Absolutely agree. Football can change very quickly. If we are successful in getting good fees and all of the higher earners off the books, get a good coach who inspires the players we have left and we make very good signings that all have a positive impact immediately, things look completely different. Until those things occur in part or full, we have to judge things as they actually are, not what we want them to be.
In Parekh’s own words, he wants to make the match day experience “extremely good”. Given that it’s currently extremely $hite, that’s a very ambitious leap. Interested to see what he has in mind to achieve this.
If we were in that desperate a state why have they already started tuning offers down,which is what they said?
Because the first offers are always derisory, would be my view. It’s the old adage - never accept the first offer.
My main concern from the interview seemed to be the possibility that some players didn’t have relegation clauses in their contracts for reduced wages. I can’t remember at what minute this was mentioned, and it could have been just poorly phrased, but it was NP who brushed over it. Saying some players were carrying heavy wages etc. It made me wonder if Oulare & Iseka etc were signed without clauses….. which would be no surprise.
After reading through the thread in its entirety I'm now really confused at the below quote from the summary. Why are they talking about signing players before selling if we are that much in the red? I took note of the 'free transfer' bit but there'd still be wages to pay: 'NP confirmed that the equity investment potentially enables some incoming transfer activity (i.e. free transfers and low fee signings) without the need for sales to have taken place first.'
You mean the new Board must be furious at the mismanagement of the old Board. From the reactions of the new Board when questioned about the old one I'd say you're spot on.
It was a reply to a direct question about whether they'd have to sell first before brining in players. It's not something that they definitely have planned, but they have flexibility to react if an opportunity to sign someone arises.
I realise it's was a tongue in cheek statement but there genuinely is frustration at being unable to prevent some of the action that took place. This is what effectively forced the changes to take place.
JAQ seems great from the little clip with Joe Beardsall. That’s the kind of enthusiasm you want involved. (Obviously needs to be tempered with some actual football knowledge and realism!)
I'm getting paranoid about it now so have tweeted her directly asking for clarification. If the summary needs amending then I'll ask Gally to correct it.
If were up against it and we carry a large squad as has been mentioned there's obviously a need to cut the wage bill. Someone may correct me if I'm wrong but when the retained list came out there were 4 names of players who's contracts were up and I, like many, thought we would see Vic and Palmer depart the club. Unfortunately I think these 2 have been offered new deals ( happy to be proved wrong) but surely this is a opportunity to cut the bill while shedding players that most supporters don't rate. Yes the new deal may be on much reduced wages but i'd rather offer one wage to someone better...
Received a reply from JAQ confirming that the correct pronunciation is 'kway'. @Gally - could you please amend the summary article when you get chance. My mistake for trusting the BFC staff information, but at least we know for sure now.