100k? Surely that's just an exaggeration? Crackers if true. Cos sure we paid way over 100k for Moncur alone.
A lot of ex reds that were probably cheap but I doubt that cheap altogether. Didn’t Luton spend £1.5 million on a keeper or did I make that up?
They did pay £1,3mn for the keeper but he is injured. The only other players they paid anything for that we know of were Berry, for about £70,000 four years ago and Collins at the same time for about £100,000. I think Bree cost something but not disclosed. The rest were free and a couple of loans. Gives us all hope
Certainly getting performance levels out of them that we rarely saw, maybe James Bree aside. I also liked Berry and would’ve kept him but he’s done okay.
'“We have been in discussions with George’s representatives for a while, but it became very clear that he was not willing to sign a new contract. With six months remaining on his deal, it means you have to make a decision on his future. As well as that, he did not feature much over the course of the season, so this is a good deal for the club and the player. “George wanted to increase his playing time and he moves back to the south of England, closer to his family. We wish him the very best of luck in the rest of his career, he has been a great character to have at the club.” If it was not free it was extremely minimal as his contract was almost out and he wanted to leave We have not had money for donkey's years to pay for players. Just fans as owners not rich people, smallest crowds. Put in big effort for a goalie, thought we might need him a lot!
Bit surprised by that. Always thought that we must have received around 1-200k for Moncur, as it would've made little sense selling him on for next to nothing to a rival when he could still have an important role as a squad player. Be interesting to know what "extremely minimal" consists of. But guess we never will.
You say that, but Moncur wasn't having any benefit to us whatsoever. When he was getting game time, he wasn't performing. He was probably one of the top earners at the club as well, so we were probably limited on who we could have offloaded him onto. Am I right in thinking that we signed Woodrow permanently in that window, when we were scheduled to do so at the end of the season? Maybe moving Moncur on, freed up enough space in the wage bill for us to sign Woodrow earlier. I get Luton were above us in the league at the time, but looking at the bigger picture, we were right to offload him when we did.
Not sure I agree. If we had to sell Moncur in order to get Woodrow then yes you may have a point. However, we don't really know that. Moncur was involved in 21 games that season (10 starts) and was an unused sub in 5. He got six assists and scored one. And although he didn't start every game I always thought he was a threat off the bench. Yes it worked out ok in the end, but think Stendel would've rather have kept him.
Woodrow was instead of Bradshaw wasnt he? And only permanently signed in the summer, but this was part of the loan deal.
Woodrow was a loan deal to a permanent signing - so the money was already committed - we couldn't back out even if we wanted to.
Woodrow was a loan deal (6 months iirc) to a permanent signing, as a replacement to the outgoing Bradshaw. So we signed (had to) Woodrow in the January transfer window
Much like the effort put him whilst playing for us. He was **** a show pony. Will get binned off by Luton and playing non league before we know it. No one would care if it wasn’t for a Luton fan bringing it up. He was crap hence us being happy to move him on.
One of the best lads I’ve worked with. An absolute golden bloke and super-talented. Luton are a great club, great staff, great fans. All power to you buddy.