So..12mill plus add ons for brookes...how much does wilder get to reinforce?

[Pinchy]

I'll bet my left nad that Kev & The Bog Roll Prince did not give Lord Wilder anything near £10million.

The bog roll prince. Oh, how I’ve missed that one. We’ve had weerstmunnehgone, I’ve done the fax machine so all we need now is a “Sofa in Brussels”

Alert the Sheffield Side-Splitting Hospital to cancel all leave.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Contract.

What was in it?

 

[grafikhaus]

Before we start on 'how much does Wilder get', can we answer the previously tabled question:

Where is the cash - in part or whole - which we assumed was generated by the sell on clauses of Maguire and Walker? Does anyone know how much that was?

If the answer is 'we don't know', then see 'how much will Wilder get to spend from the sale of Brooks'.

pommpey

Nobody knows - it's why most transfer fees are 'undisclosed'.

But before we get too excited, according to this link:

Sheffield United boss Chris Wilder wants the cash from David Brooks’ £12million sale to Bournemouth to bolster his transfer kitty.

Wilder already has £10m to spend and also wants a sizeable chunk of Brooks’ fee, which will rise to £15m with add-ons, for new players for his Championship side.

So even if CW gets, say £20m to spend (which ain't gonna happen) it doesn't come near what clubs were spending in 2016/17 and we've got three PL teams coming down with parachute payments (and Stoke's Coates is reckoned to be the 25th richest man in British football):



Personally, I'd like to see us lump the reported £8m on Matej Vydra as we can't expect Billy & Leon to keep delivering the goods, but then he'll be on big wages, dressing room harmony etc.

 

[Pinchy]

To be fair Sean mate, I've seen you raise a similar point elsewhere about rival bids. The lack of bids from elsewhere shouldn't detract from the feeling of this one falling short or undervaluing Brooks in some way, if that is indeed what you're suggesting and I've understood you correctly. There can be one offer on the table and the club should still hold out for what their asset is worth, for too long United have been criticised as accepting the first offer that comes along - it may not be true - but it smacks of a small club mentality "we better accept this or we might not get anything else!"

And if the latter point were the case, what of it? You're contracted here lad, you won't be walking for free for a few summers yet. United ought to hold all the cards to get a fantastic deal.

Maybe we have got a fantastic deal? Time will tell.

 

[Pinchy]

Why sell him at all if we can't get what we want for him?

We have got what we want for him. That’s self-evident.

There’s only one person forcing David Brooks out and it’s not Kevin McCabe. Brooks ain’t kickin’ and screamin’ either.

Let’s wait and hear what Tufty says when the dust has settled. I suspect it will be worth listening.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

Maybe we have got a fantastic deal? Time will tell.

On a scale of Kyle Walker and Harry Maguire to Jordan Slew and Jacob Mellis, I know what my prediction is at this stage.

 

[Sean Thornton]

To be fair Sean mate, I've seen you raise a similar point elsewhere about rival bids. The lack of bids from elsewhere shouldn't detract from the feeling of this one falling short or undervaluing Brooks in some way, if that is indeed what you're suggesting and I've understood you correctly. There can be one offer on the table and the club should still hold out for what their asset is worth, for too long United have been criticised as accepting the first offer that comes along - it may not be true - but it smacks of a small club mentality "we better accept this or we might not get anything else!"

And if the latter point were the case, what of it? You're contracted here lad, you won't be walking for free for a few summers yet. United ought to hold all the cards to get a fantastic deal.

My point is that if no one comes in with a higher bid then the bid on the table IS the value. It's not about me thinking I know what his value is, it's the financial reality. I keep reading that it's peanuts to a PL club yet it's only the smallest one in for him as things stand.

As for his value to the club, I'll trust Wilder on that one, what with him being the manager. He's said he doesn't want players who don't want to be here and he's alluded to the fact that Brooks wanted to go and referred to the change in agent.

All anyone has to do is put an unrealistic value on one of our players and based on that worthless fantasy, it's the easiest thing in the world to knock the owners and as is starting to happen, the manager. Suggest it's a good deal though and you're "happy with mediocrity" from the same LaLa landers.

 

[TJB.]

Alert the Sheffield Side-Splitting Hospital to cancel all leave

Shut down. Tory cuts. Can't be helped.

 

[BLADES1988]

Weeaz munneh gone!? McCabe has bought 800 tonnes o pillow mints fo otel!

 

[I should coco]

65p, a packet of Space Raiders and a reassurance from Kev that he's a "lucky boy".

Shit definition.

A packet of pace raiders are 99p so should have come first.

https://www.britishcornershop.co.uk...pyc8vLQdt6DYIkvz8cMVTW2S6UFcw2DBoCLpAQAvD_BwE

You could have economised on typing and saved our reading time by just saying £1.64.

Smarten your act up Bashar Al Asaba or we will raise a petition to get that funnier Tyler back.

 

[Bashar Al Asaba]

Smarten your act up Bashar Al Asaba or we will raise a petition to get that funnier Tyler back.

Ouch! That smarts!

I feel very much like the Wings to Tylers Beatles now

 

[I should coco]

I feel very much like the Wings to Tylers Beatles now

Excellent analalogy.

I won't say the obvious cruel jibe that you are more like Linda than Paul. That wouldn't be fair.

Not fair at all......

 

[BushBlade]

Contract.

The thing is though, almost every manager will say if a player wants to leave, let him go and get the best price for him. There are very few examples where holding a player to his contract has benefited a club but lots where it hasn’t, particularly with younger players who aren’t emotionally mature enough to be told ‘you’re not going to be a millionaire next year or play in the PL, you’re staying with us’.

It’s much easier for a player to take if they’re 25, already a millionaire and already playing in the PL, and the potential suitor is offering them a 40% pay rise, than it is for a kid on much less who is desperate to earn big money and play at the highest level he can. And even then you still get the likes of Van Dijk who just dick around causing disharmony until they get their move.

 

[LJBlade]

Why sell him at all if we can't get what we want for him?

Depends who you mean by ‘we’. If you mean us on this board then I’d say it doesn’t matter what ‘we’ want for him. If you mean Wilder/The Club I’d say we obviously have got what we want for him.

 

[snootyfenooty]

I've seen a player called Nacho in the World Cup who looks a bit handy. So I think Wilder will be given enough money to buy a packet of Wotsits.

 

[Steve Mackan]

My point is that if no one comes in with a higher bid then the bid on the table IS the value. It's not about me thinking I know what his value is, it's the financial reality. LaLa landers.

A few points to raise about second bidder/lack of...etc. Is the timing of the sale linked to a) the agreements arrived at by the owners b) Wilder staying c) our ability to move quickly in the market?

a) both owner's knew Brooks would bring in the money required for transfer; neither have to invest extra on the playing side once sold
b) Wilder wanted stability in the boardroom, a) provided that, if only for the short period of another season, he also wanted to spend more - he's got that
c) We had to get shut quickly because Wilder needs to move quickly, he hasn't the funds for the quality striker we need without Brooks going and there aren't too many strikers about.

All of which says to me, we might have got more money in the Brooks deal had we been able to eke out the process until deadline day. He might have played and scored a couple in that time, more parties may have become interested - ultimately, the fans didn't get the deal that some might've expected but the club, and Wilder, got the deal they needed.

 

[Sean Thornton]

A few points to raise about second bidder/lack of...etc. Is the timing of the sale linked to a) the agreements arrived at by the owners b) Wilder staying c) our ability to move quickly in the market?

a) both owner's knew Brooks would bring in the money required for transfer; neither have to invest extra on the playing side once sold
b) Wilder wanted stability in the boardroom, a) provided that, if only for the short period of another season, he also wanted to spend more - he's got that
c) We had to get shut quickly because Wilder needs to move quickly, he hasn't the funds for the quality striker we need without Brooks going and there aren't too many strikers about.

All of which says to me, we might have got more money in the Brooks deal had we been able to eke out the process until deadline day. He might have played and scored a couple in that time, more parties may have become interested - ultimately, the fans didn't get the deal that some might've expected but the club, and Wilder, got the deal they needed.

The trouble is we don't know the level of funding Wilder has. Or how much he has now. Obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that there doesn't apoear to be a second bidder. Who could have come in at any time, but haven't. Therefore it's not unreasonable to believe that the professionals think that he's not worth more at this stage of his development. That's what the facts appear to be.

He may gave played and got injured. He may have been sold on deadline day without Wilder having the chance to make signings because of the timing.

The "always sell to the first bidder" claims can be seen by past facts to be pretty much nonsense. Adams, Calvert- Lewin, Ramsdale, Maguire. One bidder on each. No bidding war and each time the player wanted a move.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Why sell him at all if we can't get what we want for him?

We didn't get what we wanted? Where's this pearl of wisdom from? How do you know that?

 

[Harrisblade]

I've seen a player called Nacho in the World Cup who looks a bit handy. So I think Wilder will be given enough money to buy a packet of Wotsits.

Some bloke called Michy Batshuayi might want to spend a bit of time in the quiet of the Championship for a season or 2?

 

[blade too long]

Before we start on 'how much does Wilder get', can we answer the previously tabled question:

Where is the cash - in part or whole - which we assumed was generated by the sell on clauses of Maguire and Walker? Does anyone know how much that was?

If the answer is 'we don't know', then see 'how much will Wilder get to spend from the sale of Brooks'.

pommpey

yes loan players wages are charitable , free dont cost anything ,Chelsea paid all our keepers wages last season

wilson from man utd , no cost at all
3 players we bought in january window , came to ten pound fifty ,

 

[snootyfenooty]

Some bloke called Michy Batshuayi might want to spend a bit of time in the quiet of the Championship for a season or 2?

Bit out of our league don't you think? A bit of left field thinking is required in our case. I like this Roman Torres of Panama, a big ugly dirty brick shithouse of a centre half, chips in with a few goals too. Fits the SUFC profile perfectly.

 

[Deaneandagana]

Suspect the deal might not go through until Monday & hence drop into next FY

 

[BushBlade]

A few points to raise about second bidder/lack of...etc. Is the timing of the sale linked to a) the agreements arrived at by the owners b) Wilder staying c) our ability to move quickly in the market?

a) both owner's knew Brooks would bring in the money required for transfer; neither have to invest extra on the playing side once sold
b) Wilder wanted stability in the boardroom, a) provided that, if only for the short period of another season, he also wanted to spend more - he's got that
c) We had to get shut quickly because Wilder needs to move quickly, he hasn't the funds for the quality striker we need without Brooks going and there aren't too many strikers about.

All of which says to me, we might have got more money in the Brooks deal had we been able to eke out the process until deadline day. He might have played and scored a couple in that time, more parties may have become interested - ultimately, the fans didn't get the deal that some might've expected but the club, and Wilder, got the deal they needed.

I agree that the deal had to be done sooner rather than later to get our targets in, so they get a pre-season and don’t go elsewhere.

We couldn’t wait until deadline day on the basis he may have played and scored as the window closes when the season starts.

Waiting until the last minute to get a better price but subsequently missing out on bringing players in to replace and strengthen is something Levy was heavily criticised for in the past at Spurs.

 

[Steve Mackan]

The trouble is we don't know the level of funding Wilder has. Or how much he has now. Obviously. But that doesn't change the fact that there doesn't apoear to be a second bidder. Who could have come in at any time, but haven't. Therefore it's not unreasonable to believe that the professionals think that he's not worth more at this stage of his development. That's what the facts appear to be.

He may gave played and got injured. He may have been sold on deadline day without Wilder having the chance to make signings because of the timing.

The "always sell to the first bidder" claims can be seen by past facts to be pretty much nonsense. Adams, Calvert- Lewin, Ramsdale, Maguire. One bidder on each. No bidding war and each time the player wanted a move.

We couldn’t wait until deadline day on the basis he may have played and scored as the window closes when the season starts.

I'm not suggesting there was a second bidder, nor that we should have waited for one. Simply suggesting that it seems a coincidence that the sale of Brooks (and knowing it was happening) happened after backroom tensions settled down.

 

[Steve Mackan]

I don't think it's a huge leap to suggests the two owners, who were previously engaged in my investments smaller than yours-type of a debate, manage to resolve their differences to the apparent satisfaction of Chris Wilder, for the first big transfer deal to be the selling of David Brooks.

I could be wrong, but I don't see Brooks' value dropping between now and August 31st?
Timing of the selling, for me, has lots to do with Wilder staying insofar as he must've known he'd get the spendo.

 

[BushBlade]

I'm not suggesting there was a second bidder, nor that we should have waited for one. Simply suggesting that it seems a coincidence that the sale of Brooks (and knowing it was happening) happened after backroom tensions settled down.

As I said in my first post, I agree with what you’re saying; waiting for a bigger deal isn’t a good idea given the circumstances we’re in.

 

[blade too long]

says hed already been promised 10m plus a lump of any sales, be a good lump of 12m
so probably got 15 to 20m to spunk around

 

[Steve Mackan]

As I said in my first post, I agree with what you’re saying; waiting for a bigger deal isn’t a good idea given the circumstances we’re in.

Aye. It might have been a good idea if we had enough money behind us...but we're a long way from that. Still, I think Bournemouth is a poor choice. Part of the relegation favorites for me.

View attachment 40970

says hed already been promised 10m plus a lump of any sales, be a good lump of 12m
so probably got 15 to 20m to spunk around

Wilder not quoted as saying £10 million. Nowhere does it say that we have £10 million for transfer fees over and above wages and agent fees. Nowt to get excited about there for me.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Aye. It might have been a good idea if we had enough money behind us...but we're a long way from that. Still, I think Bournemouth is a poor choice. Part of the relegation favorites for me.



Wilder not quoted as saying £10 million. Nowhere does it say that we have £10 million for transfer fees over and above wages and agent fees. Nowt to get excited about there for me.

Agree entirely. We both know how it will be read by some though.

 

[Harrisblade]

Bit out of our league don't you think?

Out of out league???

A bloke that can hit himself in the face with a ball he just kicked out of his own hands?

Sounds right up our street.