Say goodbye to Brooks

[Pinchy]

It's only on here he's misquoted, as the article shows he says "game changing" . The RS audioboom the same day confirms this.

He never said game changing investment, think Liverpool or he killed Diana.

Moon landing? What fucking moon landing?

 

[Ricky]

I thought you meant he should be put on £20k a week now, not when he becomes our best player, which he isn't yet.
He is under contract by the way.





If this club was run by fans, we'd be bust in a month.

I didn't say he should be. I'm saying that if that's what was needed in order to keep him, then it would make sense to do so. Not ideal but it's better than throwing away millions of pounds.

He will be our best player, I have no doubt about that. If we waited for him to become our undoubted best player and key man and he was playing at a consistently high level, 20k wouldn't be enough would it?

He might be under contract but I don't think it's more than 2 years is it? And that's basically 18 months if we get to January. And that's not long at all. You should always look to make sure your main assets have more than 2 years left. So we'll need to be talking to O'Connell and Fleck soon as well.

 

[Pinchy]

Not in the slightest ST, im saying maybe seen by a wider audience now & viewed against better opposition Leics vs Walsall ? And we'll probably see now what owners intentions in respect of our return to this level & direction of the club with respect to keeping our players !!
I can't remember posting about not playing him or anyone not calling for this has a hidden agenda ??
Then again my memory isn't all should be nowadays ?

How long do you think we can keep him if he decides he wants to go? Who has indicated that we don't intend to keep him?

Hysteria, thy name is Blade!

 

[Sean Thornton]

Yeah, yeah, okay, but at least McCabe would have fucked off so the penury would be worthwhile.

But the money tree is his remember. In fact, make it a week.....


Numerous mistakes from the board and people think they could run a business turning over millions where to reach break even the only sources of additional finance if from the owners or player sales.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

Okay Kozzy. David says he wants £20k a week or he's off at the first opportunity to a club that will beat that easily. He says it's a short career and he has the chance to be financially secure for life. He's a bit starry-eyed and wants to buy a Lamborghini to replace his pimped Corsa.

As you've expressed such enthusiasm, I've put you down for a grand a week, if you don't mind. Ricky and a few others will be chipping in as well. It's all good.

Oh, excuse me a moment, I've got a call waiting from Ben Whiteman's agent and Billy Sharp's knocking on my door...

Kev
x

Oh you're a little so and so

First of...this made me chuckle, bravo:

He's a bit starry-eyed and wants to buy a Lamborghini to replace his pimped Corsa.

Secondly, count me in. Isn't that pretty much what that Tuna bloke is suggesting down the Sty? As Ricky says, we'll need to alter our wage ceilings soon anyway to survive and be competitive at this level - I trust Wilder and Knill to advise the board realistically as to what the figures concerned need to be to remain competitive and we all know the board will be clear on what their realistic limits are within FFP. In short, we're not a bottomless pit of money but we've yet to heavily invest on any superstars per se, we've built sensibly and the right way. So if are going about things the right way but Brooks regularly produces on the pitch and proves himself to be a budding superstar in the making, doesn't he deserve to get paid as such - whether it be in order to stick around or to ensure the club get a worthwhile price for the prized asset (for once)?

For what it's worth, my hunch (and it's admittedly nothing more scientific than that) is that Brooks is a little more level headed that your average starlet with good people (Wilder, older pros, family) around him who will support him to make balanced, well-informed decisions in the best interests of his career. For every Slew, Mellis et al., he'll be told stories of Wilder (and the dream of playing here each week), Sharp and the importance of plying your trade at the lower levels to hone your game, and Maguire and the importance of getting games under your belt in helping you to be a stellar pro and earning a big money move whilst still only young at 24.

 

[Deaneandagana]

Shhh McCabe never said those words, he was obviously misquoted by Radio Sheffield.

He said that the GCI would mean that we would not have to sell our best young players like Harry Maguire.... err I'm sure he played for Leicester last night.

 

[I should coco]

We're analysing the disaster before anyone's lit the match.

Match? What if it is giant mudslide, a tsunami or an alien invasion?

Stick that in your Pinchypipe and smoke it, Mr Nincompoopy smelly fart pants.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I didn't say he should be. I'm saying that if that's what was needed in order to keep him, then it would make sense to do so. Not ideal but it's better than throwing away millions of pounds.

He will be our best player, I have no doubt about that. If we waited for him to become our undoubted best player and key man and he was playing at a consistently high level, 20k wouldn't be enough would it?

He might be under contract but I don't think it's more than 2 years is it? And that's basically 18 months if we get to January. And that's not long at all. You should always look to make sure your main assets have more than 2 years left. So we'll need to be talking to O'Connell and Fleck soon as well.

You still have to consider the rest of the squad, wages wise. Think Forestfairy at the sty.

The reality though, is that if he progresses as most think, he'll be gone anyway. Whether we're paying him five bob or twenty grand a week anyway. Every footballer wants to play at the highest level he can.

 

[Pinchy]

He said that the GCI would mean that we would not have to sell our best young players like Harry Maguire.... err I'm sure he played for Leicester last night.

I think he meant young players who were not so intent on leaving that they faked sunstroke as an alternative to refusing to play. Young players who haven't made it crystal clear that they want a transfer.

 

[Sean Thornton]

He said that the GCI would mean that we would not have to sell our best young players like Harry Maguire.... err I'm sure he played for Leicester last night.

No. Listen to the audioboom. He mentions not having to sell our young players. Never mentioned Harry. That's an RS quote, not McCabes, so the BBC article isn't 100% accurate.

Amazing though how trustworthy RS is when it suits but it's shit for the vast majority of the time.


(As an aside, anyone seen digital reporter Darren "berk" Burkes tearful column in the online Star? Maybe when Danny04 has wiped his tears and settled him down he might find time to answer the question I asked him last week about his supposed ITK about fees paid)

 

[Pedro Verde is my aunt]

Sunning myself in Spain at the moment so did not see the game. Saw him against Barnsley and there is obviously lots of potential. One option for us is to sell but then take him back on a one season loan. Let's face it, if he joins a bigger club, he won't get straight into the first team and will probably go out on loan anyway.
Looking at the 'big picture'' its obvious we need to strengthen the squad to stay in the league and then challenge for a playoff spot. If this means selling and then reinvesting then so be it. Remember we are talking about a potential star not a proven one.

 

[I should coco]

Sunning myself in Spain at the moment so did not see the game. Saw him against Barnsley and there is obviously lots of potential. One option for us is to sell but then take him back on a one season loan. Let's face it, if he joins a bigger club, he won't get straight into the first team and will probably go out on loan anyway.
Looking at the 'big picture'' its obvious we need to strengthen the squad to stay in the league and then challenge for a playoff spot. If this means selling and then reinvesting then so be it. Remember we are talking about a potential star not a proven one.

Burn the heretic!

 

[John Street West Terrace]

How long do you think we can keep him if he decides he wants to go? Who has indicated that we don't intend to keep him?

Hysteria, thy name is Blade!

Ha ha yeh there prob is some hysteria amongst our community about him but I'd say I'm far from paranoid about it P , but the pessimists amongst us have seen it all before too many times with numerous different boards & chairmen keen to cash the chips early than risk a lower return . I suppose all we can ask for is the current lot to show a little resolve & try and keep him at the club as I said if the approach did come it would say a lot from the owners about where we are now vs where we're going ? I think with a couple of more years experience , physical growth & awareness he is going to be a very very good player or better . If he turns out to realise the potential he has , then yes he will be very difficult to keep & as you say unfortunately nowadays a want away player holds all the aces , but I'd like to think the ppl at the top share same or similar views as those paying at the turnstile ?

 

[Deaneandagana]

No. Listen to the audioboom. He mentions not having to sell our young players. Never mentioned Harry. That's an RS quote, not McCabes, so the BBC article isn't 100% accurate.

Amazing though how trustworthy RS is when it suits but it's shit for the vast majority of the time.


(As an aside, anyone seen digital reporter Darren "berk" Burkes tearful column in the online Star? Maybe when Danny04 has wiped his tears and settled him down he might find time to answer the question I asked him last week about his supposed ITK about fees paid)

You wouldn't happen to have a link to said audioBoom?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Burn the heretic!

 

[Sean Thornton]

You wouldn't happen to have a link to said audioBoom?

 

[FinchleyBlade]

Sunning myself in Spain at the moment so did not see the game. Saw him against Barnsley and there is obviously lots of potential. One option for us is to sell but then take him back on a one season loan. Let's face it, if he joins a bigger club, he won't get straight into the first team and will probably go out on loan anyway.
Looking at the 'big picture'' its obvious we need to strengthen the squad to stay in the league and then challenge for a playoff spot. If this means selling and then reinvesting then so be it. Remember we are talking about a potential star not a proven one.

Selling him now when he would be worth far more by the end of the season would be a ridiculous decision.

And what makes you think the money we'd get for him would be reinvested to strengthen the squad? Which part of our recent history is this based on?

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Burn the heretic!

Sun's doing that for us

 

[Sean Thornton]

Selling him now when he would be worth far more by the end of the season would be a ridiculous decision.

And what makes you think the money we'd get for him would be reinvested to strengthen the squad? Which part of our recent history is this based on?

Err, sales of DCL and Adams?

 

[BushBlade]

I didn't say he should be. I'm saying that if that's what was needed in order to keep him, then it would make sense to do so. Not ideal but it's better than throwing away millions of pounds.

He will be our best player, I have no doubt about that. If we waited for him to become our undoubted best player and key man and he was playing at a consistently high level, 20k wouldn't be enough would it?

He might be under contract but I don't think it's more than 2 years is it? And that's basically 18 months if we get to January. And that's not long at all. You should always look to make sure your main assets have more than 2 years left. So we'll need to be talking to O'Connell and Fleck soon as well.

Do what Spurs do. Offer him a new contract with a modest rise in January, then do the same again at the end of the season so he keeps extending his contract period and gets a pay rise when he does.

 

[FinchleyBlade]

I find the clammer from certain sections of our fanbase to cash in on young players as soon as we can very odd. Keep Brooks another 12 months and he will be worth double what he is now, maybe triple if he excels.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I find the clammer from certain sections of our fanbase to cash in on young players as soon as we can very odd. Keep Brooks another 12 months and he will be worth double what he is now, maybe triple if he excels.

Not sure what bivalve molluscs have to do with it but has anyone actually said sell him now?

 

[BushBlade]

Not sure what bivalve molluscs have to do with it but has anyone actually said sell him now?

Yeah, couple of hairy clammers, probably.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

Yeah, couple of hairy clammers, probably.

The mating call of the giant clam

YOUWANNAFUCK?

 

[Pierre's PC]

YOUWANNAFUCK?

The mating cry of the lesser-spotted stocksbridger

 

[georgebernardshaw]

The mating cry of the lesser-spotted stocksbridger

That's "Brace yourself Sharon"......

 

[Sean Thornton]

That's "Brace yourself Sis/mam"......

Edit

 

[Pierre's PC]

That's "Brace yourself Sharon"......

Sounds more like the lardidar crowd who live up by the golf course

 

[snootyfenooty]

The mating call of the giant clam

YOUWANNAFUCK?

Warmed the cockles of me heart did that!

 

[Bladesman]

Myth. They got about £7m each for Walcott and Bale. About the same as we'll get in total for Walker.

They got around £10million or so for Walcott eventually. They should have got £12mil but Arsenal managed to worm out of paying them more.

Bare in mind that deal was done in 2006 and was not based on Arsenal selling him. Southampton could still have a sell on clause in place, should Arsenal sell him.