of interest from Leeds United this summer.

The Yorkshire club, now managed by former Swindon player Dave Hockaday, who spent much of last term watching the two Thompsons in his capacity as a summariser on local radio, are believed to be putting together an offer for both Louis and his brother Nathan - Town’s captain, who was the subject of a reported bid from Peterborough United yesterday.

BBC Wiltshire suggested that Swindon turned down an offer of £200,000 for the defender, though the Advertiser understands no formal bid was submitted by Posh, who are believed to have made a tentative enquiry about the full-back’s potential availability and cost.

Peterborough are on the look-out for a right-back after Mark Little joined Bristol City and Craig Alcock rejected a new contract offer with the London Road club. The Adver first reported the League One side’s interest in Thompson seven days ago.

Last week, Swindon manager Mark Cooper stressed that Thompson remains a major part of his plans this season and only a significant cash offer would prise him away from Wiltshire.

“I think it would take an awful lot of money. I wouldn’t see the benefit of selling him to a team in our league or a rival for a couple of hundred grand. I don’t see the benefit in that, and I know Lee (Power) will say the same,” he said.

“I don’t think going to another League One club would really benefit Nathan, unless it was Sheffield United or someone like that. But they still have to come up with the money.”

Comments (74)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:39am Thu 17 Jul 14

Swindonfan says...

Great players, we will be lucky to jeep them both, I don't want us to lose them
Great players, we will be lucky to jeep them both, I don't want us to lose them Swindonfan
  • Score: 8

5:40am Thu 17 Jul 14

Swindonfan says...

Oops meat to say Keep them both, and not jeep sorry
Oops meat to say Keep them both, and not jeep sorry Swindonfan
  • Score: 4

5:41am Thu 17 Jul 14

Swindonfan says...

Not a good morning, Meant!!!!!!!!!!!! and not meat
Not a good morning, Meant!!!!!!!!!!!! and not meat Swindonfan
  • Score: 4

5:57am Thu 17 Jul 14

RogerJ1969 says...

Swindonfan wrote:
Great players, we will be lucky to jeep them both, I don't want us to lose them
Don't let them get in a jeep, they might not come back
[quote][p][bold]Swindonfan[/bold] wrote: Great players, we will be lucky to jeep them both, I don't want us to lose them[/p][/quote]Don't let them get in a jeep, they might not come back RogerJ1969
  • Score: 7

6:20am Thu 17 Jul 14

port de soller says...

Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC
Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC port de soller
  • Score: 0

6:44am Thu 17 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

"Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye"
Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers!
"Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye" Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers! The Jockster
  • Score: -46

6:59am Thu 17 Jul 14

Chish and Fips says...

The Jockster wrote:
"Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye"
Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers!
Morning Jock - see you are your usual cheerful, full of the joys of spring self this morning..... :o)

I have a feeling Wilma may be a surprise for us doubters this season. So if he is our last man standing .......who knows.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: "Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye" Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers![/p][/quote]Morning Jock - see you are your usual cheerful, full of the joys of spring self this morning..... :o) I have a feeling Wilma may be a surprise for us doubters this season. So if he is our last man standing .......who knows. Chish and Fips
  • Score: 6

7:11am Thu 17 Jul 14

EastleazeRed says...

The Jockster wrote:
"Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye"
Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers!
Exactly my sentiments , bet they all go for an undisclosed fee as well .
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: "Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye" Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers![/p][/quote]Exactly my sentiments , bet they all go for an undisclosed fee as well . EastleazeRed
  • Score: -13

7:18am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

port de soller wrote:
Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC
Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.
[quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC[/p][/quote]Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions. Oi Den!
  • Score: -4

7:18am Thu 17 Jul 14

the wizard says...

Although most don't want to see these guys go Power will make his decision and sentiment will count for very little, and we should all know that by now. I don't think Nathan is the player that many see him as. Last season he was slow and ill disciplined by comparison of the season before. That brought about too many late tackles, back chat to the ref, and a raft of cards that brought about suspensions, or are folk forgetting that. Louis will go on to be the better player. If we can keep them and get a promotion then all well and good . I don't envy Power and he has to make decisions to keep the club afloat, which will always clash with the aspirations of many . Last season was better than most dared hope for and we ended up finishing with some respectability intact. I suspect it will be the same this season. If these players go, then I wish them luck, but they are not irreplaceable as we have seen in the years gone by, players come and go, its to be expected. Before they do go, they need to ask themselves though, what role will they have at their new club, team player, or bench warmer, and what prospect for the future does that club have ?
Although most don't want to see these guys go Power will make his decision and sentiment will count for very little, and we should all know that by now. I don't think Nathan is the player that many see him as. Last season he was slow and ill disciplined by comparison of the season before. That brought about too many late tackles, back chat to the ref, and a raft of cards that brought about suspensions, or are folk forgetting that. Louis will go on to be the better player. If we can keep them and get a promotion then all well and good . I don't envy Power and he has to make decisions to keep the club afloat, which will always clash with the aspirations of many . Last season was better than most dared hope for and we ended up finishing with some respectability intact. I suspect it will be the same this season. If these players go, then I wish them luck, but they are not irreplaceable as we have seen in the years gone by, players come and go, its to be expected. Before they do go, they need to ask themselves though, what role will they have at their new club, team player, or bench warmer, and what prospect for the future does that club have ? the wizard
  • Score: 23

7:52am Thu 17 Jul 14

Wilesy says...

4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed? Wilesy
  • Score: 0

7:54am Thu 17 Jul 14

Chish and Fips says...

Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
is that Don Rogers Wilesy ? :o) (Rodgers)
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]is that Don Rogers Wilesy ? :o) (Rodgers) Chish and Fips
  • Score: 0

7:57am Thu 17 Jul 14

Chish and Fips says...

Oi Den! wrote:
port de soller wrote:
Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC
Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.
I think seeing the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of having a large investor - the Bad and the Ugly has stuck in peoples minds more.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC[/p][/quote]Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.[/p][/quote]I think seeing the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of having a large investor - the Bad and the Ugly has stuck in peoples minds more. Chish and Fips
  • Score: -1

8:14am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

What was so good about the Balck era then Den?
.
When that consortium arrived we were in L1 on the brink of liquidation and when they left we were in L1 on the brink of liquidation!
.
Also during those 5 years we saw some shocking managers hired - Malpas and Hart
.
We saw the worst season in STFC history EVER with a 19 game winless run and relegation to L2 finishing bottom behind a team deducted 10 points!
.
You also see to gloss over he pulled out halfway through a season leading to the best player in L1 being given away for peanuts, wage bill we couldn't pay and have is to a crook who started stealing from a bankrupt club!
.
Yeah they were really good times for STFC when you look back on it!
.
Power has pumped as much into STFC as Black (and all the others who get forgot) if you extrapolate it out over 5 years - he is just ensuring that doesn't have to continue so Jan 2013 never happens again!
.
Some off us have used history to see what actually happen and would rather have a club to support than loads of money thrown at achieving nothing!!!!
What was so good about the Balck era then Den? . When that consortium arrived we were in L1 on the brink of liquidation and when they left we were in L1 on the brink of liquidation! . Also during those 5 years we saw some shocking managers hired - Malpas and Hart . We saw the worst season in STFC history EVER with a 19 game winless run and relegation to L2 finishing bottom behind a team deducted 10 points! . You also see to gloss over he pulled out halfway through a season leading to the best player in L1 being given away for peanuts, wage bill we couldn't pay and have is to a crook who started stealing from a bankrupt club! . Yeah they were really good times for STFC when you look back on it! . Power has pumped as much into STFC as Black (and all the others who get forgot) if you extrapolate it out over 5 years - he is just ensuring that doesn't have to continue so Jan 2013 never happens again! . Some off us have used history to see what actually happen and would rather have a club to support than loads of money thrown at achieving nothing!!!! London Red
  • Score: 30

8:31am Thu 17 Jul 14

Longtime Red says...

Personally I have a sneaking suspicion that Leeds will be where the Thompson's end up. There seemed be a hastily arranged friendly match with them, then the very next day there were rumours of Leeds interest in the twins. I hope I am proved to be wrong, but I suspect not.
Personally I have a sneaking suspicion that Leeds will be where the Thompson's end up. There seemed be a hastily arranged friendly match with them, then the very next day there were rumours of Leeds interest in the twins. I hope I am proved to be wrong, but I suspect not. Longtime Red
  • Score: 7

8:41am Thu 17 Jul 14

ciclosporindorset says...

Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
[quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter? ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 0

8:43am Thu 17 Jul 14

the don69 says...

Oi Den! wrote:
port de soller wrote:
Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC
Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.
We just stood still with Blacks millions, went down, came back up, allowed PDC to just blow it all, Bristol City have blown far more, it's how that money is used that matters, Bornmuff have used the Rusky's money well so far and are doing really well for a poxy little club, but the point is if you have management that just waste millions (like we did) it's pointless having it!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC[/p][/quote]Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.[/p][/quote]We just stood still with Blacks millions, went down, came back up, allowed PDC to just blow it all, Bristol City have blown far more, it's how that money is used that matters, Bornmuff have used the Rusky's money well so far and are doing really well for a poxy little club, but the point is if you have management that just waste millions (like we did) it's pointless having it!!!!!!!! the don69
  • Score: 6

9:04am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

ciclosporindorset (quote thingy doesn't work on my computer for some reason) it was on Sam's Twitter last night and said would be online at 06:30 today
.
He said he would let us guess at who they are - which implies we should know at least 2 - Stephens and Smith - I'm guessing
ciclosporindorset (quote thingy doesn't work on my computer for some reason) it was on Sam's Twitter last night and said would be online at 06:30 today . He said he would let us guess at who they are - which implies we should know at least 2 - Stephens and Smith - I'm guessing London Red
  • Score: 1

9:10am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

As for the actual article Wolves interest in Nathan at least is not new - I posted yesterday that they had been scouting him for a while as they see him as the long term rfeplacement for Ricketts - the only RB I thought was better than Nathan in L1!
.
If they do make a move we should ensure they include Jake Cassidy in any deal
As for the actual article Wolves interest in Nathan at least is not new - I posted yesterday that they had been scouting him for a while as they see him as the long term rfeplacement for Ricketts - the only RB I thought was better than Nathan in L1! . If they do make a move we should ensure they include Jake Cassidy in any deal London Red
  • Score: -4

9:24am Thu 17 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
[quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely? The Jockster
  • Score: -2

9:41am Thu 17 Jul 14

STFC Boyo says...

Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players.
Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players. STFC Boyo
  • Score: 0

9:41am Thu 17 Jul 14

STFC Boyo says...

Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players.
Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players. STFC Boyo
  • Score: 0

9:41am Thu 17 Jul 14

STFC Boyo says...

Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players.
Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players. STFC Boyo
  • Score: 0

9:47am Thu 17 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

STFC Boyo wrote:
Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players.
I think you made your point the 1st time!
[quote][p][bold]STFC Boyo[/bold] wrote: Let's not let them go.They are great players & I think we will really need them this season.They talk about helping the club by getting your season tickets but they don't help the fans by selling our best players.[/p][/quote]I think you made your point the 1st time! The Jockster
  • Score: 1

10:00am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

If people genuinely would not welcome a new generous investor (not necessarily to replace Power) fair enough. Keep your fingers crossed and hope it doesn't happen then you won't have to worry about it the club being in a stronger bargaining position. I have a different view

Nobody ever said things were perfect under the Black regime and nobody ever said money guarantees success. But the money itself didn't cause problems. It was the way it was handled, enthusiastically encouraged by many. Despite the overall lack of success on the pitch under the Black regime, let's not forget that they wiped out £10m of debt and left the club in a far better financial state than when they acquired it.
If people genuinely would not welcome a new generous investor (not necessarily to replace Power) fair enough. Keep your fingers crossed and hope it doesn't happen then you won't have to worry about it the club being in a stronger bargaining position. I have a different view Nobody ever said things were perfect under the Black regime and nobody ever said money guarantees success. But the money itself didn't cause problems. It was the way it was handled, enthusiastically encouraged by many. Despite the overall lack of success on the pitch under the Black regime, let's not forget that they wiped out £10m of debt and left the club in a far better financial state than when they acquired it. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

10:01am Thu 17 Jul 14

Cleuso says...

EastleazeRed wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
"Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye"
Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers!
Exactly my sentiments , bet they all go for an undisclosed fee as well .
Got to be undisclosed otherwise when you try to sign replacements then the price goes up as the selling club thinks" you now have oodles of cash to wave about having got xxx and yyy for this player or that and you end up paying over the odds.

It's all about business and trying to make/get the most from your position rather than the secrecy of a conspiracy theory
[quote][p][bold]EastleazeRed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: "Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye" Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers![/p][/quote]Exactly my sentiments , bet they all go for an undisclosed fee as well .[/p][/quote]Got to be undisclosed otherwise when you try to sign replacements then the price goes up as the selling club thinks" you now have oodles of cash to wave about having got xxx and yyy for this player or that and you end up paying over the odds. It's all about business and trying to make/get the most from your position rather than the secrecy of a conspiracy theory Cleuso
  • Score: 1

10:03am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

PS LR, see my post on the Luongo thread.
PS LR, see my post on the Luongo thread. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

10:08am Thu 17 Jul 14

ciclosporindorset says...

The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
The Twitter account of whom!!!!
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]The Twitter account of whom!!!! ciclosporindorset
  • Score: 1

10:22am Thu 17 Jul 14

South Stand says...

The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
Back to school.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]Back to school. South Stand
  • Score: 0

10:22am Thu 17 Jul 14

glenda hoddle says...

Looks like town are going to need to sell at least one player. SELL N. THOMPSON HES NOT A LOSS .
Looks like town are going to need to sell at least one player. SELL N. THOMPSON HES NOT A LOSS . glenda hoddle
  • Score: -7

10:34am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

South Stand wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
Back to school.
And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.
[quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]Back to school.[/p][/quote]And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

10:51am Thu 17 Jul 14

South Stand says...

Oi Den! wrote:
South Stand wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
Back to school.
And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.
Yes Den, that's what I meant. It's Jock who needs to go back to school.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]Back to school.[/p][/quote]And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.[/p][/quote]Yes Den, that's what I meant. It's Jock who needs to go back to school. South Stand
  • Score: -1

10:55am Thu 17 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

Oi Den! wrote:
South Stand wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
Back to school.
And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.
Open to interpretation Den. As you say Ciclo is correct as he clarified he meant the twitter account of whom. But it can also be read as asking the question "who or what is Twitter " can it not?
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]Back to school.[/p][/quote]And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.[/p][/quote]Open to interpretation Den. As you say Ciclo is correct as he clarified he meant the twitter account of whom. But it can also be read as asking the question "who or what is Twitter " can it not? The Jockster
  • Score: -1

11:01am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

The Jockster wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
South Stand wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
Back to school.
And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.
Open to interpretation Den. As you say Ciclo is correct as he clarified he meant the twitter account of whom. But it can also be read as asking the question "who or what is Twitter " can it not?
Haha! Just having a bit of fun at your expense. Your interpretation did cross my mind but I wasn't going to let that get in the way of a little pi55 take!
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]Back to school.[/p][/quote]And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.[/p][/quote]Open to interpretation Den. As you say Ciclo is correct as he clarified he meant the twitter account of whom. But it can also be read as asking the question "who or what is Twitter " can it not?[/p][/quote]Haha! Just having a bit of fun at your expense. Your interpretation did cross my mind but I wasn't going to let that get in the way of a little pi55 take! Oi Den!
  • Score: -2

11:14am Thu 17 Jul 14

South Stand says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
South Stand wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
ciclosporindorset wrote:
Wilesy wrote:
4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints!

Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?
Whose Twitter?
Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?
Back to school.
And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.
Open to interpretation Den. As you say Ciclo is correct as he clarified he meant the twitter account of whom. But it can also be read as asking the question "who or what is Twitter " can it not?
Haha! Just having a bit of fun at your expense. Your interpretation did cross my mind but I wasn't going to let that get in the way of a little pi55 take!
Yes, I was the same. 100 lines for starting a sentence with 'and' by the way. BUT I know they don't give lines any more.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]South Stand[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ciclosporindorset[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wilesy[/bold] wrote: 4 Prem loans possibly on their way according to Twitter. We could do with some centre halves in particular before playing Saints! Sounds like Rogers has signed, is that confirmed?[/p][/quote]Whose Twitter?[/p][/quote]Tut tut Ciclo "who's twitter" surely?[/p][/quote]Back to school.[/p][/quote]And ciclo was right first time anyway! And I know I shouldn't start a sentence with "And"! Oh b*gger - done it again.[/p][/quote]Open to interpretation Den. As you say Ciclo is correct as he clarified he meant the twitter account of whom. But it can also be read as asking the question "who or what is Twitter " can it not?[/p][/quote]Haha! Just having a bit of fun at your expense. Your interpretation did cross my mind but I wasn't going to let that get in the way of a little pi55 take![/p][/quote]Yes, I was the same. 100 lines for starting a sentence with 'and' by the way. BUT I know they don't give lines any more. South Stand
  • Score: -1

11:22am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

Sorry, but just to clarify my point on the debate about a wealthy investor. I've never said we should throw loads of money at it, as implied by LR. I was one of a group urging caution when Black's money was being chucked around willy nilly. My argument has always been that having money should give us the ability to buy the right players at the right price and to sell at the right price. I don't see why everyone assumes the club will make another c0ck-up of it if we find ourselves with substantial backing again.
Sorry, but just to clarify my point on the debate about a wealthy investor. I've never said we should throw loads of money at it, as implied by LR. I was one of a group urging caution when Black's money was being chucked around willy nilly. My argument has always been that having money should give us the ability to buy the right players at the right price and to sell at the right price. I don't see why everyone assumes the club will make another c0ck-up of it if we find ourselves with substantial backing again. Oi Den!
  • Score: -2

11:33am Thu 17 Jul 14

Wilesy says...

Just for those interested in statistics, assuming Ward and Harley go we will have lost almost 2000 of the almost 3000 league games of experience from the players we had on the books last season

Of the ~1000 left Williams leads the way on 311, then Wes on 140, no-one else has over 100, Nathan T next on 75. This is not surprising when you look at the age of the players.

Personally I think that's a very concerning stat, and even more concerning is there is no talk of any experienced players coming in, just Prem youngsters on loans.

'If they're good enough they're old enough' comment is fair enough but bearing in mind Cooper trotted out the 'we're a young team' excuse with regularity last season, this season it could become a club motto.

It's all well and good playing the tippy tappy on the County Ground carpet in August, but it's a whole different ball game playing physical teams on quagmires in the winter months. We got out muscled last season anyway and as I see it who other than the Thompsons is going to get stuck into a tackle?

Not being negative or saying it doesn't happen but I don't know of any sides achieving success with this extreme policy, I think it's massively flawed, although let's see how the line-up develops in the next month, I can't believe Cooper and Power won'taddress this.
Just for those interested in statistics, assuming Ward and Harley go we will have lost almost 2000 of the almost 3000 league games of experience from the players we had on the books last season Of the ~1000 left Williams leads the way on 311, then Wes on 140, no-one else has over 100, Nathan T next on 75. This is not surprising when you look at the age of the players. Personally I think that's a very concerning stat, and even more concerning is there is no talk of any experienced players coming in, just Prem youngsters on loans. 'If they're good enough they're old enough' comment is fair enough but bearing in mind Cooper trotted out the 'we're a young team' excuse with regularity last season, this season it could become a club motto. It's all well and good playing the tippy tappy on the County Ground carpet in August, but it's a whole different ball game playing physical teams on quagmires in the winter months. We got out muscled last season anyway and as I see it who other than the Thompsons is going to get stuck into a tackle? Not being negative or saying it doesn't happen but I don't know of any sides achieving success with this extreme policy, I think it's massively flawed, although let's see how the line-up develops in the next month, I can't believe Cooper and Power won'taddress this. Wilesy
  • Score: 2

11:38am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Den - you state "give us the ability to buy the right players at the right price and to sell at the right price" - is that what we are seeing now?
.
We have spent money on Byrne, Luongo and Smith so far and Power has said post the court case he will make money available for the right player
.
We have also seen Power rebuff approaches for our crown jewels and stated we will not sell unless silly money is offered
.
Now obviously money would help us or any club - but it has to be used wisely which it certainly was not before
.
Having been bitten I don't wnat us to go down the previous route and blow money trying to buy sucess
.
Now obviously we (well Me anyway) are not sayinmg we never want any investment in the club - What we want is investment to come in the form of infrastructure which will benefit the club and be there long after any custodian is!
.
I would want to see money spenty on training facilities and the academy to ensure we are able to develop and grow talent - which would become the bloodline of the club - not someones wallet being the bloodline
.
I would also like to see money invested in the stadium to improve revenue and hopefully open up other sources of income via that development
.
I would then want to see whoever invested in that have their money returned (with interest) so that when they leave the club is still there and still benefitting from it and paying for itself!
.
Ideally we would then have someone like Power in charge to ensure its main business - football - is be driven down the right path
.
The main thing is we must always be funding ourself - so if the custodian did just up and leave - anyone could come and and take over knowing the club won't go bust in a matter of weeks!
.
PS - I have also responded on the Luongo article
Den - you state "give us the ability to buy the right players at the right price and to sell at the right price" - is that what we are seeing now? . We have spent money on Byrne, Luongo and Smith so far and Power has said post the court case he will make money available for the right player . We have also seen Power rebuff approaches for our crown jewels and stated we will not sell unless silly money is offered . Now obviously money would help us or any club - but it has to be used wisely which it certainly was not before . Having been bitten I don't wnat us to go down the previous route and blow money trying to buy sucess . Now obviously we (well Me anyway) are not sayinmg we never want any investment in the club - What we want is investment to come in the form of infrastructure which will benefit the club and be there long after any custodian is! . I would want to see money spenty on training facilities and the academy to ensure we are able to develop and grow talent - which would become the bloodline of the club - not someones wallet being the bloodline . I would also like to see money invested in the stadium to improve revenue and hopefully open up other sources of income via that development . I would then want to see whoever invested in that have their money returned (with interest) so that when they leave the club is still there and still benefitting from it and paying for itself! . Ideally we would then have someone like Power in charge to ensure its main business - football - is be driven down the right path . The main thing is we must always be funding ourself - so if the custodian did just up and leave - anyone could come and and take over knowing the club won't go bust in a matter of weeks! . PS - I have also responded on the Luongo article London Red
  • Score: 7

11:50am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Wilesy - what did those 2 actually contribute last season?
.
Also were we better or worse in the last 10 games (when we were beating Preston, Sheff U and Brentford) without them?
.
Yes if we could land a few 26/27 year olds with 250 games under their belts it would be great - but they tend to cost a lot of money and until we up our revenue we simply can't afford them
.
Stephens and Pritchard showed what Prem loanees can bring to us - would you have them in the team next season or Ward and N'Guessan - I know which I would choose!
Wilesy - what did those 2 actually contribute last season? . Also were we better or worse in the last 10 games (when we were beating Preston, Sheff U and Brentford) without them? . Yes if we could land a few 26/27 year olds with 250 games under their belts it would be great - but they tend to cost a lot of money and until we up our revenue we simply can't afford them . Stephens and Pritchard showed what Prem loanees can bring to us - would you have them in the team next season or Ward and N'Guessan - I know which I would choose! London Red
  • Score: 1

11:57am Thu 17 Jul 14

mickry says...

It strikes me that, with the financial situation seemingly more stable, Town will be able to hold out for decent transfer fees if players are determined to leave for supposedly better things (Rotherham!? Peterborough!? What's the world coming to?).
Mick
It strikes me that, with the financial situation seemingly more stable, Town will be able to hold out for decent transfer fees if players are determined to leave for supposedly better things (Rotherham!? Peterborough!? What's the world coming to?). Mick mickry
  • Score: 1

12:05pm Thu 17 Jul 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

I've said it often but I really don't want us to sell Nathan or Louis. I agree totally with those that have said that Nathan's performance's dropped last year but I still see them as the heart and soul of the club. As Swindon fans they bring a whole different dynamic to the team.

I think one should realise that we may not get there immediately but by playing the youngsters, gaining them experience they will become better players together. Yes we'll have to lose the odd one or two to finance it but if we do go up in the next few years boy we will be ready.

Remaining optimistic but would rather take the cash from Mass or Wes (sacrilege but rate Belford) than from the Thompson twins........

Just my view......
I've said it often but I really don't want us to sell Nathan or Louis. I agree totally with those that have said that Nathan's performance's dropped last year but I still see them as the heart and soul of the club. As Swindon fans they bring a whole different dynamic to the team. I think one should realise that we may not get there immediately but by playing the youngsters, gaining them experience they will become better players together. Yes we'll have to lose the odd one or two to finance it but if we do go up in the next few years boy we will be ready. Remaining optimistic but would rather take the cash from Mass or Wes (sacrilege but rate Belford) than from the Thompson twins........ Just my view...... dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 2

12:32pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Wilesy says...

London Red wrote:
Wilesy - what did those 2 actually contribute last season?
.
Also were we better or worse in the last 10 games (when we were beating Preston, Sheff U and Brentford) without them?
.
Yes if we could land a few 26/27 year olds with 250 games under their belts it would be great - but they tend to cost a lot of money and until we up our revenue we simply can't afford them
.
Stephens and Pritchard showed what Prem loanees can bring to us - would you have them in the team next season or Ward and N'Guessan - I know which I would choose!
LR you've introduced ability, age, finances, individual and team performance, personal comparison and the merits of Premiership loan players as variables to my general comment which solely focused on experience.

Any team and squad obviously needs a balance of all the factors, but I think the lack of experience is a major issue, in the same way that if every player was 5ft tall we would be vulnerable in the air.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Wilesy - what did those 2 actually contribute last season? . Also were we better or worse in the last 10 games (when we were beating Preston, Sheff U and Brentford) without them? . Yes if we could land a few 26/27 year olds with 250 games under their belts it would be great - but they tend to cost a lot of money and until we up our revenue we simply can't afford them . Stephens and Pritchard showed what Prem loanees can bring to us - would you have them in the team next season or Ward and N'Guessan - I know which I would choose![/p][/quote]LR you've introduced ability, age, finances, individual and team performance, personal comparison and the merits of Premiership loan players as variables to my general comment which solely focused on experience. Any team and squad obviously needs a balance of all the factors, but I think the lack of experience is a major issue, in the same way that if every player was 5ft tall we would be vulnerable in the air. Wilesy
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Thu 17 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

Chish and Fips wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
"Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye"
Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers!
Morning Jock - see you are your usual cheerful, full of the joys of spring self this morning..... :o)

I have a feeling Wilma may be a surprise for us doubters this season. So if he is our last man standing .......who knows.
Hi Chish - up to minus 38 now -,some touchy souls about who don't recognise a wind up when they see it! :)
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: "Wish them luck as you wave them goodbye, there they go Cheerio bye bye" Watch out for increased bid for the bongo man and cue bids for The Cat and we're left with Wilma and the rest of the stragglers![/p][/quote]Morning Jock - see you are your usual cheerful, full of the joys of spring self this morning..... :o) I have a feeling Wilma may be a surprise for us doubters this season. So if he is our last man standing .......who knows.[/p][/quote]Hi Chish - up to minus 38 now -,some touchy souls about who don't recognise a wind up when they see it! :) The Jockster
  • Score: -3

1:08pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Wanborough Nosh says...

Thompson for Reckord. Swap deal with Wolves. Would I not like that.
Thompson for Reckord. Swap deal with Wolves. Would I not like that. Wanborough Nosh
  • Score: 1

1:45pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Fernham Red says...

Pritchard has signed on loan for the season with................
.





The Bees
Pritchard has signed on loan for the season with................ . The Bees Fernham Red
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Wilesy - haven't you answered you own concern in your response?
.
You can't just look at games played and say we are weaker as the team we have now has less experience than before
.
If the players in it are of a higher ability etc then less games is no issue!
.
You can't just take one factor - it has to be looked at with all factors included
Wilesy - haven't you answered you own concern in your response? . You can't just look at games played and say we are weaker as the team we have now has less experience than before . If the players in it are of a higher ability etc then less games is no issue! . You can't just take one factor - it has to be looked at with all factors included London Red
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Wilesy says...

London Red wrote:
Wilesy - haven't you answered you own concern in your response?
.
You can't just look at games played and say we are weaker as the team we have now has less experience than before
.
If the players in it are of a higher ability etc then less games is no issue!
.
You can't just take one factor - it has to be looked at with all factors included
If one factor is a major factor then yes. If all the players are 5ft tall that issue won't get absorbed by being quick or Prem quality or whatever. If one or two are then that's fine but not all.

I just happen to think the lack of experience is a major issue. You don't. That's fine!
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Wilesy - haven't you answered you own concern in your response? . You can't just look at games played and say we are weaker as the team we have now has less experience than before . If the players in it are of a higher ability etc then less games is no issue! . You can't just take one factor - it has to be looked at with all factors included[/p][/quote]If one factor is a major factor then yes. If all the players are 5ft tall that issue won't get absorbed by being quick or Prem quality or whatever. If one or two are then that's fine but not all. I just happen to think the lack of experience is a major issue. You don't. That's fine! Wilesy
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Archive Robin says...

Slightly off topic but did anyone notice that Lukas Jutkiewicz transferred to Burnley yesterday for 1.5 mill - I think we can all remember how young he was when he made his debut so young players do develop and it shows that we could, with a really decent youth academy, produce young players of our own - on a personal note I think that is where we and other clubs will have to get a lot of our future players from - just a thought that one. Apologies if the Lukas transfer has already been mentioned.


JUST FOR FUN..........

CG Lunch Update..............
.

Mr Cooper's Thursday Lunch:

Main: Cold Chicken Boviary Salad Enriched With Poppet Tomatoes (Sliced) in a Creamy Voustella Mayonaise Sauce

Dessert: Chateau Pleniumeire Iced Strawberries with Eldoriance Whipped Cream

More Menus to Follow..............
....................
....................
....
Slightly off topic but did anyone notice that Lukas Jutkiewicz transferred to Burnley yesterday for 1.5 mill - I think we can all remember how young he was when he made his debut so young players do develop and it shows that we could, with a really decent youth academy, produce young players of our own - on a personal note I think that is where we and other clubs will have to get a lot of our future players from - just a thought that one. Apologies if the Lukas transfer has already been mentioned. JUST FOR FUN.......... CG Lunch Update.............. . Mr Cooper's Thursday Lunch: Main: Cold Chicken Boviary Salad Enriched With Poppet Tomatoes (Sliced) in a Creamy Voustella Mayonaise Sauce Dessert: Chateau Pleniumeire Iced Strawberries with Eldoriance Whipped Cream More Menus to Follow.............. .................... .................... .... Archive Robin
  • Score: -2

2:13pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Davidsyrett says...

The club now need to put price on the Thommo brothers and give the clubs interested an ultimatum, pay the money or forget about any deals. I can live with them being sold (and I have a feeling they might well be, let's face it Wolves can probably offer 10 times their wages here), as long as the money is reinvested in the team, which I'm sure it will be.

What we don't want is the season to start and then the bids start coming in, as it won't give us enough time to get replacements in if their then sold.
The club now need to put price on the Thommo brothers and give the clubs interested an ultimatum, pay the money or forget about any deals. I can live with them being sold (and I have a feeling they might well be, let's face it Wolves can probably offer 10 times their wages here), as long as the money is reinvested in the team, which I'm sure it will be. What we don't want is the season to start and then the bids start coming in, as it won't give us enough time to get replacements in if their then sold. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

I don't necessarily agree as putting a price on their head as it is effectively asking for a bid - whereas simply saying no will eventually see them walk away unless they get to Power's valuation (or above if he is good at negotiating like Levy)
.
Also it could be like a buy it now on eBay - which could potentially lose you money if a bidding war broke out and was ended by the buy it now
.
Only way is if they really don't want to be sold stick a silly money value on their heads way above what you think they are worth and then if someone is prepared to pay it fine as we gain from it!
.
Say Wes £2m, Luongo £2m and the Thompson's are £1m each - if some wants to give us £6m they can have them!
.
Especially as Pritchard has a break clause so we can go and sign him ;)
I don't necessarily agree as putting a price on their head as it is effectively asking for a bid - whereas simply saying no will eventually see them walk away unless they get to Power's valuation (or above if he is good at negotiating like Levy) . Also it could be like a buy it now on eBay - which could potentially lose you money if a bidding war broke out and was ended by the buy it now . Only way is if they really don't want to be sold stick a silly money value on their heads way above what you think they are worth and then if someone is prepared to pay it fine as we gain from it! . Say Wes £2m, Luongo £2m and the Thompson's are £1m each - if some wants to give us £6m they can have them! . Especially as Pritchard has a break clause so we can go and sign him ;) London Red
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Wilesy - height is totally different to experience
.
No CB is 5ft - or if they are they are not good ones - so obviosuly we would suffer if we only had 5ft CB's
.
Same with a Keeper - who tend to be better the bigger they are
.
Othe rpositions less so as Messi is small and still one of the best in the world!
.
However - you were focussing on Experience and I proved to you that looking at that alone doesn't work - as we ended the campaign with only Jay as "experienced" - and sometimes not even him in there - and we were better than when we had Ward and Harley in it - showing you can't just look at that alone
.
It will depend on who goes in there place - if it Stephens then no it won't matter if it was De Costa - then yes it might!
.
Our core are all more expereinced now in L1 so should be better this seaosn than last - and by the sounds of it Luongo is on fire at the moment and we should have a stella campaign from him
Wilesy - height is totally different to experience . No CB is 5ft - or if they are they are not good ones - so obviosuly we would suffer if we only had 5ft CB's . Same with a Keeper - who tend to be better the bigger they are . Othe rpositions less so as Messi is small and still one of the best in the world! . However - you were focussing on Experience and I proved to you that looking at that alone doesn't work - as we ended the campaign with only Jay as "experienced" - and sometimes not even him in there - and we were better than when we had Ward and Harley in it - showing you can't just look at that alone . It will depend on who goes in there place - if it Stephens then no it won't matter if it was De Costa - then yes it might! . Our core are all more expereinced now in L1 so should be better this seaosn than last - and by the sounds of it Luongo is on fire at the moment and we should have a stella campaign from him London Red
  • Score: -1

3:09pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Oxon-Red says...

I'd like to see us keep Natalie and Louise :-)

COYMR
I'd like to see us keep Natalie and Louise :-) COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Davidsyrett says...

London Red wrote:
I don't necessarily agree as putting a price on their head as it is effectively asking for a bid - whereas simply saying no will eventually see them walk away unless they get to Power's valuation (or above if he is good at negotiating like Levy)
.
Also it could be like a buy it now on eBay - which could potentially lose you money if a bidding war broke out and was ended by the buy it now
.
Only way is if they really don't want to be sold stick a silly money value on their heads way above what you think they are worth and then if someone is prepared to pay it fine as we gain from it!
.
Say Wes £2m, Luongo £2m and the Thompson's are £1m each - if some wants to give us £6m they can have them!
.
Especially as Pritchard has a break clause so we can go and sign him ;)
Pritchard's just signed for Brentford on a season loan, unfortunately his wages are going to be far more than we can afford.

My worry is that this indecision could run on for another month, unsettling the whole team. To me Mass & Louis price would be £750K, Nathan £500K plus 25% of the sell on price. The problem is wages, all the teams interested will be able to pay them far more than we can, once the player gets tempted by a big pay packet and wants out, our negotiation's become alot more difficult.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: I don't necessarily agree as putting a price on their head as it is effectively asking for a bid - whereas simply saying no will eventually see them walk away unless they get to Power's valuation (or above if he is good at negotiating like Levy) . Also it could be like a buy it now on eBay - which could potentially lose you money if a bidding war broke out and was ended by the buy it now . Only way is if they really don't want to be sold stick a silly money value on their heads way above what you think they are worth and then if someone is prepared to pay it fine as we gain from it! . Say Wes £2m, Luongo £2m and the Thompson's are £1m each - if some wants to give us £6m they can have them! . Especially as Pritchard has a break clause so we can go and sign him ;)[/p][/quote]Pritchard's just signed for Brentford on a season loan, unfortunately his wages are going to be far more than we can afford. My worry is that this indecision could run on for another month, unsettling the whole team. To me Mass & Louis price would be £750K, Nathan £500K plus 25% of the sell on price. The problem is wages, all the teams interested will be able to pay them far more than we can, once the player gets tempted by a big pay packet and wants out, our negotiation's become alot more difficult. Davidsyrett
  • Score: 1

3:46pm Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Why would his wages necessarily be an issue? We signed Luongo and Byrne and they were both from Spurs and were even a year ahead of Pritchard - so could have been on more!
.
I know he is on a seasaon long loan - but that has a break clause in it (unlike Hall's) so Spurs could choose to cash in on him and sell him to us if we suddenly got cash from a sale
.
As for the valuations - that is more their realsitc market values - I had Wes £1m, Mass and Nathan at £750k and Louis at £500k - but that was my point - by saying that you are tempting Wolves in with a bid for one or both of the Thompson's - espeically a double deal of say £1m plus a loanee or a perm player!
.
Whereas say sill money of £1m each and they are less likely to come in with a bid - wouls wolves really hand us £2m?????
.
If we really don't want to sell like Cooper said - then we only want silly money not just market rate!
Why would his wages necessarily be an issue? We signed Luongo and Byrne and they were both from Spurs and were even a year ahead of Pritchard - so could have been on more! . I know he is on a seasaon long loan - but that has a break clause in it (unlike Hall's) so Spurs could choose to cash in on him and sell him to us if we suddenly got cash from a sale . As for the valuations - that is more their realsitc market values - I had Wes £1m, Mass and Nathan at £750k and Louis at £500k - but that was my point - by saying that you are tempting Wolves in with a bid for one or both of the Thompson's - espeically a double deal of say £1m plus a loanee or a perm player! . Whereas say sill money of £1m each and they are less likely to come in with a bid - wouls wolves really hand us £2m????? . If we really don't want to sell like Cooper said - then we only want silly money not just market rate! London Red
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Thu 17 Jul 14

lifelong red says...

In response to the above comments on the lack of experience in the present squad , well I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this until new players are brought in and the squad is fully assembled , suffice to say that my main concern at present is the lack of leadership as it stands , this quality usually comes with experience , so on that basis , yes I'm hoping some experience is introduced , it will certainly be needed on a cold wet night on a heavy pitch , as we witnessed so many times last season in which we often struggled . So its a case of, watch this space , and see what develops in the weeks ahead .
In response to the above comments on the lack of experience in the present squad , well I don't think you can draw any conclusions from this until new players are brought in and the squad is fully assembled , suffice to say that my main concern at present is the lack of leadership as it stands , this quality usually comes with experience , so on that basis , yes I'm hoping some experience is introduced , it will certainly be needed on a cold wet night on a heavy pitch , as we witnessed so many times last season in which we often struggled . So its a case of, watch this space , and see what develops in the weeks ahead . lifelong red
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Oxon-Red says...

London Red wrote:
Why would his wages necessarily be an issue? We signed Luongo and Byrne and they were both from Spurs and were even a year ahead of Pritchard - so could have been on more! . I know he is on a seasaon long loan - but that has a break clause in it (unlike Hall's) so Spurs could choose to cash in on him and sell him to us if we suddenly got cash from a sale . As for the valuations - that is more their realsitc market values - I had Wes £1m, Mass and Nathan at £750k and Louis at £500k - but that was my point - by saying that you are tempting Wolves in with a bid for one or both of the Thompson's - espeically a double deal of say £1m plus a loanee or a perm player! . Whereas say sill money of £1m each and they are less likely to come in with a bid - wouls wolves really hand us £2m????? . If we really don't want to sell like Cooper said - then we only want silly money not just market rate!
Is it not the case then that the club being loaned the players pays towards the wages of the loaned player. I believe the player receives the same wages whether on loan or at the parent club. The cost of Pritchard would not therefore be unaffordable but dependent on Spurs agreeing that we pay n% of his wages that we could afford.

We shipped Williams out to Yeovil last season to save on wages but still had to pay part of them. Brentford may be paying the same wage contribution as we did last season. IMO the sole reason Pritchard has gone to Brentford is the location and the level of football being played there this season.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Why would his wages necessarily be an issue? We signed Luongo and Byrne and they were both from Spurs and were even a year ahead of Pritchard - so could have been on more! . I know he is on a seasaon long loan - but that has a break clause in it (unlike Hall's) so Spurs could choose to cash in on him and sell him to us if we suddenly got cash from a sale . As for the valuations - that is more their realsitc market values - I had Wes £1m, Mass and Nathan at £750k and Louis at £500k - but that was my point - by saying that you are tempting Wolves in with a bid for one or both of the Thompson's - espeically a double deal of say £1m plus a loanee or a perm player! . Whereas say sill money of £1m each and they are less likely to come in with a bid - wouls wolves really hand us £2m????? . If we really don't want to sell like Cooper said - then we only want silly money not just market rate![/p][/quote]Is it not the case then that the club being loaned the players pays towards the wages of the loaned player. I believe the player receives the same wages whether on loan or at the parent club. The cost of Pritchard would not therefore be unaffordable but dependent on Spurs agreeing that we pay n% of his wages that we could afford. We shipped Williams out to Yeovil last season to save on wages but still had to pay part of them. Brentford may be paying the same wage contribution as we did last season. IMO the sole reason Pritchard has gone to Brentford is the location and the level of football being played there this season. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

While on loan that is true - which is why loans are good - as you can get players at a fraction of the cost as the parent wants them to gain experience so is prepared to pay most of the wage
.
Williams might have been different as we were loaning upowards so could have demanded most if not all his wage - also lets not forget Cooper emphasised Williams was moved on as it was felt he diod not suit our system last season - so was not worth paying him the big wage - unlike Jay
.
This year he suits it so we are paying it and playing him - whether he goes like Jay post his deal?????
.
However - my point was we signed Luongo and Byrne - so we now pay 100% of their wage as they are Swindon players - if we can afford to sign them - why could we not afford Pritchard?
.
When Power spoke about signing Pritchard it was always the fee which was the issue as he expected him to be about £1m - if that was not an issue if we got silly money for one of our Crown Jewels - could we not approach Pritchard?
While on loan that is true - which is why loans are good - as you can get players at a fraction of the cost as the parent wants them to gain experience so is prepared to pay most of the wage . Williams might have been different as we were loaning upowards so could have demanded most if not all his wage - also lets not forget Cooper emphasised Williams was moved on as it was felt he diod not suit our system last season - so was not worth paying him the big wage - unlike Jay . This year he suits it so we are paying it and playing him - whether he goes like Jay post his deal????? . However - my point was we signed Luongo and Byrne - so we now pay 100% of their wage as they are Swindon players - if we can afford to sign them - why could we not afford Pritchard? . When Power spoke about signing Pritchard it was always the fee which was the issue as he expected him to be about £1m - if that was not an issue if we got silly money for one of our Crown Jewels - could we not approach Pritchard? London Red
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Thu 17 Jul 14

MidlandRobin says...

This is not what I wanted to wake up to hungover after a student night. -.-
This is not what I wanted to wake up to hungover after a student night. -.- MidlandRobin
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Oxon-Red says...

London Red wrote:
While on loan that is true - which is why loans are good - as you can get players at a fraction of the cost as the parent wants them to gain experience so is prepared to pay most of the wage . Williams might have been different as we were loaning upowards so could have demanded most if not all his wage - also lets not forget Cooper emphasised Williams was moved on as it was felt he diod not suit our system last season - so was not worth paying him the big wage - unlike Jay . This year he suits it so we are paying it and playing him - whether he goes like Jay post his deal????? . However - my point was we signed Luongo and Byrne - so we now pay 100% of their wage as they are Swindon players - if we can afford to sign them - why could we not afford Pritchard? . When Power spoke about signing Pritchard it was always the fee which was the issue as he expected him to be about £1m - if that was not an issue if we got silly money for one of our Crown Jewels - could we not approach Pritchard?
Have a feeling that Nat and Mass were lower down the pecking order at Spurs. They took their chance to play regularly, prove their worth and look to progress.

People talk about wages as if we are offering the lowest in the league, which I don't believe to be the case. I suspect the wages we offer now are competitive for the league we play in and therefore it is a player's choice whether to accept us or another club. This decision may be affected by other factors such as location, current squad and manager.

Sort of in agreement with Den on a backer that it would be nice but not essential IMO. In the meantime the sustainabiity route has to be the right path to tread and not the stupid overspending some appear to want.

COYMR
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: While on loan that is true - which is why loans are good - as you can get players at a fraction of the cost as the parent wants them to gain experience so is prepared to pay most of the wage . Williams might have been different as we were loaning upowards so could have demanded most if not all his wage - also lets not forget Cooper emphasised Williams was moved on as it was felt he diod not suit our system last season - so was not worth paying him the big wage - unlike Jay . This year he suits it so we are paying it and playing him - whether he goes like Jay post his deal????? . However - my point was we signed Luongo and Byrne - so we now pay 100% of their wage as they are Swindon players - if we can afford to sign them - why could we not afford Pritchard? . When Power spoke about signing Pritchard it was always the fee which was the issue as he expected him to be about £1m - if that was not an issue if we got silly money for one of our Crown Jewels - could we not approach Pritchard?[/p][/quote]Have a feeling that Nat and Mass were lower down the pecking order at Spurs. They took their chance to play regularly, prove their worth and look to progress. People talk about wages as if we are offering the lowest in the league, which I don't believe to be the case. I suspect the wages we offer now are competitive for the league we play in and therefore it is a player's choice whether to accept us or another club. This decision may be affected by other factors such as location, current squad and manager. Sort of in agreement with Den on a backer that it would be nice but not essential IMO. In the meantime the sustainabiity route has to be the right path to tread and not the stupid overspending some appear to want. COYMR Oxon-Red
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Thu 17 Jul 14

RogerJ1969 says...

With all the speculation and talk of young players I believe the boy Randall May turn out to be star of the future. His sub appearance in the last home game of last season made me sit up and take notice, the runs he made and his movement generally look quality. Let's hope there are other gems unearthed this season.
With all the speculation and talk of young players I believe the boy Randall May turn out to be star of the future. His sub appearance in the last home game of last season made me sit up and take notice, the runs he made and his movement generally look quality. Let's hope there are other gems unearthed this season. RogerJ1969
  • Score: 0

12:19am Fri 18 Jul 14

mancrobin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
port de soller wrote:
Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC
Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.
Den, I respect your views but this comment is well out of order. A lot of fans like me would love to see some investment in the Club as long as it is sustainable.

Andrew Black's clearly wasn't because knowing Jack Sh@t about football, he left it in the hands of Jeremy Wray, who love struck with DiCanio, blew it. To get us out of an Administration situation we had to suffer Jed.

Time to dismount your high horse Den and get real.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC[/p][/quote]Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.[/p][/quote]Den, I respect your views but this comment is well out of order. A lot of fans like me would love to see some investment in the Club as long as it is sustainable. Andrew Black's clearly wasn't because knowing Jack Sh@t about football, he left it in the hands of Jeremy Wray, who love struck with DiCanio, blew it. To get us out of an Administration situation we had to suffer Jed. Time to dismount your high horse Den and get real. mancrobin
  • Score: 2

3:17pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

mancrobin wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
port de soller wrote:
Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC
Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.
Den, I respect your views but this comment is well out of order. A lot of fans like me would love to see some investment in the Club as long as it is sustainable.

Andrew Black's clearly wasn't because knowing Jack Sh@t about football, he left it in the hands of Jeremy Wray, who love struck with DiCanio, blew it. To get us out of an Administration situation we had to suffer Jed.

Time to dismount your high horse Den and get real.
No high horse about it manc. All I have ever said is that our club - any club in fact - must be in a stronger bargaining position if it has good financial backing. Andrew Black won't have been the first owner to know s0d all about football and he won't be the last. I have no problem with that and would welcome the same again, the difference being that next time I would hope it is managed better.

I'd add, manc, that I know you were one of a small number who said at the time the spending of the PDC era should be reined in so I know you are consistent in your views. I was with you on that.

As I kept trying to explain to LR, it is much easier to ward off predators when finances don't dictate that you have to sell. I don't know why anyone finds that an objectionable point of view.

You've been consistent manc and so have I. I welcomed Fitton, Wray and co (subject to some initial puzzlement at their motives) and I would be delighted if we could attract similar investment again. Power has said much the same.

As far as I can see we don't actually disagree about anything, so I don't know where the high horse comes into it. I do get the impression that some people chop and change their views in accordance with the direction of the wind. The Black era was wonderful, then when it was gone it was much better to have McCrory, with all his lies and no investment, now we have Lee Power, who is the best thing since sliced bread.

I would bet that most clubs would head for administration if they lost their backer and didn't get another, so I think that is a bit of a red herring. It would have been reasonable to assume that anyone buying a debt-free football club for £1 would have injected enough funds to keep it afloat. Remember, we were going to get a £4m playing budget from the McCrory mob, PDC (love him or hate him) had declared himself more than happy with the new owners - before he found out they were bullshiitting him. At last minute, Di Canio, Black et al found they'd been duped. I don't think we would have gone into administration without McCrory. He got hold of the club because he was the "preferred bidder" several weeks before the deal was done and he was the preferred bidder because he lied about what he would do for the club. There may well have been another bidder who was not promising the earth but would have kept the club away from administration - someone like Lee Power perhaps.

Manc, you tell me to "get real". I think I have a grasp of reality. The reality is that financial assistance in itself cannot be a bad thing for any football club. A further reality is that if a new man/woman walked into the club with millions of pounds to help it progress, there would hardly be a murmur of discontent. We all know the club got it wrong last time. I just don't understand why so many people assume (for now at least) we would get it wrong again. It didn't go so horribly wrong for Reading, did it? Historically, they were always a smaller club than us.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]port de soller[/bold] wrote: Guess like many Fans you never wish to see your best young players leaving,yet LP has a job to do to ensureSTFC will survive.Sad as it is and with no new investment around it looks as if the sale of these young players will if happens help STFC[/p][/quote]Looks like a lot of our fans don't want that new investment. Or at least that's what they say now. We might see a rapid change of mind if a new Andrew Black (or even the original one) walked through the door today bearing millions.[/p][/quote]Den, I respect your views but this comment is well out of order. A lot of fans like me would love to see some investment in the Club as long as it is sustainable. Andrew Black's clearly wasn't because knowing Jack Sh@t about football, he left it in the hands of Jeremy Wray, who love struck with DiCanio, blew it. To get us out of an Administration situation we had to suffer Jed. Time to dismount your high horse Den and get real.[/p][/quote]No high horse about it manc. All I have ever said is that our club - any club in fact - must be in a stronger bargaining position if it has good financial backing. Andrew Black won't have been the first owner to know s0d all about football and he won't be the last. I have no problem with that and would welcome the same again, the difference being that next time I would hope it is managed better. I'd add, manc, that I know you were one of a small number who said at the time the spending of the PDC era should be reined in so I know you are consistent in your views. I was with you on that. As I kept trying to explain to LR, it is much easier to ward off predators when finances don't dictate that you have to sell. I don't know why anyone finds that an objectionable point of view. You've been consistent manc and so have I. I welcomed Fitton, Wray and co (subject to some initial puzzlement at their motives) and I would be delighted if we could attract similar investment again. Power has said much the same. As far as I can see we don't actually disagree about anything, so I don't know where the high horse comes into it. I do get the impression that some people chop and change their views in accordance with the direction of the wind. The Black era was wonderful, then when it was gone it was much better to have McCrory, with all his lies and no investment, now we have Lee Power, who is the best thing since sliced bread. I would bet that most clubs would head for administration if they lost their backer and didn't get another, so I think that is a bit of a red herring. It would have been reasonable to assume that anyone buying a debt-free football club for £1 would have injected enough funds to keep it afloat. Remember, we were going to get a £4m playing budget from the McCrory mob, PDC (love him or hate him) had declared himself more than happy with the new owners - before he found out they were bullshiitting him. At last minute, Di Canio, Black et al found they'd been duped. I don't think we would have gone into administration without McCrory. He got hold of the club because he was the "preferred bidder" several weeks before the deal was done and he was the preferred bidder because he lied about what he would do for the club. There may well have been another bidder who was not promising the earth but would have kept the club away from administration - someone like Lee Power perhaps. Manc, you tell me to "get real". I think I have a grasp of reality. The reality is that financial assistance in itself cannot be a bad thing for any football club. A further reality is that if a new man/woman walked into the club with millions of pounds to help it progress, there would hardly be a murmur of discontent. We all know the club got it wrong last time. I just don't understand why so many people assume (for now at least) we would get it wrong again. It didn't go so horribly wrong for Reading, did it? Historically, they were always a smaller club than us. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Fri 18 Jul 14

London Red says...

Den - the thing your view point is very contridictory in itself
.
You state you wanted spending reigned in and that we should be sustainable and would be have been with better management - which is what is happening now.
.
But then say it is easier to ward off predators when finances don't dictate that you have to sell - Surely if you need a big financial backer to ward of preditors then you are not sustainable but rely purely on that backer to prop you up?
.
Power has said we do not need to sell and has demonstrated that by rejecting bids for 2 of our best players - So surely that shows we don't need a big financial backer to ward of preditors? Just sensible management!
.
The only reason we would need a big financial backer is as I said the other day to invest in infrastructure - Power is a very rich man (he's has pumped in £2m after all clearing up our "debt free club") but is not mega rich to pump in £25m+ to redevelop the stadium, invest in new training facilities or improve the academy etc
.
That is the only thing we would need money for - as being sustainable means you are under no fianaical pressure to sell as you are not losing money! There is your Reading example - it was the move out of Elm Park what made them - not fending off preditors!
.
Others may change with the wind - but I certainly don't feel I do - I have just change with experience! 2013 left a bad tast in my mouth and I wouldn't wan tthat repeated!
.
Yes not all money would be bad - especially if money delivered what we need - but I wouldn't want to see money just repeating itself by trying to buy sucess as more often than not it ends in tears - and that is not just us!
.
Look at Blackburn and Blackpool as prime examples of the aftermath of money without infrastructure!
.
I wouldn't be happy with non footballing money unless a footballing man is connected to that money - if Power added an investor to aid with property side - great - each has their expertise to mutually benefit the common goal!
Den - the thing your view point is very contridictory in itself . You state you wanted spending reigned in and that we should be sustainable and would be have been with better management - which is what is happening now. . But then say it is easier to ward off predators when finances don't dictate that you have to sell - Surely if you need a big financial backer to ward of preditors then you are not sustainable but rely purely on that backer to prop you up? . Power has said we do not need to sell and has demonstrated that by rejecting bids for 2 of our best players - So surely that shows we don't need a big financial backer to ward of preditors? Just sensible management! . The only reason we would need a big financial backer is as I said the other day to invest in infrastructure - Power is a very rich man (he's has pumped in £2m after all clearing up our "debt free club") but is not mega rich to pump in £25m+ to redevelop the stadium, invest in new training facilities or improve the academy etc . That is the only thing we would need money for - as being sustainable means you are under no fianaical pressure to sell as you are not losing money! There is your Reading example - it was the move out of Elm Park what made them - not fending off preditors! . Others may change with the wind - but I certainly don't feel I do - I have just change with experience! 2013 left a bad tast in my mouth and I wouldn't wan tthat repeated! . Yes not all money would be bad - especially if money delivered what we need - but I wouldn't want to see money just repeating itself by trying to buy sucess as more often than not it ends in tears - and that is not just us! . Look at Blackburn and Blackpool as prime examples of the aftermath of money without infrastructure! . I wouldn't be happy with non footballing money unless a footballing man is connected to that money - if Power added an investor to aid with property side - great - each has their expertise to mutually benefit the common goal! London Red
  • Score: 1

5:03pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

Hang on a sec LR. You've already said we can't afford to turn down good offers "in our financial position". That makes perfect sense to me, as it implies very clearly that if we were in a better financial position we would be able to hold out for better offers. Is that not what you meant? I'm not putting up a case against Power and I'm not complaining about the position we are in now. But everything is relative. We aren't desperate for money. However, those offers wouldn't be so hard to resist if we had a bit more of it, would they? Maybe we could actually get more like the million that you think some of our players are worth. If they are worth it but we can't get it, that must mean we sell at undervalue if we sell at all. And wouldn't it be better still if we could resist even market value offers for our better players, so that we can hold onto them and build a team of our own?
Hang on a sec LR. You've already said we can't afford to turn down good offers "in our financial position". That makes perfect sense to me, as it implies very clearly that if we were in a better financial position we would be able to hold out for better offers. Is that not what you meant? I'm not putting up a case against Power and I'm not complaining about the position we are in now. But everything is relative. We aren't desperate for money. However, those offers wouldn't be so hard to resist if we had a bit more of it, would they? Maybe we could actually get more like the million that you think some of our players are worth. If they are worth it but we can't get it, that must mean we sell at undervalue if we sell at all. And wouldn't it be better still if we could resist even market value offers for our better players, so that we can hold onto them and build a team of our own? Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Fri 18 Jul 14

London Red says...

No in our financial situation means we are not Man City, Chelsea, PSG or Monaco where money is no object
.
I clearly said our financial situation applies to pretty much all of L1, half the Championship (if not more) and even in the Premiership or abroad - where clubs sell to finance new purchases
.
We do not have a bottomless pit of cash so can not make any player "not for sale at any cost" which some were saying we should do - thus the we should accept a silly offer
.
However - we no longer lose money - so are not relying on Power to top is up - and because of that now have no pressure to sell - both Cooper and Power have said this more than once
.
We may not sell for a million as it depends on Powers view - he thought Flint was worth only £350k where others thought more - he may think £500k is a good deal for NT????
.
All I know is as we saw last summer if he thinks he can sell one and bring in 2 or 3 to make us better overall he will do - which is fine by me
.
I don't agree at all and don't understand why you think we need a rich benefactor to resist bids - that only suggest we are losing money and need that person to top us up all the time
.
I'm anti that now as don't ever want to go through 2013 again - not due to a wind change!
No in our financial situation means we are not Man City, Chelsea, PSG or Monaco where money is no object . I clearly said our financial situation applies to pretty much all of L1, half the Championship (if not more) and even in the Premiership or abroad - where clubs sell to finance new purchases . We do not have a bottomless pit of cash so can not make any player "not for sale at any cost" which some were saying we should do - thus the we should accept a silly offer . However - we no longer lose money - so are not relying on Power to top is up - and because of that now have no pressure to sell - both Cooper and Power have said this more than once . We may not sell for a million as it depends on Powers view - he thought Flint was worth only £350k where others thought more - he may think £500k is a good deal for NT???? . All I know is as we saw last summer if he thinks he can sell one and bring in 2 or 3 to make us better overall he will do - which is fine by me . I don't agree at all and don't understand why you think we need a rich benefactor to resist bids - that only suggest we are losing money and need that person to top us up all the time . I'm anti that now as don't ever want to go through 2013 again - not due to a wind change! London Red
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Fri 18 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

For the last time LR, I did not say we NEED a rich investor. I said it helps. If you don't think it helps, then fair enough. I believe It can only be unhelpful if the resources mismanaged, which some people seem to think is inevitable. It's your prerogative to disagree with that too.
For the last time LR, I did not say we NEED a rich investor. I said it helps. If you don't think it helps, then fair enough. I believe It can only be unhelpful if the resources mismanaged, which some people seem to think is inevitable. It's your prerogative to disagree with that too. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

1:12am Sat 19 Jul 14

mancrobin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
For the last time LR, I did not say we NEED a rich investor. I said it helps. If you don't think it helps, then fair enough. I believe It can only be unhelpful if the resources mismanaged, which some people seem to think is inevitable. It's your prerogative to disagree with that too.
Den, the answer to your question lies in basic commercial sense; risk and return. There is no obvious return in investing millions in STFC and even if you thought there was , the risk attached to it in such a competitive market is huge.

No, I'm sorry Den, but I believe you are totally wrong here. Big investors are either mega millionaires who want to buy into instant success like Chelsea and Man City or mega millionaire benefactors like Jack Walker and Madjeski who despite highly commendable efforts to make their investments sustainable, can't achieve that. My guess is that 10 years from now we will again be a bigger club than Reading.

The only way to sustain a club at the top these days is to have the real brand like Man U and Liverpool.

Even if I had mega millions, I would not throw it at STFC apart from LR's point about basic infrastructure.

What we need is a very proactive youth policy, a good wheeler and dealer, some decent customer marketing skills and excellent man management. A new ground, or at least a new stand would help too. Only the latter requires significant resources.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: For the last time LR, I did not say we NEED a rich investor. I said it helps. If you don't think it helps, then fair enough. I believe It can only be unhelpful if the resources mismanaged, which some people seem to think is inevitable. It's your prerogative to disagree with that too.[/p][/quote]Den, the answer to your question lies in basic commercial sense; risk and return. There is no obvious return in investing millions in STFC and even if you thought there was , the risk attached to it in such a competitive market is huge. No, I'm sorry Den, but I believe you are totally wrong here. Big investors are either mega millionaires who want to buy into instant success like Chelsea and Man City or mega millionaire benefactors like Jack Walker and Madjeski who despite highly commendable efforts to make their investments sustainable, can't achieve that. My guess is that 10 years from now we will again be a bigger club than Reading. The only way to sustain a club at the top these days is to have the real brand like Man U and Liverpool. Even if I had mega millions, I would not throw it at STFC apart from LR's point about basic infrastructure. What we need is a very proactive youth policy, a good wheeler and dealer, some decent customer marketing skills and excellent man management. A new ground, or at least a new stand would help too. Only the latter requires significant resources. mancrobin
  • Score: 1

7:15am Sat 19 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

What is it that people don't understand? I don't think Den is necessarily talking about a mega rich investor -isn't he just saying that it would be good to have in effect a pot to dip into if needed? By all means be self sustainable but if there was someone out there who was prepared to inject some extra cash to fund a player/his wages etc, what's wrong with that? Doesn't relying on pure sustainability just mean that we'll tick over like an idle car engine but are unlikely to rev up through the gears to become a top performer. I'd politely point out that I think talk of us being a bigger club than Reading in 10 years is nothing more than a pipe dream, after all there's the little matter of us not owning our ground and a council not receptive to finding a plot for a new stadium ala the Madjeski.
Does anyone seriously think that the Power of love as he is at the moment is even going to be around that long? In his recent eulogy urging fans to get behind the club even he said he didn't know how long he'd be in control.
I'd love to believe it will happen but we've seen several attempts over the years to movefrom/redevelop the CG all of which came to squat diddly, but I tend to be far more of a realist than others.
What is it that people don't understand? I don't think Den is necessarily talking about a mega rich investor -isn't he just saying that it would be good to have in effect a pot to dip into if needed? By all means be self sustainable but if there was someone out there who was prepared to inject some extra cash to fund a player/his wages etc, what's wrong with that? Doesn't relying on pure sustainability just mean that we'll tick over like an idle car engine but are unlikely to rev up through the gears to become a top performer. I'd politely point out that I think talk of us being a bigger club than Reading in 10 years is nothing more than a pipe dream, after all there's the little matter of us not owning our ground and a council not receptive to finding a plot for a new stadium ala the Madjeski. Does anyone seriously think that the Power of love as he is at the moment is even going to be around that long? In his recent eulogy urging fans to get behind the club even he said he didn't know how long he'd be in control. I'd love to believe it will happen but we've seen several attempts over the years to movefrom/redevelop the CG all of which came to squat diddly, but I tend to be far more of a realist than others. The Jockster
  • Score: 0

9:22am Sat 19 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

The Jockster wrote:
What is it that people don't understand? I don't think Den is necessarily talking about a mega rich investor -isn't he just saying that it would be good to have in effect a pot to dip into if needed? By all means be self sustainable but if there was someone out there who was prepared to inject some extra cash to fund a player/his wages etc, what's wrong with that? Doesn't relying on pure sustainability just mean that we'll tick over like an idle car engine but are unlikely to rev up through the gears to become a top performer. I'd politely point out that I think talk of us being a bigger club than Reading in 10 years is nothing more than a pipe dream, after all there's the little matter of us not owning our ground and a council not receptive to finding a plot for a new stadium ala the Madjeski.
Does anyone seriously think that the Power of love as he is at the moment is even going to be around that long? In his recent eulogy urging fans to get behind the club even he said he didn't know how long he'd be in control.
I'd love to believe it will happen but we've seen several attempts over the years to movefrom/redevelop the CG all of which came to squat diddly, but I tend to be far more of a realist than others.
Phew! I thought I must have been writing in Greek or Chinese but I'm reassured now - it must have been English after all (albeit with a few typos!)

I have never said I want anyone to throw loads of money at our football club for buying players. I simply want us to be able to build our own team - yes, the more frugally the better - and keep building until we have a side that can stand on it's own feet. Isn't that what all Town fans want? Now, suppose that team building is coming along nicely, as many believe it is now, and we find we lose players because we can't afford to turn down the offers. Is everyone going to be happy with that? Frankly, it's ludicrous for LR to suggest that we have the same bargaining power now as we would if Power had put in, say, £5m instead of £2m. Can we assume that manc and LR would turn down another £3m from Power because they think it would destabilise the club? If we pursue their logic to its conclusion, presumably we'd find they think the £2m is wrong too? Or is £2m the magic optimum amount of money that should be put into a football club?
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: What is it that people don't understand? I don't think Den is necessarily talking about a mega rich investor -isn't he just saying that it would be good to have in effect a pot to dip into if needed? By all means be self sustainable but if there was someone out there who was prepared to inject some extra cash to fund a player/his wages etc, what's wrong with that? Doesn't relying on pure sustainability just mean that we'll tick over like an idle car engine but are unlikely to rev up through the gears to become a top performer. I'd politely point out that I think talk of us being a bigger club than Reading in 10 years is nothing more than a pipe dream, after all there's the little matter of us not owning our ground and a council not receptive to finding a plot for a new stadium ala the Madjeski. Does anyone seriously think that the Power of love as he is at the moment is even going to be around that long? In his recent eulogy urging fans to get behind the club even he said he didn't know how long he'd be in control. I'd love to believe it will happen but we've seen several attempts over the years to movefrom/redevelop the CG all of which came to squat diddly, but I tend to be far more of a realist than others.[/p][/quote]Phew! I thought I must have been writing in Greek or Chinese but I'm reassured now - it must have been English after all (albeit with a few typos!) I have never said I want anyone to throw loads of money at our football club for buying players. I simply want us to be able to build our own team - yes, the more frugally the better - and keep building until we have a side that can stand on it's own feet. Isn't that what all Town fans want? Now, suppose that team building is coming along nicely, as many believe it is now, and we find we lose players because we can't afford to turn down the offers. Is everyone going to be happy with that? Frankly, it's ludicrous for LR to suggest that we have the same bargaining power now as we would if Power had put in, say, £5m instead of £2m. Can we assume that manc and LR would turn down another £3m from Power because they think it would destabilise the club? If we pursue their logic to its conclusion, presumably we'd find they think the £2m is wrong too? Or is £2m the magic optimum amount of money that should be put into a football club? Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:37am Sat 19 Jul 14

mancrobin says...

Oi Den! wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
What is it that people don't understand? I don't think Den is necessarily talking about a mega rich investor -isn't he just saying that it would be good to have in effect a pot to dip into if needed? By all means be self sustainable but if there was someone out there who was prepared to inject some extra cash to fund a player/his wages etc, what's wrong with that? Doesn't relying on pure sustainability just mean that we'll tick over like an idle car engine but are unlikely to rev up through the gears to become a top performer. I'd politely point out that I think talk of us being a bigger club than Reading in 10 years is nothing more than a pipe dream, after all there's the little matter of us not owning our ground and a council not receptive to finding a plot for a new stadium ala the Madjeski.
Does anyone seriously think that the Power of love as he is at the moment is even going to be around that long? In his recent eulogy urging fans to get behind the club even he said he didn't know how long he'd be in control.
I'd love to believe it will happen but we've seen several attempts over the years to movefrom/redevelop the CG all of which came to squat diddly, but I tend to be far more of a realist than others.
Phew! I thought I must have been writing in Greek or Chinese but I'm reassured now - it must have been English after all (albeit with a few typos!)

I have never said I want anyone to throw loads of money at our football club for buying players. I simply want us to be able to build our own team - yes, the more frugally the better - and keep building until we have a side that can stand on it's own feet. Isn't that what all Town fans want? Now, suppose that team building is coming along nicely, as many believe it is now, and we find we lose players because we can't afford to turn down the offers. Is everyone going to be happy with that? Frankly, it's ludicrous for LR to suggest that we have the same bargaining power now as we would if Power had put in, say, £5m instead of £2m. Can we assume that manc and LR would turn down another £3m from Power because they think it would destabilise the club? If we pursue their logic to its conclusion, presumably we'd find they think the £2m is wrong too? Or is £2m the magic optimum amount of money that should be put into a football club?
Jock, you make a number of good points and yes, Reading has a far better foundation than we do. However, despite 10 years being a tad optimistic, I do believe we will eventually return to respective positions.

Den/Jock - no-one is saying that there should no investment. That's what I took most issue with Den in the post I first responded to. Yes, it would be nice to have a development pot, £2m or £3m more to invest, someone paying for a player or a new stand. If any of that is because the business plan indicates it is needed then fine. If it because a company (like the shirt sponsor) think they can get a return, then fine. And if Mancrobin pops his clogs and leaves £10m to replace the Town End with the Mancrobin Stand, then fine. None of that, at least in theory, destabilises the Club if it is withdrawn, yet allows it to develop.

A rich benefactor who uses the money to assemble large squads on inflated wages does. That's the model most fans seem to crave and the ones we seem to witness. It always ends in tears.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: What is it that people don't understand? I don't think Den is necessarily talking about a mega rich investor -isn't he just saying that it would be good to have in effect a pot to dip into if needed? By all means be self sustainable but if there was someone out there who was prepared to inject some extra cash to fund a player/his wages etc, what's wrong with that? Doesn't relying on pure sustainability just mean that we'll tick over like an idle car engine but are unlikely to rev up through the gears to become a top performer. I'd politely point out that I think talk of us being a bigger club than Reading in 10 years is nothing more than a pipe dream, after all there's the little matter of us not owning our ground and a council not receptive to finding a plot for a new stadium ala the Madjeski. Does anyone seriously think that the Power of love as he is at the moment is even going to be around that long? In his recent eulogy urging fans to get behind the club even he said he didn't know how long he'd be in control. I'd love to believe it will happen but we've seen several attempts over the years to movefrom/redevelop the CG all of which came to squat diddly, but I tend to be far more of a realist than others.[/p][/quote]Phew! I thought I must have been writing in Greek or Chinese but I'm reassured now - it must have been English after all (albeit with a few typos!) I have never said I want anyone to throw loads of money at our football club for buying players. I simply want us to be able to build our own team - yes, the more frugally the better - and keep building until we have a side that can stand on it's own feet. Isn't that what all Town fans want? Now, suppose that team building is coming along nicely, as many believe it is now, and we find we lose players because we can't afford to turn down the offers. Is everyone going to be happy with that? Frankly, it's ludicrous for LR to suggest that we have the same bargaining power now as we would if Power had put in, say, £5m instead of £2m. Can we assume that manc and LR would turn down another £3m from Power because they think it would destabilise the club? If we pursue their logic to its conclusion, presumably we'd find they think the £2m is wrong too? Or is £2m the magic optimum amount of money that should be put into a football club?[/p][/quote]Jock, you make a number of good points and yes, Reading has a far better foundation than we do. However, despite 10 years being a tad optimistic, I do believe we will eventually return to respective positions. Den/Jock - no-one is saying that there should no investment. That's what I took most issue with Den in the post I first responded to. Yes, it would be nice to have a development pot, £2m or £3m more to invest, someone paying for a player or a new stand. If any of that is because the business plan indicates it is needed then fine. If it because a company (like the shirt sponsor) think they can get a return, then fine. And if Mancrobin pops his clogs and leaves £10m to replace the Town End with the Mancrobin Stand, then fine. None of that, at least in theory, destabilises the Club if it is withdrawn, yet allows it to develop. A rich benefactor who uses the money to assemble large squads on inflated wages does. That's the model most fans seem to crave and the ones we seem to witness. It always ends in tears. mancrobin
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

So we're all in complete agreement then manc! I have no idea why you and LR made the assumption that I want a large squad on inflated wages. I'm confident you'd never find any suggestion of that in any post from me. It also seems highly unlikely that it was Andrews Black's intention for his money to be squandered in that way. He and the other main backer, Sir Martyn Arbib, were both non-football men. That's fine with me. You don't keep a dog and bark yourself. They handed the operational reins to Jeremy Wray, who unfortunately allowed the tail to wag the dog until the situation was irretrievable. As disastrous as that was, in my view it was a forgivable mistake. After all, the gamble almost paid off and I'm sure Wray did it with the best of intentions. It's easy to lay all the blame at the door of Black/Wray and PDC but I believe the large number of people who encouraged the "he does what he wants" culture bear a large chunk of responsibility. They, more than anybody, should be prepared to forgive Wray. They kept popping up on here telling us we shouldn't utter any criticism of Di Canio, lest the Messiah should choose to walk away from his people. When Black found out the extent of the damage, he was placed in a "him or me" situation. It's not too surprising that both ended up going. Black would have known he couldn't sack PDC without becoming a pariah himself.

All very unfortunate but none of it tells me that Andrew Black's money was the problem in itself. So I would have no problem in welcoming substantial funding from anyone with the right intentions, including someone like Black, as long as those in operational control look after it properly. I believe Power has suggested that there may be other investors prepared to commit now that the slippery one has been banished once and for all. Presumably those new investors would be happy to leave the operational stuff to Power. Would there be any objection to that?

And I look forward to seeing the Mancrobin Stand. Just one request though - do it in your lifetime!
So we're all in complete agreement then manc! I have no idea why you and LR made the assumption that I want a large squad on inflated wages. I'm confident you'd never find any suggestion of that in any post from me. It also seems highly unlikely that it was Andrews Black's intention for his money to be squandered in that way. He and the other main backer, Sir Martyn Arbib, were both non-football men. That's fine with me. You don't keep a dog and bark yourself. They handed the operational reins to Jeremy Wray, who unfortunately allowed the tail to wag the dog until the situation was irretrievable. As disastrous as that was, in my view it was a forgivable mistake. After all, the gamble almost paid off and I'm sure Wray did it with the best of intentions. It's easy to lay all the blame at the door of Black/Wray and PDC but I believe the large number of people who encouraged the "he does what he wants" culture bear a large chunk of responsibility. They, more than anybody, should be prepared to forgive Wray. They kept popping up on here telling us we shouldn't utter any criticism of Di Canio, lest the Messiah should choose to walk away from his people. When Black found out the extent of the damage, he was placed in a "him or me" situation. It's not too surprising that both ended up going. Black would have known he couldn't sack PDC without becoming a pariah himself. All very unfortunate but none of it tells me that Andrew Black's money was the problem in itself. So I would have no problem in welcoming substantial funding from anyone with the right intentions, including someone like Black, as long as those in operational control look after it properly. I believe Power has suggested that there may be other investors prepared to commit now that the slippery one has been banished once and for all. Presumably those new investors would be happy to leave the operational stuff to Power. Would there be any objection to that? And I look forward to seeing the Mancrobin Stand. Just one request though - do it in your lifetime! Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Sat 19 Jul 14

The Jockster says...

Manc Den has beaten me to it - but firstly - I also quite like the sound of the mancrobin stand but I'd like you to be around to open it.
Secondly I'd also have to agree with his assessment of the Black/Wray/Pdc motorway pile up and the crunch for me here is that AB & Sir MA weren't football purists and as such they handed over the operational reins "lock stock & two smokin'"
No one was complaining during those heady days of good cup runs and promotion. Ultimately as we know the model proved unsustainable.
If Power can attract extra investment all well and good. Ideally I'd like us to be financially sound to the degree where we could resist offers for our best players (no more Bournemouth bargain basement deals), nurture develop our home grown players and not be so reliant on loan players or be a free development academy for premier league clubs even if there was deemed to be a benefit from so doing.
Manc Den has beaten me to it - but firstly - I also quite like the sound of the mancrobin stand but I'd like you to be around to open it. Secondly I'd also have to agree with his assessment of the Black/Wray/Pdc motorway pile up and the crunch for me here is that AB & Sir MA weren't football purists and as such they handed over the operational reins "lock stock & two smokin'" No one was complaining during those heady days of good cup runs and promotion. Ultimately as we know the model proved unsustainable. If Power can attract extra investment all well and good. Ideally I'd like us to be financially sound to the degree where we could resist offers for our best players (no more Bournemouth bargain basement deals), nurture develop our home grown players and not be so reliant on loan players or be a free development academy for premier league clubs even if there was deemed to be a benefit from so doing. The Jockster
  • Score: 0

1:09am Sun 20 Jul 14

mancrobin says...

The Jockster wrote:
Manc Den has beaten me to it - but firstly - I also quite like the sound of the mancrobin stand but I'd like you to be around to open it.
Secondly I'd also have to agree with his assessment of the Black/Wray/Pdc motorway pile up and the crunch for me here is that AB & Sir MA weren't football purists and as such they handed over the operational reins "lock stock & two smokin'"
No one was complaining during those heady days of good cup runs and promotion. Ultimately as we know the model proved unsustainable.
If Power can attract extra investment all well and good. Ideally I'd like us to be financially sound to the degree where we could resist offers for our best players (no more Bournemouth bargain basement deals), nurture develop our home grown players and not be so reliant on loan players or be a free development academy for premier league clubs even if there was deemed to be a benefit from so doing.
Well guys, we seem to have reached a level of agreement there and if the Board consisted of Den, Jockster, LR and Mancrobin, I'm sure we would have the best run club in the western world.

Unfortunately, we probably haven't got more than a few pennies to rub together to carry our intentions in to deeds. However, we can consider ourselves blessed that we were born Town fans.

Enjoy next season folks.
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Manc Den has beaten me to it - but firstly - I also quite like the sound of the mancrobin stand but I'd like you to be around to open it. Secondly I'd also have to agree with his assessment of the Black/Wray/Pdc motorway pile up and the crunch for me here is that AB & Sir MA weren't football purists and as such they handed over the operational reins "lock stock & two smokin'" No one was complaining during those heady days of good cup runs and promotion. Ultimately as we know the model proved unsustainable. If Power can attract extra investment all well and good. Ideally I'd like us to be financially sound to the degree where we could resist offers for our best players (no more Bournemouth bargain basement deals), nurture develop our home grown players and not be so reliant on loan players or be a free development academy for premier league clubs even if there was deemed to be a benefit from so doing.[/p][/quote]Well guys, we seem to have reached a level of agreement there and if the Board consisted of Den, Jockster, LR and Mancrobin, I'm sure we would have the best run club in the western world. Unfortunately, we probably haven't got more than a few pennies to rub together to carry our intentions in to deeds. However, we can consider ourselves blessed that we were born Town fans. Enjoy next season folks. mancrobin
  • Score: 0

10:30am Sun 20 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

mancrobin wrote:
The Jockster wrote:
Manc Den has beaten me to it - but firstly - I also quite like the sound of the mancrobin stand but I'd like you to be around to open it.
Secondly I'd also have to agree with his assessment of the Black/Wray/Pdc motorway pile up and the crunch for me here is that AB & Sir MA weren't football purists and as such they handed over the operational reins "lock stock & two smokin'"
No one was complaining during those heady days of good cup runs and promotion. Ultimately as we know the model proved unsustainable.
If Power can attract extra investment all well and good. Ideally I'd like us to be financially sound to the degree where we could resist offers for our best players (no more Bournemouth bargain basement deals), nurture develop our home grown players and not be so reliant on loan players or be a free development academy for premier league clubs even if there was deemed to be a benefit from so doing.
Well guys, we seem to have reached a level of agreement there and if the Board consisted of Den, Jockster, LR and Mancrobin, I'm sure we would have the best run club in the western world.

Unfortunately, we probably haven't got more than a few pennies to rub together to carry our intentions in to deeds. However, we can consider ourselves blessed that we were born Town fans.

Enjoy next season folks.
Amen to all that. By the way, with reference to your comment about being born Town fans, I'm half Scouse and still have family up there who are split down the middle between the two big clubs. I could easily have fallen into the clutches of one or the other. A narrow escape, for which I'm grateful. STID.
[quote][p][bold]mancrobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: Manc Den has beaten me to it - but firstly - I also quite like the sound of the mancrobin stand but I'd like you to be around to open it. Secondly I'd also have to agree with his assessment of the Black/Wray/Pdc motorway pile up and the crunch for me here is that AB & Sir MA weren't football purists and as such they handed over the operational reins "lock stock & two smokin'" No one was complaining during those heady days of good cup runs and promotion. Ultimately as we know the model proved unsustainable. If Power can attract extra investment all well and good. Ideally I'd like us to be financially sound to the degree where we could resist offers for our best players (no more Bournemouth bargain basement deals), nurture develop our home grown players and not be so reliant on loan players or be a free development academy for premier league clubs even if there was deemed to be a benefit from so doing.[/p][/quote]Well guys, we seem to have reached a level of agreement there and if the Board consisted of Den, Jockster, LR and Mancrobin, I'm sure we would have the best run club in the western world. Unfortunately, we probably haven't got more than a few pennies to rub together to carry our intentions in to deeds. However, we can consider ourselves blessed that we were born Town fans. Enjoy next season folks.[/p][/quote]Amen to all that. By the way, with reference to your comment about being born Town fans, I'm half Scouse and still have family up there who are split down the middle between the two big clubs. I could easily have fallen into the clutches of one or the other. A narrow escape, for which I'm grateful. STID. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree