David Brooks Windfall £,£££,£££

[Houston_Blade]

Sorry, thought this was a serious discussion

The point is a serious one, although I made it in a silly way. We don't know what would have happened, however I think we were less likely to have bought Egan and Norwood if we hadn't had some cash from Brooks. Irrelevant of whether they were bought using the 'Brooks money' or funds from elsewhere.

 

[Chali 2na]

What would have been the worst case scenario had the first summer bid been rejected?

No follow up bid, followed by a funding shortfall this season?

 

[snootyfenooty]

If we get promoted I have no doubt that our board will try and do it in the tightest way possible, as you rightly say this would likely end up as a false economy.

There's a massive existential problem of being a PL team in the way that we will be if we ever get there. We all know that it won't last forever and even if we did end up doing a Wigan, Stoke, Bolton etc and last a few years, at some point you commit to massive wages and it all goes tits up. You then get relegated and end up in the Championship absolutely screwed if you don't get an instant return.

Sorry to be a miser but this is the reality of the future for us. We either piss about and don't commit in the Championship and have the odd season in the PL and rich when we come back down or we commit and end up fucked in the long run.

I think you've totally missed the point of my post. It was about the money being inaccessible to CW due to the boardroom wrangle. What you've done instead is make the most ridiculous suggestion I've ever heard.

 

[snootyfenooty]

No follow up bid, followed by a funding shortfall this season?

Or the board dipping their hands in their pockets as responsible owners should do. The amounts we are talking about is chicken feed for these guys. Cue the wails of anguish from the usual mob about them being down to their last few hundred £m.

 

[stringer]

No follow up bid, followed by a funding shortfall this season?

And having the player

 

[Houston_Blade]

I think you've totally missed the point of my post. It was about the money being inaccessible to CW due to the boardroom wrangle. What you've done instead is make the most ridiculous suggestion I've ever heard.

I’ve not made a suggestion, although the compliment is well taken. Thanks

 

[Houston_Blade]

And having the player

But not having Egan and Norwood?

 

[Revolution]

Just how it is didn’t Man U sell Ronaldo and Liverpool Suarez

Did they replace them with Ben Woodburn?

 

[Chali 2na]

Or the board dipping their hands in their pockets as responsible owners should do. The amounts we are talking about is chicken feed for these guys. Cue the wails of anguish from the usual mob about them being down to their last few hundred £m.

Due to the fact that our respective owners cleary aren't willing to do this, probabaly due to the ongoing legal battles, what point are you trying to make?

The owners funding our losses this year clearly isnt an option, and no ammount of foot-stomping will change that.

And having the player

What good is having the player if you can't pay your bills?

 

[snootyfenooty]

I’ve not made a suggestion, although the compliment is well taken. Thanks

Uh OK then, thanks for the patronising lecture which had fuck all to do with my post.

 

[Revolution]

Or the board dipping their hands in their pockets as responsible owners should do. The amounts we are talking about is chicken feed for these guys. Cue the wails of anguish from the usual mob about them being down to their last few hundred £m.

This is the crux of it. At this level, if you own the club you have to fund the losses, and unfortunately if you want to progress you have to put money in. And you won't get it back.

I know many McCabe Wumao hate the analogy but it's like a mortgage. You have to service the asset.

The alternative is selling. For some reason, the only game in town was Saudi Arabia's only penniless Prince. Oh well.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Due to the fact that our respective owners cleary aren't willing to do this, probabaly due to the ongoing legal battles, what point are you trying to make?

The owners funding our losses this year clearly isnt an option, and no ammount of foot-stomping will change that.

The point that the sooner they fuck off the better. Where McCabe is concerned we'll just move from one blunder to the next, season after season. This season is just another episode, its like fucking groundhog day. So go and stamp your fucking feet as well.

 

[Fanny magnet]

The point that the sooner they fuck off the better. Where McCabe is concerned we'll just move from one blunder to the next, season after season. This season is just another episode, its like fucking groundhog day. So go and stamp your fucking feet as well.

Is being 3rd in the championship a blunder ?

 

[Revolution]

Is being 3rd in the championship a blunder ?

He's talking about the Court case.

 

[Chali 2na]

The point that the sooner they fuck off the better. Where McCabe is concerned we'll just move from one blunder to the next, season after season. This season is just another episode, its like fucking groundhog day. So go and stamp your fucking feet as well.

...assuming if they leave we get a better owner - which is by no means a guarantee.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

No follow up bid, followed by a funding shortfall this season?

...and a stroppy player, with the attitude of a teenager approaching puberty, who's just got into Fields of the Nephilim.

 

[I should coco]

I know many McCabe Wumao hate the analogy but it's like a mortgage. You have to service the asset.

A mortgage is a laibility, it is NOT an asset.

the sooner they fuck off the better.

...and presumably get a Chansiri#2 who is prepared to spend some muneh?

The point has been made many times that spunking money give no guarantees. It's easy on the internet spending other people's money, much harder to ensure it is done effectively.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Uh OK then, thanks for the patronising lecture which had fuck all to do with my post.

I actually thought I was agreeing with you, must re-read your post. Good sweary anger in this reply though. Top man.

 

[Champagneblade]

I would have preferred we kept him until Jan.

It's still difficult to escape however where he would have played.

Duffy really has made the role his own. We don't play with wingers and very few could have expected anyone to have partnered Billy more effectively than McGoldrick.

As well as he's done, we don't miss Calvert-Lewin either. Our strategy in goal hasn't really seen us miss Ramsdale.

Adams has gone on well. He didn't have the maturity Leon provided which got us up.

Even now McGoldrick is a better partner for Billy.

All in all, we've made some very good decisions.

Ifwe had Brooks still then maybe Egan hadn't joined and maybe the depth we have wouldn't be there now.

We're 3rd, with a shout of top two. You can't make an omelette without breaking the occasional egg.

 

[stringer]

But not having Egan and Norwood?

The same Norwood who was paid for by the sales of Leonard and Evans, you mean?
CW did have a summer budget before Brooks was sold. He said he ‘hadn’t touched the Brooks money’ in September 2018. Egan signed in mid-late July.

 

[stringer]

What good is having the player if you can't pay your bills?

If you’re selling an asset to pay the bills, surely that’s even more reason to maximise what it’s sold for isn’t it?

 

[Houston_Blade]

The same Norwood who was paid for by the sales of Leonard and Evans, you mean?
CW did have a summer budget before Brooks was sold. He said he ‘hadn’t touched the Brooks money’ in September 2018. Egan signed in mid-late July.

The ‘Brooks money’ for about the 50th time isn’t just sat in a mystical vault in the Halifax on Fargate waiting to be spent. It’s gone.

The enabler for signings like Egan and Norwood was the fact that we had the running cost shortfall for the season underpinned by the Brooks sale. It’s supposition on my part but if we didn’t have the additional £11m guaranteed from Brooks I don’t think we’d have committed £6m for Egan and Norwood.

It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

 

[nopigfansintown]

If you’re selling an asset to pay the bills, surely that’s even more reason to maximise what it’s sold for isn’t it?

Indubitably.

 

[Houston_Blade]

If you’re selling an asset to pay the bills, surely that’s even more reason to maximise what it’s sold for isn’t it?

This is ok but when there’s £11m on the table it’s probably hard to see past it as Chairman when the alternative is that you and your one time pal (who incidentally you are having a legal dispute with) will have to find a few £m each if you turn down the offer.

 

[snootyfenooty]

..and presumably get a Chansiri#2 who is prepared to spend some muneh?

Why is this the usual fall-back position for excusing McCabe? The pigs are not the blueprint for running a football club you know, although the unhealthy obsession you have with them would make you think otherwise.

 

[Bert]

So go and stamp your fucking feet as well

You were the one stamping your feet when we sold Brooks, you were never ever going again. That was it, you were done forever.

You must be missing our fantastic season.

 

[snootyfenooty]

You were the one stamping your feet when we sold Brooks, you were never ever going again. That was it, you were done forever.

You must be missing our fantastic season.

I spend more time on this forum talking the club up than you ever have done. Last season's show from the "happy to avoid relegation" brigade was fucking pathetic.

 

[stringer]

The ‘Brooks money’ for about the 50th time isn’t just sat in a mystical vault in the Halifax on Fargate waiting to be spent. It’s gone.

The enabler for signings like Egan and Norwood was the fact that we had the running cost shortfall for the season underpinned by the Brooks sale. It’s supposition on my part but if we didn’t have the additional £11m guaranteed from Brooks I don’t think we’d have committed £6m for Egan and Norwood.

It’s really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

Well according to the manager it wasn’t spent on Egan or Norwood (who was paid for by Evans and Leonard). So selling Brooks and signing Egan weren’t mutually exclusive

 

[stringer]

Indubitably.

We’ll see...

 

[nopigfansintown]

I think our losses last season were 2m (maybe 2.5?). The Prince said after the August window that we would break even if we made no signings in January. This was predicated on the already received Maguire, Walker and Murphy sell on clauses totalling between 8-9 million. Ergo, our spend last January was in the region of two million.
The talk this season was around Wilder having a mid table budget this season before player sales; a sizeable step up compared to the previous season's budget.This season we've brought in around 14-15 million in outgoing transfer fees, outward loans etc. We've spent around six million on permanent deals, and have brought in six loans (one returned in January) and a few frees (Mcgoldrick, Cranie, Washington). The deals requiring transfer fees (and some of the loans) were done without any need for using the Brooks money according to the first team manager...which leaves us with a quandry. Has it been used for running costs? If so, it's hard to see how our budget has improved since last season. Certainly our net spend. There's certainly not been a big increase, and there may well have been a decrease.