Barnsley Star (Deedar Star in disguise)

Just read the so called report in the star saying barnsley are a selling club and the reply at the bottom sums it all up and respect to the poster for it because I for one agree totally with it

Real Red Dazzler 9:31 AM on 03/07/2017
Your reporter clearky knows very little about Barnsley Football Club and how it operates both financially and it's process of signing raw talent and developing it. Quite frankly this type of reporting shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the subject that your writer is reporting on and the sort of comments I see regularly from some of our own supporters who fail to understand the economics of modern football. Barnsley Football Club is now operating in a division which is financially nowhere near where it was ten years ago, with other clubs having years of prize and parachute money, and it is in fact now a mini Premier League. Barnsley's way of competing in this league is to develop players from lower divisions and to try to finish as high as possible in the league. When these younger players play well it attracts the attention of the bigger clubs who want "quick success" and clearly of players' heads will be turned. Stones, Holgate, Mawson, etc are all examples of players our club have developed and seen them flourish on both the domestic and international scene and have just about seen us nearly balance the books. This pre-season we have signed seven players and those who we have released left for improved terms which we would not be able to match. It is simple maths. Barnsley FC have signed these new players on three year contracts in order to try to stop the bigger clubs pick pocketing us in the January transfer window. Instead of writing an article on Barnsley asking whether Barnsley are a selling club, perhaps your headline and story should be more along the lines of what an absolute marvellous job our brilliant chairman Patrick Cryne has done and how we have one of the brightest football managers in the English game right now. Or perhaps we should do what the Owls are doing. Throwing money at it with no success? I'll settle for what Barnsley FC are doing right now. A team of developing younger players we are both patient with and proud of and not a set of journeymen taking us back into administration.

Read more at: http://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/foot...ortant-than-league-progress-to-reds-1-8627125

 

I suppose it depends upon if you see the term "selling club" as a pejorative or not. Personally I don't. We do sell players. We also buy players. Ideally we sell players for more than we bought them for.

 

Other than the 2 Manchester Clubs, Chelski, Liverpool, Spurs & Arsenal every other team is a "selling club".
If Real Madrid are interested, even these 6 would struggle to hold on to a prized asset.
It's all relative.

In relation to the Championship, we are always going to lose players to other clubs that have bigger budgets & replace them with L1 & L2 players.
I think that is pretty obvious & I'm OK with that, if we get decent money for players, or at least we get them to see out a 3 year contract.

 

What a superb piece. I'm sure dumb and dumber will think differently

 

Not really sure they are wrong in any way. Doesn't mean that it's wrong for us to develop and sell players but clearly maximising profit is more important than success on tbe pitch (at the moment) this may or may not change in future depending on tbe success of tbe plan. As teams like Crewe and Peterborough have shown this sort of plan may have its limits though equally we may buck the trend.

 

Red rain by anychance

 

I think we're a bigger club than those 2, but agree it's hard to sustain things indefinitely if you keep selling all your best players. Keeping hold of Hecky in the long run will be the biggest issue & we need to have plans in place for that, ideally with succession through the club.

 

Aye I guess in the grand scheme of things we sit between those two who in the long term failed (if not financially certainly in terms of on field success) and Southampton who are a bigger club bit have succeeded using a similar policy.

 

The problem is that if you are bringing in players to develop, the new players will always be less developed i.e not as good as the players they are replacing. For example, at present Mallan and McGeehan are not as good as Hourihane is. They might be eventually but they are not at the moment. Therefore you are constantly weakening the squad while you spend the development time hoping these players will reach the required standard. In order for them to be sold on.

 

Tommy - when you were boasting about your intelligence yesterday, you said you went to LMU - I asked you what LMU is but you never replied.

 

I guess the longer term goal is that you reinvest part of the profits each time as you get 'better' at it you realise more profit so can release more funds meaning that you buy something nearer to the finished article so that the process speeds up and in time you upgrade your squad very gradually without any associated risks and sell fewer players for more money

 

Leeds Metropolitan University?

 

One of the inherent problems with football's system of promotion and relegation is the huge difference in earning that a club can expect when it moves leagues. It would appear at first sight that the gap is a good thing for promoted clubs. It means that the club can afford to pay more in player wages and transfer fees. However, the length of player contracts is a commitment to future on-going expenditure, and unless the club is confident that it is established in a division, it could be committing to expenditure that it cannot afford if it is relegated. When Barnsley were last relegated, it cost Mr Cryne £2.7m. How can the club plan to take on players with long term contracts without knowing whether it will have the future income to meet that commitment.. This is probably one of the reasons that contract terms were kept short. The risk and reward analysis for a long term contract did not look right. One of the benefits of our recent selling spree is that we now have a cushion. That cushion protects us from not only making mistakes with the players that we buy, but it also protects us from the financial consequences of a possible relegation.

 

In fewer words. We cocked up. It happens. We have learned our lessons. We move forwards.

 

Leeds met uni

 

As predicted

 

An old Poly then. I went to a red brick uni Tommy. Pisses all over Leeds Met.

They must have very low standards or they had 1% remedial intake to guarantee additional funding.

 

That's what you would hope/expect but if we take McGeehan for example, is he any further developed than Hourihane was in 2014 or is Pinnock any further developed than Robbo when we signed him? It seems like we are still signing a similar level of player but having to develop them more. Probably makes a negative ******* but so be it.

 

What difference does it make what university he went to?

 

I would say that we have made some progress but we are not yet at Stage 2 of the plan (if that exists) we have have gained promotion (not because of the plan imo) and have sold some assets which has allowed us to sign players on longer term contracts. I'd put us at stage 1.5 of the plan. My glass is half full today.