80 Posted Monday at 16:57 Share Posted Monday at 16:57 1 hour ago, madras said: I've posted elsewhere that plan A may not have been to sell Bruno but to be prepared as it would be out of our hands should the clause be activated. I guess the distinction is I'm defining Plan A as what I suspect they thought was the most likely outcome, and possibly the necessary outcome - not that it was their preferred outcome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 17:08 Share Posted Monday at 17:08 39 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said: There is no evidence that selling Bruno or any of the ‘difference makers’ was ever in the club’s plans. There were multiple briefings, off and on record to client journalists, in the first half of the season that we'd have to sacrifice a big beast to keep the show on the road. Our communications on that changed pretty much exactly around the time we realised we were in deep shit after not managing to sell anyone in January. We've seemingly had a £70m hole in our PSR budget - they will have known full well it would be extremely difficult to fill without selling some of our crown jewels. We've been extremely lucky Minteh wasn't a Kuol, and it's not at all obvious how we'd have bridged that gap without him being extraordinary - sans a Bruno going. It would've been neglectful to have not planned for that eventuality, really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondedcrown Posted Monday at 17:12 Share Posted Monday at 17:12 2 minutes ago, 80 said: There were multiple briefings, off and on record to client journalists, in the first half of the season that we'd have to sacrifice a big beast to keep the show on the road. Our communications on that changed pretty much exactly around the time we realised we were in deep shit after not managing to sell anyone in January. We've seemingly had a £70m hole in our PSR budget - they will have known full well it would be extremely difficult to fill without selling some of our crown jewels. We've been extremely lucky Minteh wasn't a Kuol, and it's not at all obvious how we'd have bridged that gap without him being extraordinary - sans a Bruno going. It would've been neglectful to have not planned for that eventuality, really. This figure keeps getting bigger! Do we actualy know what it is or are people just guessing? It's becoming laughable! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 17:17 Share Posted Monday at 17:17 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Bondedcrown said: This figure keeps getting bigger! Do we actualy know what it is or are people just guessing? It's becoming laughable! Well, we don't really know, but under duress we've done Minteh, Anderson and Ashworth all on the same day just before the PSR window closed, so the implication is it was in that region... This pretty much sums up the situation, unless it's a tissue of lies - https://archive.ph/zfPwk Edited Monday at 17:18 by 80 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondedcrown Posted Monday at 17:26 Share Posted Monday at 17:26 7 minutes ago, 80 said: Well, we don't really know, but under duress we've done Minteh, Anderson and Ashworth all on the same day just before the PSR window closed, so the implication is it was in that region... This pretty much sums up the situation, unless it's a tissue of lies - https://archive.ph/zfPwk You admit it then so why repeat it? it is a pointless exercise! Swiss Ramble had it at 30 m he's not a journalist go figure! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 17:33 Share Posted Monday at 17:33 3 minutes ago, Bondedcrown said: You admit it then so why repeat it? it is a pointless exercise! Swiss Ramble had it at 30 m he's not a journalist go figure! This looks like willful blindness to be honest... I don't think we sold Minteh for fun, I think it's pretty clear we did it because we had to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee_Johnny Posted Monday at 17:33 Share Posted Monday at 17:33 22 minutes ago, 80 said: There were multiple briefings, off and on record to client journalists, in the first half of the season that we'd have to sacrifice a big beast to keep the show on the road. Our communications on that changed pretty much exactly around the time we realised we were in deep shit after not managing to sell anyone in January. We've seemingly had a £70m hole in our PSR budget - they will have known full well it would be extremely difficult to fill without selling some of our crown jewels. We've been extremely lucky Minteh wasn't a Kuol, and it's not at all obvious how we'd have bridged that gap without him being extraordinary - sans a Bruno going. It would've been neglectful to have not planned for that eventuality, really. Still don’t see it. Eales, much earlier, words of caution don’t provide evidence for this. I think our contingency plans will be multi layered and that kind of outgoing was, hopefully, one rung up from a never event. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 17:34 Share Posted Monday at 17:34 15 minutes ago, 80 said: Well, we don't really know, but under duress we've done Minteh, Anderson and Ashworth all on the same day just before the PSR window closed, so the implication is it was in that region... This pretty much sums up the situation, unless it's a tissue of lies - https://archive.ph/zfPwk May not be lies but may nit be the full facts. A lie to me is deliberate deception opposed to creating a narrative without knowing h it understanding the full facts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondedcrown Posted Monday at 17:38 Share Posted Monday at 17:38 4 minutes ago, 80 said: This looks like willful blindness to be honest... I don't think we sold Minteh for fun, I think it's pretty clear we did it because we had to. Eh you said 70m ? Make up your mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 17:41 Share Posted Monday at 17:41 Just now, madras said: May not be lies but may nit be the full facts. A lie to me is deliberate deception opposed to creating a narrative without knowing h it understanding the full facts. Maybe, but the article claims it's full of quotes and views from senior figures at the club. Are we proposing we never really had any concerns and always expected to sort any minor issues out by selling Minteh and Anderson for £30m+ each? It doesn't seem to be attached to reality... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 17:41 Share Posted Monday at 17:41 3 minutes ago, Bondedcrown said: Eh you said 70m ? Make up your mind Mate, have you had a drink? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 17:47 Share Posted Monday at 17:47 5 minutes ago, 80 said: Maybe, but the article claims it's full of quotes and views from senior figures at the club. Are we proposing we never really had any concerns and always expected to sort any minor issues out by selling Minteh and Anderson for £30m+ each? It doesn't seem to be attached to reality... No, there was clearly an issue but ad yet we dont know how much but I'd doubt 70mill as quoted somewhere Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 18:01 Share Posted Monday at 18:01 (edited) 13 minutes ago, madras said: No, there was clearly an issue but ad yet we dont know how much but I'd doubt 70mill as quoted somewhere Well, the problem is seemingly the club itself doesn't know what the number is. They're working off estimates. That sounds incredibly unprofessional but apparently all clubs are in the same boat, so no major criticisms there. The story we're being fed is £68m for Anderson and Minteh was 'probably' enough but they weren't certain. So sure, it could've been £59m in reality, but equally it could've been £72m. Whatever the case, it appears we were unsure enough to seal the Ashworth deal and make it (hopefully) cast iron. Which is why, going back to the original subject, the obvious route to fix the problem would've been to get a whacking great fee for a single player and sort it in one go. Edited Monday at 18:02 by 80 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted Monday at 18:04 Share Posted Monday at 18:04 3 hours ago, 80 said: As an aside, I have to hope Eddie was fully aware and on board with the idea of Bruno being sold if that was Plan A. The alternative - that he was blindsided and feels misled by the past fortnight - is much worse. Howe had talked about having to make tough decisions this summer. Doubt he'll be getting worked up about any difficult decisions we've had to make. In fact I quite imagine he'll be really pleased they figured out a way to keep the best players under tough circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawalls Posted Monday at 18:08 Share Posted Monday at 18:08 54 minutes ago, Bondedcrown said: This figure keeps getting bigger! Do we actualy know what it is or are people just guessing? It's becoming laughable! I worked it and it’s £70m exactly, I can’t believe we let it get to £80m - even Eales apologised for the figure being £90m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 18:12 Share Posted Monday at 18:12 4 minutes ago, KaKa said: Howe had talked about having to make tough decisions this summer. Doubt he'll be getting worked up about any difficult decisions we've had to make. In fact I quite imagine he'll be really pleased they figured out a way to keep the best players under tough circumstances. Yeah, I reckon so. Was saying it partly with a view to combating the idea the board was inherently not operating in the best interests of the club if they were counting on a Bruno departure. I think realistically Eddie would've been made fully aware and bought into that plan also, with a view to the ultimate ambitions for the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 18:13 Share Posted Monday at 18:13 10 minutes ago, 80 said: Well, the problem is seemingly the club itself doesn't know what the number is. They're working off estimates. That sounds incredibly unprofessional but apparently all clubs are in the same boat, so no major criticisms there. The story we're being fed is £68m for Anderson and Minteh was 'probably' enough but they weren't certain. So sure, it could've been £59m in reality, but equally it could've been £72m. Whatever the case, it appears we were unsure enough to seal the Ashworth deal and make it (hopefully) cast iron. Which is why, going back to the original subject, the obvious route to fix the problem would've been to get a whacking great fee for a single player and sort it in one go. But those that have to do it, I guess, kind of guesstimate and I'd be more inclined to go alongside Rambles numbers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondedcrown Posted Monday at 18:16 Share Posted Monday at 18:16 6 minutes ago, Gawalls said: I worked it and it’s £70m exactly, I can’t believe we let it get to £80m - even Eales apologised for the figure being £90m. We surely don’t owe 100m? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 18:17 Share Posted Monday at 18:17 (edited) 5 minutes ago, madras said: But those that have to do it, I guess, kind of guesstimate and I'd be more inclined to go alongside Rambles numbers. From memory, he thought £40m with a high degree of uncertainty, didn't he? I mean, I respect his work but the evidence is the people at the coalface of the profit and loss sheets thought it was much more. Otherwise I doubt we would've sacrificed both Minteh and Anderson like this. One would've been enough. Edited Monday at 18:18 by 80 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondedcrown Posted Monday at 18:23 Share Posted Monday at 18:23 2 minutes ago, 80 said: From memory, he thought £40m with a high degree of uncertainty, didn't he? I mean, I respect his work but the evidence is the people at the coalface of the profit and loss sheets thought it was much more. Otherwise I doubt we would've sacrificed both Minteh and Anderson like this. One would've been enough. To be honest I don’t think anyone outside of the club really knows! Still onwards and upwards! Don’t forget this is a long term project which we have known from the first day of the takeover? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam P Posted Monday at 18:29 Share Posted Monday at 18:29 10 minutes ago, 80 said: From memory, he thought £40m with a high degree of uncertainty, didn't he? I mean, I respect his work but the evidence is the people at the coalface of the profit and loss sheets thought it was much more. Otherwise I doubt we would've sacrificed both Minteh and Anderson like this. One would've been enough. There are two reasons why PSR is invoked for selling players, one to offset losses, one to generate additional financial freedom to sign players needed to develop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 18:32 Share Posted Monday at 18:32 14 minutes ago, 80 said: From memory, he thought £40m with a high degree of uncertainty, didn't he? I mean, I respect his work but the evidence is the people at the coalface of the profit and loss sheets thought it was much more. Otherwise I doubt we would've sacrificed both Minteh and Anderson like this. One would've been enough. There's making sure and the Anderson deal was too good to turn down imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted Monday at 18:33 Share Posted Monday at 18:33 16 minutes ago, Bondedcrown said: We surely don’t owe 100m? 110mill you say, where the hell do we find 120mill ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondedcrown Posted Monday at 18:34 Share Posted Monday at 18:34 Just now, madras said: 110mill you say, where the hell do we find 120mill ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted Monday at 19:00 Share Posted Monday at 19:00 27 minutes ago, madras said: There's making sure and the Anderson deal was too good to turn down imo. Well, we'll see if we bid £85m for Gibbs in July, I guess... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now