CONFIRMED Andre Brooks sold to Norwich

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

Champagneblade said:
It’s 100% on the Board for wasting money under Sellés and then feeling a need to sell assets like Brooks.

Brooks left because we needed the money are nobody else was offering that sort of cash for any of our players.

I didn’t like that Wilder had a habit of digging him out but we don’t know what keeps Brooks motivated. You can’t just constantly over-praise.

His departure was nothing to do with Wilder. It’s 100% a result of the Board’s decisions.
Click to expand...
Bollocks, Wilder berated Brooks at every opportunity.
 



We all understood there would be sales this summer and depending on interest, we might not get to choose who we sold.

I'm certain I'm not the only one who was more disappointed with Brooks going compared to Hamer.

I'd also have preferred Peck and Burrows going too.

No idea what the sell on is but I hope its hefty.
 
Champagneblade said:
It’s 100% on the Board for wasting money under Sellés and then feeling a need to sell assets like Brooks.

Brooks left because we needed the money are nobody else was offering that sort of cash for any of our players.

I didn’t like that Wilder had a habit of digging him out but we don’t know what keeps Brooks motivated. You can’t just constantly over-praise.

His departure was nothing to do with Wilder. It’s 100% a result of the Board’s decisions.
Click to expand...
100% correct. The sale was all about cash flow and keeping us afloat.
We have no other mechanism for bringing in the moolah.
 
Champagneblade said:
It’s 100% on the Board for wasting money under Sellés and then feeling a need to sell assets like Brooks.

Brooks left because we needed the money are nobody else was offering that sort of cash for any of our players.

I didn’t like that Wilder had a habit of digging him out but we don’t know what keeps Brooks motivated. You can’t just constantly over-praise.

His departure was nothing to do with Wilder. It’s 100% a result of the Board’s decisions.
Click to expand...
You can say it’s 100 % on the board for wasting money under Selles but you are 100% wrong.

Wilder wasted the opportunity for the owners to own a premier league club. A club they paid over a 100 million for and it was 100 million too much by the way.

As for Brooks it was a no brainer for him to leave. More money. A team with a better manager and can play with more freedom.
 
Champagneblade said:
It’s 100% on the Board for wasting money under Sellés and then feeling a need to sell assets like Brooks.

Brooks left because we needed the money are nobody else was offering that sort of cash for any of our players.

I didn’t like that Wilder had a habit of digging him out but we don’t know what keeps Brooks motivated. You can’t just constantly over-praise.

His departure was nothing to do with Wilder. It’s 100% a result of the Board’s decisions.
Click to expand...
Great post.

Are we set for a post on Brooks each time he scores?!

We know he's a really good player. We need money to help with the debt/comply with SCR rules etc. We couldn't offer what Norwich did. Personally I think both us and Norwich will be in the same league next season. And I mean the championship.
 
Champagneblade said:
It’s 100% on the Board for wasting money under Sellés and then feeling a need to sell assets like Brooks.

Brooks left because we needed the money are nobody else was offering that sort of cash for any of our players.

I didn’t like that Wilder had a habit of digging him out but we don’t know what keeps Brooks motivated. You can’t just constantly over-praise.

His departure was nothing to do with Wilder. It’s 100% a result of the Board’s decisions.
Click to expand...
There maybe some validity of having to balance the books and as you say the decision making of the board clearly demonstrates that they know fuck all about football I just think if Wilder really rated him he wouldn’t have continuously dug him out and perhaps would have fought harder to keep him. Instead he trousers a new contract from these charlatans. Looking a bit mercenary to me.
 
Bertie Mee said:
Fuck up of the season getting rid of Brooks to one of our competitors. 100% on Wilder for treating him like shit. Part of me hopes he shoves it down his throat next week.
Click to expand...
Money buy u quaility players , not all freebies and loans we've had from past now hamza being mentioned or my god he's not a right back by trade .
 
Bertie Mee said:
There maybe some validity of having to balance the books and as you say the decision making of the board clearly demonstrates that they know fuck all about football I just think if Wilder really rated him he wouldn’t have continuously dug him out and perhaps would have fought harder to keep him. Instead he trousers a new contract from these charlatans. Looking a bit mercenary to me.
Click to expand...
The only thing we needed to do to balance the books was sell Hamer. Unless, of course, you think that it's possible for a Championship club to break even in anything but the most ridiculous circumstances
 
Iceybabey said:
Brookes is better than anything we have in our side. I think some are hoping he flops to soften the blow of losing him but the reality is is that he'll be going one way and we'll be going the other. His way will be up.
Click to expand...
He will end up doing an Ndiaye
 
jt64 said:
The only thing we needed to do to balance the books was sell Hamer. Unless, of course, you think that it's possible for a Championship club to break even in anything but the most ridiculous circumstances
Click to expand...

Are you actually presenting that as a fact'?

Do you really think, that Hamer's wages and the small fee we receive, more than cancel out the parachute payments we had last year?

We lost money last year and SCR says that we have to get costs to 85% of income.

Why do people just make stuff up, that they think sounds good.
 
I should coco said:
Are you actually presenting that as a fact'?

Do you really think, that Hamer's wages and the small fee we receive, more than cancel out the parachute payments we had last year?

We lost money last year and SCR says that we have to get costs to 85% of income.

Why do people just make stuff up, that they think sounds good.
Click to expand...

I have gone over this multiple times in this thread already. Once Hamer went then all the added PL expenditure had gone. We are now just back to normal Championship running costs. Do Championship clubs all lose lots of money? Yes. Did we spend a shit load on going up to the PL that we needed the parachute money to cover on top of said standard losses? No, we did the opposite. As such, is that income in effect a windfall? Yes. Should you budget for windfall payments? No.

Now, if the owners are completely incapable of financing standard Championship losses, then yes, we may be fucked, but there is nothing in their transfer strategy (or, if there is no strategy, at least who they are bringing into the club) that indicates this is the case, given we are bringing in highly inefficient (financially) players seemingly with the intent of trying to stay competitive and hope to sneak top 8 and luckbox the playoffs. With, of course, no plan whatsoever should that actually happen.
 
utd4ever said:
You can say it’s 100 % on the board for wasting money under Selles but you are 100% wrong.

Wilder wasted the opportunity for the owners to own a premier league club. A club they paid over a 100 million for and it was 100 million too much by the way.

As for Brooks it was a no brainer for him to leave. More money. A team with a better manager and can play with more freedom.
Click to expand...
I’d say it was 100% on the ref and VAR. an obscene introduction when VAR wasn’t present all season the Championship for one and then a hugely subjective, and certainly not clear and obvious take, when given the correct angles the keeper saw the ball leave Burrows’ foot and he wasn’t getting it. Goal. They didn’t expect it disallowed; they knew they’d messed up defending the corner and tracking Burrows.

We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. But such a contentious decision in such a pivotal game changed the course of the season.
 
metalblade said:
Bollocks, Wilder berated Brooks at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
He also rated him highly.

When Wilder had a go it was usually because Brooks left his position on the pitch. Something that any manager would be frustrated about if it resulted in conceding or nearly conceding.

Brooks sale raises £8m straight off the bat and his wage has gone up.

We need to move on from it now. Can see him playing well next sat though sadly.
 
Champagneblade said:
I’d say it was 100% on the ref and VAR. an obscene introduction when VAR wasn’t present all season the Championship for one and then a hugely subjective, and certainly not clear and obvious take, when given the correct angles the keeper saw the ball leave Burrows’ foot and he wasn’t getting it. Goal. They didn’t expect it disallowed; they knew they’d messed up defending the corner and tracking Burrows.

We’ll simply have to agree to disagree. But such a contentious decision in such a pivotal game changed the course of the season.
Click to expand...
I agree it was a pivotal moment, but the test is how you react to it. We crumbled when it mattered. On the pitch and in the dugout.
 



Brooks will have McCallum on toast.

Tanner, a slow and cumbersome winger, roasted McCallum for most of the game yesterday. Only when RND came on did the crosses stop. The first principle of a full back is to stop the bloody cross and not hang a leg out, tamely.
 
metalblade said:
Bollocks, Wilder berated Brooks at every opportunity.
Click to expand...
He didn’t seem to be patient with him but I’ve already covered that. We don’t know which players respond to what.

His departure isn’t because he asked to leave it’s because Norwich waived 9m in front of our Board. That is the prime reason he was sold; it was deemed we needed money after the parachute payments had gone and he represented a fair chunk of it.

The rest is peripheral. We needed the cash. His sale provided it.
 
If we don’t beat Bolton Tuesday and then lose Saturday and Brooksy plays well( scores ) then it may likely be the first real litmus test for reactions to both wilder and the owners

I think the owners would get a negative reaction regardless if they turn up Tuesday or Saturday but if we play poor then I think you would see both
 
Old Programme seller said:
The way we have played in the last 3 seasons anyone with attacking flare would be better signing for another team as they’ll not reach their full potential here
Click to expand...
This is sadly true. Any player who thrives on creativity and who has bags of technical ability is never going to sign for a team that puts 10 men in the box and launches it long for you to aimlessly chase all game, instead you will favour a team that plays the ball to feet and you know you’re able to be able to effect the game with a team that embraced your skills and plays to feet, where you can be much more effective.
 
We are well overdue a thrashing the way we've been playing, I can see the Norwich game being a 3 or 4 nil loss with Brooks playing a staring role
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lmaobob
Realistic take on the planning ahead for the short term future of the club
Replies
5
Views
350
BessemerBob
B
Coolblade
A few observations from the stats: Hamer, O’Hare & Brooks
Replies
16
Views
2K
andy m
A
Slim Man
McGuiness
2 3
Replies
72
Views
6K
3Cheers4Ramirez
3Cheers4Ramirez
originaltrueblade
Asset Stripping -They need To Go
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
8K
Tom Bott
Tom Bott
Bartleby
Press Conference summary - Norwich (H)
Replies
28
Views
2K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou

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