David Brooks - Sky Sports Article

[vorpal blade]

In short, I disagree with your assertions but feel free to provide evidence of the contrary.

the evidence will present itself over the next 5 years.



I'm not convinced United had any option but to sell him, I simply don't know .... but at the time, I observed that the lack of clear leadership at Bramall Lane probably inhibited our chance to play hardball, and our pay structure should have to be 'relaxed' to keep him.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Well if you take into account we’ve lost money year on year, we’ve got no cash reserves. So, unless we intended to spend the Brooks money on these players, I’ve no idea where it was going to come from, nor where the money for Egan came from.

Tbh, I haven’t got a clue what’s going on, none of it makes sense, which is why I’m not going to try to predict what we have or haven’t got. I wish Wilder had just kept his cards close to his chest.

Agree it's all one big contradiction. I'm with Wilder, purely because he seems trustworthy: the prexisting budget has been used. I can only guess that he has been given a slice of the Brooks money, that would have paid for Waghorn/Freeman.

 

[The Crab]

AND Mick Jones

Fucks sake, you'll be telling me Currie's gone next.......

 

[Eric Cartman]

We didn’t ‘settle for’ the fee though. No other club, despite their multi-million pound scouting systems, offered a penny more, or indeed anything at all. for the S2 Ronaldo.

Tufty, whilst regretting that the lad wouldn’t agree to stay for another year (anyone suggesting we could have forced him once his leech was securely clamped is remarkably naive) didn’t even hint at suggesting that our club had any real option. His disappointment was specifically directed at Brooks and his leech, nobody else.

He was on a long term contract. There was no reason that we HAD to sell him in that window. If no one offers more, keep him. It's pretty easy.

And you're incredibly naive if you think a lad who had barely played could risk not playing for a season at his age had we 'forced' him to stay against his will. It only takes another James Maddison to turn up out of nowhere and Brooks is old news, forgotten about, chance of a big move all but done. There's no way he'd have refused to play if we'd kept him - contrary to poplar belief you CAN reject bids for players who want to move and more often than not they play the same if not better than before as they have to keep said teams interested.

Naive to suggest that we couldn't have kept him.

 

[vorpal blade]

It’s not an inferiority complex, it’s just inferiority. We are inferior to Bournemouth

I agree with you completely but; in the manner of

"just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me"

...... "just because we've got an inferiority complex doesn't mean we're not inferior'.

 

[Pinchy]

It’s not naivety, it’s sheer bloody mindedness to refuse to accept how things are with the sole purpose of having a dig at the club.

You appear to be suggesting that some of our fans take pleasure in gratuitously knocking the club they claim to support?

Absolutely absurd. You’ll be claiming they resort to complete fabrication next.

 

[Sean Thornton]

the evidence will present itself over the next 5 years.



I'm not convinced United had any option but to sell him, I simply don't know .... but at the time, I observed that the lack of clear leadership at Bramall Lane probably inhibited our chance to play hardball, and our pay structure should have to be 'relaxed' to keep him.

You said at United. That he was better than Currie. Which is it? At United or in five years time?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Fucks sake, you'll be telling me Currie's gone next.......

Err......

And Slew. Who we sold much, much too cheaply!

 

[stringer]

What budget? Do you have any evidence of this other than the fact you've repeated it to yourself many times.

He had no budget. Our owners are at loggerheads and nobody was putting money in until the ownership is resolved.

The Brooks money covers the loss that will be caused by the level of wages and gives a little to spend. We've spent that.



You might be right about that. It is possible their fees were a 'bonus' so there may be a small amount available for the JTW from that.

CW had a summer budget which accounted for Egan etc. McGoldrick was free. That budget was one of the reasons he agreed to stay. He’s referenced several times he ‘hasn’t touched the Brooks money’.

 

[Sean Thornton]

You expect that though. He didn't show a lack of composure slotting at Elland Road to win us the game did he? You're bound to get that at his age with very little professional football to your name. To say he 'didn't show much' is frankly absurd.

It's a shame really, if he was a key man we'd have been looking upwards of £20mil rather than the 11/12 we settled for, I'm certain of it. He was a joy to watch and will be back at City one day I'm sure.

I didnt say he didn't show much did I?

 

[Eric Cartman]

I didnt say he didn't show much did I?

I didn't say you did? Pinchy did - or words to that effect.

 

[Sean Thornton]

CW had a summer budget which accounted for Egan etc. McGoldrick was free. That budget was one of the reasons he agreed to stay. He’s referenced several times he ‘hasn’t touched the Brooks money’.

Has he said that recently? Did he go into detail about how much? Was he just referring to the first tranche or all of it?

If he's speaking of a lack of funds now, something must have changed.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I didn't say you did did I? Pinchy did

In your reply to me you used the words, that was all.

 

[stringer]

PS: who's PAYING the £25K per week Norwood is apparently on?

Ow much?

 

[stringer]

Has he said that recently? Did he go into detail about how much? Was he just referring to the first tranche or all of it?

If he's speaking of a lack of funds now, something must have changed.

I was replying to the assertion he had no summer budget my friend. If that were the case, and he hasn’t touched the Brooks cash as he said, where did circa £6m for Egan and Norwood come from?

 

[Eric Cartman]

In your reply to me you used the words, that was all.

Fair enough, you responded to my comment to Pinchy so I thought it was obvious but here we are.

I don't disagree at times he did show lack of composure at times but he did have it in abundance at the same time.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

He was on a long term contract. There was no reason that we HAD to sell him in that window. If no one offers more, keep him. It's pretty easy.

And you're incredibly naive if you think a lad who had barely played could risk not playing for a season at his age had we 'forced' him to stay against his will.

Isn't that exactly what happened with Hirst the younger over in S6? Wilder has repeatedly made it clear that he is only interested in players who really want to be here.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

If he’d have stayed, what would be his value going into the January transfer window? It would probably have been more than what we received – but possibly not a lot more, and probably not yet in Maddison/Grealish territory. The value he now has is because he has shown quality at Premier League level. I don’t think his Wales performances would have added that much to his value.

Would anyone have been happier selling to Bournemouth in January for, say, £18m? A likely higher fee yes, but far greater disruption to our season arguably. We at least sold at a time when there was the least disruption on the club.

 

[snootyfenooty]

It’s not naivety, it’s sheer bloody mindedness to refuse to accept how things are with the sole purpose of having a dig at the club.

Criticising United's habit of selling any half decent player since day dot is not having a dig at the club. It would have been interesting to hear of your justification of United's attempt to sell Hagan to Wednesday if you'd been around in the day.

 

[The Crab]

Err......

And Slew. Who we sold much, much too cheaply!

At least those sell on clauses we inserted worked out well.....................

 

[Houston_Blade]

Danny04 Sean Thornton can any of you remember reading that there was initially £2m kitty available in the summer in the disclosure that McCabe made about the dispute?

I remember reading it but can’t be bothered to read back through it.

 

[The Crab]

CW had a summer budget which accounted for Egan etc. McGoldrick was free. That budget was one of the reasons he agreed to stay. He’s referenced several times he ‘hasn’t touched the Brooks money’.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I was replying to the assertion he had no summer budget my friend. If that were the case, and he hasn’t touched the Brooks cash as he said, where did circa £6m for Egan and Norwood come from?

My point was really about him "referencing it several times". The last one I've found was in September, in a James Shield article - which claims we received a £10m down payment in the summer - but nothing since.

If he's bemoaning the fact that there's little or no money now, the situation has changed. Which the £7m loan facility would indicate.

I didn't mention the summer budget btw. But it was reported he had money and had kore from player sales, so pretty much a given.

I think the problem is taking the words of clubs, owners, directors and managers too literally at times, and imagining figures that aren't mentioned.

 

[stringer]

My point was really about him "referencing it several times". The last one I've found was in September, in a James Shield article - which claims we received a £10m down payment in the summer - but nothing since.

If he's bemoaning the fact that there's little or no money now, the situation has changed. Which the £7m loan facility would indicate.

I didn't mention the summer budget btw. But it was reported he had money and had kore from player sales, so pretty much a given.

I think the problem is taking the words of clubs, owners, directors and managers too literally at times, and imagining figures that aren't mentioned.

No he said it several times around the end of the window. And I know you didn’t mention the summer budget... that’s why I didn’t quote you

 

[Sean Thornton]

Danny04 Sean Thornton can any of you remember reading that there was initially £2m kitty available in the summer in the disclosure that McCabe made about the dispute?

I remember reading it but can’t be bothered to read back through it.

Wasn't that on here? £2m for fees plus wages? I may be wrong though.

Have we paid for Norwood yet?

 

[Sean Thornton]

No he said it several times around the end of the window. And I know you didn’t mention the summer budget... that’s why I didn’t quote you

That's what I thought. But people still assume that's still the case when the sparse evidence suggests otherwise.


Aah yes, so you didn't

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

It’s not an inferiority complex, it’s just inferiority. We are inferior to Bournemouth, this is evidenced by our respective league positions.

Sometimes the limitations of a language make for disagreements. Unlike English, Spanish has 2 different verbs corresponding to the English verb 'to be'. Ser means 'to be (inherently, naturally, as an integral part of one's existence)', whereas estar means 'to be (at this moment, unusually, as a result of particular circumstances)'. I think we can agree that Bounemouth are superior (estar) at the moment, but I don't think many (any?) of us think they are inherently superior to us (ser).

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Criticising United's habit of selling any half decent player since day dot is not having a dig at the club. It would have been interesting to hear of your justification of United's attempt to sell Hagan to Wednesday if you'd been around in the day.

He didn't want to leave, so the comparison doesn't work.

 

[SwissBlade]

I don’t think you can compare buying a car with choosing which country you represent. Or maybe that’s how modern players see it. Sad, if so.

Didn’t he turn down Wales u20s to play for England u20s at Toulon, then went back to Wales? Having had his dream snatched away once, when Man City released him, I can understand his thinking but he’s not shown any loyalty to anyone but himself.

The you get the point with the analogy.

I heard that he got the call from Wales after England for Toulon and he'd already accepted England, so they said to go with England and they'd see him after, no harm done.

 

[BushBlade]

He was on a long term contract. There was no reason that we HAD to sell him in that window. If no one offers more, keep him. It's pretty easy.

And you're incredibly naive if you think a lad who had barely played could risk not playing for a season at his age had we 'forced' him to stay against his will. It only takes another James Maddison to turn up out of nowhere and Brooks is old news, forgotten about, chance of a big move all but done. There's no way he'd have refused to play if we'd kept him - contrary to poplar belief you CAN reject bids for players who want to move and more often than not they play the same if not better than before as they have to keep said teams interested.

Naive to suggest that we couldn't have kept him.

How do you know this? Do you work in football? Because everyone I’ve heard talking about it, who do work in the game, say it’s folly to try to keep players who want to leave, the best a club can do is to ‘convince’ them by offering them a new, much bigger contract, like Villa had to with Grealish.

Maybe we could have got him to stay for another year by giving him a decent pay rise but maybe Wilder thought the money would be better spent elsewhere.

The bottom line is we either find an owner who’s prepared to fund a promotion challenge or we keep having to sell players to provide the funding. Obviously the former is vastly preferable but that’s not where we are right now.