How Come?

[SwissBlade]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".

I guess it could be case that they haven't learnt their lesson from Administration...

Its something that grated on me with the Kyles, but we almost had to accept what McCabe (and Robinson) said about losing these players because how could we possibly compete with the big bully boys of the PL.

Presuming for a moment that we can afford to keep our stars (we must be able to if we can be spunking up to 3million on the likes of Ched) then why are we so vulnerable to the vultures when they come with a blankety blank cheque book and pen?

 

[Mousey]

Try putting it in this context...

3 years ago you buy a second hand car for £3000. It's pretty fast, you like it and it does the job for you.

Now is coming upto a crunch time, there's 100k miles on the clock and you know it's going to break down and you can't use it again after 5 months.

Would you sell it for the same price you paid for it 3 years ago? Or would you wait for those 5 months to end and then be back to square one?

 

[SotonBlade]

With Killa it was more of a case of, sell now, get cash, or wait till summer and get nowt!

 

[Oreyt]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".
QUOTE]

Depends on where the player is in their contract and whether the team think they can manage without the player;

Beckford is at the same stage as Killa was - they'll lose him at the end of the season for nowt. But I think it's more important for them to keep hold of him (as top scorer in a league leading side) than it was for us to keep Killa.
I certainly don't think he was worth his wages plus turning down 2M for half a season.

 

[Toronto Blade]

If we were sitting in Newcastle's postion in the league ,it might have been a different story it was too big a risk given our place in the league table.

 

[Brisca Blade]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".

I guess it could be case that they haven't learnt their lesson from Administration...

Its something that grated on me with the Kyles, but we almost had to accept what McCabe (and Robinson) said about losing these players because how could we possibly compete with the big bully boys of the PL.

Presuming for a moment that we can afford to keep our stars (we must be able to if we can be spunking up to 3million on the likes of Ched) then why are we so vulnerable to the vultures when they come with a blankety blank cheque book and pen?

Leeds have took a gamble with Beckford and risk him walking away for nothing in the summer. A gamble they think is worth taking as his goals have helped them to the top of the division.

We were not prepared to take that gamble. Seip looks a capable replacement and if it frees cash up to invest in the team i think its a good decision

 

[Ollessendro]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".

I guess it could be case that they haven't learnt their lesson from Administration...

Its something that grated on me with the Kyles, but we almost had to accept what McCabe (and Robinson) said about losing these players because how could we possibly compete with the big bully boys of the PL.

Presuming for a moment that we can afford to keep our stars (we must be able to if we can be spunking up to 3million on the likes of Ched) then why are we so vulnerable to the vultures when they come with a blankety blank cheque book and pen?

What, or who, are you referring to here Swiss? If it's the Killa situation then you are way out. To be offered over a million for an average (by premiership standards) player with only 5 months on his contract is a good deal.

And what kind of chairman in the right mind would then down £10 million for 2 young players who had played 40 games between them? I was upset by the sale of the Kyle's, but it was good business.

 

[LouTheBlade]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".

In relation to the Kilgallon deal the above question isnt really comparative because as touched on previously he would have gone for nothing in 6 months so its a good deal for everyone concerned.

My general response to your question would be that other clubs like Leeds for example, THINK BIG - no matter what predicament they find themselves in. Its a little thing called AMBITION. Something that our club has never had and what little ambition we do have, the powers that be have always felt we can achieve them by penny pinching and doing things on the cheap. We're not so bad nowadays but the legacy remains.

Yes I know Leeds sold themselves down the river a few years back and almost went pop, that was over-ambitious behaviour and could have been tempered by not signing certain players for big fees that they didnt need. Leeds could have sustained top four status, IF they had been more patient and not gone for the 'Newcastle-esk' success overnight routine. There has to be a balance struck but a club has to stick its neck out of the trenches once in a while otherwise it will get nowhere. The type of gambling im talking about is 'calculated risk' and clever clubs have succeeded with it.

 

[Ted Danson]

I think our 'unambitious' attitude is the right one in the current climate, I can see a few big clubs going to the wall soon and Id imagine the premiership could look very different in a few years time.

To say we never had ambition is abit harsh though Lou, we had ambition when we gave that twat Robson a job and let him spend big on wages and signing on fees. That ambitious gamble failed and now we cant risk being ambitous again until we are in a better financial situation.

 

[Thelooneytuner]

Why does everyone seem to think we paid £3m for ched?

Anyway more to the point. We got rid of killa as he was being too greedy and to cash in on him. It must have been having a negative impact on the other team mates. I know if one of my work pals started trying to get the management on there knees I'd be pretty flipped off

 

[LouTheBlade]

I think our 'unambitious' attitude is the right one in the current climate, I can see a few big clubs going to the wall soon and Id imagine the premiership could look very different in a few years time.

To say we never had ambition is abit harsh though Lou, we had ambition when we gave that twat Robson a job and let him spend big on wages and signing on fees. That ambitious gamble failed and now we cant risk being ambitous again until we are in a better financial situation.

I take that point of view on board Ted, but in relation to your second point this was a reply I posted on another thread:-

Agree with the above. I generally think our club shows no decent level of ambition but in this case we showed a little, but at the wrong time. What I have never understood is why we gave Robson loads of money to get us nowhere, when 12 months earlier the chairman could have backed Warnock in assembling a team of similar value.

Yes I know we most likely used the parachute payments to finance Robson's spending spree but we knew the season before that we would get parachute payments if we went down so why didnt we budget that forthcoming to finance a team capable of staying up?!

Just showed that the Chairman had little belief in Warnock and threw all the eggs in one basket with Robson.

 

[SwissBlade]

Try putting it in this context...

Would you sell it for the same price you paid for it 3 years ago? Or would you wait for those 5 months to end and then be back to square one?

Mousey - I hear what you're saying but I don't agree with that analogy in this case.

I believe that we've added to his value as he has developed into a better player. Its only because of his contract status that we've now had to scramble to get anything for him.

But the point is that if the likes of Leeds don't resign themselves to losing their best players on the cheap then why should we?

The pigs also managed to keep Tudgay when Burnley came knocking earlier in the season.

The contract farce with Killa should never have been allowed to get to this stage, we backed ourselves into a corner long ago on this.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Beckford has done exactly what Killa wanted to do, difference is that Sunderland have come in now and offered Killa what he wanted without the wait.

Beckford will have been offered some sort of bonus to stay with Leeds until the end of the season to try and ensure they go up, with the knowledge he can leave in the summer for nothing and pocket the big signing fee. His worth to Leeds, in terms of goals, far outweighed what Killa is worth to SUFC.

 

[Ted Danson]

Mousey - I hear what you're saying but I don't agree with that analogy in this case.

I believe that we've added to his value as he has developed into a better player. Its only because of his contract status that we've now had to scramble to get anything for him.

But the point is that if the likes of Leeds don't resign themselves to losing their best players on the cheap then why should we?

The pigs also managed to keep Tudgay when Burnley came knocking earlier in the season.

The contract farce with Killa should never have been allowed to get to this stage, we backed ourselves into a corner long ago on this.

I wonder if they would have managed to keep him if a bigger club had come in though. Killa turned Burnley down too remember

 

[Mousey]

Mousey - I hear what you're saying but I don't agree with that analogy in this case.

I believe that we've added to his value as he has developed into a better player. Its only because of his contract status that we've now had to scramble to get anything for him.

But the point is that if the likes of Leeds don't resign themselves to losing their best players on the cheap then why should we?

The pigs also managed to keep Tudgay when Burnley came knocking earlier in the season.

The contract farce with Killa should never have been allowed to get to this stage, we backed ourselves into a corner long ago on this.

Regarding Wednesday and Leeds. Looks where is has got them...

Leeds can probably keep Beckford until the end of the season because they know that whatever price they get for him now will almost certainly be recouped by promotion to the Championship.

As someone has said, if we were in Newcastle's position then we could do what Leeds are doing. But we're not so we might as well cash in now.

Look what happened when we sold Andy Gray to Sunderland... He was our top goalscorer but we got a decent price for a player and the guy who stepped in for him was a free replacement who was one of the main contributing factors into us getting promoted.

I don't see that Killa staying for an extra 5 months would make a huge difference to our season.

Imagine we didn't sell Killa now and he goes for the nothing at the end of the season and we're still in the Championship, £2m down on where we could be. We could be stuck with having to balance the books next season. And when somebody comes in for Jamie Ward we cannot say no because we took a punt on Killa?

 

[Oreyt]

Interestingly just go this email....

''Up and coming Leeds United hot shot Jermaine Beckford has signed a pre contract agreement with the Everton to sign on this Summer. Beckford hit the national headlines a few weeks ago when his FA Cup goal at Old Trafford knocked manure out in the 3rd Round. He has been the talk of the town ever since, with The Skunks for one chasing his signature. Jermaine's Manager Simon Grayson has conceded that Everton have won the chase for his strikers service's, but admits other clubs may still yet come in for him."

 

[SwissBlade]

What, or who, are you referring to here Swiss? If it's the Killa situation then you are way out. To be offered over a million for an average (by premiership standards) player with only 5 months on his contract is a good deal.

And what kind of chairman in the right mind would then down £10 million for 2 young players who had played 40 games between them? I was upset by the sale of the Kyle's, but it was good business.

Killa is the most recent reference Ollessendro, my comments on how I see the deal are on other posts. Yes the money was good for Killa "under the current circumstances", circumstances that we put ourselves in.

The looney tuner - 3million is in the accounts for last year isn't it?

I read earlier that Snodgrass will only go if the club want rid and the price is right, Beckford will only go if the price is right for the club, despite putting in transfer requests.

On the Kyles, Why is 10 million good business? It is for the Business, but then its also very short sighted, why are we not planning for a future on the field in the PL? Its not good business if the money doesn't go into the playing squad.

What we see time and time again is players leaving and we just accept it. Whether its 10 quid or 10 million is largely irrelevant and down to personal opinion.

Its a lack of ambition that we can't fight to keep players. As I said in the summer, if a player is contracted then the club is partly protected. Basically its the clubs call whether to sell or not. Unfortunately our club always take the easy option except when we want to take West Ham to court at xxxxMillion cost!

 

[alcoblade]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".

I guess it could be case that they haven't learnt their lesson from Administration...

Its something that grated on me with the Kyles, but we almost had to accept what McCabe (and Robinson) said about losing these players because how could we possibly compete with the big bully boys of the PL.

Presuming for a moment that we can afford to keep our stars (we must be able to if we can be spunking up to 3million on the likes of Ched) then why are we so vulnerable to the vultures when they come with a blankety blank cheque book and pen?

It's a good point. We sold the two Kyles because "we couldn't refuse" at the same time as the penniless porkers turned down bids for Tudgay.

It wasn't the sale that bothered me. As stated above, £10M for such inexperienced players was fantastic business. I would have preferred to have it sold that way, than the way it was spun. Sadly, spin has crept into McCabe's dialogue more and more of late.

UTB

 

[Foxy]

Perhaps you have to modify the car analogy slightly...

Say you have a vehicle that you like, has all the mod cons and you view as a luxury.... But it only runs on top notch, premium unleaded, not the normal fare.

The fuel required goes up in price significantly, and you work out that paying so much for the fuel means that you cannot afford the same quality tyres.

The tyres are as important, as they keep you on the road and keep you safe.

The tyre company sees the increase in fuel prices and thinks "I'm having some of that".

You are then in a situation whereby to simply carry on as you were, it costs you a lot more for all of the parts you need.

That's without taking into consideration that the car "wants" to be rewarded with new accessories whenever it successfully gets you where you want to go.

What do you do, carry on and pay out more and more...

Or buy a car that runs on the cheaper fuel but can still get you from A to B, without the tyre company jumping on the price increase bandwagon?

That may make no sense , i've been interviewing all day, so my brain is bropken!

 

[SwissBlade]

Its funny as this wasn't intended to be a Beckford v Killa discussion when I first posted.

I saw an article about Snodgrass and have followed the Beckford situation. It was more related to the Kyles, Jags, potentially Wardy and other players that we've got on the cheap and developed. But mainly about the lack of back bone to keep players

Basically the club contradict themselves. Big noises of promotion, we're a big club, we want to be in Europe in 5 years etc (we've all heard the cliches)

But in reality, we sell the family silver as soon as we get an offer.

Undoubtedly we probably won't miss Killa that much and we got a good deal for him. But...

We've replaced him with Siep (decent player) but he's a loanee. The back up plan is Fortune (good on his day, just not seen it at the lane yet), i'm sure he'll be good when fit.

And if Blackie gets to spend any of the money then we'll have to work harder to get a lad to settle in... if indeed we get someone in.

As I said in the first post, if we're not skint. Then i'd rather see us try to concentrate on developing what we have and get a team that can play together rather than maintaining the revolving door policy.

For once I want us to show some ambition and build on what we have to push us forward.

Most of this season so far has been about bedding new players in rather than kicking on from last seasons 3rd place.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".
QUOTE]

Depends on where the player is in their contract and whether the team think they can manage without the player;

Beckford is at the same stage as Killa was - they'll lose him at the end of the season for nowt. But I think it's more important for them to keep hold of him (as top scorer in a league leading side) than it was for us to keep Killa.
I certainly don't think he was worth his wages plus turning down 2M for half a season.

The big factor here is Leeds wrote off more than £20 Million worth of debt and then posted £5 Million profit the next season. Without any debts Leeds can afford to keep him as losing him for nothing isn't a big deal. Our debts are in place and our responsibilities to those debts we can't afford to lose him for nothing. Also Leeds sold Delph this year so they will be looking at making quite a profit this season for a league 1 side.

Dirty cheating bastards that they are.

 

[Maidenhead]

I think our 'unambitious' attitude is the right one in the current climate, I can see a few big clubs going to the wall soon and Id imagine the premiership could look very different in a few years time.

To say we never had ambition is abit harsh though Lou, we had ambition when we gave that twat Robson a job and let him spend big on wages and signing on fees. That ambitious gamble failed and now we cant risk being ambitous again until we are in a better financial situation.

Nice to see common sense and an appreciation of the financial realities of life on a Blades forum

 

[Micalijo]

Leeds, a 3rd tier team, can manage to fend off the vultures circling above Beckford and Snodgrass with relative ease, yet we use the excuse that if a PL team comes knocking "we can't refuse".

I guess it could be case that they haven't learnt their lesson from Administration...

Its something that grated on me with the Kyles, but we almost had to accept what McCabe (and Robinson) said about losing these players because how could we possibly compete with the big bully boys of the PL.

Presuming for a moment that we can afford to keep our stars (we must be able to if we can be spunking up to 3million on the likes of Ched) then why are we so vulnerable to the vultures when they come with a blankety blank cheque book and pen?

Very easy question to answer Swiss.

It's because their chairman has not saddled the club with a ridiculous property venture (Blades Realty) that is, in my opinion, losing shed loads of money and is under pressure from banks to cough up what is due at time when cash returns from property are alarmingly low.

Leeds to finish above us next term is one of life's great certainties.

 

[SwissBlade]

Very easy question to answer Swiss.

It's because their chairman has not saddled the club with a ridiculous property venture (Blades Realty) that is, in my opinion, losing shed loads of money and is under pressure from banks to cough up what is due at time when cash returns from property are alarmingly low.

Leeds to finish above us next term is one of life's great certainties.

I'm begining to think you're becoming obsessed with Blades Realty

 

[Foxy]

Very easy question to answer Swiss.

It's because their chairman has not saddled the club with a ridiculous property venture (Blades Realty) that is, in my opinion, losing shed loads of money and is under pressure from banks to cough up what is due at time when cash returns from property are alarmingly low.

Leeds to finish above us next term is one of life's great certainties.

No, their chairman instead was forced to offload all of their property assets and dodgily put the club into administration, ripping off many companies... some local, small and fans of the club.

Then, he hiked the ticket prices.

Which banks are putting pressure on the Blades? Would you seriously prefer the Leeds way?

Is it such a certainty that you are willing to plow in the money to match the "ambition" your require? or is it just easier when its the money of someone else?

 

[lenners]

Say what you like about McCabe but I wouldn't watch United if Bates was chairman.

 

[Blade]

Since I've watched the blades I thought we showed ambition in 97 when we had deane and fjortoft and mcgrath who would have been on decent wages. We also showed a good level of ambition in signing Beattie along with spending 2m on sharp and signing players like naysmith.

My problem comes in that both these seasons I personally feel those in power bottled it at the important part of the season where in both I believe we should have kept hold of players and ultimately I feel we suffered for it.

So in summary once every 10 years I feel we show more ambition than you would expect but we don't have the balls to stick with it. Roll on 2017 for another 6 months of excitement!

To be fair though inbetween times we have also managed to do ok for a club that generally is pretty conservative. In 2002/3 we really did manage an amazing feat in achieving what we did with a team that cost less than £1m in transfer fees between them!

We along with Burnley and other teams have proven in the past that you can have good seasons without having to break the bank or even appear to be competitive in terms of outlay but there has to be the right balance in every area, on the pitch and off it.

At the moment it is looking worrying for us unless we do make it up this year. We appear to be shedding financial assets and decent players and becoming a club filled with borrowed assets who often are not a patch on those we let go putting out often turgid performances.

I really think all blades should try their best from now til the end of the season to bury the hatchet and get behind them all, because it's only going to get more difficult if we don't make a fist of it this season. It really is a lottery once you get to the playoffs and despite our previous failures we have to get past the understandable inertia that most feel about the thought of us reaching them this season. I really think that plays a big part on the atmosphere and the club - a lot of people believe we've little chance of taking the top 2 spots and after that for many the thought of the playoffs offers no solace or inspiration.

We need to believe, we need to keep the faith.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Because neither club has a chairman who wants to pocket the cash!!!

 

[Micalijo]

No, their chairman instead was forced to offload all of their property assets and dodgily put the club into administration, ripping off many companies... some local, small and fans of the club.

Then, he hiked the ticket prices.

Which banks are putting pressure on the Blades? Would you seriously prefer the Leeds way?

Is it such a certainty that you are willing to plow in the money to match the "ambition" your require? or is it just easier when its the money of someone else?

I haven't got a clue what you are on about. I've said plenty of times I don't expect anyone to chuck their own money at a football club with no hope of any return. I aint too bothered about the so called lack of ambition and McCabe showed plenty in summer 2007. I've said plentry of times as well that it is possible to do well in our league with a small ish budget and a decent manager.

What I don't want is a property developer in charge who sees the football club as a way of increasing his personal wealth - with the secondary hope that it produces a meaningful income stream for the club. Sadly it has all gone horribly wrong, all in my opinion.

 

[boo radley]

Say what you like about McCabe but I wouldn't watch United if Bates was chairman.

I couldn't afford to