Sheffield clubs: The Transfer Policies

[blade too long]

No it's the realist brigade that don't live in a fantasy world thinking we've paid over the odds for these players.

Your opinion is that tainted against McCabe you go for below market value figures that are laughable never mind realistic .I can tell you Steadman went for just over 1.5 m your assumption it's under a million is just anti McCabe propaganda

 

[BushBlade]

What i'm trying to ascertain is what justified that period of spending. Ie. If it was ok to spend then, then why not now when we need it more?

If it wasn't justified, and was in fact mindless 'spunkin moneh', then of course we can say it was a mistake and our policy now is more sensible and realistic.

If it relied on our owners pockets as you say then basically, it comes down to their decision. Some clubs are run in this way and see success from it, but is only sustainable related to how deep the owners pockets are, and how willing they are to throw their money away. Some owners are like this. I have no expectations that ours should be, and don't mind them running the club in a smarter fashion.

My only point is that they've been inconsistent in their attitudes to financing the club: bank-rolling a large squad under previous managers but reverting to a more stringent approach under Wilder. As long as we steadily progress i've no problem with this, but just wondering why the change, and why particularly now when our success is growing.

Put simply, we either have the money or we dont. If we dont then fair enough carry on as we are. If we do then why not spend more now we are promoted. If it turns out we don't then the conclusion can only be that it was just irresponsible management to adopt the policy we had before.

I think the inconsistency came from two events;
1. KM decided he'd put enough in. So we cut back. That was towards the end of the Wilson era and Weir. Then, the Prince came in with his money, which we spent.

2. The Prince realised how much he was losing and wanted to cut back. Fortunately, we got Wilder and Knill, who are used to that kind of thing so got us promoted whilst sorting out our expenditure.

i understand the deal with the Prince was that he'd invest x amount for his share of the club. I've heard different sums. However, I think there's still a bit of that left so we're trying to spend it on players who will hopefully improve and increase in value. The idea will be that, in time, we'll get a return on that investment and be able to re-invest that return. And we'll probably rely on that and the academy.

 

[blade too long]

http://hammyend.com/index.php/2017/07/stearman-signs-for-sheffield-united/
Fulham seem to think it's more than 1 m

 

[alcoblade]

I listened to AK interview this morning about Lundstram and how they identified him as a target due to being released from a big club (Everton) dropping down to League two and working his way back up.

That's the sort of players we want in our team. Sheffield Wednesday are trying to buy the finished articles but the issue is the finished Articles are £15milliom (Assombalonga) and although they have big money they cannot compete for those players.

So they are buying the finished Articles that are on there way down. Hutton / Mulgrew (rumoured) / Boyd. They want big wages.

That's the SWFC issue, they aren't signing the up and coming players and they aren't signing the cream of the division. They supposedly want a centre half but Roberts went to Birmingham for mega money. SWFC cannot compete.

They're making the same mistakes we did 10 years ago. Hopefully with the same result.

UTB

 

[dublin 10 blade]

Good to know that my efforts on here reach across the Irish Sea, begorra.

Imitation , is the sincerest form of flattery .
Your a legend on this side of the Irish Sea ISCC .
Slainte Mhaith .

 

[blade too long]

all you need to do is look at Tufty

does he look happy

yes he does
so we have a great transfer policy just now

Hes going for players he wants and getting backed
not one word of complaint
and no reading between the lines veiled complaints either

in Tufty we trust

 

[grafikhaus]

I've mentioned on a different thread in the 'Other football' section; the current levels of second-tier spending are ridiculous and completely unsustainable. With so many chasing the honey pot, one or two clubs are going to fall flat on their arses and do a Pompey (or perhaps a Bolton if they don't sort their shit out).

But Bolton, Pompey and the pigs keep going. The authorities are shit scared of intervening with clubs who obviously break the rules. So we have Leicester 'going into administration' and getting a ground built for very little and then winning the PL. We have con-artists buying clubs like Cardiff, Hull, Birmingham and claiming most transfer fees are 'undisclosed'. We have cunts like the Co-op Bank waiving a £20m loan to the pigs. Just today, Daniel Levy (Spurs chairman) has defended his clubs' lack of transfer activity and says it has nothing to do with building their new stadium. 'When you are building a stadium of this magnitude, it all has to be privately financed. There is no state aid.' Yeah? Tell that to West Ham. We have crooks like Peter Risdale getting away with it. Prior to the current owners, Man. City owner Thaksin Shinawatra was deemed to have passed a 'fit and proper persons' test by the Football League . In charge for just a year, he doubled his investment. That's why dodgy middle-Eastern and Chinese 'investors' rush to the English game. Joey Barton was banned for 18 months for gambling on the game, yet nine Premier League clubs are tied to gambling via shirt sponsorship and the industry spends £47.3m on shirt deals.

Like the banks, football is as dodgy as fuck and 'too big to fail'. Play by the rules (like United, Tevez etc.) and you get fucked.

 

[Sean Thornton]

What i'm trying to ascertain is what justified that period of spending. Ie. If it was ok to spend then, then why not now when we need it more?

If it wasn't justified, and was in fact mindless 'spunkin moneh', then of course we can say it was a mistake and our policy now is more sensible and realistic.

If it relied on our owners pockets as you say then basically, it comes down to their decision. Some clubs are run in this way and see success from it, but is only sustainable related to how deep the owners pockets are, and how willing they are to throw their money away. Some owners are like this. I have no expectations that ours should be, and don't mind them running the club in a smarter fashion.

My only point is that they've been inconsistent in their attitudes to financing the club: bank-rolling a large squad under previous managers but reverting to a more stringent approach under Wilder. As long as we steadily progress i've no problem with this, but just wondering why the change, and why particularly now when our success is growing.

Put simply, we either have the money or we dont. If we dont then fair enough carry on as we are. If we do then why not spend more now we are promoted. If it turns out we don't then the conclusion can only be that it was just irresponsible management to adopt the policy we had before.

Simply, we don't have the money some seem to think we have. McCabes fortune has dropped considerably over the years and even though is still believed to be£80/£90m it's not in cash in a teapot in a cupboard. The club is rightly criticised for making vague statements that are open to interpretation but which are always interpreted as more more more by some, oddly enough often those who "knew" it was bs.

As for the player budget, we need the 2017 accounts before we can say how much the budget was cut by as a starting point for what Wilder has had available to him.

As for being irresponsible sorry but that's nonsense, probably save for the Robson debacle. Bad management yes, but if you think that chucking £18m cash into it since the Prince came doesn't show intent then I don't know what would. Don't forget they have to cover losses as well.

 

[Slim Man]

Your opinion is that tainted against McCabe you go for below market value figures that are laughable never mind realistic .I can tell you Steadman went for just over 1.5 m your assumption it's under a million is just anti McCabe propaganda

If we paid over 1.5mil for Stearman with one year on his contract the negotiations team want shooting

So I doubt it's true

How is it anti McCabe propaganda?

 

[Sean Thornton]

But Bolton, Pompey and the pigs keep going. The authorities are shit scared of intervening with clubs who obviously break the rules. So we have Leicester 'going into administration' and getting a ground built for very little and then winning the PL. We have con-artists buying clubs like Cardiff, Hull, Birmingham and claiming most transfer fees are 'undisclosed'. We have cunts like the Co-op Bank waiving a £20m loan to the pigs. Just today, Daniel Levy (Spurs chairman) has defended his clubs' lack of transfer activity and says it has nothing to do with building their new stadium. 'When you are building a stadium of this magnitude, it all has to be privately financed. There is no state aid.' Yeah? Tell that to West Ham. We have crooks like Peter Risdale getting away with it. Prior to the current owners, Man. City owner Thaksin Shinawatra was deemed to have passed a 'fit and proper persons' test by the Football League . In charge for just a year, he doubled his investment. That's why dodgy middle-Eastern and Chinese 'investors' rush to the English game. Joey Barton was banned for 18 months for gambling on the game, yet nine Premier League clubs are tied to gambling via shirt sponsorship and the industry spends £47.3m on shirt deals.

Like the banks, football is as dodgy as fuck and 'too big to fail'. Play by the rules (like United, Tevez etc.) and you get fucked.

I've said many times the PL will overlook as much as it can in order to stop any tainting of its brand, especially the big clubs on which its so dependent.

 

[DronnieBlade]

Morning fellow Blades of the world.

Firstly I apologies for polluting our beautiful forum with a mention of the dark side.. however I feel the need to scope your thoughts on the contrasting transfer policies of the two Sheffield teams.

Wilder has mentioned it several times, that we've clearly adopted this approach to buy the best from the lower leagues. Players whose stock is rising - captains, players of the season, the right age etc. Stearman being the exception.

I look at the transfer activity at Hillsborough. Boyd, to be fair, I still think is a decent player who will likely play a lot of games for them this season. However he fits a mould of players who they have signed who have already peaked and are on their way down, maintaining big contracts:

Fletcher
Jones
Wallace
Hooper & Rhodes - I'd have both, however I'm including these players in this bracket as they've hit the PL and not cut the mustard.
Hutton - linked with them this week, 32 and one of the highest earners at Villa, seemingly willing to let him go.

My point is this. Two clubs, one city. Yet the transfer policies differ greatly. I see them 'spunkin moneh' on big transfers and high wages and yet I feel no jealousy at all. I prefer our approach - in an era where I am growing vastly disillusioned with modern football and daft amounts being spent, what we are doing gives me hope that success can be achieved in this modest way.

Finally I have a sneaky feeling it could implode at Wednesday this season. I saw some comments from Carvalhal in the paper and reading between the lines I don't think they're able to continue with the big transfer fees due to FFP. My opinion is they will fail to make the play-offs this time round. Could well be wrong, hope I'm not!

Thoughts ??

UTB

My thoughts are that you will be proved correct.

And the Jackal will be out of work for Xmas !

UTB.

 

[tomtheblade]

Simply, we don't have the money some seem to think we have. McCabes fortune has dropped considerably over the years and even though is still believed to be£80/£90m it's not in cash in a teapot in a cupboard. The club is rightly criticised for making vague statements that are open to interpretation but which are always interpreted as more more more by some, oddly enough often those who "knew" it was bs.

As for being irresponsible sorry but that's nonsense, probably save for the Robson debacle. Bad management yes, but if you think that chucking £18m cash into it since the Prince came doesn't show intent then I don't know what would. Don't forget they have to cover losses as well.

I think we come to the same conclusion.

I guess what this comes down to is the difference between 'investment' and 'wise investment'. I'm not demeaning the investment itself- it was welcome and badly needed- but certain expenditures and policies. Whether you call it bad management or irresponsible, thats the same thing i'm referring to in any case.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I think we come to the same conclusion.

I guess what this comes down to is the difference between 'investment' and 'wise investment'. I'm not demeaning the investment itself- it was welcome and badly needed- but certain expenditures and policies. Whether you call it bad management or irresponsible, thats the same thing i'm referring to in any case.

Fair enough although I'm looking at it as bad decisions rather than a don't really care attitude that irresponsibility brings to mind.

 

[tomtheblade]

Yeah, perhaps thats more accurate. I intended it in the sense of lacking due diligence and foresight

 

[CaptainHotdog]

A lot has been posted here about how more money should have been made available and that Wilder is unhappy about the size of the transfer kitty.

I disagree. Wilder has been a lower league manager all his career without a pot to piss in. He led Northampton to the title when at times they didn't have enough funds to pay wages to any staff or players!

Of course he would naturally prefer more, name one manager in any league who wouldn't?!

The club backed him to achieve what they wanted to achieve last season. This time around I think the club will be happy with a solid season, free of any danger of the drop. More signings will arrive and when the window closes I think he will have been given enough spending money to achieve it.

I don't agree with the posters who have spouted lines about his unhappiness. I think he'll be content and ready for the challenge

 

[Yewsman]

I think that last season KM had finally had enough of managers being profligate with the clubs funds. Clough had assembled a massively bloated squad many of whom were on Championship or very high L1 level wages. We were paying Wallace big wages but he was always injured as indeed was Coutts when he signed and was never properly fit for the first 2 seasons. We then paid a huge amount for Brayford plus by L1 standards huge wages. We paid probably £600k for Done and the list goes on. Adkins then spent huge money on Hammond, plus Woolford and Sammon who was on Champ wages and despite all this we still did not get promoted. There never seemed to be any attempt to drive a hard bargain with the selling club. Everything always went through quickly, presumably because we just agreed to pay what we were told the price was - no haggling. Teams with much smaller budgets got promoted ahead of us who seemed to be able to get up and coming players at a fraction of the cost we were spending. So last season KM quite reasonably said enough is enough. The budget was reduced and we started to look for good up and coming players and pay as little as we could get away with. That is being commercial.
With a good manager and apparently good scout that policy served us very well and we won promotion.
We have continued that policy with recruitment this season. I am sure the budget is higher than last season but it is not an open cheque book. Don't forget that existing players have probably got an automatic pay rise for getting promotion and we have given new contracts to Bash, Billy, Coutts and Freeman presumably on bigger wages. As Knill said after the Stoke game the lads who won promotion deserve a chance to have a go in the Championship and I think we all feel confident that most will make the step up. So what would those asking for a much bigger budget really want? Do we now go out and buy 2 or 3 players who cost £15 mill each and will want £20-£50k pw? What will that do to the pay structure and team spirit? Can we guarantee that they will be better than the players we have got? We want evolution not revolution.
I think our current policy is spot on. Hopefully we can get Leonard, another CB and another striker in then let' s see how we do. We then have the JTW where we can strengthen further if we need hopefully to push on for promotion.
Once you embark on the Pigs policy you are living dangerously if you don't get promoted unless there really is a bottomless purse which will not be the case. How many of their current squad would you want in our team?

 

[Yewsman]

The other dark cloud heading there way could very well be the Hillsborough Tragedy, once the criminal proceedings get under way, Sheffield Wednesday could be held accountable for some of it, still a long way off, but I think they will get caught in the ripple effect once things are under way and it could cost them dearly.

SWFC are not being prosecuted in the criminal proceedings. The only person connected to the club being prosecuted is Graham Mackrel the company secretary at the time. There are likely to be civil claims by the families of the victims but these will probably be covered by the club's insurers and may not be that high anyway. The highest payouts are usually where someone is severely injured and needs special care for life. It is suggested elsewhere on here that the company that owned the club at the time of Hillsborough is no longer in existence and that the company presently owning the club is a different legal entity. I do not know about that but if it is true than the current company would not be liable and the claims would have to be made against the police, the council and/ or specific individuals like Dukinfield but they probably have no funds to pay.

 

[JJBlade]

Wilder won't spend a penny more than he thinks a player is worth

 

[RealMcCoy]

The club is not the same legal entity as in 1989, although their old secretary, Mackrell, may cop it. Having said that the ongoing publicity about their underhand collusion with Sheffield Council won't be great publicity for them.

Confident prediction a few years down the line. Once the compo starts getting paid out and you can be sure thousands of Scousers were 'affected' by the tragedy, including many not actually born at the time. As the blame is mainly on SYP and to a lesser extent, SCC, it will be the good Council tax payers of Sheffield footing the bill.

Seems fair to me.

 

[Pedro's Winger]

If SWFC go up, their spending policy will be justified ten times over.
For me, they've lost their soul by charging fans ridiculous sums of money and bringing in players who don't seem that bothered about the club they're playing for.
But as that sounds a bit like the Premier League, maybe that's where they'll end up.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

We've been there, done that in terms of spunkin muneh on players on the decline and who command a PL wage. I know how I'd prefer to do my business - the modest, hungry approach with a spirited squad. After all, which will have more togetherness: a side with something to prove and the morale of having battered a league to the title or an overpaid, underachieving squad with a limp Portuguese manager and no affiliation to one another?

 

[Blade58]

Change in recruitment plans according to AK

No attacking midfielder on the hit list any longer and this has been forced upon them by a certain Mr Brooks

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...ress-prompts-a-recruitment-re-think-1-8670780

 

[Grizzly blade]

Well that's the idea of the academy.

Brooks emergence has technically saved the club some money in the first team budget. The young lad will be raring to get going, and might just be the player who can come off the bench and change games.
Also continues to encourage the lads down at the academy to keep working hard on their game as the chance will be given if you prove yourself.

Hopefully with the lad being so focused he will shun any early attempts at gathering his fortune and be patient in continuing to make himself a first team starter. Then the rewards will come, and will possibly be even greater!
A year or two making a name for himself in the championship and he could have the pick of the premier league and a place in the squad rather than a 23's side!!

 

[Silent Blade]

Basically the original company held the shares in a subsidiary formed in 1990 and quite legally transferred the assets into that at some point, including membership of the FL/FA/PL whatever.

The only pleasure to be taken from this is that they are only twenty seven years old and have no League title or FA Cup wins to their name as these were won by a separate legal entity.

Wasn't aware SWFC's assets were transferred to a different company in 1990 (I assume that was when Dave Richards replaced Bert McGee as the chairman?). I asked my Wendy supporting workmate about this this morning. He wasn't aware about this too. Would the FL allow this nowadays? What was the reasons at the time that the assets were transferred to a different company? Was this quite common? Has this happened to SUFC too? I remember reading that we became a limited company in 1899 (not sure if this is similar?) and we had a plc in 1997 (my dad and I bought shares which are now worthless!)

 

[Sean Thornton]

Wasn't aware SWFC's assets were transferred to a different company in 1990 (I assume that was when Dave Richards replaced Bert McGee as the chairman?). I asked my Wendy supporting workmate about this this morning. He wasn't aware about this too. Would the FL allow this nowadays? What was the reasons at the time that the assets were transferred to a different company? Was this quite common? Has this happened to SUFC too? I remember reading that we became a limited company in 1899 (not sure if this is similar?) and we had a plc in 1997 (my dad and I bought shares which are now worthless!)

Put simply United did it the other way around, putting the original football club into a holding company - the old Plc which still exists today and was incorporated in 1945 and has had various names -
around 1985. SUFC Ltd is the original business unlike South Barnsley Newco which didn't exist until 1990. The Pigs original set up was the one dissolved and reopened administratively for, I believe an insurance claim, but no longer exists as a football club.

Only one original team in Sheffield with FA Cup or League titles to its name legally or morally but not something their fans give much credence too.

 

[Silent Blade]

Put simply United did it the other way around, putting the original football club into a holding company - the old Plc which still exists today and was incorporated in 1945 and has had various names -
around 1985. SUFC Ltd is the original business unlike South Barnsley Newco which didn't exist until 1990. The Pigs original set up was the one dissolved and reopened administratively for, I believe an insurance claim, but no longer exists as a football club.

Only one original team in Sheffield with FA Cup or League titles to its name legally or morally but not something their fans give much credence too.

Thanks. Would the FL allow this nowadays?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Thanks. Would the FL allow this nowadays?

Don't think there was anything wrong with it so I'd imagine so. Think quite a few clubs were doing it.

 

[LJBlade]

Change in recruitment plans according to AK

No attacking midfielder on the hit list any longer and this has been forced upon them by a certain Mr Brooks

http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...ress-prompts-a-recruitment-re-think-1-8670780

Can't be true, we're planning on selling him by the end of the transfer window so we must be looking at another attacking mid

 

[BushBlade]

Thanks. Would the FL allow this nowadays?

I'm not saying this with 100% certainty but I think I read recently that Forest's ownership has just been transferred to a special purpose company set up by the new owner.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I'm not saying this with 100% certainty but I think I read recently that Forest's ownership has just been transferred to a special purpose company set up by the new owner.

That company owns the shares in the existing football club. Similar to Blades Leisure Ltd does United. No FL issue.