Gone Elsewhere Conor Coady

[Grappler]

I'm not keen on him. He's a "utility" player. I don't like "utility" players. Jack of all Trades, Master of none. We've never had a good one ever. Steve Charles...he was a "utility" player wasn't he? Promising at everything and good at nowt.

To be fair to Wild Bill Coady, I saw all the games he played for us and there were one or two where he looked a really good player - the others he was distinctly average.

He may well have developed and come on leaps and bounds since then - if so great! I will trust Wilder's judgement - but he's not the kind of player I'd want to see us going out and spending millions on. I think it would be a waste of money.

"Wild Bill" was Wild Bill Hickok, Cody was "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Let's not mix up the famous cowboys in our quest for a new player.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

I'm really struggling to see the point in pursuing this, unless CW has got the nod from somewhere that there is a very good chance of it coming off...I also can't see CW playing games with Wolves and Coady to force Southend or Blackburn's hand over Leonard or Lenihan....I'm sure that type of shit happens in the game but I just can't see CW doing it, not his style.....more likely that Coady's agent is the one playing games to force Wolves to give him a new deal.

He's their captain and their manager has said, very firmly, that it's not happening....OK we know that the Wolves manager may not have a lot of say when it comes down to it but it's not as if they need the money......even if Coady is stalling on a new contract I am sure they can afford to let it run down and lose him for nowt.

I am sure you're right but from a Wolves mate they are looking to spend another 16-20m on two more strikers. I guess at some stage they will have to try to balance the books a little.

 

[Trigger Blade]

"Wild Bill" was Wild Bill Hickok, Cody was "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Let's not mix up the famous cowboys in our quest for a new player.

Not forgetting the good Commander who'll do a bit of rockabilly at half time if required.....

 

[JJBlade]

Only us could have such an excellent player on loan with us and fail to give the £1m asking price, let him go then try to buy him for £3m 'ish.

BladeyMcBladeFaceBladiness of the first order.

Made even more ridiculous when he moved to Huddersfield for £325,000

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

If we'd have kept Coady And beard we'd have had a better season instead we did it on the cheap.

Didn't he join a side playing at a higher level than us? I don't suppose that could possibly be the real reason he didn't sign for us.

 

[Champagneblade]

Have to agree. The whole Coady signing was never a goer once he had an opportunity to play one level up.

 

[JJBlade]

This isn't happening then. I for one am shocked to the core.

We have placed a bid of 500k for Lionel Messi, fingers crossed we get him instead.

Now that's ambition for you.
Whoever said we aren't trying to get the required quality obviously doesn't know what they're talking about

 

[Mouth of the South]

We have had the nod from Coadys agent, his client is interested in a move to the Lane.

This could be a genuine desire to play for us again, or like Ricky Holmes, and is more likely, its to force his club into a decision over a new contract.
Could happen, but I foresee a beaming Coady `delighted` to have penned a new 3 year deal at Molineux in about 10-14 days time.

IMO

Totally agree Treeton - a fairly obvious ploy by CC's agent to close the gap in salaries between their client and the much higher earners at the club (some on up to £45k/week) apparently.

Certainly worth a go from Utd's perspective but surprised CW went public so readily.

 

[seanbeenstattoo]

According to todays Stir this is a goer.

 

[Mouth of the South]

If we'd have kept Coady And beard we'd have had a better season instead we did it on the cheap.

You don't have much of a handle on finances at football clubs do you? If what you meant by "did it on the cheap" you meant that Utd's operating losses that season were several £m and that Utd did enquire about Brayford's availability but were told he was not for sale then you'd be correct.

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Have to agree. The whole Coady signing was never a goer once he had an opportunity to play one level up.

Likewise for Brayford

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

According to todays Stir this is a goer.

I don't believe anything that comes from that rag. Is there a 12 page, centre pullout spread, anti-hoolie special too

 

[SteveBlade]

If this type is signing is realistic, then it's a good sign and quite exciting.

Just seems far fetched and unlikely, though. I know nothing about football compared to Wilder and our staff (you'd think), but this doesn't seem like something that would come off for a number of reasons.

 

[71Blade]

Id never thought about the new contract situation, i feel this is more likely that Coady becoming a Blade anytime soon

Shame though would be a terrific signing

UTB

 

[JJBlade]

Have to agree. The whole Coady signing was never a goer once he had an opportunity to play one level up.

Maybe not
But if the boardroom didn't lie by saying Liverpool wanted £1.5 million for him he might not have got the option to move to Huddersfield for £325,000

 

[Booker4]

Maybe not
But if the boardroom didn't lie by saying Liverpool wanted £1.5 million for him he might not have got the option to move to Huddersfield for £325,000

That's the problem with undisclosed fees. It allows boards to cover up hoe much their spending really is. I believe that shareholders get a total figure of expenditure on fees but you can never know how these fees were broken down between each deal. I know that the undisclosed fees are helpful in that it doesn't (in theory) allow another clubs to know how much money you might have just received for a player sale and then that could help in not inflating transfer fees when buying another player/s. In reality though, clubs no doubt know these fees anyway, via agents and people within clubs that talk, and its only the fans who don't get to know how much their star player has gone for under the "substantial fee" banner that clubs come out with! Jack O'Connell's fee was described as substantial at the time I seem to recall and then we later heard Tufty saying that he hadn't paid over £300,00 for any single player! I know for League One £300,000 is a fair sum but its not game changing as a fee! Jack O'Connell' is game changing as a player to be fair though!

 

[FriethBlade]

What really worries me at the minute is not only are decent championship players out of our reach in terms of fees but their salary demands are way above what we are willing to match.

The knock on effect of this is surely going to be that Fleck, Coutts, JOC et als agents are going to start demanding championship parity wages for their clients.

That could leave us in a whole heap of trouble if our board don't step up to the plate.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

What really worries me at the minute is not only are decent championship players out of our reach in terms of fees but their salary demands are way above what we are willing to match.

The knock on effect of this is surely going to be that Fleck, Coutts, JOC et als agents are going to start demanding championship parity wages for their clients.

That could leave us in a whole heap of trouble if our board don't step up to the plate.

What do you mean by stepping up to the plate? That you think they should run us at a loss, and cover those losses themselves?
That's not a grumble, I'm just trying to establish what your expectations of them is.

 

[FriethBlade]

Bob my expectation is we firstly establsih ourselves and then we compete at championship level. Not too much to ask for a club that will average 25k. It they cant stand the heat...and it's getting hot....

 

[Wapping Blade]

What do you mean by stepping up to the plate? That you think they should run us at a loss, and cover those losses themselves?
That's not a grumble, I'm just trying to establish what your expectations of them is.

I was thinking of this when watching Sunday Supplement, some of the journos were slagging Spurs off for not "gambling" to spunk moneh like some other teams. Very easy to gamble with other people's money, what happens if you lose?

 

[Jon P]

What really worries me at the minute is not only are decent championship players out of our reach in terms of fees but their salary demands are way above what we are willing to match.

The knock on effect of this is surely going to be that Fleck, Coutts, JOC et als agents are going to start demanding championship parity wages for their clients.

That could leave us in a whole heap of trouble if our board don't step up to the plate.

Tenuous link but - also another reason why a half decent cup run wouldn't be a bad thing for the purse £££

 

[GallonofMagnet]

Tenuous link but - also another reason why a half decent cup run wouldn't be a bad thing for the purse £££

Jesus. Is this really where we still are as a club? Cup runs are what the likes of Cheltenham and Wycombe rely on to keep them afloat.

Only United could get foreign investment and then still require cup runs to make a signing.

 

[Jon P]

Jesus. Is this really where we still are as a club? Cup runs are what the likes of Cheltenham and Wycombe rely on to keep them afloat.

Only United could get foreign investment and then still require cup runs to make a signing.

I totally agree - the only reason i say it is because McCabe specifically mentioned the lack of progression in the cups over the last couple of seasons as a reason for our books being down / not as good as expected. I think it was published 3-6 months ago or so - so it's obviously still a source of income that The Board look to.

 

[finlaytheblade]

What really worries me at the minute is not only are decent championship players out of our reach in terms of fees but their salary demands are way above what we are willing to match.

The knock on effect of this is surely going to be that Fleck, Coutts, JOC et als agents are going to start demanding championship parity wages for their clients.

That could leave us in a whole heap of trouble if our board don't step up to the plate.

We're obviously trying to keep transfer fees and wages under control but to bid for stearman ,Coady and Lenihan means we are able to compete wage wise at this level players arnt going to play for peanuts.We know what the wage level is and to try for these players means we will pay a competitive wage but as Wilder says no one is going to have his pants down,I for one agree with that approach.
There are some pathetic posts on this subject. bloody be realistic

 

[Houston_Blade]

He has been playing in central defence for WWFC recently although his ability to cover 2 of Utd's biggest gaps would be a great benefit

Fair enough, never looked big enough for a centre half and he was a very tidy midfielder so seems a bit of a waste if that's what Wolves are doing, they can afford it though.

 

[Bladesman]

According to todays Stir this is a goer.

It doesn't count if he is popping up here to do a bit of shopping at Meadowhall.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Bob my expectation is we firstly establsih ourselves and then we compete at championship level. Not too much to ask for a club that will average 25k. It they cant stand the heat...and it's getting hot....

Thanks for the reply, but you've not answered my question. Is your expectation that they should not only cover our exsisting losses, but increase those loses?
If so to what level, what losses should they be covering, because if it's 20 million a season they aren't going to do it, and I personally don't want them to.
Averaging 25k is nothing, we averaged 20k last season in L1 and lost money so the crowd size clearly doesn't mean a huge amount against the bottom line. Those clubs spending money have massively wealthy benefactors, parachute payments or are going to come unstuck pretty soon. They can't all go up, and for me the more like Huddersfield and Brighton that go up through smart investment the better.
For the record I think we can be one of them, unlikely this season but at some point reasonably soon, but it takes nouse, patience and a decent amount of luck.

 

[Ajmblade]

Fair enough, never looked big enough for a centre half and he was a very tidy midfielder so seems a bit of a waste if that's what Wolves are doing, they can afford it though.

6 foot 1 and seems to have filled out a bit pal, size int everything anyways look at bash

 

[Bladeinleeds]

Thanks for the reply, but you've not answered my question. Is your expectation that they should not only cover our exsisting losses, but increase those loses?
If so to what level, what losses should they be covering, because if it's 20 million a season they aren't going to do it, and I personally don't want them to.
Averaging 25k is nothing, we averaged 20k last season in L1 and lost money so the crowd size clearly doesn't mean a huge amount against the bottom line. Those clubs spending money have massively wealthy benefactors, parachute payments or are going to come unstuck pretty soon. They can't all go up, and for me the more like Huddersfield and Brighton that go up through smart investment the better.
For the record I think we can be one of them, unlikely this season but at some point reasonably soon, but it takes nouse, patience and a decent amount of luck.

Disagree re the crowds

If we averaged an extra 5,000 a game at say £20 a ticket. That's about an extra £4m per year or enough to pay £3m for a player and pay him c£20k per month....

That's not that far off a coady sized amount of money!

Edit - but agree overall. We have to live within our means and there's a difference between a sensible signing and showing some ambition and spunking £20m on players and giving them contracts we can't afford

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Disagree re the crowds

If we averaged an extra 5,000 a game at say £20 a ticket. That's about an extra £4m per year or enough to pay £3m for a player and pay him c£20k per month....

That's not that far off a coady sized amount of money!

Edit - but agree overall. We have to live within our means and there's a difference between a sensible signing and showing some ambition and spunking £20m on players and giving them contracts we can't afford

I think where folk lose track is the cost to run our ground and due to its capacity. Those extra 5,000 might just mean the club make a profit rather than a loss. It's not all profit on the top.