Chris setting his stall out

[ucandomagic]

There’s absolutely no way on earth he meant to cross that. Not a prayer.

Brooks said in his interview after the game that it was meant to be a cross.

 

[SwissBlade]

RE: schoolboy looks

Pretty telling he’s come out and said this. Would sicken me if we had a Saudi Prince on board, all McCabe’s spiel about not selling our best players now we’re up etc and then sell him anyway against the managers wishes.

Isn't it a fair enough statement?
- Wilder wants to keep him
- Brooks wants to stay

The decision then comes down to a financial one. Whatever the board value him at, he's been a bit part player this season and despite his future value to the team, this season and beyond, then it would be mad not to consider offers which meet the valuation

If the club are serious about promotion (automatics) then selling him for 10m+ perhaps with a loan back would be a smart move. Get it done early and then get him loaned back for the derby, then we can be looking towards better players

I don't really see a negative outcome if we sold, loaned back and brought in 3-4 other players

 

[8lade]

losing a key player to injury isn't enormous misfortune, it's football and happens to many teams each season.

What about the rest of the midfield picking up a bug and the other man being banned for a tackle which usually goes unpunished.
Both competent right wing backs being injured at the same time.
I don't know how many other teams could put up such a list of misadventure. (And of course i'm not talking about the usual injuries(Moore) or those that could've been predicted (Evans) or justified dismissals (Clarke)).

 

[S5Blade]

Isn't it a fair enough statement?
- Wilder wants to keep him
- Brooks wants to stay

The decision then comes down to a financial one. Whatever the board value him at, he's been a bit part player this season and despite his future value to the team, this season and beyond, then it would be mad not to consider offers which meet the valuation

If the club are serious about promotion (automatics) then selling him for 10m+ perhaps with a loan back would be a smart move. Get it done early and then get him loaned back for the derby, then we can be looking towards better players

I don't really see a negative outcome if we sold, loaned back and brought in 3-4 other players

Swiss. Give your head a wobble. Obviously the board of going to sell him, without wilder saying so, then trouser the money, fuck off to belgium for a quality night full of drugs and prostitutes and give wilder whatever is left the following morning as a transfer budget.... I read it on here. Your logic is not welcome here.

 

[SwissBlade]

Swiss. Give your head a wobble. Obviously the board of going to sell him, without wilder saying so, then trouser the money, fuck off to belgium for a quality night full of drugs and prostitutes and give wilder whatever is left the following morning as a transfer budget.... I read it on here. Your logic is not welcome here.

That sounds like a right night out. Although there are better places than Belgium for those nights out

 

[S5Blade]

That sounds like a right night out. Although there are better places than Belgium for those nights out

Yeah, but McCabe is off to get pissed with our new manager in waiting who joined the board yesterday!

 

[Slim Man]

Isn't it a fair enough statement?
- Wilder wants to keep him
- Brooks wants to stay

The decision then comes down to a financial one. Whatever the board value him at, he's been a bit part player this season and despite his future value to the team, this season and beyond, then it would be mad not to consider offers which meet the valuation

If the club are serious about promotion (automatics) then selling him for 10m+ perhaps with a loan back would be a smart move. Get it done early and then get him loaned back for the derby, then we can be looking towards better players

I don't really see a negative outcome if we sold, loaned back and brought in 3-4 other players

No chance Wilder would see half that 10 million.

Even if he did the players worth that sort of money who are better than Brooks would break our wage structure.

 

[Slim Man]

Backing is certainly lacking. I’m surprised he doesn’t actually want to sell Brooks, given the resourcevon offer.

He wouldn’t see enough of it to warrant selling him

 

[Slim Man]

Brooks said in his interview after the game that it was meant to be a cross.

We’ve already gone over that

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

We’ve already gone over that

Aye & Tufty has covered the flogging Brooks shite in his Giddings interview - dint stop you propagating / perpetuating it though does it ?
Remember : end of world is tomorrow ( if we're lucky)

 

[SwissBlade]

No chance Wilder would see half that 10 million.

Even if he did the players worth that sort of money who are better than Brooks would break our wage structure.

He's proven he doesn't need 5 million to bring in a squad to compete in the top 6 of the championship, so that would be fine then

The deals not even done yet...

 

[Lane Ender]

Push Brooks out of the door and you push Wilder closer to it as well. It's as simple as that.

The myopic, masochistic bastards who want to "cash in" on Brooks haven't factored that in of course.

100% right

 

[Slim Man]

Aye & Tufty has covered the flogging Brooks shite in his Giddings interview - dint stop you propagating / perpetuating it though does it ?
Remember : end of world is tomorrow ( if we're lucky)

Are you thick or not read the OP?

 

[Slim Man]

He's proven he doesn't need 5 million to bring in a squad to compete in the top 6 of the championship, so that would be fine then

The deals not even done yet...

Yeah let’s make him perform miracles again against his wishes.

And it’s looking increasing likely

 

[Champagneblade]

Having heard the interview, I think Giddings’ tweet is very misleading.

In answer to the question of Brooks attracting interest, and before he started putting word in Wilder’s mouth, Chris had this to say:

“As far as I’m concerned my position hasn’t changed. David Brooks is not for sale”

Instead of just fucking accepting that as the answer, Giddings went down the route of “well everybody has a price right?” Which applies to anyone except Real Madrid or PSG.

At which point Wilder said those sort of things get sorted out between chief execs.

Wilder’s reply of “he’s not for sale” hasn’t even been tweeted and the way he wrote the tweet suggests that if Brooks gets sold he will have been sold under him and that’s not the way it was presented.

He also said possibly 4 out, 4 in. He only mentioned Leonard by name but he didn’t dismiss other perm signings at all as far as I heard.

Maybe unintentional but bit of shit-stirring there. Headline could easily have been:

“Brooks not for sale, states Wilder”.

 

[Caseh]

It was a very poor tweet, not representative of the actual interview at all. But of course, people take the tweet as gospel and then don't bother listening to the source.

 

[Champagneblade]

It was a very poor tweet, not representative of the actual interview at all. But of course, people take the tweet as gospel and then don't bother listening to the source.

That’s true. What I said about selling Brooks if the manager doesn’t want him to leave is true, but David Brooks is not for sale should have been the story. May as well ask Barca if Messi is for sale. Then when they say no, but what if Man City offered a gazillion pounds?

Sometimes those doing interviews can try to be too smart. Wilder’s response was a good message, completely turned around into the opposite by the interviewer.

 

[FlamingLip]

Having heard the interview, I think Giddings’ tweet is very misleading.

In answer to the question of Brooks attracting interest, and before he started putting word in Wilder’s mouth, Chris had this to say:

“As far as I’m concerned my position hasn’t changed. David Brooks is not for sale”

Instead of just fucking accepting that as the answer, Giddings went down the route of “well everybody has a price right?” Which applies to anyone except Real Madrid or PSG.

At which point Wilder said those sort of things get sorted out between chief execs.

Wilder’s reply of “he’s not for sale” hasn’t even been tweeted and the way he wrote the tweet suggests that if Brooks gets sold he will have been sold under him and that’s not the way it was presented.

He also said possibly 4 out, 4 in. He only mentioned Leonard by name but he didn’t dismiss other perm signings at all as far as I heard.

Maybe unintentional but bit of shit-stirring there. Headline could easily have been:

“Brooks not for sale, states Wilder”.

Thanks for that Champers. Very poor tweet in light of that.

 

[SwissBlade]

Yeah let’s make him perform miracles again against his wishes.

And it’s looking increasing likely

And if the model works, why break it?

Personally, I’d rather we kept Brooks, but the financial benefits of selling him, for the club are huge. I’m not just talking about the playing side, but the running of the club, making the books balance.

This season we have a really good chance of promotion, almost half the season gone and we’re within reach of the top two, albeit with a boost needed. But we’ve run our squad thin, holes have appeared across the midfield as well as losing our wing backs.

When the squad was at full strength I’d have said keep brooks, but if we can get more players in if we sell him and loan him back, then I think we need to be sensible.

 

[FlamingLip]

It was a very poor tweet, not representative of the actual interview at all. But of course, people take the tweet as gospel and then don't bother listening to the source.

tbh, i dont blame people's blood pressure rising to the tweet - not everyone has time to sit and listen to initial interview. It was a shit tweet.

 

[originaltrueblade]

To be honest, if a club came in and offered £10 million for Brooks, I'd take it. I'd rather not sell him but if we replaced him with someone good, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Thing is money made from this questionable sale will probably not go on team strengthening. Surely we
Must of learned from the past BUT don’t hold your breath. Sell Brooks and Wilder will leave sooner than you think

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

McCabe says no. Someone else says yes. Saves putting money in.

Maybe

 

[B14Nco]

For me its not what he's worth now and what's a good deal now that matters. Its what the maximum deal we can get in the future that matters and whether selling him now will see us massively lose out in the future. For example I believe that Brooks will go for maybe £10m now and this time next year, could be worth twice that. What's the risk? That he gets injured? Always a possibility, but I think keeping Brooks is a no brainer. Otherwise its like having a house that needs some work, selling it in a state, and watch someone else buy the house, do it up and sell it on for a huge profit! That's my best analogy anyway!

There are too many ifs tho. ‘If’ we keep him and ‘if’ we’re still a Championship club next year I’d ver much doubt he’d be worth much more.

It’s like those people that think we could’ve kept walker and got 60mill for him.

There is a ceiling on how much we could get for him (based on current stature of the club).

 

[Ludgblade64]

I've seen it all from the early 60's, selling talented players, when will the blades realise, you sell your best players and end up in the 4th Division, just listen to Tony Currie last night, they sold Geoff Salmons, who was a great player, and then TC left to go to LEEDS, it has a knock on affect with the rest of the team, Chris Wilder knows this, it causes an in balance in the club. It will be a disgrace to the best manager since John Harris and fan's if they sell David Brooks

 

[8lade]

Yeah let’s make him perform miracles again against his wishes.

And it’s looking increasing likely

or let's keep within budget which is what is keeping the club solvent, that and an additional £6m/year from the owners.
None of us have the right to insist on any investment from the owners and Wilder gets that (if you listen to his interview) so why can't the fans?

 

[Booker4]

There are too many ifs tho. ‘If’ we keep him and ‘if’ we’re still a Championship club next year I’d ver much doubt he’d be worth much more.

It’s like those people that think we could’ve kept walker and got 60mill for him.

There is a ceiling on how much we could get for him (based on current stature of the club).

It's a risk to keep him if he wants to go, but he seems settled to me and hasn't even become a regular yet. Based on how good Brooks is, I just can't see him not improving. And I can't see us getting relegated. As for the comparison with Walker, I think that does prove my point. Not £60m but he'd only played 8 games for us and we cashed in and then said he wanted to leave what can we do!?!?!?! Well, we had his registration and he'd only just broke into the side, just like Brooks has. When Maguire went as a comparison, he's played for 3 seasons and there could be no argument that it was time for his career to move. We got a reasonable fee for him, but not great.

 

[Addison]

Having heard the interview, I think Giddings’ tweet is very misleading.

In answer to the question of Brooks attracting interest, and before he started putting word in Wilder’s mouth, Chris had this to say:

“As far as I’m concerned my position hasn’t changed. David Brooks is not for sale”

Instead of just fucking accepting that as the answer, Giddings went down the route of “well everybody has a price right?” Which applies to anyone except Real Madrid or PSG.

At which point Wilder said those sort of things get sorted out between chief execs.

Wilder’s reply of “he’s not for sale” hasn’t even been tweeted and the way he wrote the tweet suggests that if Brooks gets sold he will have been sold under him and that’s not the way it was presented.

He also said possibly 4 out, 4 in. He only mentioned Leonard by name but he didn’t dismiss other perm signings at all as far as I heard.

Maybe unintentional but bit of shit-stirring there. Headline could easily have been:

“Brooks not for sale, states Wilder”.

As you and a few others have pointed out why do people continue to believe the crap thats put out by Radio Pig and the Pig stirrer newspaper. United Blade has posted the interview link, I recommend people listen to it.

CW didn't say what Giddings has tweeted. Shields even goes further and provides a laughable tweet that CW confirmed the accuracy of the Stirs article yesterday. That'll be the one that said a premiership club had bid £10 million.

This was the conversation below;

" Can you confirm there has been interest in Brooks this week" - Giddings
" There are a lot of off the record conversations with people agents and clubs asking if players are available. Yes I've had a conversation nothing changes with David from my point of view he's not for sale. I've made it loud and clear he's not for sale." - CW
" Everyone has a ceiling though" - Giddings
" That isn't decided by me as far as I am concerned he's not for sale. IF ANYBODY MAKES A BID IT WILL GO THROUGH TO THE CHIEF EXEC AND CHAIRMAN. " - CW. In other words no fkin bid has been received just a regular enquiry.

On incomings/outgoings

" If you get everything you want ideal world scenario how many additions would you like over the course of the month " Giddings

" Few will go out that haven't been involved in the first team this year. Part of my job is to make sure we get a good return for those players. We're possibly 1/2 midfield players short and a few more in a couple of positions. We're possibly looking at 4 players in if everybody stays. 4 players possibly going out on loan or permanent" - CW - Loans and permanent was a reference to players going out!!

This unnecessary shit storm is primarily down to Giddings but the Stir has once again misrepresented the facts. The Club really need to act and ban them both from the Club for a period so that they learn how to report facts not fiction.

For the few remaining Blades on here supporting both organisations give your head a shake.

 

[Champagneblade]

tbh, i dont blame people's blood pressure rising to the tweet - not everyone has time to sit and listen to initial interview. It was a shit tweet.

To be fair to Wilder as well, he actually said “as far as I’m concerned David Brooks is not for sale” three times in the space of a minute...

 

[Mumbo]

That would be the problem with that idea, I agree. If Brooks does have to go, we should hang on at least a year or 2 as we could get £20 million for him and at least then, Wilder would get £3 million to spend on players

Brooke’s wants to stay,wilder wants Brooke’s to stay.Wilder might get 10% of the fee to spend on new players if he’s lucky.
There is no point or logic in selling Brooke’s to improve the team if you believe that will happen have a wobble of your wooden top.
The sale of Brooke’s against wilders wishes will have wilder weighing up any job offers and thinking he might get more respect elsewhere.

 

[Slim Man]

And if the model works, why break it?

Personally, I’d rather we kept Brooks, but the financial benefits of selling him, for the club are huge. I’m not just talking about the playing side, but the running of the club, making the books balance.

This season we have a really good chance of promotion, almost half the season gone and we’re within reach of the top two, albeit with a boost needed. But we’ve run our squad thin, holes have appeared across the midfield as well as losing our wing backs.

When the squad was at full strength I’d have said keep brooks, but if we can get more players in if we sell him and loan him back, then I think we need to be sensible.

The model is only going to take us so far.