Outgoings this week

[Smirth]

Tufty didn't rate him. He wouldn't have been in the team. I think I may have mentioned this before...

Questionable management then but he's the boss so fair enough.

 

[Sean Thornton]

It does though! Burke is undoubtedly a good player in very good form, that was Che at the start of last season. Leipzig have paid the high fee for his potential, all higher league clubs pay for potential and Che had a lot.

If, we manage to get 3 or 4 good league one players in this week without sacrificing any more of our good players I'll accept that it was a good deal by the board. If not then we've weakened ourselves again when we really didn't need to.

Adams had regressed by the seasons end. There's no doubt about that. Again, why has no one took a punt on that potential? That's all I'm asking.

I cling to hope but doubt we'll sign three, let alone the four we need.

 

[Pinchy]

Questionable management then but he's the boss so fair enough.

All management decisions are rightly open to question. I happen to agree with him on this one. Adams may be quick (though that is exaggerated by his apologists) of foot but he is slow of thought and reaction. He doesn't read a game, doesn't respond to developing situations and goes missing for long periods. He has no great technique or skills, often needing two or three attempts to control the ball.

There is no point in referring to what other clubs are paying for other players. There is a market value. In Adams' case that settled at £1.9m. It was well known that he was available and no other club topped or matched that offer, despite having ample opportunity to do so. Thus, those of you babbling on about fantasy values of £3m or whatever, are demonstrably wrong. Absolutely and inarguably wrong. Those who actually make the decisions and spend the money in football have decided that issue conclusively.

 

[Pinchy]

Adams had regressed by the seasons end. There's no doubt about that. Again, why has no one took a punt on that potential? That's all I'm asking.

I cling to hope but doubt we'll sign three, let alone the four we need.

CB is far and away the most important. That will happen. I think there will be a CM and Lavery as well. That, together with Simon Moore, will be more than satisfactory for now.

 

[bladesmanluke]

So no club has ever actually paid too much for a player and by the same token, neither has a club ever gotten a bargain. Great, it's settled. A player is always worth what the buying club pays for them.

 

[Pinchy]

I suppose if we'd known how much he'd improved between May and August during the close season we might have asked for a bit more.

Certainly the way in which he's set the Championship alight could scarcely have been foreseen. Why, he even scored a goal in a 3-1 home defeat, you know...

 

[Ricky]

Following the Adams sale we have signed Moore (permanently) and Chapman (on loan). If we also sign Morgan and Lavery (permanently) as expected, then there's absolutely no way anyone could claim we haven't strengthened and the sale wasn't worthwhile. Lavery would even be a direct replacement - a left winger/striker with pace and goalscoring ability, young and a potential asset.

 

[Sean Thornton]

So no club has ever actually paid too much for a player and by the same token, neither has a club ever gotten a bargain. Great, it's settled. A player is always worth what the buying club pays for them.

Or, no club believes the internet valuation of Che. Which is the reality of the situation., like it or not.

 

[Bert]

It was interesting in the Rochdale match programme one of our players did a Q+A. One question asked him who did he think was the thickest player at the club.
He replied that had he not just left, it would have been our beloved Che.

 

[wizadry]

Following the Adams sale we have signed Moore (permanently) and Chapman (on loan). If we also sign Morgan and Lavery (permanently) as expected, then there's absolutely no way anyone could claim we haven't strengthened and the sale wasn't worthwhile. Lavery would even be a direct replacement - a left winger/striker with pace and goalscoring ability, young and a potential asset.

I didn't agree with the sale of Adams but if we strengthen the team with the players you've mentioned then I'm in total agreement with you, the key word being if.

 

[JJBlade]

All the outgoings so far don't count then ?

 

[Sean Thornton]

All the outgoings so far don't count then ?

 

[Boxer Blade]

Just for my two penath, when che went, for whatever the fee actually was most folk on here thought it was good business.i cannot remember who exactly but the majority of posts were happy with the deal

 

[PeteBlade]

Just for my two penath, when che went, for whatever the fee actually was most folk on here thought it was good business.i cannot remember who exactly but the majority of posts were happy with the deal

On the basis that the money was used for several squad strengthening signings.

 

[Snowman]

Just for my two penath, when che went, for whatever the fee actually was most folk on here thought it was good business.i cannot remember who exactly but the majority of posts were happy with the deal

We need a poll.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

It's been repeated that we want to bring four or five players in but surely at least one or two of those are dependent on outgoings? Even if not, the quality of any signings could be affected by them.

Coutts was possibly on his way out but I think Wilder will be having second thoughts, and rightly so IMO. We should be looking to sacrifice other players before him.

But who should we look to move out?

I'd say without any hesitation James Wallace permanently (Fleetwood?) and Reed on loan. That should free up at least 5k p/w, enough for a loan signing.

After that it gets harder...

Long - permanent/loan - if someone offers decent money, sell. If not, try and find him a loan move.
McNulty - permanent - would rather keep him but it doesn't look like he's going to get games and he's in the last year of his contract. If we sign Lavery I'd keep him though - they had a good partnership at Pompey.
Done - permanent - good option to have but if Lavery signs that might push him down the pecking order. Will probably be on wages he's not worth - Clough signed him.
Scougall - permanent - last year of his contract, unlikely to be a regular, hasn't been consistent enough, his stature holds him back, he would have takers, could sacrifice him to get a better midfielder.
Coutts - permanent - on high wages but he's our best technical player and we should make use of him.
DCL - permanent - could no doubt get a bit of money for him but for me it's a total non starter.

Ideally I'd get rid of Wallace and loan out Reed and Long. That should enable us to sign Morgan, a quality, possibly more expensive central midfielder and Lavery. Anything after that, such as a left back on loan, would be a bonus but with those outgoings should be possible.

I just hope we don't have to sacrifice anybody we don't want to, we shouldn't have to after losing Adams and Brayford.
For once United, add quality to quality and don't unnecessarily restrict yourselves.

You missed the most obvious one - Billy Sharp. Our most sellable asset. He's the one remaining player that is likely to raise a decent fee and with other striking options at the club, including Clarke, McNulty, Done, DCL and Lavery incoming in October (if no deal reached before), then it wouldn't be a bad decision to let him move on and complete the signing of 2/3 new players with the money raised.

 

[Ricky]

You missed the most obvious one - Billy Sharp. Our most sellable asset. He's the one remaining player that is likely to raise a decent fee and with other striking options at the club, including Clarke, McNulty, Done, DCL and Lavery incoming in October (if no deal reached before), then it wouldn't be a bad decision to let him move on and complete the signing of 2/3 new players with the money raised.

If Sharp moved on I'd be wanting someone like Le Fondre at least.

Really don't think it's likely now though. If we're desperate to raise funds it'll be DCL who goes, but I hope that doesn't happen.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

He has no great technique or skills, often needing two or three attempts to control the ball.

I agree with the points on overall sub-par reading of the game, but disagree that he was devoid of technique or skills for this level – he has displayed his capability, though his problem has always been a complete lack of consistency. That's something that, potentially, can develop in time – which is presumably why Rowett has taken a punt on him.

He in my mind would have been a better option to have played left-wing to start the season than the doomed-to-fail perseverance with Done there – another player who similarly doesn't seem to wholly read the game well, though with a more whiney demeanour.

 

[pommpey]

Mind, you're full of answers these days, Silent.

For someone with a demonstrable pedigree in following United and a global knowledge to rival Darren's you remain surprisingly optimistic in the light of some piss takingly ridiculous stewardship of this club, don't you? Especially when the players out vs players in balance proves everything I boringly go on about, eh? Show me a marque signing in the past six years. One which has made some sort of difference and got us promoted. Sharp? Kept us out of the relegation zone last year. Brayford? Burned bright, for about five months on loan when we needed him. Done? Coutts? Anyone?

Yawn all you want. The problems on the pitch are caused by those up in the box.

I wonder why?

pommpey

 

[Pollingtonblade]

Following the Adams sale we have signed Moore (permanently) and Chapman (on loan). If we also sign Morgan and Lavery (permanently) as expected, then there's absolutely no way anyone could claim we haven't strengthened and the sale wasn't worthwhile. Lavery would even be a direct replacement - a left winger/striker with pace and goalscoring ability, young and a potential asset.

Id still say we needed a midfielder or 2 who can trouble the 'goals for' column.

 

[pommpey]

Now I know that me telling you the McCabe vitriolic agenda is (1) monotonous (2) possibly unwarranted and (3) could be replaced by a single cipher of a post such as "IHM"so that we get the drift, isn't going to stop you posting it time and time again. However, just for the debate and interest, what did the club ever own and which version of which corporate entity own it? I mean I may be wrong but various owners, ne'er do wells, corporate assassins and bloodsuckers have issued shares and borrowed money on "the club" even since the Laver era.

What is monotonous is

(1) Staying in League One
(2) Selling good players
(3) Buying unremarkable 'replacements' from struggling clubs

I have no idea what IHM means. Sorry. Not wid it, laike.

The possibility of McCabe vacating the club is vanishingly small, being as he has most of his world tied up in the club and it's entities. The layers of the McCabe onion around the football team are thick and fibrous, and not easy to peel away to get a refreshing, progressive board-level view toward what the fans want. And what the fans want is not our good players sold, the money divvied up and the team left short of on-pitch ability. Do you not think it is the case? I mean, I don't fucking watch Sheffield United much at all, yet we have catastrophically fallen from the relative grace of Championship opportunists to League One forgettables, currently at the smelly end of the third tier of English football? And, one thing you choose not to acknowledge, yet people like you and Silent call 'boring' and 'monotanous' is that McCabe has been at the apex of the club throughout this avalanche of ability and form. He has hired and sacked managers (largely with fuck all explanation, though we can guess) and has stewarded managers through a steady deflation of capability and potential, in front of consistently good crowds.

You tell me this is not true.

But, rest assured, even if Sheffield United fall further, and further, and even to the point of extinction, McCabe's investment in the venue and it's chattels are fucking titanium-safe. Whilst the clappers stand, misty eyed in the Cherry Street car park and they watch the bulldozers and cranes pull down the ground, McCabe's investment will be paying him fucking handsomely, whilst he tell you gullible enough to believe him that 'he did all he could' for Sheffield United. Keeping the talent at the club and augmenting it with more would fucking help. But what do I know?

There are more logical reasons Wilder isn't signing players who give us belief 'this is the season' for us. McCabe doesn't give a fat fuck. As long as the hamsters press the ST buzzer bar and he has enough money to keep the lights on and the turnstiles rotating, why should he? If we fail, he can sack the manager, blame him and you'll be back for more.

pommpey

 

[Silent Blade]

Mind, you're full of answers these days, Silent.

For someone with a demonstrable pedigree in following United and a global knowledge to rival Darren's you remain surprisingly optimistic in the light of some piss takingly ridiculous stewardship of this club, don't you? Especially when the players out vs players in balance proves everything I boringly go on about, eh? Show me a marque signing in the past six years. One which has made some sort of difference and got us promoted. Sharp? Kept us out of the relegation zone last year. Brayford? Burned bright, for about five months on loan when we needed him. Done? Coutts? Anyone?

Yawn all you want. The problems on the pitch are caused by those up in the box.

I wonder why?

pommpey

 

[pommpey]

Great comeback.

pommpey

 

[Pinchy]

If Sharp moved on I'd be wanting someone like Le Fondre at least.

Really don't think it's likely now though. If we're desperate to raise funds it'll be DCL who goes, but I hope that doesn't happen.

Matty Taylor and Matt Green seem to be the "irons in the fire" if there is a striker sale.

 

[Ricky]

Matty Taylor and Matt Green seem to be the "irons in the fire" if there is a striker sale.

Taylor would be far too expensive. I saw somewhere claim his release clause is £2.5m, I don't think it'll be that much but it might suggest it is pretty substantial, in excess of what we can afford and what we could raise with any player sale.

Matt Green would be a stupid and unnecessary signing. Decent fee being touted, he's 29 and has an ACL tear behind him. Good but unspectacular in L2. Decent athlete but I don't see how he'd be first choice for us. If we have to spread our budget a long way in terms of the number of additions we need then spending a fair whack on him would be very unwise.
We generally shouldn't be signing many more players pushing 30. The CB is the last one I'd be happy to be around that age.

 

[Darthblade]

I think before Wilder has a thought about buying, he has to sell

I don't see why he should have to sell before buying when we have £2million plus what was left of his transfer budget before we sold Adams. We have only spent £250k of that so far.

The wages have been slashed from last seasons level with the removal of over15 players including Hammond, Woolford, Brayford as high earners.

Unless, of course, the board are not making funding available to Tufty in which case we know where the blame for yet another year of self-imposed exile in L1 lies .......

UTB & FTP

 

[Darthblade]

CB is far and away the most important. That will happen. I think there will be a CM and Lavery as well. That, together with Simon Moore, will be more than satisfactory for now.

I regret to disagree mate .....

Yes we need a dominant right sided CH and we need some pace which Lavery or similar would bring, but we also need at least one dominant CM, preferably two and a CF with strength and pace plus a LB.

We are currently going nowhere and a couple of players won't change that, plus we have nothing on the bench beyond the first eleven, which aren't good enough.

UTB & FTP

 

[Bert]

I don't see why he should have to sell before buying when we have £2million plus what was left of his transfer budget before we sold Adams. We have only spent £250k of that so far.

The wages have been slashed from last seasons level with the removal of over15 players including Hammond, Woolford, Brayford as high earners.

Unless, of course, the board are not making funding available to Tufty in which case we know where the blame for yet another year of self-imposed exile in L1 lies .......

UTB & FTP

Hammond and Woolford were paid off. A very large expense rather than a saving, but don't let that hinder your economic genius

 

[Snowman]

What is monotonous is

(1) Staying in League One
(2) Selling good players
(3) Buying unremarkable 'replacements' from struggling clubs

I have no idea what IHM means. Sorry. Not wid it, laike.

The possibility of McCabe vacating the club is vanishingly small, being as he has most of his world tied up in the club and it's entities. The layers of the McCabe onion around the football team are thick and fibrous, and not easy to peel away to get a refreshing, progressive board-level view toward what the fans want. And what the fans want is not our good players sold, the money divvied up and the team left short of on-pitch ability. Do you not think it is the case? I mean, I don't fucking watch Sheffield United much at all, yet we have catastrophically fallen from the relative grace of Championship opportunists to League One forgettables, currently at the smelly end of the third tier of English football? And, one thing you choose not to acknowledge, yet people like you and Silent call 'boring' and 'monotanous' is that McCabe has been at the apex of the club throughout this avalanche of ability and form. He has hired and sacked managers (largely with fuck all explanation, though we can guess) and has stewarded managers through a steady deflation of capability and potential, in front of consistently good crowds.

You tell me this is not true.

But, rest assured, even if Sheffield United fall further, and further, and even to the point of extinction, McCabe's investment in the venue and it's chattels are fucking titanium-safe. Whilst the clappers stand, misty eyed in the Cherry Street car park and they watch the bulldozers and cranes pull down the ground, McCabe's investment will be paying him fucking handsomely, whilst he tell you gullible enough to believe him that 'he did all he could' for Sheffield United. Keeping the talent at the club and augmenting it with more would fucking help. But what do I know?

There are more logical reasons Wilder isn't signing players who give us belief 'this is the season' for us. McCabe doesn't give a fat fuck. As long as the hamsters press the ST buzzer bar and he has enough money to keep the lights on and the turnstiles rotating, why should he? If we fail, he can sack the manager, blame him and you'll be back for more.

pommpey

A long post to once again state the bleeding obvious and make the same point that you make time and time again. However, just two things. Firstly, "people like me and Silent"? I am an individual with an opinion and since when have I ever failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that within this decline he has been at the apex of the club, as you put it? I just have a little more sense of balance and acknowledge that he was also at the apex of the club in the rise from the Championship to the Premiership.

Secondly, the point I put out for debate was ignored. Was that because you don't know the answer or did the possible answer not suit the agenda? What did the club ever own and which version of which corporate entity own it? I just suspect that the truth is a little more complex over the history of corporate ownership than the big bad wolf McCabe scenario. For the record, I don't know the answer either but no doubt someone can take us through the various share issues, SE listing, de listing, debt consolidation and corporate asset shifting since the Laver days to show that "we" or "the club" whatever your definition haven't owned anything for some time even before McCabe.

 

[pommpey]

A long post to once again state the bleeding obvious and make the same point that you make time and time again. However, just two things. Firstly, "people like me and Silent"? I am an individual with an opinion and since when have I ever failed to acknowledge the obvious fact that within this decline he has been at the apex of the club, as you put it? I just have a little more sense of balance and acknowledge that he was also at the apex of the club in the rise from the Championship to the Premiership.

Secondly, the point I put out for debate was ignored. Was that because you don't know the answer or did the possible answer not suit the agenda? What did the club ever own and which version of which corporate entity own it? I just suspect that the truth is a little more complex over the history of corporate ownership than the big bad wolf McCabe scenario. For the record, I don't know the answer either but no doubt someone can take us through the various share issues, SE listing, de listing, debt consolidation and corporate asset shifting since the Laver days to show that "we" or "the club" whatever your definition haven't owned anything for some time even before McCabe.

So, in short, you agree then? He has presided over one of the most dismal declines in this club's recent history, rivalling the descent to div four in the early eighties. You also agree that since he has done thus, he is also difficult to remove as his tendrils are wrapped around much of that the club is, as a footballing concern. That's 'McCabe' himself and his companies, rather than items being owned collectively by a series of shareholders major and minor, who have significant influence in investments, budgets, appointments and other such piffling trivia.

Glad of that.

pommpey