Let's face it - money shouldn't be an issue for us with his contract, it's just his ambition that will determine whether he stays or goes - basically which division we're in next season. I say money, for the simple reason, is that Conlon/Vaughan/Kell/Burns are all off the books this summer, that will have released around £8k a week in wages I reckon, for which could be used to keep one of our main players at the club- Mcphail & Colgan. AND, if we were gonna sign Windass, we would have been paying him £5-6k a week anyway. So surely wages to a certain extent, wouldn't be too much of an issue. We haven't missed Conlon/Vaughan/Kell this season, so don't need any replacements (Academy should be used here) only perhaps Burns in the end, for which Howard's done a cracking job.... Yes we shouldn't be held to ransom, BUT we should be looking at the WHOLE squad situation in terms of the players who are deffo leaving and will free quite a few £'sss up. Finally, I also reckon 'The Fowls' probably wouldn't be able to offer much more in terms of wages than us anyway - so it will come down to which league we're in......
RE: Ritchie Said He MAY Keep Kell Yeah, but i'd still say Conlon on £1200 a week, Vaughan on £1000 a week and Burns on £4,500?? a week, still means we've made a few big savings, which, should be spent on new players, or keeping existing ones + possible Flinders' transfer money if he does go??
RE: Ritchie Said He MAY Keep Kell We need - in my opinion - a replacement for Burns, or at least more cover in central midfield; at least two strikers, and another defender (if, as I suspect, Carbon is shown the door.) We could lose Shuker, Colgan, McPhail and at least one of the two keepers, especially if we fail tonight. It's going to be a busy summer!
RE: Ritchie Said He MAY Keep Kell But the club are still losing money so they'll be looking to reduce the wage bill. The club have a;ready offered new, reduced, contracts to players.
RE: Ritchie Said He MAY Keep Kell They are indeed losing money. However, it's not as though these losses have come out of the blue - I understand that Shepherd budgeted for them, with a view to us breaking even when the next set of accounts are released. If we stay down, we'll have a core support of circa 8,000. That's better than the majority of clubs in this division, and should allow us to attempt some sort of promotion push without spiralling ever-deeper into debt. Whether it's sufficient to keep expensive players such as McPhail is another matter entirely....
Am I missing something here? A week or so ago I understand someone had reported that the chairman had said, the monies generated from the playoffs,not sure if they meant the finals also, would clear the club of it's remaining debts. Perhaps I heard wrong but if that was to be the case the current situation is providing a basis for a healthy balance sheet and that is before the season ends.therefore, I am trying to understand the doom and gloom whipped up concerning a reduction in monitary value for new contracts and the implication it has on creating an ethos of negetive perception of continued hardship.whilst it is neccessity to be prudent at all times with the control of finances,it nevertheless leaves me to wonder if someone is pillocking.
not all the debts.............. just the operating loss for this season as I understood it-and I think it was if we made the final?
RE: Am I missing something here? "...concerning a reduction in monitary value for new contracts and the implication it has on creating an ethos of negetive perception of continued hardship..."</p> You are Garth Crooks and I claim my £5</p>
But, we were prepared to sign Windass - and he would have been on £4-6k a week, on at least a 2 year deal (unless it was all a smoke screen)....