Cooper cools any talk of selling Luongo after Rotherham bid

Massimo Luongo

Massimo Luongo

First published in Sport
Last updated
by

SWINDON Town are under no pressure to even contemplate selling Massimo Luongo, according to manager Mark Cooper.

The Robins rejected a £600,000 bid from Rotherham United for the Australian midfielder earlier this week, with chairman Lee Power revealing the offer fell well below the club’s valuation of the player.

However, when asked by the Advertiser what would constitute a reasonable approach for the playmaker, Cooper stressed that Swindon were not about to consider the possibility of Luongo leaving the County Ground this summer.

“I’ve got to be honest, I don’t even know if they would sell him. I don’t think there’s any pressure for us to sell him. Having spoken to Lee, we’re not selling him,” he said.

“He’s not going. I think with all due respect to Rotherham, I’m not sure Mass would go there. It’s a fantastic offer but he’s not going. I think the way Lee is doing it is that if we are sustainable we don’t have to sell players.”

Cooper, who confirmed his interest in Liverpool’s Brad Smith after Town were understood to make an enquiry to the Anfield club regarding the left-back’s availability, ran the rule over free agent Anton Rodgers during Swindon’s 5-2 win at Petersfield last night. 

The son of Liverpool manager Brendan, the midfielder, who was at Brighton & Hove Albion at the same time as Swindon assistant coach Luke Williams, made 14 appearances for Oldham last season. “We’re just having a look at Anton. He’s been freed from Oldham, Luke Williams has worked with him before and said he’s worth having a look at,” said Cooper.

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:23am Wed 16 Jul 14

port de soller says...

Is good to hear they will not just let him go,however every player does have a price.I do hope LP can find a suitable investor for STFC as it could be a long season on his own.Nice attitude from LP
Is good to hear they will not just let him go,however every player does have a price.I do hope LP can find a suitable investor for STFC as it could be a long season on his own.Nice attitude from LP port de soller
  • Score: 5

6:24am Wed 16 Jul 14

Fernham Red says...

Excellent news,
Anyone else loving the benefits of our new sustainable model?
Excellent news, Anyone else loving the benefits of our new sustainable model? Fernham Red
  • Score: 22

7:43am Wed 16 Jul 14

old town robin says...

Anton had a decent schooling with 5 years at the Chelsea academy whilst his dad was one of the special One's coaches. he's another mid-fielder and only 5' 7". so not sure what he will bring to the table. Oldham didn't want to keep him after 14 appearances, but he is only 21 and if Luke thinks he's worth taking a look at. let's hope he can show his worth. Anyone at Petersfield last night to run the rule over him/
Anton had a decent schooling with 5 years at the Chelsea academy whilst his dad was one of the special One's coaches. he's another mid-fielder and only 5' 7". so not sure what he will bring to the table. Oldham didn't want to keep him after 14 appearances, but he is only 21 and if Luke thinks he's worth taking a look at. let's hope he can show his worth. Anyone at Petersfield last night to run the rule over him/ old town robin
  • Score: 3

7:54am Wed 16 Jul 14

Psychedelic Syd says...

If we sign Anton Rodgers then it gives us a family link with Liverpool which could be to our benefit loan-wise.
If we sign Anton Rodgers then it gives us a family link with Liverpool which could be to our benefit loan-wise. Psychedelic Syd
  • Score: 6

7:54am Wed 16 Jul 14

swinRhino says...

old town robin wrote:
Anton had a decent schooling with 5 years at the Chelsea academy whilst his dad was one of the special One's coaches. he's another mid-fielder and only 5' 7". so not sure what he will bring to the table. Oldham didn't want to keep him after 14 appearances, but he is only 21 and if Luke thinks he's worth taking a look at. let's hope he can show his worth. Anyone at Petersfield last night to run the rule over him/
Only 5' 7" how tall was tall was Pritch. Not saying he is a Pritch, but what has height to do with things. Messi is only 5' 6"!
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: Anton had a decent schooling with 5 years at the Chelsea academy whilst his dad was one of the special One's coaches. he's another mid-fielder and only 5' 7". so not sure what he will bring to the table. Oldham didn't want to keep him after 14 appearances, but he is only 21 and if Luke thinks he's worth taking a look at. let's hope he can show his worth. Anyone at Petersfield last night to run the rule over him/[/p][/quote]Only 5' 7" how tall was tall was Pritch. Not saying he is a Pritch, but what has height to do with things. Messi is only 5' 6"! swinRhino
  • Score: 2

8:02am Wed 16 Jul 14

The artist formerly known as Marmite Soldier says...

Massimon??
Massimon?? The artist formerly known as Marmite Soldier
  • Score: 4

8:18am Wed 16 Jul 14

Northern Red says...

The artist formerly known as Marmite Soldier wrote:
Massimon??
Uncovering his Jamaican roots mon!
[quote][p][bold]The artist formerly known as Marmite Soldier[/bold] wrote: Massimon??[/p][/quote]Uncovering his Jamaican roots mon! Northern Red
  • Score: 2

8:20am Wed 16 Jul 14

Northern Red says...

Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.
Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters. Northern Red
  • Score: 6

8:26am Wed 16 Jul 14

old town robin says...

swinRhino wrote:
old town robin wrote:
Anton had a decent schooling with 5 years at the Chelsea academy whilst his dad was one of the special One's coaches. he's another mid-fielder and only 5' 7". so not sure what he will bring to the table. Oldham didn't want to keep him after 14 appearances, but he is only 21 and if Luke thinks he's worth taking a look at. let's hope he can show his worth. Anyone at Petersfield last night to run the rule over him/
Only 5' 7" how tall was tall was Pritch. Not saying he is a Pritch, but what has height to do with things. Messi is only 5' 6"!
You're right height is not the be all and end all of the ability of an individual player, but as a team I feel there should be a balance of physical presence if we want to compete with some of the other bigger teams at this level and not be bullied.

The point I was trying to make was there were serious concerns last season of the lack of height at the back and in the mid-field, Both Thompsons, Byrnes, Kasim, Luango Barchem are not exactly blessed with the height to regularly win headers, in fact we only have Gladwin as a mid-fielder is a 6 footer.

I have no axe to grind if Rodgers is signed and certainly nothing against any of the players we already have, they all have assets to their game, it just seems to me we will be bringing in someone with a similar ilk where maybe we should be looking at someone that has different attributes to offer.
[quote][p][bold]swinRhino[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: Anton had a decent schooling with 5 years at the Chelsea academy whilst his dad was one of the special One's coaches. he's another mid-fielder and only 5' 7". so not sure what he will bring to the table. Oldham didn't want to keep him after 14 appearances, but he is only 21 and if Luke thinks he's worth taking a look at. let's hope he can show his worth. Anyone at Petersfield last night to run the rule over him/[/p][/quote]Only 5' 7" how tall was tall was Pritch. Not saying he is a Pritch, but what has height to do with things. Messi is only 5' 6"![/p][/quote]You're right height is not the be all and end all of the ability of an individual player, but as a team I feel there should be a balance of physical presence if we want to compete with some of the other bigger teams at this level and not be bullied. The point I was trying to make was there were serious concerns last season of the lack of height at the back and in the mid-field, Both Thompsons, Byrnes, Kasim, Luango Barchem are not exactly blessed with the height to regularly win headers, in fact we only have Gladwin as a mid-fielder is a 6 footer. I have no axe to grind if Rodgers is signed and certainly nothing against any of the players we already have, they all have assets to their game, it just seems to me we will be bringing in someone with a similar ilk where maybe we should be looking at someone that has different attributes to offer. old town robin
  • Score: 3

8:45am Wed 16 Jul 14

Stilloyal says...

Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?
Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ? Stilloyal
  • Score: 0

8:56am Wed 16 Jul 14

umpcah says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?
Many will declare that a good biggun is better than a good littleun ! It`s getting the former at the right price which is the problem. Gotta take what we can get I suppose but I`m still optimistic about 9th August and onwards !
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?[/p][/quote]Many will declare that a good biggun is better than a good littleun ! It`s getting the former at the right price which is the problem. Gotta take what we can get I suppose but I`m still optimistic about 9th August and onwards ! umpcah
  • Score: 0

9:11am Wed 16 Jul 14

Since 1950 says...

Psychedelic Syd wrote:
If we sign Anton Rodgers then it gives us a family link with Liverpool which could be to our benefit loan-wise.
That's exactly it my friend. As I said on another topic, give the Lad a job and we'll be okay for some good Liverpool loans.
[quote][p][bold]Psychedelic Syd[/bold] wrote: If we sign Anton Rodgers then it gives us a family link with Liverpool which could be to our benefit loan-wise.[/p][/quote]That's exactly it my friend. As I said on another topic, give the Lad a job and we'll be okay for some good Liverpool loans. Since 1950
  • Score: 3

9:29am Wed 16 Jul 14

oz ashes says...

The artist formerly known as Marmite Soldier wrote:
Massimon??
i think sam was thinking about his dinner tonight
[quote][p][bold]The artist formerly known as Marmite Soldier[/bold] wrote: Massimon??[/p][/quote]i think sam was thinking about his dinner tonight oz ashes
  • Score: 0

10:21am Wed 16 Jul 14

old town robin says...

Stilloyal wrote:
Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?
But they didn't all play in the same team did they loyal
[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?[/p][/quote]But they didn't all play in the same team did they loyal old town robin
  • Score: 1

10:25am Wed 16 Jul 14

Micky Hazard says...

Northern Red wrote:
Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.
Exactly - can't do any harm at least.
In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect.
Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.
[quote][p][bold]Northern Red[/bold] wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.[/p][/quote]Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around. Micky Hazard
  • Score: 0

10:47am Wed 16 Jul 14

LeGod says...

i see Jack Stephens is with the first team in Holland as Koeman is looking at all of them that he thinks could have a chance of getting in the first team squad and he played a bit last night as well against Rotterdam.

Lets hope we can still get him on loan.
i see Jack Stephens is with the first team in Holland as Koeman is looking at all of them that he thinks could have a chance of getting in the first team squad and he played a bit last night as well against Rotterdam. Lets hope we can still get him on loan. LeGod
  • Score: 0

11:05am Wed 16 Jul 14

Stilloyal says...

old town robin wrote:
Stilloyal wrote:
Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?
But they didn't all play in the same team did they loyal
Giles and Bremner held the Leeds midfield together and tore the opposition apart.
The point is we were debating small players not small teams and the point is you don't have to be big to be a good player. Maradona was only small too.
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote: Alan Ball, Jimmy Giles, Billy Bremner , Kevin Keegan , Norbert Styles, Joey Butler to name just a few short houses who were great footballers, yea what has size to do with it ?[/p][/quote]But they didn't all play in the same team did they loyal[/p][/quote]Giles and Bremner held the Leeds midfield together and tore the opposition apart. The point is we were debating small players not small teams and the point is you don't have to be big to be a good player. Maradona was only small too. Stilloyal
  • Score: 2

11:17am Wed 16 Jul 14

dreamofacleansheet2 says...

BBC Wiltshire reporting we've turned down £200k for Nathan T. £200k for your captain. Ah no thanks. As I said regardless of price Thompson boys would be must keep for me.
BBC Wiltshire reporting we've turned down £200k for Nathan T. £200k for your captain. Ah no thanks. As I said regardless of price Thompson boys would be must keep for me. dreamofacleansheet2
  • Score: 2

12:03pm Wed 16 Jul 14

London Red says...

Even Captains have their price and in our financial situation there is certainly no room for not for sale at any cost
.
Obviously as MC has said we do not have to sell anymore - so now it is buy at above market rate if you want them - but we should accepting 7 figure bids for any player
Even Captains have their price and in our financial situation there is certainly no room for not for sale at any cost . Obviously as MC has said we do not have to sell anymore - so now it is buy at above market rate if you want them - but we should accepting 7 figure bids for any player London Red
  • Score: 1

12:37pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

You've summed it up well LR "... in our financial situation". It's clear Power is doing his best to resist selling our players, which is great. But as you acknowledge, our financial situation plays a big part. I've received a lot of stick for saying we are stronger when we have good financial backing as that makes it easier to retain good players or to hold out for a better selling price. But that's the reality. If we didn't have Power we would very likely have been forced to sell players at a low value (as happened with Ritchie when McCrory acquired the club and chose to put no money in). If we had even greater investment than Power's, we would be stronger still.
You've summed it up well LR "... in our financial situation". It's clear Power is doing his best to resist selling our players, which is great. But as you acknowledge, our financial situation plays a big part. I've received a lot of stick for saying we are stronger when we have good financial backing as that makes it easier to retain good players or to hold out for a better selling price. But that's the reality. If we didn't have Power we would very likely have been forced to sell players at a low value (as happened with Ritchie when McCrory acquired the club and chose to put no money in). If we had even greater investment than Power's, we would be stronger still. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Swindon1984 says...

London Red wrote:
Even Captains have their price and in our financial situation there is certainly no room for not for sale at any cost . Obviously as MC has said we do not have to sell anymore - so now it is buy at above market rate if you want them - but we should accepting 7 figure bids for any player
Anything from a million upwards would be accepted for near enough any of our players, possible exception is Wes where we might be looking for a bit more, purely becase of his value to us - wouldn't be an easy one to replace by any means.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: Even Captains have their price and in our financial situation there is certainly no room for not for sale at any cost . Obviously as MC has said we do not have to sell anymore - so now it is buy at above market rate if you want them - but we should accepting 7 figure bids for any player[/p][/quote]Anything from a million upwards would be accepted for near enough any of our players, possible exception is Wes where we might be looking for a bit more, purely becase of his value to us - wouldn't be an easy one to replace by any means. Swindon1984
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Vintage Trouble says...

Micky Hazard wrote:
Northern Red wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.
Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.
Worked well for Oldham last season didn't it...
[quote][p][bold]Micky Hazard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Northern Red[/bold] wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.[/p][/quote]Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.[/p][/quote]Worked well for Oldham last season didn't it... Vintage Trouble
  • Score: 1

1:32pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Vintage Trouble says...

Micky Hazard wrote:
Northern Red wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.
Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.
Worked well for Oldham last season didn't it...
[quote][p][bold]Micky Hazard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Northern Red[/bold] wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.[/p][/quote]Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.[/p][/quote]Worked well for Oldham last season didn't it... Vintage Trouble
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Vintage Trouble says...

Micky Hazard wrote:
Northern Red wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.
Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.
Worked well for Oldham last season didn't it...
[quote][p][bold]Micky Hazard[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Northern Red[/bold] wrote: Tactical purchase. Take Anton on a one year deal, and ask him to get Daddy to lend us some nice Liverpool youngsters.[/p][/quote]Exactly - can't do any harm at least. In fact, even just having a look at him last night may help in that respect. Mutual back-scratching - it's what makes the world go around.[/p][/quote]Worked well for Oldham last season didn't it... Vintage Trouble
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 16 Jul 14

London Red says...

Den - is it easier?
.
As I have said before - when we were owned by a consortium worth over £500m and they were prepared to fund losses each year of £1m+ yet we still lost lots of players - and none at well above market rate silly money levels!
.
Our financial situation would be the same for pretty much 95% of L1 and probably 50% of the Championship if not more!
.
It even goes up to the Premiership with Saints cashing in on Lallana, Lambert and Shaw!
.
Obviously having no money what-so-ever means we flog it all for anything - but that not us now
.
I feel more secure now that our player will not leave for cheap than I have ever before!
.
We don't have a Cox or Austin so don't expect a record fee - but I'm ceretain our jewels won't go for under 7 figures
Den - is it easier? . As I have said before - when we were owned by a consortium worth over £500m and they were prepared to fund losses each year of £1m+ yet we still lost lots of players - and none at well above market rate silly money levels! . Our financial situation would be the same for pretty much 95% of L1 and probably 50% of the Championship if not more! . It even goes up to the Premiership with Saints cashing in on Lallana, Lambert and Shaw! . Obviously having no money what-so-ever means we flog it all for anything - but that not us now . I feel more secure now that our player will not leave for cheap than I have ever before! . We don't have a Cox or Austin so don't expect a record fee - but I'm ceretain our jewels won't go for under 7 figures London Red
  • Score: 1

3:15pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

Of course it's easier LR. As discussed the other day, those players went for footballing reasons - not financial ones. Players will always move on to better things if they are progressing faster than the club. I don't think we lost anyone - except Ritchie - at under market value.

You said it yourself - "in our financial situation.." Resistance to undervalue bids is higher when the club can afford to bide its time and wait for better offers.

Foderingham is the only player we have who could seriously be classed in the £1m bracket. Some of the others - notably Louis Thompson in my view - have potential but they have a lot of proving to do.
Of course it's easier LR. As discussed the other day, those players went for footballing reasons - not financial ones. Players will always move on to better things if they are progressing faster than the club. I don't think we lost anyone - except Ritchie - at under market value. You said it yourself - "in our financial situation.." Resistance to undervalue bids is higher when the club can afford to bide its time and wait for better offers. Foderingham is the only player we have who could seriously be classed in the £1m bracket. Some of the others - notably Louis Thompson in my view - have potential but they have a lot of proving to do. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

I'd just add that if we really do have all these players worth £1m and we don't sell them in the next year, the League title must be as good as ours already!
I'd just add that if we really do have all these players worth £1m and we don't sell them in the next year, the League title must be as good as ours already! Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Wed 16 Jul 14

London Red says...

Power did say he was happy with our nucleas - especially our midfield where 2 sit!
.
But no we haven't got the titled just as we have 3 or 4 £1m players - look at all the big clubs who have struggled to get out of L1 - Posh for example with their £1.5m striker!
Power did say he was happy with our nucleas - especially our midfield where 2 sit! . But no we haven't got the titled just as we have 3 or 4 £1m players - look at all the big clubs who have struggled to get out of L1 - Posh for example with their £1.5m striker! London Red
  • Score: 1

4:38pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Bassett Hound says...

Oi Den! wrote:
Of course it's easier LR. As discussed the other day, those players went for footballing reasons - not financial ones. Players will always move on to better things if they are progressing faster than the club. I don't think we lost anyone - except Ritchie - at under market value.

You said it yourself - "in our financial situation.." Resistance to undervalue bids is higher when the club can afford to bide its time and wait for better offers.

Foderingham is the only player we have who could seriously be classed in the £1m bracket. Some of the others - notably Louis Thompson in my view - have potential but they have a lot of proving to do.
I don't understand this '' In our financial position '' talk. Surely we are better off than most with nearly 5,000 season tickets sold,gates of 7,500/8,000 ,no interest payments on debt,wage bill under control.

For the first time in many years we should not be losing money,I think our financial position is very good. We don't have a sugar daddy,but look what happened when we had one.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Of course it's easier LR. As discussed the other day, those players went for footballing reasons - not financial ones. Players will always move on to better things if they are progressing faster than the club. I don't think we lost anyone - except Ritchie - at under market value. You said it yourself - "in our financial situation.." Resistance to undervalue bids is higher when the club can afford to bide its time and wait for better offers. Foderingham is the only player we have who could seriously be classed in the £1m bracket. Some of the others - notably Louis Thompson in my view - have potential but they have a lot of proving to do.[/p][/quote]I don't understand this '' In our financial position '' talk. Surely we are better off than most with nearly 5,000 season tickets sold,gates of 7,500/8,000 ,no interest payments on debt,wage bill under control. For the first time in many years we should not be losing money,I think our financial position is very good. We don't have a sugar daddy,but look what happened when we had one. Bassett Hound
  • Score: 2

5:48pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

Bassett Hound wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
Of course it's easier LR. As discussed the other day, those players went for footballing reasons - not financial ones. Players will always move on to better things if they are progressing faster than the club. I don't think we lost anyone - except Ritchie - at under market value.

You said it yourself - "in our financial situation.." Resistance to undervalue bids is higher when the club can afford to bide its time and wait for better offers.

Foderingham is the only player we have who could seriously be classed in the £1m bracket. Some of the others - notably Louis Thompson in my view - have potential but they have a lot of proving to do.
I don't understand this '' In our financial position '' talk. Surely we are better off than most with nearly 5,000 season tickets sold,gates of 7,500/8,000 ,no interest payments on debt,wage bill under control.

For the first time in many years we should not be losing money,I think our financial position is very good. We don't have a sugar daddy,but look what happened when we had one.
Agree our financial position is relatively good. It's not that we're at a disadvantage compared to most of our rivals. It's just that we no longer have the financial clout to resist big offers for our players or to make good offers ourselves. It wasn't having a good backer that was the problem, it was the way his generosity was abused. Even if you think it was Black's fault, there's no reason to suppose the same situation would arise again. It was an unfortunate combination - a runaway train of a manager and a chairman who was too nice and too much in awe of him to put the brakes on.
[quote][p][bold]Bassett Hound[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Of course it's easier LR. As discussed the other day, those players went for footballing reasons - not financial ones. Players will always move on to better things if they are progressing faster than the club. I don't think we lost anyone - except Ritchie - at under market value. You said it yourself - "in our financial situation.." Resistance to undervalue bids is higher when the club can afford to bide its time and wait for better offers. Foderingham is the only player we have who could seriously be classed in the £1m bracket. Some of the others - notably Louis Thompson in my view - have potential but they have a lot of proving to do.[/p][/quote]I don't understand this '' In our financial position '' talk. Surely we are better off than most with nearly 5,000 season tickets sold,gates of 7,500/8,000 ,no interest payments on debt,wage bill under control. For the first time in many years we should not be losing money,I think our financial position is very good. We don't have a sugar daddy,but look what happened when we had one.[/p][/quote]Agree our financial position is relatively good. It's not that we're at a disadvantage compared to most of our rivals. It's just that we no longer have the financial clout to resist big offers for our players or to make good offers ourselves. It wasn't having a good backer that was the problem, it was the way his generosity was abused. Even if you think it was Black's fault, there's no reason to suppose the same situation would arise again. It was an unfortunate combination - a runaway train of a manager and a chairman who was too nice and too much in awe of him to put the brakes on. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Fernham Red says...

It's like all things in life.....if people know there is a cash cow, then they'll milk it. All these millionaire/billiona
ire football club owners are all on to a loss because they're pursuing a statistically near impossible dream (I.e. What pretty much only Jack Walker, Abrahmovic and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan have achieved) : buying the Premier League title. It's the ultimate vanity project. You'd think they'd be financially savvy enough not to haemorrage such huge sums of money but they're not. Vanity, pride and a bit of celebrity goes to their head and they get hooked on a winless gamble like a crack addled car-stopper on Manny Rd.
What's worse is when these junkies become disaffected with the lack of success (where even second is not good enough) they go on immediate cold turkey - withdraw all funds like it's a black day on Wall Street and leave us, the loyal fans to pick up their crumpled receipts.
So no, I'm not a great fan of the Mega-investor - I'd far rather have someone in charge who knows the cut of their cloth and builds a sustainable transfer fund through intelligent business decisions and knowing more than their fair share about the industry, so they can see an real opportunity when it arises.
As others have said, we have no debts and whilst currently running close to the wire on the balance of costs vs income, LP is clever enough to know that our players are being watched by Premier and Championship scouts and that if he pushes back on the first round of bidding, arouses interest higher up the ladder of English Teams , then his payday will come soon enough and his patience will be rewarded in Spades.
If we're lucky, some of that cash will go back into the cycle of bringing on new talent, giving them a stage to perform and cash in again when they too move on.
We should be following the Southampton model of prudent club management, not the Man City/Chelsea school of Great Gatsby.
It's like all things in life.....if people know there is a cash cow, then they'll milk it. All these millionaire/billiona ire football club owners are all on to a loss because they're pursuing a statistically near impossible dream (I.e. What pretty much only Jack Walker, Abrahmovic and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan have achieved) : buying the Premier League title. It's the ultimate vanity project. You'd think they'd be financially savvy enough not to haemorrage such huge sums of money but they're not. Vanity, pride and a bit of celebrity goes to their head and they get hooked on a winless gamble like a crack addled car-stopper on Manny Rd. What's worse is when these junkies become disaffected with the lack of success (where even second is not good enough) they go on immediate cold turkey - withdraw all funds like it's a black day on Wall Street and leave us, the loyal fans to pick up their crumpled receipts. So no, I'm not a great fan of the Mega-investor - I'd far rather have someone in charge who knows the cut of their cloth and builds a sustainable transfer fund through intelligent business decisions and knowing more than their fair share about the industry, so they can see an real opportunity when it arises. As others have said, we have no debts and whilst currently running close to the wire on the balance of costs vs income, LP is clever enough to know that our players are being watched by Premier and Championship scouts and that if he pushes back on the first round of bidding, arouses interest higher up the ladder of English Teams , then his payday will come soon enough and his patience will be rewarded in Spades. If we're lucky, some of that cash will go back into the cycle of bringing on new talent, giving them a stage to perform and cash in again when they too move on. We should be following the Southampton model of prudent club management, not the Man City/Chelsea school of Great Gatsby. Fernham Red
  • Score: 3

6:22pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

I don't see why a football club can't conduct it's affairs prudently while having the security provided by a generous backer. Can anyone imagine Mark Cooper, for instance, making ugly gestures at the directors' box and accusing the club of being unambitious when he'd already been given a king's ransom to spend? Some of the people who now say we are better off without Andrew Black's money are those encouraged the club to indulge PDC's every whim. The hypocrisy is staggering.
I don't see why a football club can't conduct it's affairs prudently while having the security provided by a generous backer. Can anyone imagine Mark Cooper, for instance, making ugly gestures at the directors' box and accusing the club of being unambitious when he'd already been given a king's ransom to spend? Some of the people who now say we are better off without Andrew Black's money are those encouraged the club to indulge PDC's every whim. The hypocrisy is staggering. Oi Den!
  • Score: -1

6:33pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?
And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts? Oi Den!
  • Score: 1

8:29pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Fernham Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?
Not entirely - but look at this set of figures from the Premiership era:

2003/4 Wayne Bridge (22) £9m
2005/6 Theo Walcott (16) £9m
2007/8 Gareth Bale (17) £13m
2011/12 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (17) £12m
2014/15 Luke Shaw (18) £26m
2014/15 Adam Lallana (26) £27m

You can even throw in:
1998/99 Kevin Davies (21) £10m
2004/5 James Beattie (26) £8m
2005/6 Peter Crouch (24) £8m
2007/8 Kenwyne Jones (22) £9m

And not forgetting it all started with:
1992/3 Alan Shearer (21) £4m

Only 2 of those players cost more than £0.5m when they came in the door at Saints ( Crouch 2.5m and Beattie 1.2m).

The gross profit from those players is more than £130m.

They looking at offers of £20m for Morgan Schneiderlin who they brought in for £1.3m when he was 18 and so it goes on......

That doesn't even begin to look at the sell-on percentages of Bale's world record transfer fee to Real Madrid and any future moves for Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana etc.....

Out of interest Saint Mary's Stadium was completed in 2001 to a flat-pack design costing only £32m. I suspect the loans were paid off within 5 years.

Apart for being a veritable who's who of International and Premier league talent that probably no other club in the UK can match, it's a pretty formidable business model and one I think we can aspire to.

It's only the last 3 years that they've been splashing the cash to get into the Premier League and let's face it back in 2010 they were probably wondering why they lost to us 1-0 home and away (as we beat them to the promotion places in League One); particularly when their bank balance had so many comma's in it.

They earned the right to be where they are today, they didn't buy it with Oil, Gas or Steel money or worse still buy the club with assistance from an investment fund or long-term bank loan. If they bought it with anything, they bought it with Football money; and in my mind that's about as good as it gets.
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?[/p][/quote]Not entirely - but look at this set of figures from the Premiership era: 2003/4 Wayne Bridge (22) £9m 2005/6 Theo Walcott (16) £9m 2007/8 Gareth Bale (17) £13m 2011/12 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (17) £12m 2014/15 Luke Shaw (18) £26m 2014/15 Adam Lallana (26) £27m You can even throw in: 1998/99 Kevin Davies (21) £10m 2004/5 James Beattie (26) £8m 2005/6 Peter Crouch (24) £8m 2007/8 Kenwyne Jones (22) £9m And not forgetting it all started with: 1992/3 Alan Shearer (21) £4m Only 2 of those players cost more than £0.5m when they came in the door at Saints ( Crouch 2.5m and Beattie 1.2m). The gross profit from those players is more than £130m. They looking at offers of £20m for Morgan Schneiderlin who they brought in for £1.3m when he was 18 and so it goes on...... That doesn't even begin to look at the sell-on percentages of Bale's world record transfer fee to Real Madrid and any future moves for Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana etc..... Out of interest Saint Mary's Stadium was completed in 2001 to a flat-pack design costing only £32m. I suspect the loans were paid off within 5 years. Apart for being a veritable who's who of International and Premier league talent that probably no other club in the UK can match, it's a pretty formidable business model and one I think we can aspire to. It's only the last 3 years that they've been splashing the cash to get into the Premier League and let's face it back in 2010 they were probably wondering why they lost to us 1-0 home and away (as we beat them to the promotion places in League One); particularly when their bank balance had so many comma's in it. They earned the right to be where they are today, they didn't buy it with Oil, Gas or Steel money or worse still buy the club with assistance from an investment fund or long-term bank loan. If they bought it with anything, they bought it with Football money; and in my mind that's about as good as it gets. Fernham Red
  • Score: 2

8:36pm Wed 16 Jul 14

London Red says...

Oi Den! wrote:
I don't see why a football club can't conduct it's affairs prudently while having the security provided by a generous backer. Can anyone imagine Mark Cooper, for instance, making ugly gestures at the directors' box and accusing the club of being unambitious when he'd already been given a king's ransom to spend? Some of the people who now say we are better off without Andrew Black's money are those encouraged the club to indulge PDC's every whim. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Take it that was aimed at me!
.
We've been thought this before and I never said he should give into every whim
.
I also never said we should go over the budget set!
.
All I said was he should have released the Jan funds earlier than planned to aid the injury crisis we had - which would mean re jigging the squad in Jan to get more in as if needed then - as I never felt we shouldn't exceed the budget - just use it
.
Also we now know we are better off as we now know that if we have a backer splashing more cash than we have we are in deep sh1te when he gets bored and walks away
.
Black sold us to Jed - how you can forgive home for that is beyond me!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: I don't see why a football club can't conduct it's affairs prudently while having the security provided by a generous backer. Can anyone imagine Mark Cooper, for instance, making ugly gestures at the directors' box and accusing the club of being unambitious when he'd already been given a king's ransom to spend? Some of the people who now say we are better off without Andrew Black's money are those encouraged the club to indulge PDC's every whim. The hypocrisy is staggering.[/p][/quote]Take it that was aimed at me! . We've been thought this before and I never said he should give into every whim . I also never said we should go over the budget set! . All I said was he should have released the Jan funds earlier than planned to aid the injury crisis we had - which would mean re jigging the squad in Jan to get more in as if needed then - as I never felt we shouldn't exceed the budget - just use it . Also we now know we are better off as we now know that if we have a backer splashing more cash than we have we are in deep sh1te when he gets bored and walks away . Black sold us to Jed - how you can forgive home for that is beyond me!!!!! London Red
  • Score: 1

8:40pm Wed 16 Jul 14

London Red says...

Fernham Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?
Not entirely - but look at this set of figures from the Premiership era:

2003/4 Wayne Bridge (22) £9m
2005/6 Theo Walcott (16) £9m
2007/8 Gareth Bale (17) £13m
2011/12 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (17) £12m
2014/15 Luke Shaw (18) £26m
2014/15 Adam Lallana (26) £27m

You can even throw in:
1998/99 Kevin Davies (21) £10m
2004/5 James Beattie (26) £8m
2005/6 Peter Crouch (24) £8m
2007/8 Kenwyne Jones (22) £9m

And not forgetting it all started with:
1992/3 Alan Shearer (21) £4m

Only 2 of those players cost more than £0.5m when they came in the door at Saints ( Crouch 2.5m and Beattie 1.2m).

The gross profit from those players is more than £130m.

They looking at offers of £20m for Morgan Schneiderlin who they brought in for £1.3m when he was 18 and so it goes on......

That doesn't even begin to look at the sell-on percentages of Bale's world record transfer fee to Real Madrid and any future moves for Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana etc.....

Out of interest Saint Mary's Stadium was completed in 2001 to a flat-pack design costing only £32m. I suspect the loans were paid off within 5 years.

Apart for being a veritable who's who of International and Premier league talent that probably no other club in the UK can match, it's a pretty formidable business model and one I think we can aspire to.

It's only the last 3 years that they've been splashing the cash to get into the Premier League and let's face it back in 2010 they were probably wondering why they lost to us 1-0 home and away (as we beat them to the promotion places in League One); particularly when their bank balance had so many comma's in it.

They earned the right to be where they are today, they didn't buy it with Oil, Gas or Steel money or worse still buy the club with assistance from an investment fund or long-term bank loan. If they bought it with anything, they bought it with Football money; and in my mind that's about as good as it gets.
You forgot the bit where they went into administration and wrote off lots of their debt by only paying a few pence on the pound to its creditors!
.
They were then taken over by a mega rich owner who splashed the cash to get them back up - remember the same year they were not paying creditors their full amount back they were buying lambert for £1m!
[quote][p][bold]Fernham Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?[/p][/quote]Not entirely - but look at this set of figures from the Premiership era: 2003/4 Wayne Bridge (22) £9m 2005/6 Theo Walcott (16) £9m 2007/8 Gareth Bale (17) £13m 2011/12 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (17) £12m 2014/15 Luke Shaw (18) £26m 2014/15 Adam Lallana (26) £27m You can even throw in: 1998/99 Kevin Davies (21) £10m 2004/5 James Beattie (26) £8m 2005/6 Peter Crouch (24) £8m 2007/8 Kenwyne Jones (22) £9m And not forgetting it all started with: 1992/3 Alan Shearer (21) £4m Only 2 of those players cost more than £0.5m when they came in the door at Saints ( Crouch 2.5m and Beattie 1.2m). The gross profit from those players is more than £130m. They looking at offers of £20m for Morgan Schneiderlin who they brought in for £1.3m when he was 18 and so it goes on...... That doesn't even begin to look at the sell-on percentages of Bale's world record transfer fee to Real Madrid and any future moves for Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana etc..... Out of interest Saint Mary's Stadium was completed in 2001 to a flat-pack design costing only £32m. I suspect the loans were paid off within 5 years. Apart for being a veritable who's who of International and Premier league talent that probably no other club in the UK can match, it's a pretty formidable business model and one I think we can aspire to. It's only the last 3 years that they've been splashing the cash to get into the Premier League and let's face it back in 2010 they were probably wondering why they lost to us 1-0 home and away (as we beat them to the promotion places in League One); particularly when their bank balance had so many comma's in it. They earned the right to be where they are today, they didn't buy it with Oil, Gas or Steel money or worse still buy the club with assistance from an investment fund or long-term bank loan. If they bought it with anything, they bought it with Football money; and in my mind that's about as good as it gets.[/p][/quote]You forgot the bit where they went into administration and wrote off lots of their debt by only paying a few pence on the pound to its creditors! . They were then taken over by a mega rich owner who splashed the cash to get them back up - remember the same year they were not paying creditors their full amount back they were buying lambert for £1m! London Red
  • Score: 1

9:16pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Fernham Red says...

London Red wrote:
Fernham Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?
Not entirely - but look at this set of figures from the Premiership era:

2003/4 Wayne Bridge (22) £9m
2005/6 Theo Walcott (16) £9m
2007/8 Gareth Bale (17) £13m
2011/12 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (17) £12m
2014/15 Luke Shaw (18) £26m
2014/15 Adam Lallana (26) £27m

You can even throw in:
1998/99 Kevin Davies (21) £10m
2004/5 James Beattie (26) £8m
2005/6 Peter Crouch (24) £8m
2007/8 Kenwyne Jones (22) £9m

And not forgetting it all started with:
1992/3 Alan Shearer (21) £4m

Only 2 of those players cost more than £0.5m when they came in the door at Saints ( Crouch 2.5m and Beattie 1.2m).

The gross profit from those players is more than £130m.

They looking at offers of £20m for Morgan Schneiderlin who they brought in for £1.3m when he was 18 and so it goes on......

That doesn't even begin to look at the sell-on percentages of Bale's world record transfer fee to Real Madrid and any future moves for Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana etc.....

Out of interest Saint Mary's Stadium was completed in 2001 to a flat-pack design costing only £32m. I suspect the loans were paid off within 5 years.

Apart for being a veritable who's who of International and Premier league talent that probably no other club in the UK can match, it's a pretty formidable business model and one I think we can aspire to.

It's only the last 3 years that they've been splashing the cash to get into the Premier League and let's face it back in 2010 they were probably wondering why they lost to us 1-0 home and away (as we beat them to the promotion places in League One); particularly when their bank balance had so many comma's in it.

They earned the right to be where they are today, they didn't buy it with Oil, Gas or Steel money or worse still buy the club with assistance from an investment fund or long-term bank loan. If they bought it with anything, they bought it with Football money; and in my mind that's about as good as it gets.
You forgot the bit where they went into administration and wrote off lots of their debt by only paying a few pence on the pound to its creditors!
.
They were then taken over by a mega rich owner who splashed the cash to get them back up - remember the same year they were not paying creditors their full amount back they were buying lambert for £1m!
They're not the first or the last football club to go into administration......
.. and administration means paying back pennies in the pound, it's exactly what we did......both times.

The investment that got them out of League one was £3.0m on transfers and yes the biggest attendances in the division. A similar sum and crowd got them into the premier league.

Only in the last 2 seasons have they splashed the cash and that's while they've been in the Premier League - a lot of that money comes from Sky subscriptions anyway. They clearly have a sustainable model backed up by the circa £100m they'll bring in from player sales (assuming Schneiderlin and Lovren and perhaps even Rodriguez also depart). They've many more players in the pipeline so I still believe it's a good model to follow: it's certainly made a lot of people a lot of money along the way.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fernham Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: And, Fernham, it's interesting that you choose Southampton as the example to follow. Do you think they got to the Premier League and built a new stadium on gate receipts?[/p][/quote]Not entirely - but look at this set of figures from the Premiership era: 2003/4 Wayne Bridge (22) £9m 2005/6 Theo Walcott (16) £9m 2007/8 Gareth Bale (17) £13m 2011/12 Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (17) £12m 2014/15 Luke Shaw (18) £26m 2014/15 Adam Lallana (26) £27m You can even throw in: 1998/99 Kevin Davies (21) £10m 2004/5 James Beattie (26) £8m 2005/6 Peter Crouch (24) £8m 2007/8 Kenwyne Jones (22) £9m And not forgetting it all started with: 1992/3 Alan Shearer (21) £4m Only 2 of those players cost more than £0.5m when they came in the door at Saints ( Crouch 2.5m and Beattie 1.2m). The gross profit from those players is more than £130m. They looking at offers of £20m for Morgan Schneiderlin who they brought in for £1.3m when he was 18 and so it goes on...... That doesn't even begin to look at the sell-on percentages of Bale's world record transfer fee to Real Madrid and any future moves for Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana etc..... Out of interest Saint Mary's Stadium was completed in 2001 to a flat-pack design costing only £32m. I suspect the loans were paid off within 5 years. Apart for being a veritable who's who of International and Premier league talent that probably no other club in the UK can match, it's a pretty formidable business model and one I think we can aspire to. It's only the last 3 years that they've been splashing the cash to get into the Premier League and let's face it back in 2010 they were probably wondering why they lost to us 1-0 home and away (as we beat them to the promotion places in League One); particularly when their bank balance had so many comma's in it. They earned the right to be where they are today, they didn't buy it with Oil, Gas or Steel money or worse still buy the club with assistance from an investment fund or long-term bank loan. If they bought it with anything, they bought it with Football money; and in my mind that's about as good as it gets.[/p][/quote]You forgot the bit where they went into administration and wrote off lots of their debt by only paying a few pence on the pound to its creditors! . They were then taken over by a mega rich owner who splashed the cash to get them back up - remember the same year they were not paying creditors their full amount back they were buying lambert for £1m![/p][/quote]They're not the first or the last football club to go into administration...... .. and administration means paying back pennies in the pound, it's exactly what we did......both times. The investment that got them out of League one was £3.0m on transfers and yes the biggest attendances in the division. A similar sum and crowd got them into the premier league. Only in the last 2 seasons have they splashed the cash and that's while they've been in the Premier League - a lot of that money comes from Sky subscriptions anyway. They clearly have a sustainable model backed up by the circa £100m they'll bring in from player sales (assuming Schneiderlin and Lovren and perhaps even Rodriguez also depart). They've many more players in the pipeline so I still believe it's a good model to follow: it's certainly made a lot of people a lot of money along the way. Fernham Red
  • Score: 0

8:12am Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

London Red wrote:
Oi Den! wrote:
I don't see why a football club can't conduct it's affairs prudently while having the security provided by a generous backer. Can anyone imagine Mark Cooper, for instance, making ugly gestures at the directors' box and accusing the club of being unambitious when he'd already been given a king's ransom to spend? Some of the people who now say we are better off without Andrew Black's money are those encouraged the club to indulge PDC's every whim. The hypocrisy is staggering.
Take it that was aimed at me!
.
We've been thought this before and I never said he should give into every whim
.
I also never said we should go over the budget set!
.
All I said was he should have released the Jan funds earlier than planned to aid the injury crisis we had - which would mean re jigging the squad in Jan to get more in as if needed then - as I never felt we shouldn't exceed the budget - just use it
.
Also we now know we are better off as we now know that if we have a backer splashing more cash than we have we are in deep sh1te when he gets bored and walks away
.
Black sold us to Jed - how you can forgive home for that is beyond me!!!!!
No LR, it wasn't a specific dig at you. When Andrew Black was with us we all knew very well that he was funding a playing budget that would otherwise have been impossible or, to use the favoured word of the moment, "sustainable", for a club that wanted to be self-sufficient. But most fans didn't care a jot about self-sufficiency. They wanted success and Black was giving us the best chance we've ever had of achieving it. Now he is seen in retrospect as some kind of villain, almost a hate figure. And why? I believe it's not because of what he did at the club but simply because he stopped doing it.

All the stuff about taking the club close to extinction is nonsense. Yes, there were some expensive playing contracts (you know, the ones most people were happy to encourage) but so what? I have absolutely no doubt that most purchasers who had only to cough up a matter of pence for the club would have been able to deal with them easily enough. As I've said before, if Black had handed the club over to a genuine buyer who would continue funding the club, nobody would have had a bad word to say about him. He would (as he should now) be regarded as the man who saved us. Compare the condition of the club when he arrived to when he left. Several million in debt when he arrived and facing a winding-up, never mind administration. How does that compare with a handful of playing contracts worth perhaps a few hundred grand?

Forgive Black for selling to McCrory? There's nothing to forgive. Black appointed Patey to sell the club for him and Patey got it wrong, either through naïveté or carelessness. I believe Black is an honourable man and I believe he wanted to achieve a smooth transition to a genuine buyer. Patey let him and all of us down. Interestingly though, you seem to think Black should have seen through Transparent Jed straightaway while you and others continued to believe the blatant lies he was peddling from the moment he arrived at the club to the moment he left.
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: I don't see why a football club can't conduct it's affairs prudently while having the security provided by a generous backer. Can anyone imagine Mark Cooper, for instance, making ugly gestures at the directors' box and accusing the club of being unambitious when he'd already been given a king's ransom to spend? Some of the people who now say we are better off without Andrew Black's money are those encouraged the club to indulge PDC's every whim. The hypocrisy is staggering.[/p][/quote]Take it that was aimed at me! . We've been thought this before and I never said he should give into every whim . I also never said we should go over the budget set! . All I said was he should have released the Jan funds earlier than planned to aid the injury crisis we had - which would mean re jigging the squad in Jan to get more in as if needed then - as I never felt we shouldn't exceed the budget - just use it . Also we now know we are better off as we now know that if we have a backer splashing more cash than we have we are in deep sh1te when he gets bored and walks away . Black sold us to Jed - how you can forgive home for that is beyond me!!!!![/p][/quote]No LR, it wasn't a specific dig at you. When Andrew Black was with us we all knew very well that he was funding a playing budget that would otherwise have been impossible or, to use the favoured word of the moment, "sustainable", for a club that wanted to be self-sufficient. But most fans didn't care a jot about self-sufficiency. They wanted success and Black was giving us the best chance we've ever had of achieving it. Now he is seen in retrospect as some kind of villain, almost a hate figure. And why? I believe it's not because of what he did at the club but simply because he stopped doing it. All the stuff about taking the club close to extinction is nonsense. Yes, there were some expensive playing contracts (you know, the ones most people were happy to encourage) but so what? I have absolutely no doubt that most purchasers who had only to cough up a matter of pence for the club would have been able to deal with them easily enough. As I've said before, if Black had handed the club over to a genuine buyer who would continue funding the club, nobody would have had a bad word to say about him. He would (as he should now) be regarded as the man who saved us. Compare the condition of the club when he arrived to when he left. Several million in debt when he arrived and facing a winding-up, never mind administration. How does that compare with a handful of playing contracts worth perhaps a few hundred grand? Forgive Black for selling to McCrory? There's nothing to forgive. Black appointed Patey to sell the club for him and Patey got it wrong, either through naïveté or carelessness. I believe Black is an honourable man and I believe he wanted to achieve a smooth transition to a genuine buyer. Patey let him and all of us down. Interestingly though, you seem to think Black should have seen through Transparent Jed straightaway while you and others continued to believe the blatant lies he was peddling from the moment he arrived at the club to the moment he left. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

11:24am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Den - you seem to forget that there was a consortium of 4 which took over and at that point in time Black was nowhere near the main contirbutor!
.
It is often gone un-noted that Sir Arbib actually pumped in millions in at the start and never asked for any back when he left the consortium a few years later
.
It was effectively those millions and Fitton's negotiations with HMRC which ultimately saved the club! Plus Fitton leading the court cases against St Modwin and Bill Power!
.
Also lets not forget Fitton also put in a few million into the club and was effectively robbed of that by Black - who diluted his share holding to nothing!
.
You never seem to note that ALL the money Black "wrote off" was money he CHOSE to spend - it was never debt!
.
This is the point I've been trying to make to you for years - Black chose to lend STFC money - Now as that was owed to Black - the club was never in debt - as if Black ever wanted to sell it he was always going to have to write it off as we saw - I have always said that and was proven right!
.
If he had not over spent for years he would not have to write anything off!
.
That is the approach Power is taking - as he either doesn't want to write millions off or can't afford to or both!
.
Now yes myself and others got caught up in the moment and were happy to see him to try and do a Bournemouth and buy our way up via lavish spending - but we did that under the impression that it would be seen through to the end - i.e promotion to the Chmapionship where we will become profitable!
.
Had it been known by myself that any point the rug would be pulled and we would be closer to liquidation than ever before - I certainly would not have been championing it!
Den - you seem to forget that there was a consortium of 4 which took over and at that point in time Black was nowhere near the main contirbutor! . It is often gone un-noted that Sir Arbib actually pumped in millions in at the start and never asked for any back when he left the consortium a few years later . It was effectively those millions and Fitton's negotiations with HMRC which ultimately saved the club! Plus Fitton leading the court cases against St Modwin and Bill Power! . Also lets not forget Fitton also put in a few million into the club and was effectively robbed of that by Black - who diluted his share holding to nothing! . You never seem to note that ALL the money Black "wrote off" was money he CHOSE to spend - it was never debt! . This is the point I've been trying to make to you for years - Black chose to lend STFC money - Now as that was owed to Black - the club was never in debt - as if Black ever wanted to sell it he was always going to have to write it off as we saw - I have always said that and was proven right! . If he had not over spent for years he would not have to write anything off! . That is the approach Power is taking - as he either doesn't want to write millions off or can't afford to or both! . Now yes myself and others got caught up in the moment and were happy to see him to try and do a Bournemouth and buy our way up via lavish spending - but we did that under the impression that it would be seen through to the end - i.e promotion to the Chmapionship where we will become profitable! . Had it been known by myself that any point the rug would be pulled and we would be closer to liquidation than ever before - I certainly would not have been championing it! London Red
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Ps - I don't buy the it was Patey's fault or PdC's fault
.
Black is in charge of his own money and is able to make his own choices - if he relied on others and they failed he is still ultimately responsible!
.
Yes he should have seen through Jed more than us as he was dealing with them we weren't!
.
He should have seen their business plan and credentials to deliver it prior to selling
.
He said he didn't want to leave a car crash - yet didn't bother to check the buyers out and caused a massive pile up!
.
We were led to beleive these were genuine poeple vetted by Black - that is why we wanted to giuve him the benefit of the doubt amid rumours - as at the time that is all they were
.
What I was certeainly saying was if Fredi had evidence why didn't he produce it?
.
Anyone can claim anything - but if they can't back it up does that make it true?
.
No - normally people want proof - had he delivered what he said he had ealriy on - 100% would have been behind him and this whole situation may never have occurred!
.
That is still what I don't get - why post on here criptic clues and claim to have proof - but never act on it to anyone with influence???????
Ps - I don't buy the it was Patey's fault or PdC's fault . Black is in charge of his own money and is able to make his own choices - if he relied on others and they failed he is still ultimately responsible! . Yes he should have seen through Jed more than us as he was dealing with them we weren't! . He should have seen their business plan and credentials to deliver it prior to selling . He said he didn't want to leave a car crash - yet didn't bother to check the buyers out and caused a massive pile up! . We were led to beleive these were genuine poeple vetted by Black - that is why we wanted to giuve him the benefit of the doubt amid rumours - as at the time that is all they were . What I was certeainly saying was if Fredi had evidence why didn't he produce it? . Anyone can claim anything - but if they can't back it up does that make it true? . No - normally people want proof - had he delivered what he said he had ealriy on - 100% would have been behind him and this whole situation may never have occurred! . That is still what I don't get - why post on here criptic clues and claim to have proof - but never act on it to anyone with influence??????? London Red
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

First of all, Fredi: you didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that he had very accurate information. There were too many areas where he would have tripped himself up if he was bullshiitting. Similarly, it was as plain as day that McCrory and his crew were lying, as they gave half answers, no answers or fantasy answers to almost every question put to them. Time after time their lies were exposed and some people just kept making excuses for them. No wonder McCrory always had that smirk on his face.

How can you possibly say it wasn't Di Canio's fault? Have a read through Black's explanation again. There is no indication that's anything but a straightforward account of what was going on at the club. PDC couldn't or wouldn't manage upwards. He had no respect for the people who were giving him a fantastic opportunity. You might recall that it ties in with the observation of Watkins that PDC's style was management by hand grenade. Black simply got sick of his bully boy tactics.

You are quite right about the others in the consortium. I didn't ever meant to imply otherwise. I have respect for and gratitude to all of them (mistakes and all - nobody's perfect but they made those mistakes trying to do right for the club).

Yes, Black was in charge of his own money but you know very well that he shuns the limelight and had no interest at all in a hands on role. I maintain that he was let down by the people he put in charge of the shop. It's not long ago you were saying you didn't care if McCrory's investors remained anonymous as long as they were putting money into the club. (They were anonymous alright - because they were non-existent!) You can't get much less hands on than hiding your identity and you seemed happy enough with that!
First of all, Fredi: you didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that he had very accurate information. There were too many areas where he would have tripped himself up if he was bullshiitting. Similarly, it was as plain as day that McCrory and his crew were lying, as they gave half answers, no answers or fantasy answers to almost every question put to them. Time after time their lies were exposed and some people just kept making excuses for them. No wonder McCrory always had that smirk on his face. How can you possibly say it wasn't Di Canio's fault? Have a read through Black's explanation again. There is no indication that's anything but a straightforward account of what was going on at the club. PDC couldn't or wouldn't manage upwards. He had no respect for the people who were giving him a fantastic opportunity. You might recall that it ties in with the observation of Watkins that PDC's style was management by hand grenade. Black simply got sick of his bully boy tactics. You are quite right about the others in the consortium. I didn't ever meant to imply otherwise. I have respect for and gratitude to all of them (mistakes and all - nobody's perfect but they made those mistakes trying to do right for the club). Yes, Black was in charge of his own money but you know very well that he shuns the limelight and had no interest at all in a hands on role. I maintain that he was let down by the people he put in charge of the shop. It's not long ago you were saying you didn't care if McCrory's investors remained anonymous as long as they were putting money into the club. (They were anonymous alright - because they were non-existent!) You can't get much less hands on than hiding your identity and you seemed happy enough with that! Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

4:42pm Thu 17 Jul 14

London Red says...

Your heading down completely different path now - so I'm ending this debate
.
All is STFC past - you can be happy with how Black handled it if you like - I'm not and that is our perogative to disagree
.
I'm happier now with Power in charge as he is a football man who wants to suceed and won't put our club at risk to do it and that is all we can ask - everything you ask for he is delivering so still not sure why you think we were better of under Black
Your heading down completely different path now - so I'm ending this debate . All is STFC past - you can be happy with how Black handled it if you like - I'm not and that is our perogative to disagree . I'm happier now with Power in charge as he is a football man who wants to suceed and won't put our club at risk to do it and that is all we can ask - everything you ask for he is delivering so still not sure why you think we were better of under Black London Red
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Thu 17 Jul 14

Oi Den! says...

This is not about comparing Black with Power. I have no complaints about what Power has done. The debate is simply about whether it harmful for the club to have a wealthy backer. I say it is good for the club to be in that position as long as the resources are managed properly. (See Don's excellent post. He's put it better than I have). The club was mismanaged under the Fitton, Black and co regime. That doesn't mean that the resources were harmful in themselves and it doesn't mean the club would screw up again if it was in the same position in the future. Your unilateral decision to close the debate is very welcome.
This is not about comparing Black with Power. I have no complaints about what Power has done. The debate is simply about whether it harmful for the club to have a wealthy backer. I say it is good for the club to be in that position as long as the resources are managed properly. (See Don's excellent post. He's put it better than I have). The club was mismanaged under the Fitton, Black and co regime. That doesn't mean that the resources were harmful in themselves and it doesn't mean the club would screw up again if it was in the same position in the future. Your unilateral decision to close the debate is very welcome. Oi Den!
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree