The Golden Rule

[Revolution]

As ever, ignore what United say, and focus on what they do.

Whether by design or not, the money that came from the sale of a player we were under no pressure to sell has not been re-invested in permanent signings. This is despite the team's obvious weaknesses at centre half and central midfield.

I'm sure that we are a better team than before Adkins was appointed, but we are not a better team than we were the day before Murphy's sale. This was avoidable.

There is the loan window, of course, but that is a sticking plaster and a 3 month solution at best.

Once again we have been reactive not proactive and weak willed where player sales are concerned. Gaps have not been filled.

Not the end of the world. But very disappointing. And entirely predictable.

Follow what they do. Ignore what they say.

 

[AgaMonkey]

The golden rule is that there are no golden rules. GBS.

 

[SUFC Guy]

Oh deary me

 

[stringjunior]

Once again we have been reactive not proactive and weak willed where player sales are concerned

Go on then, I'll bite....

What's your evidence for this?

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I suspect that a fair chunk of the Murphy money is being spent on Sammon, Edgar, Sharp, Woolford etc who have all come down from a higher league and will undoubtedly be our highest earners. The club probably knew Murphy was likely to go before he actually did.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

As ever, ignore what United say, and focus on what they do.

Follow what they do. Ignore what they say.

I agree completely – let's see what they do in the coming weeks.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I suspect that a fair chunk of the Murphy money is being spent on Sammon, Edgar, Sharp, Woolford etc who have all come down from a higher league and will undoubtedly be our highest earners. The club probably knew Murphy was likely to go before he actually did.

We're presumably paying only a portion of the wages for Sammon and Edgar. Woolford was a free agent who at best, might have got a club like Rotherham (championship strugglers) after a relegation season with Millwall so wouldn't have cost the earth. Only the Sharp deal is likely to have been fairly costly. Given that we released Doyle, Ben Davies, Ian Turner, Paling, Berry and Scarisbrick as well as Holt and Davies returning to parent clubs, I would imagine those savings would fund a big chunk of the wages of those coming in. It's a shame we couldn't move others like Alcock, Higdon etc. on to make more room.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

I agree completely – let's see what they do in the coming weeks.

Yep, but if as it seems, it's loans for the 2 mentioned, possibly with a view to completing in January, add those to the 4 players mentioned earlier and that's pretty much the Murphy money gone in terms of wages alone.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

We're presumably paying only a portion of the wages for Sammon and Edgar. Woolford was a free agent who at best, might have got a club like Rotherham (championship strugglers) after a relegation season with Millwall so wouldn't have cost the earth. Only the Sharp deal is likely to have been fairly costly. Given that we released Doyle, Ben Davies, Ian Turner, Paling, Berry and Scarisbrick as well as Holt and Davies returning to parent clubs, I would imagine those savings would fund a big chunk of the wages of those coming in. It's a shame we couldn't move others like Alcock, Higdon etc. on to make more room.

True, new deals for Diego and Che and not forgetting the new pitch

 

[Darthblade]

As ever, ignore what United say, and focus on what they do.

Whether by design or not, the money that came from the sale of a player we were under no pressure to sell has not been re-invested in permanent signings. This is despite the team's obvious weaknesses at centre half and central midfield.

I'm sure that we are a better team than before Adkins was appointed, but we are not a better team than we were the day before Murphy's sale. This was avoidable.

There is the loan window, of course, but that is a sticking plaster and a 3 month solution at best.

Once again we have been reactive not proactive and weak willed where player sales are concerned. Gaps have not been filled.

Not the end of the world. But very disappointing. And entirely predictable.

Follow what they do. Ignore what they say.

What I don't understand is this; we bid for two players and their Club's said no !!

Whats that all about then ....... when you have a bid come in for one of your players you have to say yes don't you ??!!
UTB & FTP

 

[him behind you]

Yep, but if as it seems, it's loans for the 2 mentioned, possibly with a view to completing in January, add those to the 4 players mentioned earlier and that's pretty much the Murphy money gone in terms of wages alone.

Hi Jim. Just picking up on something you've said here because I've honestly not heard any interviews after yesterday and can't see any threads on it. Are there rumours that we are going back in to try to loan the 2 players we tried to sign yesterday and, if so, who's told us?

 

[him behind you]

What I don't understand is this; we bid for two players and their Club's said no !!

Whats that all about then ....... when you have a bid come in for one of your players you have to say yes don't you ??!!
UTB & FTP

Depends whether or not they want to move

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Hi Jim. Just picking up on something you've said here because I've honestly not heard any interviews after yesterday and can't see any threads on it. Are there rumours that we are going back in to try to loan the 2 players we tried to sign yesterday and, if so, who's told us?

I'm making assumptions, but I'd be surprised if we don't bring anyone in, even if it's not these two. It's a strange situation given that Adkins was apparently 'involved' with one of the deals right up to the wire so I've no idea why it fell through.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

It'd be nice if we used our pull to lure well performing players from smaller clubs like other clubs seem to do to us. Byrne, Dack, Goldosn, Pierre, Cameron etc are all players that we probably could have lured at some point.

We were linked with the likes of Nahki Wells and Callum Wilson when they were at smaller clubs but didn't get those deals over the line.

We managed it with Che but that meant going several leagues lower. It's a shame we don't manage more of those deals. Young players who have shown they have something about them and are only likely to improve.

 

[him behind you]

I'm making assumptions, but I'd be surprised if we don't bring anyone in, even if it's not these two. It's a strange situation given that Adkins was apparently 'involved' with one of the deals right up to the wire so I've no idea why it fell through.

It's a cracking assumption Jim. I've just seen it in the Star from NA.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/shef...ven-t-given-up-on-targets-says-boss-1-7439264

 

[DazBlade88]

We're presumably paying only a portion of the wages for Sammon and Edgar.

We will be paying their wages in full.

 

[Worksop II]

so I've no idea why it fell through.

He went out of the room for a piss, and the rest is history

 

[IOM Blade]

I'm sure that we are a better team than before Adkins was appointed

Are we though?

Sammon is a slight improvement on Steven Davies
Sharp is not an improvement on Murphy (There would have been bedlam if had made a straight swap with Leeds)
Woolford looks no better than Ben Davies

We have also lost Holt and Doyle and are without Brayford, Done, Coutts and Harris for the foreseeable future. Cuvelier, J Wallace, Scougall and Baxter cannot be relied upon to stay fit, or behave in Baxter's case.

The only player brought in to supplement the squad is Edgar.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

BUT, we have Nigel Adkins playing positive football and looking for a 2nd instead of sitting back when 1-0 up and we have Collins back in the mix.

 

[Worksop II]

BUT, we have Nigel Adkins playing positive football and looking for a 2nd instead of sitting back

This is the best thing Season, attitude of the Manager

Now, dont no one go spoiling it by attributing any of this to McCabe

 

[billyblademan]

This is the best thing Season, attitude of the Manager

Now, dont no one go spoiling it by attributing any of this to McCabe

Thank God McCabe stipulated this in the job requirements. True legend.

 

[Worksop II]

Thank God McCabe stipulated this in the job requirements. True legend.

Yep, the 3rd Statue comes ever closer, probably in Gold this time though

 

[SwissBlade]

As ever, ignore what United say, and focus on what they do.

Whether by design or not, the money that came from the sale of a player we were under no pressure to sell has not been re-invested in permanent signings. This is despite the team's obvious weaknesses at centre half and central midfield.

I'm sure that we are a better team than before Adkins was appointed, but we are not a better team than we were the day before Murphy's sale. This was avoidable.

There is the loan window, of course, but that is a sticking plaster and a 3 month solution at best.

Once again we have been reactive not proactive and weak willed where player sales are concerned. Gaps have not been filled.

Not the end of the world. But very disappointing. And entirely predictable.

Follow what they do. Ignore what they say.

Fantastic post. I'd like to see Jim Phipps positive spin and retweet this...

 

[AlienBlade]

I suspect that a fair chunk of the Murphy money is being spent on Sammon, Edgar, Sharp, Woolford etc who have all come down from a higher league and will undoubtedly be our highest earners. The club probably knew Murphy was likely to go before he actually did.

surely we would have already accounted for that (or at least that's what they've been telling us..... unless you are saying we were planning on selling Murphy before these were mooted and only got them in knowing we were going to sell murphy.....

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

As ever, ignore what United say, and focus on what they do.

Whether by design or not, the money that came from the sale of a player we were under no pressure to sell has not been re-invested in permanent signings. This is despite the team's obvious weaknesses at centre half and central midfield.

I'm sure that we are a better team than before Adkins was appointed, but we are not a better team than we were the day before Murphy's sale. This was avoidable.

There is the loan window, of course, but that is a sticking plaster and a 3 month solution at best.

Once again we have been reactive not proactive and weak willed where player sales are concerned. Gaps have not been filled.

Not the end of the world. But very disappointing. And entirely predictable.

Follow what they do. Ignore what they say.

For me this loses credibility in the second sentence where there is the, at best, questionable assertion that the club were under no pressure to sell. The player wanting to leave constitutes pressure.

 

[AlienBlade]

For me this loses credibility in the second sentence where there is the, at best, questionable assertion that the club were under no pressure to sell. The player wanting to leave constitutes pressure.

surely all deals are pressured then as you could argue that a club putting in an offer is a type of pressure (if a players wanting to leave constitutes pressure)

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

We will be paying their wages in full.

Exactly. Isn't that the normal structure of a loan?

Do loaning clubs ever pay a proportion of the wages of a player who they have loaned out.

I imagine it's possible, but highly unusual - maybe with a young player, or someone returning from injury getting match time.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

surely all deals are pressured then as you could argue that a club putting in an offer is a type of pressure (if a players wanting to leave constitutes pressure)

The assertion was that the club was under no pressure to sell Murphy. Given that he had requested a transfer then this assertion imo is in no way supported by the evidence.

Your player of the season expresses a desire to leave.

If you sell you get a substantial fee.

If you retain him then there is a significant chance that his performance levels will drop - or in a worst case scenario he will outright refuse to play - and his value as a player and as an asset will decrease significantly.

All of this constitutes pressure.

The asserion in the (tendentious) OP is wrong.

 

[secretchief]

The assertion was that the club was under no pressure to sell Murphy. Given that he had requested a transfer then this assertion imo is in no way supported by the evidence.

Your player of the season expresses a desire to leave.

If you sell you get a substantial fee.

If you retain him then there is a significant chance that his performance levels will drop - or in a worst case scenario he will outright refuse to play - and his value as a player and as an asset will decrease significantly.

All of this constitutes pressure.

The asserion in the (tendentious) OP is wrong.

When did Murphy request a transfer? I have missed this.

 

[Revolution]

When did Murphy request a transfer? I have missed this.

Phipps said he did.