£7.5m bank loan

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

itsinyerblood said:
Wonderful thing hindsight......

I can't understand why the financial wizards on here can't grasp the fact that we'd have accepted a greater figure than the Bournemouth offer if it had been made.....but where was this amount? Couldn't find it, neither could anyone else. All the waffle in the world, and here we are, on top of the Championship, yet that's not enough for those of us who can figure out how things that would've panned out with the benefit of hindsight. How much better would we have done than be top of this division? Of course, it may not last, but for the moment it's deserved, and this team are looking good, so what else does anyone want...other than the retention of a young player whose eventual and timely move enabled this team to strengthen?

Talking as if you just know an outcome is the easiest, most predictable party trick there is. Rather than point an accusing figure, as if anyone at United wouldn't have preferred to accept a higher amount than the figure quoted, is the sum total of know-nothingness. The facts are as follows, there wasn't another offer to consider!.

Yes, wouldn't it have been lovely to add an addition £6-8 million to whatever figure we sold Brooks for, but it wasn't to be. Just be glad that the sale of a young player enabled our manager to strengthen sensibly and creatively.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, not everyone needed the benefit of hindsight. Dig up the old threads if you need too. The only reason I could justify the sale at that price was that glandular fever (and other associated illnesses)are extremely unpredictable and at times difficult to get over. I have CFS/ME and it's ruined the last ten years of my life. The talent level of Brooks was obvious; the potential extremely high.The only other justification is the money was needed to keep the club solvent, which flies in the face of Wilder's "we've hardly touched the Brooks money".We'll see the truth of that in January. According to Wilder his transfer plans were in no way dependent on Brooks's sale.Maybe if we had got Waghorn, Freeman etc that would've changed.
 

Smirth said:
I would imagine this is fairly standard practice from football clubs with transfer deals such as this.

Rather than wait for the instalments, we have the money available now in the form of a loan to be used.

Don’t really see why it’s a cause for concern?
Click to expand...
I agree .... Kevin McCabe has always stood by SUFC & done his absolute best for The Blades. So we need to have faith in him. We are Blades & loyalty is everything so please be loyal to Kevin McCabe.
 
snootyfenooty said:
For the higher offers to come in, the player has to build up his CV a bit first. Seeing as we are reluctant to allow this to happen by getting rid at the first opportunity, your scenario will never arise. The obvious conclusion that can be drawn is if the player is worth £12m after a handful of starts, then what would the price tag be with a full season to his credit?
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Brooks picking up a million pound signing on fee and at least trebling his wages and getting to play in the PL. Did he ever say he would not leave for all the money in the world.
 
itsinyerblood said:
Wonderful thing hindsight......

I can't understand why the financial wizards on here can't grasp the fact that we'd have accepted a greater figure than the Bournemouth offer if it had been made.....but where was this amount? Couldn't find it, neither could anyone else. All the waffle in the world, and here we are, on top of the Championship, yet that's not enough for those of us who can figure out how things that would've panned out with the benefit of hindsight. How much better would we have done than be top of this division? Of course, it may not last, but for the moment it's deserved, and this team are looking good, so what else does anyone want...other than the retention of a young player whose eventual and timely move enabled this team to strengthen?

Talking as if you just know an outcome is the easiest, most predictable party trick there is. Rather than point an accusing figure, as if anyone at United wouldn't have preferred to accept a higher amount than the figure quoted, is the sum total of know-nothingness. The facts are as follows, there wasn't another offer to consider!.

Yes, wouldn't it have been lovely to add an addition £6-8 million to whatever figure we sold Brooks for, but it wasn't to be. Just be glad that the sale of a young player enabled our manager to strengthen sensibly and creatively.
Click to expand...
The reason he was sold was because he wanted to go .Wilder has said he would rather he stayed but also as he has stated he won't keep a player who wants to go go.
This is what happened and we got the best price available ( or Wilder did ) the club don't throw money away it was obviouse he was premiership quality but when a players head is turned it's best they go .
 
finlaytheblade said:
The reason he was sold was because he wanted to go .Wilder has said he would rather he stayed but also as he has stated he won't keep a player who wants to go go.
This is what happened and we got the best price available ( or Wilder did ) the club don't throw money away it was obviouse he was premiership quality but when a players head is turned it's best they go .
Click to expand...

What happens if in January O'Connell, Sharp, Duffy, Egan, McGoldrick, Coutts and Norwood all want to go?

Will we sell them all? Can we not keep them in that situation?
 
Are we still ignoring the fact that we rarely even played him, and when we did he was really good probably a quarter of the time?
 
itsinyerblood said:
Of course, it may not last, but for the moment it's deserved, and this team are looking good, so what else does anyone want...other than the retention of a young player whose eventual and timely move enabled this team to strengthen?
Click to expand...

You're missing the point of this discussion. It's not a moan about retaining or selling Brooks, that's dead and buried now. It's about how or should we have got more money for him.
 
Tom Bott said:
Nothing to do with Brooks picking up a million pound signing on fee and at least trebling his wages and getting to play in the PL. Did he ever say he would not leave for all the money in the world.
Click to expand...

That's a silly argument. He'd just signed a 4 year deal so was in no position to walk out. So the club said he expressed a desire to leave, which means the club put to him the offer you have outlined above. Of course he'd say he was interested. The club could just have easily told Bournemouth to fuck off and not disclosed the offer to Brooks. How do you think Fulham managed to hold on to Sessignon last year?

The fact that Brooks had just signed a 4 year deal should have given United a massive bargaining chip in the negotiations and should have held out for more. It was one of the first deals in the transfer window ffs which gives you a clue about United's negotiating ability. It's a good job they're not looking after the Brexit negotiations, they're the only organisation who could conceivably have made a bigger fuck up than this government.
 
nopigfansintown said:
With all due respect, not everyone needed the benefit of hindsight. Dig up the old threads if you need too. The only reason I could justify the sale at that price was that glandular fever (and other associated illnesses)are extremely unpredictable and at times difficult to get over. I have CFS/ME and it's ruined the last ten years of my life. The talent level of Brooks was obvious; the potential extremely high.The only other justification is the money was needed to keep the club solvent, which flies in the face of Wilder's "we've hardly touched the Brooks money".We'll see the truth of that in January. According to Wilder his transfer plans were in no way dependent on Brooks's sale.Maybe if we had got Waghorn, Freeman etc that would've changed.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, your comment that "the only justification is the money was needed to keep the club afloat" is more likely a stab in the dark. Those of us (and I include yourself in that comment) that pay attention to the threads that emanate from within the club, understand that we're not exactly awash with money. Yet I'm loathe to infer that the likes of Wilder would go on record to suggest one thing when the opposite is true. The truth is that not one of us actually know. We can summarize based on the financial revelations that are released yearly (so far, the best interpreter of these I've found is Sean Thornton) but otherwise all other information would appear to be the fables otherwise referred to as ITK.

I prefer to take Wilder at his word. It doesn't mean that I'm right, but my instincts suggest that this is the case. When January comes around all of us will have some idea about the club's intentions regarding targets. Personally I regard January as a poor time to buy, but it's part of the domestic transfer schedule that we cannot ignore. For the second season running we find ourselves top of this division. Whether that's a temporary affair, or develops into something that suggests we're there for a reason (in short, because we deserve to be there), we need to resolve the ownership issue, and secondly we can only hope that any future player purchases are on a par with the players that Wilder has recruited this season. We've never shown a great deal of ambition in the transfer market, that may be something that's written into the DNA of any owner who controls this club. Of course I'd love to see an owner who could apply rigorous financial control whilst understanding that enabling our manager the type of latitude to wheel and deal (especially applies to Wilder) will enable the club to remain in the top flight. Of course the funds provided by remaining in the Premiership is the key, or at least part of it.
 
blade too long said:
Those demanding big spending in Jan for a forward. We are third top scorers 2nd has 1 more than us West Brom 6 due to a 7_1 win over QPR but we apparently are desperately short of options
Click to expand...

We are short of effective options this year, only 40% of our strike force has scored a goal, and 2 players are repsonsible for over 50% of our goals. 2nd placed WBA have scored 10 goals more than us in only 12 goals. We were short of options last year, and it eventually cost us. I don't want to repeat the mistake.

It's tempting fate to rely on two aging strikers keeping up a consistent scoring record throughout the season. One of the reasons our form fell away was that we stopped scoring. We were over reliant on BS & LC, both in the their 30's, and it eventually cost us. LC blazed through the division until December & then fell away badly.

We brought in McG to supplement our 1st choice front two, but instead he has replaced LC as one of the front two. McG has a history of injury problems and rarely does a full season without picking one up. Again he is in his 30's.

We also rely on Duffy for creativity & goals, again he is in his 30's. We also have Woodburn & Washington on the books, and I wouldn't want to rely on either to score us out of this division should the need arise, and we pick an injury or two.

Unless LC starts scoring regularly and relativity soon, it would be common sense & prudence to bring in someone in the JTW to make sure we don't come up short for whatever reason. It shouldn't be seen as a personal affront to suggest that we over prepare this season and for the 1st time in a long time pre-empt fate. Cardiff & Warnock for all their failings did that last year with Madine. He was bought as an expensive insurance policy, which wasn't needed.

We on the other hand have plenty of recent history of coming up short down the home stretch regarding goals & forwards, eg. Hulse, Bad Beattie, Lupoli & Will Hoskins.
 
finlaytheblade said:
The reason he was sold was because he wanted to go .Wilder has said he would rather he stayed but also as he has stated he won't keep a player who wants to go go.
This is what happened and we got the best price available ( or Wilder did ) the club don't throw money away it was obviouse he was premiership quality but when a players head is turned it's best they go .
Click to expand...

That's my understanding too. By the time the deal was signed, sealed, and delivered, it was already a given that we'd lose the player. As has been mentioned elsewhere, unless there's another offer on the table you're faced with deciding whether to take the one offer available or leave it. Having a discontented player on board is often regarded as a negative, so whatever anyone thinks of Wilder's intent, I'm happy to back our manager in circumstances that weren't of our making. What's followed is that we have a stronger squad, and we appear to be better equipped to deal with the duration of this season's demands.
 
snootyfenooty said:
How do you think Fulham managed to hold on to Sessignon last year?
Click to expand...

By getting promoted to the PL and probably saying "you'll have at least a season with us and play week in week out, be the main man and get paid a decent amount in the process, if you leave you'll end up on loan at another club like us or at a push on the bench for a mid table team, give us a year and if we get relegated we'll let you go". Different situation.

snootyfenooty said:
should have held out for more.
Click to expand...

How much? Who was offering more? Where would we have funded the better squad players that we have now acquired from?
 

snootyfenooty said:
You're missing the point of this discussion. It's not a moan about retaining or selling Brooks, that's dead and buried now. It's about how or should we have got more money for him.
Click to expand...

My post #82 says otherwise. The fact is there was no other offer. So the argument about Brooks' worth is a bit redundant all the while there's only one solitary offer on the table.
 
derekacorah said:
How much? Who was offering more? Where would we have funded the better squad players that we have now acquired from?
Click to expand...

No one got the chance. We shipped him out first offer. As I said earlier, his was one of the first deals of the summer.
 
snootyfenooty said:
No one got the chance. We shipped him out first offer. As I said earlier, his was one of the first deals of the summer.
Click to expand...

Which then allowed us to do the business we needed to do. Apart from Norwood (someone who we could never have afforded to buy outright in the window, we now have a structured deal that works and based on the fact that his parent club did their business in the window as well) we got the business done ourselves fairly early.

The fact is that there was an offer from 1 club on the table, it was a good offer for someone with the record that Brooks had, the money has probably sustained the club for this season barring any mishaps so it wasn't a bad deal in the grand scheme of things.
 
itsinyerblood said:
My post #82 says otherwise. The fact is there was no other offer. So the argument about Brooks' worth is a bit redundant all the while there's only one solitary offer on the table.
Click to expand...

So why sell? We didn't need the money. Haven't touched it, we are told.

(Although after the debt was factored we clearly need it now)
 
snootyfenooty said:
No one got the chance. We shipped him out first offer. As I said earlier, his was one of the first deals of the summer.
Click to expand...

Early July. There were many deals in June.

No one else bid. It's that simple. The idea that greedy McCabe would forego a few million for the sake of a few days is nonsense. It's just an argument to try and get around the fact that there were NO other bids, let alone higher ones.
 
Revolution said:
So why sell? We didn't need the money. Haven't touched it, we are told.

(Although after the debt was factored we clearly need it now)
Click to expand...

I'm not the person to ask. I can speculate, but that soon becomes a circular discussion. As for the "Haven't touched the money" quote, maybe that's down to having offers refused? If the offers had been accepted then the money would have been 'touched', wouldn't it?
 
Revolution said:
So why sell? We didn't need the money. Haven't touched it, we are told.

(Although after the debt was factored we clearly need it now)
Click to expand...

Well something had to cover the losses.

At the point Wilder said we hadn't touched it, we hadn't even got it, still haven't obviously, so that statement isn't necessarily untrue. I can't recall him saying it was all available to him in January. It was Wilder who said it btw, not McCabe.
 
Revolution said:
So why sell? We didn't need the money. Haven't touched it, we are told.

(Although after the debt was factored we clearly need it now)
Click to expand...

We appear to lose money hand over fist as a football club, we appear to have upped our budgets twice in two seasons, the ownership situation seems no closer to a resolution and due to a 2k - 2.5k drop off in home attendances we are on course to lose another £1.5m this year. I love kicking McCabe as much as the next fan, but in this instance, I think that the DB transfer has to be viewed as part of the wider piece this season, just as the DCL & Ramsdale transfers had to be viewed in the wider context last.
 
snootyfenooty said:
No one got the chance. We shipped him out first offer. As I said earlier, his was one of the first deals of the summer.
Click to expand...

We didn't accept the first offer but you can keep repeating this falsehood if it makes you feel better.
 
finlaytheblade said:
You better check with Wilder as they are his words not mine,can see where your coming from but the real world is what it is.
Click to expand...

There's a reluctance to criticise CW for the things he's said, ( not that he's said much wrong) for obvious reasons, much easier to heap the blame on McCabe and carry on the agenda.
 
Sean Thornton said:
There's a reluctance to criticise CW for the things he's said, ( not that he's said much wrong) for obvious reasons, much easier to heap the blame on McCabe and carry on the agenda.
Click to expand...

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not blaming McCabe for saying this. Wilder said it. I am well aware of that, and despite my great admiration of the job he is doing I remain of the view it is not a sensible thing to say.
 
Nicolaus_Copernicus said:
We appear to lose money hand over fist as a football club, we appear to have upped our budgets twice in two seasons, the ownership situation seems no closer to a resolution and due to a 2k - 2.5k drop off in home attendances we are on course to lose another £1.5m this year. I love kicking McCabe as much as the next fan, but in this instance, I think that the DB transfer has to be viewed as part of the wider piece this season, just as the DCL & Ramsdale transfers had to be viewed in the wider context last.
Click to expand...

Those things are true but Wilder said that the money had not been touched. The implication was that, at that time, it was not needed.

As you say, it probably is now.

In that regard, the factoring of the rest of the Brooks fee is interesting, because under the agreement between the co-owners that transaction could not have happened without both agreeing to it. This suggests that they have put the argument about how they will fund to one side: it is not necessary to debate it now they have the Brooks money to leverage.
 

Nicolaus_Copernicus said:
We appear to lose money hand over fist as a football club, we appear to have upped our budgets twice in two seasons, the ownership situation seems no closer to a resolution and due to a 2k - 2.5k drop off in home attendances we are on course to lose another £1.5m this year. I love kicking McCabe as much as the next fan, but in this instance, I think that the DB transfer has to be viewed as part of the wider piece this season, just as the DCL & Ramsdale transfers had to be viewed in the wider context last.
Click to expand...

The ST price increase plus the prevalence of Cat A games this season will more than cover the drop off in attendances. Next season will be the problem. If we don't go up the gates will drop even more, Cat B & C's will be offered more to get the fans back and further player sales will be necessary to cover the losses. Those laughing at the pigs now over their finances won't find it so funny then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roygbiv
Roy's View From... Loan Update
Replies
15
Views
2K
robbiez666
R
Roygbiv
Roy's View From... Loan Update
2 3
Replies
71
Views
8K
Sean Thornton
Sean Thornton
derfblade.3
So what are the rules on injured loan players?
Replies
13
Views
2K
Champagneblade
Champagneblade
M
Our loan players
Replies
21
Views
1K
wak1889
W
originaltrueblade
When Can We
Replies
15
Views
908
JD88
J

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom