Sheffield United's academy restructure bears fruit

[vorpal blade]

Hence Chris Wilder prioritising a sell on clause over an extra few quid now in the here and now.

is this an ironic jibe at another piece of bad business?

so we get at most 10% of his next sale? I haven't heard Wilder interviewed about this btw.

In what way does selling Brooks, who I believe is THE outstanding player of his age make ANY sense to SUFC?

I really feel that the ownership crisis should have reached a head and should have been sorted at the end of the season. It seems to me McCabe is now just trying to take what he can out of the club as some compensation for the funds he has sunk in. Fair enough but it is to the enormous detriment of the side - the period of McCabe's tenure has seen more export of talent than any other period in our history hasn't it? and look at the result - yet another season out of the top flight.

Should we support an owner who is happy with the mediocre status quo or one who might change the disastrously unambitious way this club has been run for years? - to me, though I personally like him, McCabe is a disaster for the club .... just look at the evidence. And don't spare any tears for a billionairish family wanting to recoup losses milllion by million.

Yet again, he has deprived us of the chance to watch an outstandingly entertaining footballer - as for those who have already bought season tickets, it's like booking a holiday in a ***** hotel with a sea view and finding yourself instead staying in a garret looking out onto a back alley. It is a rip-off, unfair contract terms.

As for people saying Brooks is 'unproven' .... don't you trust the evidence of your own eyes?

As for people saying £12M is a good deal, well do you think we are now more or less likely to win promotion?

Do you think Wilder is now more or less likely to leave the club?

 

[LenTednTony]

Brooks WILL fill his potential, it's quite daft to hold out some hope that he will not, he's all but there already. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes in reverse you lot want to believe he's not as good as the evidence you've seen with your own eyes suggests.. He's clearly the most talented footballer seen at Bramall Lane in decades.

He didn't have a decent run of games last season and was ring rusty & protected by the club ..... that is the only reason you might think he mightn't be good enough - of course he is - face facts.

VP, I do hope the comment about not wanting Brooksy to fulfill his potential is NOT aimed at me. If it is, please re read my comments. If it isn’t, I apologise. As for reaching his potential where you say he is all but there, I disagree. He has a lot more to come, I feel sure.

 

[Sirius]

Brooks WILL fill his potential, it's quite daft to hold out some hope that he will not, he's all but there already. It's like the Emperor's New Clothes in reverse you lot want to believe he's not as good as the evidence you've seen with your own eyes suggests.. He's clearly the most talented footballer seen at Bramall Lane in decades.

He didn't have a decent run of games last season and was ring rusty & protected by the club ..... that is the only reason you might think he mightn't be good enough - of course he is - face facts.

All credit for bringing Brooks to the club Surely Mancs dropped the ball in releasing him They had after all let him progress over a number of years There may be others who have the skills that we could sign without having own academy Should we sign and rely players to develop in the under 23s

 

[Chali 2na]

The one fruit McCabe cannot get enough of.

If McCabe loves money so much, why has he spend over a decade funding multi-million pound losses year on year?

 

[vorpal blade]

VP, I do hope the comment about not wanting Brooksy to fulfill his potential is NOT aimed at me.

My reply was to your post -

Obviously you want him to do well from now on in from your text, but I don't agree with the conditional flavour of what you wrote. I think at some stage you have to look at a player and draw the obvious conclusions from what you have seen.

For me, it is obvious that Brooks is the most skilful player at the Lane since Sabella and all he needs is experience and mature strength - those attributes will inevitably come over the next 2 years.

The £12M is a give away and if we gets scraps from Bournemouth's table after he is sold (quite likely following Bournemouth's relegation this time next year) they will just be scraps.

Serious question, would you like to see SUFC playing in the Premiership?

 

[Chali 2na]

The academy isn't working for us - after 6 years or whatever it was in the third division we are now in the second and once again, preparation for the new season is marred by selling one of our best players (certainly the most entertaining).

Bournemouth's academy system IS working for them .... have they even got one? if they haven't, it's working for them, they are in the top league and seem to have poached a player from whom, I suspect they'll make at least £40M when they sell him on in a year, probably to Madrid or City.

We'll have the annual ritual hand wringing from the club .... 'we couldn't keep him, he wanted to leave' .... probably because he'll be much better paid at mighty Bournemouth .... but do the math -

if we pay him £40K per week, then in a year that will be £2M on his salary give or take. So we pay him for 2 seasons at that rate and it's £4million on his wages.
But we are more likely to have gone up with him and even if we haven't, he'll have been a regular player and his value will have risen to at least £20M (gifted championship forward price) or probably about £50M (watch what Bournemouth sell him for in a year's time) - that's how penny pinching makes no sense in football ...... and if people are daft enough to think that we ever invest wisely or that £12M is good value for a player of Brooks' ability ... well, the stats don't lie - we haven't won anything since 1926.

and if someone says ... yes, but that doesn't fit into our wage structure - well, the wage structure doesn't support the concept of our getting to the Premiership or ever winning anything - does it?

again, we haven't won anything on living memory and we have only played top flight football sporadically in the past 40 years - it's pathetic.

Questions for you Vorpal:

1. How you define the academy as "working"?
2. Do any clubs at a simalar level to us have "working academies"?
3. What would you have done if Brooks still rejected our offer?
4. (Assuming Brooks accepted your £40k offer) What would you do if several senior players (let's say Fleck, JOC, Coutts etc.) reacted angrily to being paid less than half of that of an unproven 20 year old?

 

[vorpal blade]

• How you define the academy as "working"?

• Do any clubs at a simalar level to us have "working academies"?

• What would you have done if Brooks still rejected our offer?

• (Assuming Brooks accepted your £40k offer) What would you do if several senior players (let's say Fleck, JOC, Coutts etc.) reacted angrily to being paid less than half of that of an unproven 20 year old?

1. When we become a better team as a result of it's existence.

2. Don't know, but it seems we produce a plethora of fine players who are allowed to contribute to our team for a year before being sold cheaply... something has to change or we'll always be the under-achievers that we are now. Southampton who famously produce good players are in the Premier-league but we are not.

3. Which offer, did United make Brooks a counter offer to Bournemouth's ?

4. Well, I don't know if salaries are actually revealed, (I suspect that estimates are mainly just newspaper guesswork though I'm sure agents are loose lipped too), but I'm suggesting that as long as SUFC pay wages appropriate to the lower reaches of the Championship that is, broadly speaking where we will stay. The wage structure appears to root us at Championship level & but for a remarkably good manager, we may still be rooted at First Division level due to the paucity of the wages.

 

[vorpal blade]

I'm sorry to say this because I used to know him fairly well, but McCabe has to be moved on.

He is penny-pinching and unambitious or too daft to realise that you can't be ambitious and penny-pinching at the same time.

 

[Chali 2na]

1. When we become a better team as a result of it's existence.

Well at the start of our recent promotion season we sold DCL and used the money to finish building the squad.
Wouldn't you agree that the academy made the team better in that situation? Isn't it possible we could strengthen the team with the Brooks fee?

2. Don't know, but it seems we produce a plethora of fine players who are allowed to contribute to our team for a year before being undersold... something has to change or we'll always be the under-achievers that we are now. Southampton who famously produce good players are in the Premier-league but we are not.

So you can't name a single team at our level that have a sucsessful (by your definition) academy? Doesn't that tell you something?

3. Which offer, Did United make a counter offer to Bournemouth?

Apologies for not being more clear: I was talking about Brooks rejecting your hypothetical £40k offer.

4. Well, I don't know if salaries are actually revealed, (I suspect that estimates are mainly just newspaper guesswork), but I'm suggesting that as long as SUFC pay wages appropriate to the lower reaches of the Championship that is, broadly speaking where we will stay. The wage structure appears to root us at Championship level.

So your saying we should pay Fleck, O'Connell, Coutts et al. £40k a week as well then in that hypothetical situation?

 

[SelbyBlade]

The academy isn't working for us - after 6 years or whatever it was in the third division we are now in the second and once again, preparation for the new season is marred by selling one of our best players (certainly the most entertaining).

Bournemouth's academy system IS working for them .... have they even got one? if they haven't, it's working for them, they are in the top league and seem to have poached a player from whom, I suspect they'll make at least £40M when they sell him on in a year, probably to Madrid or City.

We'll have the annual ritual hand wringing from the club .... 'we couldn't keep him, he wanted to leave' .... probably because he'll be much better paid at mighty Bournemouth .... but do the math -

if we pay him £40K per week, then in a year that will be £2M on his salary give or take. So we pay him for 2 seasons at that rate and it's £4million on his wages.
But we are more likely to have gone up with him and even if we haven't, he'll have been a regular player and his value will have risen to at least £20M (gifted championship forward price) or probably about £50M (watch what Bournemouth sell him for in a year's time) - that's how penny pinching makes no sense in football ...... and if people are daft enough to think that we ever invest wisely or that £12M is good value for a player of Brooks' ability ... well, the stats don't lie - we haven't won anything since 1926.

and if someone says ... yes, but that doesn't fit into our wage structure - well, the wage structure doesn't support the concept of our getting to the Premiership or ever winning anything - does it?

again, we haven't won anything on living memory and we have only played top flight football sporadically in the past 40 years - it's pathetic.

Or as it's otherwise known "the Sunderland model" thankyou No. Having to pay £70K a week to hang on to Rodwell who just disappeared with the manager not knowing where he is. Taking massive gambles can have massive consequences and with it being a gamble it can go one of two ways, risk the entire club for one or two players is not smart. You have to think of the collective or group as CW does and the wider implications to the whole club. Some gamble's have to be taken like blooding Brooks in the first place, but doing that does not risk the whole club. Just because Bournemouth made it with their gamble doesn't mean everyone does or every chairman would do it. For every Bournemouth there's a Sunderland, Wigan, Blackburn there has to be as there are only 17 places to stay in the Prem.
I would look at the Burnley method they have made progress even after relegation and done it on a solid foundation more like what CW is doing. Trying to buy your way into the Prem like the Chansiri Pigs doesn't always work.

 

[vorpal blade]

1. I think it is possible the sale of Brooks might bolster the squad, I doubt it will because we have to be buying top level championship talent to replace him and I don't think you can for £12M, £6M, £3M or £1.5M or £750K. I take your point about DCL, but for sure he is worth many many times more than £1.5M now .... we shouldn't be happy with being a low level championship side.

(btw I also want to pay to see talent and skill at the Lane [entertainment], almost by definition we won't see his like next season, and I doubt we will for many years ... I know other supporters have other preferences to mine)

2. Yes, that the academy structure only exists to provide cheap players for Premier League teams.

3. I took the £40M from a comment on facebook® so I used it hypothetically.

4. We have to get a wage structure commensurate with winning promotion to the Premier League - otherwise we just exist to pay back the McCabe family at the rate of a penny in the pound or whatever.

We have to take some chances .... not by buying players at hugely inflated prices but by ONCE just ONCE incorporating players we have nurtured into our team. The notable problem for me last year was putting the ball in the net. Brooks was VERY good at that, who can we get for £12M or less who can be better than Sharp, Brooks or Clark ?

 

[vorpal blade]

Taking massive gambles can have massive consequences

I understand what you are driving at, but I don't believe I'm proposing a 'massive gamble'.

btw, I would point out that 'massive gambles' in football DO NOT have 'massive consequences' usually. Lots of teams have gone bust, failed to pay creditors (I know seriously how that feels) but they never go out of business ... many do very well out of it.

Wolves, Bournemouth, Hull, Palace, Leicester City etc. all seem to have done better out of it than us. Nor do I advocate such deplorable abuse of insolvency ...... (on the contrary, I think many bankrupts should be gaoled - that there should be far closer connection between businesses and the personal wealth of those who operate them)

Will financial fairplay really make matters better ? I seriously doubt it myself.

Oh and Sunderland haven't crashed and burnt as seriously as we did have they?

 

[Chali 2na]

1. I think it is possible the sale of Brooks might bolster the squad, I doubt it will because we have to be buying top level championship talent to replace him and I don't think you can for £12M, £6M, £3M or £1.5M or £750K.
I take your point about DCL, but for sure he is worth many many times more than £1.5M now .... we shouldn't be happy with being a low level championship side.

Brooks isn't currently "top level championship", he's a promising young player with a lot to learn.

As for DCL, what are you trying to say? That we should have kept him?

We finished 10th last season: in what world is that "low level championship"?

2. Yes, that the academy structure only exists to provide cheap players for Premier League teams.

If it only exists for that reason, how come 98% of league clubs still fund and run their academies?

4. We have to get a wage structure commensurate with winning promotion to the Premier League - otherwise we just exist to pay back the McCabe family at the rate of a penny in the pound or whatever.

So answer my question then: if you think Brooks is worth a £40k contract (your suggestion), would we pay the same to Fleck, JOC and Coutts?

 

[vorpal blade]

Brooks isn't currently "top level championship", he's a promising young player with a lot to learn.

which he will inevitably learn. He is much the best player we've shipped out since Currie. (possible exception of Sabella) the only other one that comes close is of course Walker though right-backs come cheaper & how do you value the cost of coming up against a player sold for about £2M in a league cup semi-final that we lost btw?

 

[SelbyBlade]

I understand what you are driving at, but I don't believe I'm proposing a 'massive gamble'.

btw, I would point out that 'massive gambles' in football DO NOT have 'massive consequences' usually. Lots of teams have gone bust, failed to pay creditors (I know seriously how that feels) but they never go out of business ... many do very well out of it.

Wolves, Bournemouth, Hull, Palace, Leicester City etc. all seem to have done better out of it than us. Nor do I advocate such deplorable abuse of insolvency ...... (on the contrary, I think many bankrupts should be gaoled - that there should be far closer connection between businesses and the personal wealth of those who operate them)

Will financial fairplay really make matters better ? I seriously doubt it myself.

Oh and Sunderland haven't crashed and burnt as seriously as we did have they?

Yes they have speaking to my Sunderland supporting mate yesterday. They are looking to Scotland to buy all their players (where have we seen that before) because who is going to buy Rodwell and Cattermole to get them off the wage bill? They would have been alright with CW but they are going through the same cycle we did but they have a clean slate down to their selling owner wiping their debts.

 

[vorpal blade]

As for DCL, what are you trying to say? That we should have kept him?

I was conceding you that one, without checking I wouldn't know who was bought as a direct result of off-loading DCL ... we sure as hell got NO enjoyment from watching him play at the Lane.

If it only exists for that reason, how come 98% of league clubs still fund and run their academies?

You tell me? do they receive FA funding?

 

[vorpal blade]

Yes they have speaking to my Sunderland supporting mate yesterday.

come back to me when Sunderland are playing in their 7th successive season in the First Division.

 

[Chali 2na]

which he will inevitably learn. He is much the best player we've shipped out since Currie. (possible exception of Sabella) the only other one that comes close is of course Walker though right-backs come cheaper & how do you value the cost of coming up against a player sold for about £2M in a league cup semi-final that we lost btw?

Selling Walker was poor because we sold him before knowing his value, and we failed to use the funds to strengthem the side. However Walker leaving (eventually) was inevitable. You seem to be forgetting that these players wanted to leave.

Now I've answered your question, you may consider answering some of the 4 questions that you've repeatedly avoided:

• Why don't any clubs at a simalar level to us have (by your definition) "working academies"? Doesn't that tell you something?

• What would you have done if Brooks still rejected your hypothetical £40k offer?

• If we offered Brooks £40k, would we do the same for Coutts, Fleck and JOC?

• Wouldn't you agree that the academy made the team better we sold DCL and re-invested the money for our promotion push?

 

[Chali 2na]

You tell me? do they receive FA funding?

FA funding is a fraction if the cost of keeping and academy like ours open, so that's obviosuly not the reason.

 

[vorpal blade]

• If we offered Brooks £40k, would we do the same for Coutts, Fleck and JOC?

Yes or something commensurate with their value. O'Connell isn't near the same standard (though don't induce me to comment negatively about professionals who have access to this forum please) - Coutts and Fleck are about as valuable as Brooks, we will settle down as a team at the level that our wage structure implies with a slight improvement brought about by exceptionally enlightened management. In short we must have an improved wage structure or we will be stuck at this level and sink lower if Wilder goes.

Why don't any clubs at a simalar level to us have (by your definition) "working academies"? Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, that they haven't really thought if it's worthwhile to them. Are you suggesting that football clubs are thoughtfully run? I also suspect that there are inducements for clubs to run academies (from the FA, from local authorities etc.) maybe just even fashion that makes them do it.

Or even that its a 'nice' thing to do for the sake of the children involved or the country?

I'm saying it's time United stopped being patsies and took a good hard look at if it is benefitting our direct competitors more than it is benefitting us.

If academies only exist to serve premier league clubs, how come 98% of league clubs still fund and run their academies?

They are a stupidly run as we are.

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

is this an ironic jibe at another piece of bad business?

so we get at most 10% of his next sale? I haven't heard Wilder interviewed about this btw.

In what way does selling Brooks, who I believe is THE outstanding player of his age make ANY sense to SUFC?

I really feel that the ownership crisis should have reached a head and should have been sorted at the end of the season. It seems to me McCabe is now just trying to take what he can out of the club as some compensation for the funds he has sunk in. Fair enough but it is to the enormous detriment of the side - the period of McCabe's tenure has seen more export of talent than any other period in our history hasn't it? and look at the result - yet another season out of the top flight.

Should we support an owner who is happy with the mediocre status quo or one who might change the disastrously unambitious way this club has been run for years? - to me, though I personally like him, McCabe is a disaster for the club .... just look at the evidence. And don't spare any tears for a billionairish family wanting to recoup losses milllion by million.

Yet again, he has deprived us of the chance to watch an outstandingly entertaining footballer - as for those who have already bought season tickets, it's like booking a holiday in a ***** hotel with a sea view and finding yourself instead staying in a garret looking out onto a back alley. It is a rip-off, unfair contract terms.

As for people saying Brooks is 'unproven' .... don't you trust the evidence of your own eyes?

As for people saying £12M is a good deal, well do you think we are now more or less likely to win promotion?

Do you think Wilder is now more or less likely to leave the club?

Not sure I agree with the anti-McCabe bits but the rest of your post is very sensible. Just as when your bird dumps you for a better looking guy, there are a few harsh realities here which on introspection don't make for pleasant reading. We're losing players to Bournemouth?!?! That in itself is disconcerting. Bournemouth?!?? How did that happen??

Having slept on it, for me it feels a year too early for everybody. Brooks could do with a full season of first team football not just cameos, we need a player of his skill set to push on and challenge for promotion and in this ideal scenario I'm sure we'd get more than £12m and he'd be attracting more interest than just Bournemouth. Plus in a years time will Bournemouth still be in the PL??

That notwithstanding it's understandable in this modern age that everyone concerned has just cashed in at the first sign of a pound note...

 

[Chali 2na]

Yes or something commensurate with their value. O'Connell isn't near the same standard (though don't induce me to comment negatively about professionals who have access to this forum please) - Coutts and Fleck are about as valuable as Brooks, we will settle down as a team at the level that our wage structure implies with a slight improvement brought about by exceptionally enlightened management. In short we must have an improved wage structure or we will be stuck at this level and sink lower if Wilder goes.

We do have an improved wage bill compared to last season.

How much more should we push it? Wednesday's level? Villa's? Boro's?

Yes, that they haven't really thought if it's worthwhile to them. Are you suggesting that football clubs are thoughtfully run? I also suspect that there are inducements for clubs to run academies (from the FA, from local authorities etc.) maybe just even fashion that makes them do it.

Or even that its a 'nice' thing to do for the sake of the children involved or the country?

I'm saying it's time United stopped being patsies and took a good hard look at if it is benefitting our direct competitors more than it is benefitting us.



They are a stupidly run as we are.

So you can't name a working academy outside the PL, and "they are a stupidly run as we are"?

And when you say "it's benefiting our direct competitors", who are you reffering to? Our direct competitors are in the Championship.

 

[Chali 2na]

We're losing players to Bournemouth?!?! That in itself is disconcerting. Bournemouth?!??

Small clubs can become big clubs over time and vice versa.

Stop being such an entitled snob. Bournemouth are an established PL club, we are not.

 

[IdLiketoRogerMoore]

Small clubs can become big clubs over time and vice versa.

Stop being such an entitled snob. Bournemouth are an established PL club, we are not.

Jees. Grow up. Stop being a snap judgmental berk. If we're into petty name calling.... Which it seems we are.

If a small club such as Bournemouth can get its shit together and establish itself in such a position and we can't is the grown up point I was making, but let's resort back to name calling. It's easier that way.... Let's just doth our caps and just sit back, incorrectly tell ourselves Brooks wasn't even a first teamer, call each other names and accept we're Sheff Utd and wobetide should we ever try to question the status quo.

Wazzock. There's another if that's an easier concept for you to reply to?

 

[Chali 2na]

Jees. Grow up. Stop being a snap judgmental berk. If we're into petty name calling.... Which it seems we are.

I'm not being a "snap judgemental berk", I was being objective. Your dismay at Bournemouth being able to poach one of our players is a perfect example of entitlement (we should be where they are) and snobbery (they are inherently lower than us, despite their position)

If you don't wish to come across that way, then you should pick your words more carefully.

If a small club such as Bournemouth can get its shit together and establish itself in such a position and we can't is the grown up point I was making, but let's resort back to name calling. It's easier that way.... Let's just doth our caps and just sit back, incorrectly tell ourselves Brooks wasn't even a first teamer, call each other names and accept we're Sheff Utd and wobetide should we ever try to question the status quo.

Wazzock. There's another if that's an easier concept for you to reply to?

Bournemouth didn't sit up one day and "get it's shit together and establish itself": it was bought by a wealthy russian who has invested heavily - that's the difference.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Now I've answered your question, you may consider answering some of the 4 questions that you've repeatedly avoided:

• Why don't any clubs at a simalar level to us have (by your definition) "working academies"? Doesn't that tell you something?

• What would you have done if Brooks still rejected your hypothetical £40k offer?

• If we offered Brooks £40k, would we do the same for Coutts, Fleck and JOC?

• Wouldn't you agree that the academy made the team better we sold DCL and re-invested the money for our promotion push?

Vorpal's far too cultured to give you an answer that is direct enough for you to understand. So I will.

1. They do to varying degrees. They run one more tailored to their budget and still manage to unearth players of future value.
2. Brooks rejecting a £40k offer is just as hypothetical as the hypothetical offer itself. Stupid hypothetical argument.
3. Coutts, Fleck and JOC's value combined wouldn't add up to what we got for Brooks. By the same token, then neither is their worth in terms of the wages they are paid. I know this is Sheffield but unfortunately socialism doesn't work in footballers' pay. United are in a minority of one club in trying to equalise pay amongst their players. If you want everyone on Lundstram's pay then you end up with a team full of Lundstrams. I'm sure the players you mention are aware of this and this line of argument seems unique to this forum.
4. We'll never know because we sold him. You're being hypothetical again. One thing that's for certain though is that Everton will get a minimum 1000% mark up over what we got for him if they sell him.

There.

 

[stringer]

It seems to me McCabe is now just trying to take what he can out of the club as some compensation for the funds he has sunk in... though I personally like him, McCabe is a disaster for the club .... just look at the evidence. And don't spare any tears for a billionairish family wanting to recoup losses milllion by million.

How much do you think McCabe will ‘take out of the club’ from the Brooks transfer? And whose family is ‘billionairish’?

 

[Chali 2na]

They do to varying degrees. They run one more tailored to their budget and still manage to unearth players of future value.

Vorpal's argument was that academies only serve the PL and that any other club with an academy "haven't really thought if it's worthwhile to them" and considered that they're "maybe just even fashion" - is that the point you are trying to make as well?

Brooks rejecting a £40k offer is just as hypothetical as the hypothetical offer itself. Stupid hypothetical argument.

I'm afraid the "cultured" Vorpal Blade introduced the "stupid" hypothetical subject of offering Brooks £40k - not me.

Coutts, Fleck and JOC's value combined wouldn't add up to what we got for Brooks. By the same token, then neither is their worth in terms of the wages they are paid. I know this is Sheffield but unfortunately socialism doesn't work in footballers' pay. United are in a minority of one club in trying to equalise pay amongst their players. If you want everyone on Lundstram's pay then you end up with a team full of Lundstrams. I'm sure the players you mention are aware of this and this line of argument seems unique to this forum.

Footballers wages and footballers transfer fees aren't proportional in many cases.

Unproven players who have a high value may earn modest ammount compared to aging footballers with little value. (Think John Terry and Jack Grealish as an example.)

If a fringe player (Brooks) was made the highest earner, I am completely sure that many of our key players (Fleck, Coutts, JOC) would feel aggrieved and want similar money - Do you disagree?

We'll never know because we sold him. You're being hypothetical again. One thing that's for certain though is that Everton will get a minimum 1000% mark up over what we got for him if they sell him.
There.

I wasnt asking if Everton would make a mark up. I asked if selling him and re-investing the fee improved the squad. Did it?

Cheers for having a go though.

 

[Chali 2na]

How much do you think McCabe will ‘take out of the club’ from the Brooks transfer? And whose family is ‘billionairish’?

Your wasting your time.

 

[vorpal blade]

The family McCabe is that to which I refer (I don't know if they have billions or merely millions).

I've no idea what their cut is, have you?

It won't be a direct cut, it'll be measured by how much less they feel they have to subsidise the club having sold him. But the gist of my argument is that they are 'pennywise, pound foolish' - that is the probably the manner in which they made their fortune. After all isn't Kevin a QS originally, the person who tries to cut construction costs in a building project?