Why is the investment in the squad seemingly falling?

Enzo said:
Well you’ve answered your own question there then we have bought low with the intention to sell high but that turnover isn’t going to happen 4 games into the season you’ll just have to wait to see what develops
Click to expand...
In what way have I answered my own question?

Who have we bought low with the intention of selling high this summer?

Excluding Joseph, who was part of the Yates deal anyway, we've bought one player and he's 30 years old.

Where was the Bowler money or the Critchley compensation money reinvested on buying players? Since Bowler was sold 12 months ago we've bought Lyons since that point that fits the model, that's it.
 
Seasider99 said:
In what way have I answered my own question?

Who have we bought low with the intention of selling high this summer?

Excluding Joseph, who was part of the Yates deal anyway, we've bought one player and he's 30 years old.

Where was the Bowler money or the Critchley compensation money reinvested on buying players? Since Bowler was sold 12 months ago we've bought Lyons since that point that fits the model, that's it.
Click to expand...
Have you not thought we might of already over invested? Appleton on a four year contract has not been mentioned patino/ fiorini Poveda will not have come cheap Stewart/Anderson didn’t play all season but took a healthy wage people only look at what’s come in it’s been swallowed up already
 
Why do clubs have to spend massive amounts of money . Surely the idea of bringing Critch in with all his badges should be to improve players . At the moment it's obviously not working ,but why spend bigger money when the idea is to bring in small and sell bigger . I understand the need to bring in decent players ,but no need to complain that we haven't spent enough for some fans. Maybe we should raise ticket prices to please them and we may be able to get more expensive players.
 
Enzo said:
Have you not thought we might of already over invested? Appleton on a four year contract has not been mentioned patino/ fiorini Poveda will not have come cheap Stewart/Anderson didn’t play all season but took a healthy wage people only look at what’s come in it’s been swallowed up already
Click to expand...
Patino, Fiorini and Poveda were all on loan, hence no fees other than wages, which will have been at a sustainable level for us and will not have exceeded our highest earner.

All these players are now off the wage bill, including Stewart and Anderson who were on the wage bill 2 years prior in the league below, so it's not like there was any sudden increase in the amount they each cost the club last year, even if they were lay on the treatment table. There was also no lack of investment prior to last season, where they each formed part of the wage bill.

You're not seriously trying to tell me that the lack of investment this summer is due to us over investing last year, where we spent a grand total of £600k all season on actual transfer fees? The way that Sadler runs the club means that it's impossible to "overinvest", he's stressed the importance of sustainability several times. Even if we had "over invested" last year, does that mean we suddenly stop investing when it's required? There was no lack of investment in the first 3 summers of Sadler's ownership when it was required.
 
Quality strikers and attacking/creative players are much in demand. I still think we have signed a very good, young striker in Kyle Joseph and hopefully he can get fully fit and get up and running fairly soon. Cosgrove shows how it can be a risky business, Birmingham reportedly paid 2M for him and he's on 16-20K a week. He helped Plymouth get promoted to the Championship but he's had a very up and down career and not exactly a prolific scorer.
 
On how much was the cost of Joseph, well that would be down to how much Swansea wanted Jerry. I'd hazard that it wasn't very much, more of a sweetener to seal the deal.

On the spending, people forget that we now offer longer deals on you'd think competitive wages. That adds up financially and in squad size so assuming fee reflects itself in wages, you could be talking large chunks of wages.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
Why do clubs have to spend massive amounts of money . Surely the idea of bringing Critch in with all his badges should be to improve players . At the moment it's obviously not working ,but why spend bigger money when the idea is to bring in small and sell bigger . I understand the need to bring in decent players ,but no need to complain that we haven't spent enough for some fans. Maybe we should raise ticket prices to please them and we may be able to get more expensive players.
Click to expand...
As I've mentioned in response to other posters, who was referred to "massive amounts of money"?

A fee of say £500k each on a couple of quality players who may be worth several million in a couple of years time is not massive money to a side that has received roughly £6m for selling it's 2 best players within the last 12 months and fits the model of buying low and selling high.

I agree that a large reason behind bringing Critchley in is to improve these sorts of players, which makes it all the more baffling that we have only spent a fee on 1 player this summer, and he's 30 years old.
 
Seasider99 said:
Patino, Fiorini and Poveda were all on loan, hence no fees other than wages, which will have been at a sustainable level for us and will not have exceeded our highest earner.

All these players are now off the wage bill, including Stewart and Anderson who were on the wage bill 2 years prior in the league below, so it's not like there was any sudden increase in the amount they each cost the club last year, even if they were lay on the treatment table. There was also no lack of investment prior to last season, where they each formed part of the wage bill.

You're not seriously trying to tell me that the lack of investment this summer is due to us over investing last year, where we spent a grand total of £600k all season on actual transfer fees? The way that Sadler runs the club means that it's impossible to "overinvest", he's stressed the importance of sustainability several times. Even if we had "over invested" last year, does that mean we suddenly stop investing when it's required? There was no lack of investment in the first 3 summers of Sadler's ownership when it was required.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not but loaning players, particularly from Premier League clubs like Arsenal, Man City and Leeds often involve a significant loan fee as well as paying a % of their wages. Football finances are a complex, risky business especially in the Championship. I think Sadler is doing the right thing in investing in the infrastructure of the club and looking to be "smart" in the recruitment of players.
 
Seainsea said:
Believe it or not but loaning players, particularly from Premier League clubs like Arsenal, Man City and Leeds often involve a significant loan fee as well as paying a % of their wages. Football finances are a complex, risky business especially in the Championship. I think Sadler is doing the right thing in investing in the infrastructure of the club and looking to be "smart" in the recruitment of players.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that he's doing the right thing in investing in the infrastructure and looking to be savvy with the recruitment of players and I applaud him for that, the original post wasn't intended to be criticism as such, more confusion.

I think it's highly unlikely that a club such as ours would be forking out these "significant loan fees" when signing players on loan from Premier League teams. Surely for BFC, where cash is much harder to come by than it would be at larger clubs, it would make far more sense to be spending those sums on getting players through the door on a permanent basis than temporarily signing a player for 12 months only?

Of course I understand that these loan players would probably match our highest earner and would make up much of our wage bill, but there is no way that Sadler and a club of our size are paying anything more than a trivial amount to sign a player on loan.
 
Seasider99 said:
As I've mentioned in response to other posters, who was referred to "massive amounts of money"?

A fee of say £500k each on a couple of quality players who may be worth several million in a couple of years time is not massive money to a side that has received roughly £6m for selling it's 2 best players within the last 12 months and fits the model of buying low and selling high.

I agree that a large reason behind bringing Critchley in is to improve these sorts of players, which makes it all the more baffling that we have only spent a fee on 1 player this summer, and he's 30 years old.
Click to expand...
You have said it yourself . Bringing in a couple of quality players for £500,000 a time and then MAY be worth several million later . I can only think of 2 players in recent years that have come in that category ,yet we have probably spent quite a few quid in players from £100,000 to £500,000 category that we have lost money on over the last few years. A million pounds does not grow on trees and I wonder how many other Div 1 teams are spending money in that way.
 
WIZARD OF TANGERINE said:
You have said it yourself . Bringing in a couple of quality players for £500,000 a time and then MAY be worth several million later . I can only think of 2 players in recent years that have come in that category ,yet we have probably spent quite a few quid in players from £100,000 to £500,000 category that we have lost money on over the last few years. A million pounds does not grow on trees and I wonder how many other Div 1 teams are spending money in that way.
Click to expand...
Of course there is a gamble when signing these players, but it's not like a £500,000 signing would be worth nothing in a year or 2 even if they didn't go on to fulfill their full potential and end up being worth several million.

More than likely they would still prove to be solid signings, even if they didn't set the world alight. But you're not wrong that it's still a fair sum of money and there aren't many teams at this level spending in that way.
 
Seasider99 said:
Patino, Fiorini and Poveda were all on loan, hence no fees other than wages, which will have been at a sustainable level for us and will not have exceeded our highest earner.
Click to expand...
Don't think you know how the loan market works fees are paid then a percentage of wage Poveda was on 11k a week I'm quite sure Leeds would have wanted a chunk of that paying or why bother.
 
poolseasider said:
Don't think you know how the loan market works fees are paid then a percentage of wage Poveda was on 11k a week I'm quite sure Leeds would have wanted a chunk of that paying or why bother.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We will more than likely have paid the amount towards his wages that matched our highest earner (rumoured to be Jerry on between £5k and £6k a week) and then a trivial fee of perhaps £50k or so.

Of course I still recognise that there is a fairly substantial cost to the club when signing a player on loan, but this amount is low compared to signing a player on a permanent basis, and means the money saved by signing somebody on loan only has to be spent the following summer anyway on either another loan player or a permanent transfer.
 
Seasider99 said:
Exactly. We will more than likely have paid the amount towards his wages that matched our highest earner (rumoured to be Jerry on between £5k and £6k a week) and then a trivial fee of perhaps £50k or so.

Of course I still recognise that there is a fairly substantial cost to the club when signing a player on loan, but this amount is low compared to signing a player on a permanent basis, and means the money saved by signing somebody on loan only has to be spent the following summer anyway on either another loan player or a permanent transfer.
Click to expand...
We are signing permanent players what we got now 21 on the books and just because we got Joseph in the Jerry deal it still means we've spent fairly big on one player it could even surpass out biggest ever transfer fee.
 
Seasider99 said:
Exactly. We will more than likely have paid the amount towards his wages that matched our highest earner (rumoured to be Jerry on between £5k and £6k a week) and then a trivial fee of perhaps £50k or so.

Of course I still recognise that there is a fairly substantial cost to the club when signing a player on loan, but this amount is low compared to signing a player on a permanent basis, and means the money saved by signing somebody on loan only has to be spent the following summer anyway on either another loan player or a permanent transfer.
Click to expand...
Highest earner was Stewart on 9k a week, any ways it’s like talking to a brick wall with you you’ve not listened to anyone’s opinion you’ve just had a rant and put the blinkers on good day my friend 👋🏻
 
poolseasider said:
We are signing permanent players what we got now 21 on the books and just because we got Joseph in the Jerry deal it still means we've spent fairly big on one player it could even surpass out biggest ever transfer fee.
Click to expand...
I can only go off what the Club says and I seem to recall Critchley saying that the Yates and Joseph deals were completely separate.
 
Enzo said:
Highest earner was Stewart on 9k a week, any ways it’s like talking to a brick wall with you you’ve not listened to anyone’s opinion you’ve just had a rant and put the blinkers on good day my friend 👋🏻
Click to expand...
That's absolute rubbish on both counts, Stewart on 9k a week is laughable. Read the other posts on here other than the interaction we've had, I've agreed with several points that others have made.

What you actually mean is that just because my opinion differs to yours and I (and others on here) haven't agreed exactly with what you've come out with, you've decided it isn't worth having a discussion.

I've asked you several questions in response to what you've posted where an answer would have supported what you've said and helped my understanding of your point, you've responded to none of them, instead waffling about something different in each response and ultimately getting defensive and throwing insults around.

Either way, we're in agreement that speaking to each other is pointless, so I will not be interacting with you again on here. I came on here for a discussion, not to be insulted.
 
Last edited:
Seasider99 said:
That's absolute rubbish on both counts, Stewart on 9k a week is laughable. Read the other posts on here other than the interaction we've had, I've agreed with several points that others have made.

What you actually mean is that just because my opinion differs to yours and I (and others on here) haven't agreed exactly with what you've come out with, you've decided it isn't worth having a discussion.

I've asked you several questions in response to what you've posted where an answer would have supported what you've said and helped my understanding of your point, you've responded to none of them, instead waffling about something different in each response and ultimately getting defensive and throwing insults around.

Either way, we're in agreement that speaking to each other is pointless, so I will not be interacting with you again on here. I came on here for a discussion, not to be insulted.
Click to expand...
Very easily insulated then aren’t you …….I’m so sorry 😂
 
poolseasider said:
Don't think you know how the loan market works fees are paid then a percentage of wage Poveda was on 11k a week I'm quite sure Leeds would have wanted a chunk of that paying or why bother.
Click to expand...
If fees are being paid, then the loaning club will be paying 100% of the player's wages as well. I doubt we were either paying fees, or paying 100% wages.
 
BISONS said:
I’m putting it in simple terms.

We didn’t give Swansea a penny for Joseph. I’d guess they offered £3.5m inc add ons. We said how much for Joseph and hey presto the deal was done.
Click to expand...

The club/Critchley clearly stated that the two transfers were completely separate transactions therefore technically we did part with money for him.

We all know that's not really true but the records will show, for whatever reason, that we paid a fee for him.
 
Nuttalls Mint Toes said:
Weaker than last time and the 2007 squad would piss all over this one - where's the Morrell's Burgess's, Parker's, Wes's?
Click to expand...
Hmm probably all retired running pubs and chipshops 🤣
That aside , fees are hugely inflated and , we re not actually a wealthy club.
We can't even sign rated youngsters from middish table championship clubs because their wage expectations are already unrealistic for us.
That's why our academy is finally getting properly infra structured
 
BISONS said:
I’m putting it in simple terms.

We didn’t give Swansea a penny for Joseph. I’d guess they offered £3.5m inc add ons. We said how much for Joseph and hey presto the deal was done.
Click to expand...
Better for us perhaps reducing sell on fee due to Rotherham - lots to do with accounting
 
The problem when you have big financial investments in to stands and training grounds then you don't have the funds for players.
Why last season was so disastrous. Would have been easier to stay in the Championship than get out of League One.
 
paulco said:
Are they otherwise agoraphobics?

Meet them somewhere more entertaining.

Like a bar.

Something Pool can't hit - let alone a net.
Click to expand...
They won’t listen paulco .

Im sick of telling them we should go and watch Man City cos they are rich and win stuff but they won’t

Ive also suggested we should meet at The Time Gap but theyve told me its been shut for years.

I can’t win .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top