Not that I believe anything I read in the Sun but....

...they are reporting that Swansea have upped their offer to £3m for Yiadom.

Apologies if this is old news and I've missed it but is £3m enough?

 

Apparently " reported" in the Sun in the last two hours that they've upped their bid.
It also says we knocked back a bid of £2 million from Huddersfield which
I don't believe has ever been confirmed at our end.
Think the last figure I saw was £750,000 which was described as derisory.

 

I'll say this - I've given the board of directors some stick over the last few years for giving players away.
But clearly things have changed.
I would be happy with £3 million for Yids.

The 3 red lines:
1) don't sell to Sheffield and Leeds clubs
2) don't sell during a relegation or promotion fight
3) get the right price for the player

 

I know Hecky wants us to make a statement of intent and keep Yiadom but if he won't sign a new contract, we must be now approaching a figure which would be acceptable.
Of course the other imponderable is McBurnie and how badly we want him, if at all.

 

You could argue that Swansea have demonstrated that they know when they see one of ours with promise. I was surprised that they bid £5M for Alfie, but that proved a correct assessment. So you could argue that £5M ought to be the price we demand for Yiadom. After all, he would be the third captain we've lost in six months. At some point the losses will bite. Relegation would cost us £5M in turnover - even at 2014-15 prices.

There again, I said that selling Conor could cost us relegation - but happily that proved not to be the case. So it's down to trust in Hecky and the Board (again!). £3M for a player who could walk in 12 months (?). But I'd be happier with £5M! And I suppose that at some point, with the money that seems to keep flowing into the club, we will reach a position of greater strength going forward, which might enable us to start to resist some of these bids and build a stable team? The trick is of course not weakening the squad so much that we end up back in the alehouse league.

 

They seem to get a bit right with their football reporting though. £3 mill plus McBurnie could be on the cards then.

 

It's not just the fee though imho - whilst I'm sure it is for the spreadsheet dept at Oakwell, they need to remember that we're a football club and that means at some point allowing the manager to be able to plan for a season at least.

This plan if it exists should by now have allowed us to be more discerning about which players we keep. the scandalous sale of Roberts should be that last one of that sort. Yids can only get better, and if we want to avoid the bottom 3 battles of previous years then the players who have shown Championship ability need to be kept - what's the cost of relegation compared with the fees for Roberts and Yids ? Whilst there's no guarantee of success with those 2, the chances of failure are greatly increased minus those 2.

So £3m for a former league 2 player with 3/4 of a season in The Championship sounds decent money. £3m to leave a gaping hole in your squad a fortnight before embarking on a Championship season with yet another group of mainly unproven players at that level is a joke.

 

It won't because we won't pay the same wages. Stop convincing yourself that this income will prop up wages the club can't afford.

 

The current strategy is not compatible with on the field success. We are basically acting as an academy that plays in the football league and develops players for other clubs.

If we get £3m for Yiadom we might reinvest 20% back into the squad - on players who we hope will be the next wave to be developed and sold.

 

Worked ok last year. Let's see where it gets us the next couple seasons first eh before dismissing it.

 

Depends how you look at it. Had we sold conor just before the season started and not replaced i think we would have been relegated.Look at our ppg after he went.

 

And from what i've heard and the bits i've seen Yiadom looks to now be a class above having a season under his belt. To sell your 2 key players in defence would be suicide in championship status terms. We ought to give him what he wants to sign a new deal and he'll be worth double come january. Should have done the same with roberts.

 

Well it didn't really work last season. It was once we started selling the players and not replacing them that things went wrong.

If we had sold Bree, Mawson, Hourihane and Winnall in August 2016 and brought in what we did we would have been relegated.

 

But we didn't, so overall the season was a success. Therefore, the strategy hasn't really failed us yet. It's obvious that we didn't handle the contract situation very well and the club has admitted that. We were the victims of our own success in many ways. However, we seem to be learning form those mistakes and I've been impressed with the business we've done so far.

 

The club said it wouldn't sell any player without an adequate replacement. Last season showed that was clearly ********. I don't think we will find a replacement for Winnall throughout this season. Blind faith means we can hope that McGeehan will be the new Hourihane.

Longer term contracts does not mean that we will be keeping the players longer - it just means that we negotiate harder when it comes to selling them. If any of the new signings have a good autumn they will be up for sale in January.

 

I don't disagree with the majority of that. Some of the signings we have made are interesting and show lots of potential for development. At the same time do you think there has been. Discernable improvement /development in terms of quality in the players we have recruited? I think and I'm slightly disappointed that we appear to be treading water in terms of recruitment from last season. The main difference is that last season we had a strong experienced talented core to blend these young aspirational signings into. This acted as a buffer and bought say a player like Moncur time. This year we have no core and are expecting players recruited for potential to be able to walk straight into the side and play at championship level with no buffer or experience to help them. It's a big ask I think.

 

Your original point was the that the strategy can't equate to on field success - so far it has. If we comfortably stay up this season you could suggest it's been a success again. I'm losing track of the point you're trying to make to be honest now.

 

I think you're right, it is a big ask. You also make a good point regarding a strong core and hopefully that's what we're trying to address with longer contracts. And I can't make a judgement either way with regards to quality of the player we have recruited so far. Will have a better idea a few months I reckon and if we are at the foot of the table then yes I'll hold my hands up and say that this strategy isn't working. Considering everything so far though I'm willing to give it a chance for another year.

 

It's our only strategy and definitely one I support I just worry that if these young lads get chucked in the deep end that if we struggle and get relegated they will have their confidence chipped away at and their development stymied.

In terms of quality I think I expressed myself badly. I'm not commenting on tbe individual ability of the players we have recruited they all look pretty good to me. I guess what I am saying is that I was hoping for incremental progress that we would invest a larger portion of profits on new recruits (though this of course itself does not guarantee quality). I think it's reasonable fair to say this hasn't happened and in terms of the plan seems to not move it forwards. Imo of course b