Outgoing? David Brooks

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

Balham Blade said:
We might have been top but that wouldn't ever have happened. Brentford and Brighton wouldn't have accepted our payment schedule of "yeah, well, if we sell Brooks at some point we'll send you the cash"; Egan would still be at Griffin Park and Norwood would be on loan at Hull. I agree with a lot of what you write but you're way off the mark with this one.

The "showing ambition" bit: rightly or wrongly our owners are unwilling to put any cash more than the bare minimum into the club at the moment. That meant that if we wanted to sign anyone at all in the summer, we needed to fund it with departures. It would have been lovely had Bournemouth put a £15m combined bid in for Ricky Holmes, Caolan Lavery and Samir Carruthers but unfortunately they're rubbish; our only saleable asset was Brooks so he had to go.

I also have every confidence that every single unofficial channel was explored to try and get a bidding war going but clearly the other Premier League sides had their doubts about Brooks' ability to make the step up.
Click to expand...

Could the owners really not have chucked in £5m knowing that they have a huge asset who will repay that many times over?

The 'other people's money' comment will always pop up. But if it was me, I wouldn't be too keen on selling my once in a generation asset for around half of what I could get after he's proven his fitness and form. He only had glandular fever, no serious or recurring injury. Any risk of value deterioration was minimal.

If anything did happen to Brooks and they were really desperate to get the money back..... well there's always O'Connell and Fleck.
 

Ricky said:
Could the owners really not have chucked in £5m knowing that they have a huge asset who will repay that many times over?

The 'other people's money' comment will always pop up. But if it was me, I wouldn't be too keen on selling my once in a generation asset for around half of what I could get after he's proven his fitness and form. He only had glandular fever, no serious or recurring injury. Any risk of value deterioration was minimal.

If anything did happen to Brooks and they were really desperate to get the money back..... well there's always O'Connell and Fleck.
Click to expand...

Those are all pertinent points Ricky, but look who we signed as a consequence of selling Brooks - Egan, Henderson, and McGoldrick, none of whom you'd call an error of judgement. Look at our current league position, and for all Brooks potential I'm not entirely convinced that retaining his services would have enabled us to reach 2nd in the Championship if we hadn't signed those 3 players. A case of we'll never know I guess, but what we do know is that under Wilder's judgement we've managed, deservedly in my view, to get ourselves in a wonderful position for the run-in to the rest of the season. The ball's firmly in our court, now all we have to do is show some consistency and, when necessary, show the desire to win ugly.
 
itsinyerblood said:
Those are all pertinent points Ricky, but look who we signed as a consequence of selling Brooks - Egan, Henderson, and McGoldrick, none of whom you'd call an error of judgement. Look at our current league position, and for all Brooks potential I'm not entirely convinced that retaining his services would have enabled us to reach 2nd in the Championship if we hadn't signed those 3 players. A case of we'll never know I guess, but what we do know is that under Wilder's judgement we've managed, deservedly in my view, to get ourselves in a wonderful position for the run-in to the rest of the season. The ball's firmly in our court, now all we have to do is show some consistency and, when necessary, show the desire to win ugly.
Click to expand...

I'm saying we should have been able to sign those players, and keep Brooks. We hardly spent a fortune.

I would also say that it wasn't entirely necessary to spend £4m on Egan, and that made up the bulk of the spend. We could have got a cheaper centre half, might not have been as good but we could have still got a good calibre player for that central role.

McGoldrick surely can't be included as someone we were able to get as a result of selling Brooks. He was a 30 year old free agent who any club in the Championship could have signed.

It goes without saying now that Wilder is to be trusted. He won't get everything right but has a better chance than anyone else of doing so.
 
Ricky said:
I'm saying we should have been able to sign those players, and keep Brooks. We hardly spent a fortune.

I would also say that it wasn't entirely necessary to spend £4m on Egan, and that made up the bulk of the spend. We could have got a cheaper centre half, might not have been as good but we could have still got a good calibre player for that central role.

McGoldrick surely can't be included as someone we were able to get as a result of selling Brooks. He was a 30 year old free agent who any club in the Championship could have signed.

It goes without saying now that Wilder is to be trusted. He won't get everything right but has a better chance than anyone else of doing so.
Click to expand...

Glad we agree on Wilder's capabilities, I know we all use hindsight to make these judgements, but he's done superbly well since he was appointed manager.

As for your points about who we might have signed and their possible effectiveness, well I guess we'll never know. What we do know is that those players Wilder brought in have done more than contributed to our current success. Re. McG, yes, he was a freebie, but he'll have an agent and in this day and age I doubt that somewhere in deciding to sign him there wasn't a financial factor to consider. As for Egan, I suspect that our scouting team were aware of who was available and for how much. I'm sure that Wilder, like all of us, enjoys a bargain, but in his view I imagine that he saw the potential that Egan could bring to this position, and that alongside JOC we'd have a very effective central defensive pairing. Fortunately it's worked out that way.
 
Ricky said:
I'm saying we should have been able to sign those players, and keep Brooks. We hardly spent a fortune.

I would also say that it wasn't entirely necessary to spend £4m on Egan, and that made up the bulk of the spend. We could have got a cheaper centre half, might not have been as good but we could have still got a good calibre player for that central role.

McGoldrick surely can't be included as someone we were able to get as a result of selling Brooks. He was a 30 year old free agent who any club in the Championship could have signed.

It goes without saying now that Wilder is to be trusted. He won't get everything right but has a better chance than anyone else of doing so.
Click to expand...
The only thing wrong with what you are saying is that it is totally ridiculous and impossible with no basis in reality
 
itsinyerblood said:
Glad we agree on Wilder's capabilities, I know we all use hindsight to make these judgements, but he's done superbly well since he was appointed manager.

As for your points about who we might have signed and their possible effectiveness, well I guess we'll never know. What we do know is that those players Wilder brought in have done more than contributed to our current success. Re. McG, yes, he was a freebie, but he'll have an agent and in this day and age I doubt that somewhere in deciding to sign him there wasn't a financial factor to consider. As for Egan, I suspect that our scouting team were aware of who was available and for how much. I'm sure that Wilder, like all of us, enjoys a bargain, but in his view I imagine that he saw the potential that Egan could bring to this position, and that alongside JOC we'd have a very effective central defensive pairing. Fortunately it's worked out that way.
Click to expand...

For me, and without hindsight, if I knew Brooks was going regardless then yes, sign Egan. If it was a case of Egan or Brooks, then keep Brooks and look for a cheaper CB.


Fanny magnet said:
The only thing wrong with what you are saying is that it is totally ridiculous and impossible with no basis in reality
Click to expand...

OK love.
 
He would suit Man Utd and their system down to the ground. He would flourish in any attack minded teams and it would be great to see him playing against us for Man Utd next season.

I can’t be arsed to get into the selling of Brooks debate as it’s pretty pointless now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ljk
Is a failing in our academy or club management that our home grown players done seem to get through to the 1st team squad?
 
I do wonder whether people will be a bit disappointed with the money we get in the end. When we sold him we didn't get all the money all at once and I don't think we've got it all yet. I can't remember - does anyone have the details? And if we haven't got it all yet, does a sale force the rest of the agreed sum to come to us, or will some of it be forfeit (perhaps because he hasn't played x number of games)? And if any sale also doesn't involve a single up-front payment, that might impact on any sell on clause.
Maybe people should lower their expectations a little is what I'm suggesting.
 
Brooks is quality but I really don’t think he’s ready for a spurs or man united maybe in a few years though. Good luck to brooksy
 
Ricky said:
We'd be top if we made those signings and kept Brooks, and we'd be going up. That's what it takes, that's the ambition you have to show. And how fantastic that would've been to watch, by the way.

We could've kept Brooks knowing we could cash him in if needs be, and probably for a bigger fee than we could get at the start of bloody July.

Maybe we got insecure because only Bournemouth were bidding.... well how about backing your own judgement, knowing more about him than anyone else, and bide your time? Anyone with any football sense could see he was better than fucking Bournemouth.
Click to expand...

Easy when it's not your money. It's getting boring now listening to the same old people bang on about it.

The way I see it is that we had 2 options:

1) Accept the one and only offer of (a reported) £11.5m for a player that had made a handful of first team starts and had expressed his desire to move to a PL team, thus securing the funds and plugging the financial gap for the year.

2) Keep a player who has expressed a desire to leave against his will and have to find the cash to fund the loss out of the pockets of the owners, who incidentally are fighting in the high court and trying not to put an additional penny of their own into the club this financial year. He has promise but is probably not a regular starter due to the other players you have and the system you play.

I know people have to have something to moan about at times when things are looking pretty good but since Brooks left we have been able to sign Egan and Norwood, 2 of our top performing players this season so far. But you carry on insisting that it was the wrong decision and that we should have held out for more cash if it makes you feel better.
 

Hamburg Blade said:
I do wonder whether people will be a bit disappointed with the money we get in the end. When we sold him we didn't get all the money all at once and I don't think we've got it all yet. I can't remember - does anyone have the details? And if we haven't got it all yet, does a sale force the rest of the agreed sum to come to us, or will some of it be forfeit (perhaps because he hasn't played x number of games)? And if any sale also doesn't involve a single up-front payment, that might impact on any sell on clause.
Maybe people should lower their expectations a little is what I'm suggesting.
Click to expand...

We can only speculate what we may get in the end for Brooks but CW has to deal with the ralities of the present. That was at the time:

1. Brooks wanted to go
2. CW did not want a player who was not committed whole heartedly to the cause
3. We needed to strengthen the defence with a better CH than stears
4. He had identified Egan as someone who would be a substantial step up, at a club who would sell and who would fit in with our wage structure and that with the sale of Brooks we could afford. He was also a player proven at Championship level so not a gamble as if we had signed a L1 or L2 youngster who might have made th3 step up
5. We needed to strengthen midfield and again he had identified Norwood as the man to do that, again at a price we could afford with the Brooks money and our wage structure
6. He had identified Hendo as a keeper who we could afford on loan
7. There would be some money left over to provide for ongoing running costs like player wages and hopefully allow some recruitment or loans in the JTW.

The net result is we have lost Brooks but overall we are a much better team than when he was here and we have some money in the bank and the potential of more with the sell on clause..

David McGoldrick is a massive bonus. Don’t know how he went under the radar of so many other clubs. Probably coz he was “free” and some people think you only get good players you spend a shed load. but full marks to CW for spotting the opportunity to sign him. Yet another player who cost us nothing.

UTB
 
Yewsman said:
We can only speculate what we may get in the end for Brooks but CW has to deal with the ralities of the present. That was at the time:

1. Brooks wanted to go
2. CW did not want a player who was not committed whole heartedly to the cause
3. We needed to strengthen the defence with a better CH than stears
4. He had identified Egan as someone who would be a substantial step up, at a club who would sell and who would fit in with our wage structure and that with the sale of Brooks we could afford. He was also a player proven at Championship level so not a gamble as if we had signed a L1 or L2 youngster who might have made th3 step up
5. We needed to strengthen midfield and again he had identified Norwood as the man to do that, again at a price we could afford with the Brooks money and our wage structure
6. He had identified Hendo as a keeper who we could afford on loan
7. There would be some money left over to provide for ongoing running costs like player wages and hopefully allow some recruitment or loans in the JTW.

The net result is we have lost Brooks but overall we are a much better team than when he was here and we have some money in the bank and the potential of more with the sell on clause..

David McGoldrick is a massive bonus. Don’t know how he went under the radar of so many other clubs. Probably coz he was “free” and some people think you only get good players you spend a shed load. but full marks to CW for spotting the opportunity to sign him. Yet another player who cost us nothing.

UTB
Click to expand...


As Yewsman says, we lost Brooks but got Egan, Norwood and Hendo on loan and probably covered our losses for the year. That's 3 players that have made us stronger than last year along with Didsy.
 
FallowfieldBlade said:
Brooks is quality but I really don’t think he’s ready for a spurs or man united maybe in a few years though. Good luck to brooksy
Click to expand...

I disagree with this strongly and also the idea that a few more years will do him good. To me when he was playing and not just brought on late in the second half when it was difficult to get into the flow and pace of the game, he was the best player at Sheffield United .... I got told off for saying he was better than Currie, but I think he is, meaning he is already.
 
Ricky said:
Could the owners really not have chucked in £5m knowing that they have a huge asset who will repay that many times over?

The 'other people's money' comment will always pop up. But if it was me, I wouldn't be too keen on selling my once in a generation asset for around half of what I could get after he's proven his fitness and form. He only had glandular fever, no serious or recurring injury. Any risk of value deterioration was minimal.

If anything did happen to Brooks and they were really desperate to get the money back..... well there's always O'Connell and Fleck.
Click to expand...

Just coming back to this - completely agree that the owners could and possibly should have chucked in £5m but it's clear from the court papers that while McCabe wanted to do that in order to provide Wilder with a transfer budget of £7m (fees and wages), HRH wasn't willing to. Therefore to fund that £7m someone (Brooks) had to be sold.
 
Balham Blade said:
Just coming back to this - completely agree that the owners could and possibly should have chucked in £5m but it's clear from the court papers that while McCabe wanted to do that in order to provide Wilder with a transfer budget of £7m (fees and wages), HRH wasn't willing to. Therefore to fund that £7m someone (Brooks) had to be sold.
Click to expand...
Unless I’ve misread it, KM wanted to loan the club money and the Prince was prepared to put it in as equity. KM wasn’t.

https://shepwedd.com/sites/default/files/UTB v SUL - D_s SA for 20.6.18.pdf
 
vorpal blade said:
I disagree with this strongly and also the idea that a few more years will do him good. To me when he was playing and not just brought on late in the second half when it was difficult to get into the flow and pace of the game, he was the best player at Sheffield United .... I got told off for saying he was better than Currie, but I think he is, meaning he is already.
Click to expand...

Already better than TC?? No he isn’t. He may turn out to be...but he isn’t yet.
 
Sean Thornton said:
KM had offered his shares to HRH for £5m. Any further input as equity would reduce that price by that amount. It’s not hard to see why he would prefer a loan.
Click to expand...
I’m not making any judgement on it. I’m just stating the situation.
 

Sean Thornton said:
I wasn’t making any accusations....
Click to expand...
It is described as a cash gift of £1.25m each. Please explain in layman’s terms why that would reduce the price by that much. That seems to be a fixed valuation. Are you saying if we go up, that £5m will increase because the equity would be worth a lot more?
You also omitted to mention that the £5m is dependent on Prince buying the ground and other assets. Subject to the court case, of course.

Although none of this is relevant to the point I was addressing, which is why we had to sell Brooks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

brownblade
Player Suggestion Luka Vušković
Replies
12
Views
2K
Eggy
Eggy
MayorOJC
Players From The Relegated 3
Replies
12
Views
2K
finlaytheblade
F
Fjortoft's Aeroplane
Player Suggestion Ben Doak
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
Karaoke Blade
Karaoke Blade
MayorOJC
Out of Contract Players
2 3
Replies
71
Views
7K
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Ndiayewillalwaysloveyou
Yogi
Player Suggestion Man United Pair
Replies
18
Views
3K
Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn
Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn

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