Brentford

Well I Have several times.

 

Fair enough, my memory is not what it was!!

 

Even though I risk the embarrassment of misunderstanding your post because my inability to comprehend the written word might mean that I do not understand what you have posted, I will try to answer.

Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with the transfer fees that the board have obtained. However, I am no expert in the matter of judging players and the amount that they might bring in as a fee, so I rely on people who are more expert than I. Now you might well be one of those people, but without knowing your qualifications in the matter, as you will appreciate, I cannot be certain. So if you will just write a summary of the players that you have sold, and the sums you received for each player, then I will be able to make my judgement better.

I do not think that their approach to recruitment could be described as scattergun. After all, the board has a well defined policy for recruitment that has to be followed. That policy is summarised in the sticky at the top of the page, and reading the procedure, it does not sound scattergun to me.

I do not believe that spending the same money on fewer players makes as much sense as you claim. We sold 3 players at the end of last season for approximately £8m. If we had spend the same £8m on 3 replacements, we would have spent all our transfer income, but the wages of those new players would not have been the same as the players that we sold. The wages would have been equal to the wages demands of the players that we sold because we could not afford those demands. The issue is rarely that the club cannot afford a particular fee. More often, it is that the club cannot afford the wage demands of the player. First of all, those wages are often higher than those of the players who will be playing with him, and I am sure you will appreciate that you would not be happy if you found out that a fellow player was being paid 3 times as much as you were for doing the same job. But it is more than that, paying higher than budgeted wage will mean that the club is losing more money, and when a club loses more money, someone somewhere has to put their hand into their pocket. Our owners have said that they do not want to do that, so it would have to come out of higher ticket prices.

The policy being operated by the owners replaced the players whose wage demand we could not afford, with players whose wage demands we could afford. In addition, the owners hope that by signing young talent, and by developing that talent, those players will eventually be worth more than what we paid for them. The profit that the club makes when it sells them will help to cover the losses that the club make in normal trading, and provide the cash to fund their replacements.

I have done my best to understand what you have written, but there may be errors. I appologise in advance.

 

Moore made it quite clear that after his injury he decided football is a short career and decided to cash in while he's still profitable for himself.Once again proving the only people who are loyal are the supporters.

 

Out of every players that's left us in recent years, Kieffer Moore is the one i have no bother with understanding and sympathise with reasons for leaving. He'd just had his head caved in playing for us and probably was laid on the hospital bed thinking this is the end of his career.

Obviously he came back and thought to himself he needs to cash in as much as possible in his short career.

 

I agree with much of what you say. The bit I disagree with is the justification of him being sold because he might threaten to effectively go on strike if we didn't. What would have happened, for example, if Wigan had offered us £200k but offered Moore twice what they did offer him? Do we still sell because he might go on strike otherwise?

 

He could only cash in if the club let him. He was under contract.

 

Agree. But the club cashed in. Perhaps it needed to, but using Moore himself as the excuse is just plain wrong. In my opinion.

 

In all fairness the club did get rinsed with how much Wigan paid for him, considering Ivan Toney is getting priced at 10 million and he is only 2 year younger then what Kieffer wouldve been at the time.

So i do agree with you there, we caved far too easy.

 

....and doing it just before the transfer window closed. Either desperate for the money or grossly irresponsible. Or couldn't care less?

 

Thank you. You’ve actually had a go at the questions put - well done. So in summary, you don’t believe we could have extracted any more value from the sales we made, you think the recruitment strategy could not have been improved upon, and you think signing multiple players to give a better chance at making a profit on one is the right approach. Bluntly - I on the other hand think that half as many players on double the wages would have by definition resulted in the same net spend and been a better approach- though I do accept your risk is more leveraged on those players. But we trust Jimmy Cryne and our recruitment team don’t we?

Anyway - thats fine, at least we can agree to disagree on those points without you going off on a massive tangent about irresponsible spending.

Seeing as, not for the first time, you’re so keen to understand my credentials - with the inference that we’re all less of a subject matter expert than you - I’ve got 20 years experience in Finance roles and I spent two years early in my career as a management accountant for a Premier League football team. Will that do?

 

Good Lord, when you see the squad listed like that, it just shows the mind-boggling boardroom buffoonery that's gone on! I've been joking on here about 5 goalkeepers for ages, but we really do have 3, all of whom are roughly (in my opinion) of the same ability. What a complete mess the club has got itself into!

 

People keep saying Schimidt was Moores replacement but he wasn't.Schimidt said Barnsley approached him the previous season.At the Time the BBS man in the know said the club had agreed a record breaking transfer fee for Moores replacement and he changed his mind.I'm sure the poster will confirm this.

 

By the sound of things, your qualifications are far more advanced than my own. I will treat your posts with renewed respect from now on.

 

Well, after reading all this lot I still wish we were more like Brentford!

 

Another example of greed selling Moore. Regardless of whether or not they THOUGHT he MIGHT be disruptive if we told him to honour the legally binding contract he had knowingly and willfully signed it is absolutely negligent that they did so without replacing him and the reason for that is none other than greed.