Spotty's Seriously Sub-standard Second Rate Transfer Thread.

[thebish]

[we plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

I think it is that simple yes.

huzzah!!

[thebish]

of course it can...

a plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

By that logic we should pay someone a few hundred grand to take the hotel (or another other asset) off our hands, thus reducing the cost of running the business for a new owner.....

isn't the hotel making a profit now? in which case - no, not the same logic at all!

[LeverEnd]

Iles said the hotel was making a profit and could be a valuable source of income lower down the leagues. Then again, who told him?

[Hoboh]

Iles said the hotel was making a profit and could be a valuable source of income lower down the leagues. Then again, who told him?

https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/ ... ites-hotel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, but I ain't paying a fiver plus VAT to read it, Worthy might help here, he seems to have unfettered access to this type of stuff.

[BWFC_Insane]

of course it can...

a plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

By that logic we should pay someone a few hundred grand to take the hotel (or another other asset) off our hands, thus reducing the cost of running the business for a new owner.....

isn't the hotel making a profit now? in which case - no, not the same logic at all!

It would reduce the running costs of the business. Or pay Wigan to take the training ground off our hands. That isn't making a profit. Same logic.

[thebish]

nahh - offloading an asset that costs us tons of cash in order to make the business more attractive is NOT the same logic as offloading an asset that brings in cash to make the business more attractive.

either way - I don't share your conclusion that Birch is some kind of raging thicko who doesn't know what he's doing.

[Beefheart]

nahh - offloading an asset that costs us tons of cash in order to make the business more attractive is NOT the same logic as offloading an asset that brings in cash to make the business more attractive.

either way - I don't share your conclusion that Birch is some kind of raging thicko who doesn't know what he's doing.

Someone should tell George Osbourne.

[BWFC_Insane]

nahh - offloading an asset that costs us tons of cash in order to make the business more attractive is NOT the same logic as offloading an asset that brings in cash to make the business more attractive.

either way - I don't share your conclusion that Birch is some kind of raging thicko who doesn't know what he's doing.

The training ground doesn't make us money. It will have a running cost associated with it though, so lets pay someone to take that off our hands?

[Jugs]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem and b) what is the point of paying money to get rid at this stage?

It means cashflow in the immediate future is actually worse due to severance (as BN state). And whilst a few months down the line it is a significant wage off the books, by then we're either gone or have new owners who could hopefully buy a little more time to sell him on slightly better terms.

I think it is madness. One thing selling players for cash to improve cashflow in the current situation. But another to be getting nothing at all for them or even losing out slightly just to get them off the books when there isn't a long term plan in place as yet.

except that there very well MIGHT be a lomg term future for the club - and they don't want people like you popping up in 2yrs time saying - "it was utter MADNESS for the club not to get Mavis's wages off the books when we had the chance - I'm starting to think this new team is well dodgy and summat is seriously wrong..." or summat!

There isn't any long term future under current ownership. If we were far enough down the line that a potential new owner was dictating the current to existing owners we'd know about it.

This cannot be part of any long term plan.

(I didn't say there was a long term plan under current ownership!)

but, of course it can easily make sense...

we plan to sell the club

getting mavis off the wage bill makes the club less expensive to run - hence, more attractive to a buyer. simple.

I'd say getting Mavies off the wage bill might mean having someone in the team who plays for more than five mins per game!

It might be tongue in cheek, but he's completed more games than most this season ...

[Hoboh]

Reckon even I could stroll around a pitch for 85 mins every week

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The beeb say that we've complained to the Football League over Sheffield Wednesday's conduct during Mavies' transfer. There's no article currently but it's the 09:21 update on their live sportsday page on the website.

Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35308514" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd say getting Mavies off the wage bill might mean having someone in the team who plays for more than five mins per game!

It might be tongue in cheek, but he's completed more games than most this season ...

Although I think Hobo is talking about consistency of output rather than appearance, you're right. Only Amos (26) and Feeney (25) have started more league games this season than Mavies's 19 (interestingly, Prince is also on 19). He was subbed off three times, subbed on once and an unused sub twice, so he has been in the matchday squad for 22 or our 26 games.

Very slightly interestingly, Madine (17 starts, 7 subs) has spent more time on the pitch than him, second only to Feeney among our outfielders.

[thebish]

nahh - offloading an asset that costs us tons of cash in order to make the business more attractive is NOT the same logic as offloading an asset that brings in cash to make the business more attractive.

either way - I don't share your conclusion that Birch is some kind of raging thicko who doesn't know what he's doing.

The training ground doesn't make us money. It will have a running cost associated with it though, so lets pay someone to take that off our hands?

now you're just being silly! we may have to sell the training ground - but it's not the same scenario or logic as selling a player.

a player is much easier to replace with a less costly alternative than a training ground is - and we have spare players already on the books.

and - I was referring to your hotel comment...

[Tombwfc]

We agreed a fee and allowed him to talk to Wednesday. Who then couldn't agree wages with him.

However, that a) isn't our problem

Yes it is. The contract we have with Mavies means it very much is our problem if we want to get him off the books.

Iles has updated his story and is indeed using the phrase "Wanderers pay off part of his outstanding contract to facilitate the move to the Owls". Also says the remaining 18 months on the player's contract was worth around £1.2m plus bonuses. Fagpacket maths again but £1.2m divided by 75 (weeks in 18 months) is £16,000.

So if I make it right, on the face of it if we've waived a 750k transfer fee that's effectively like us paying 10k a week of his 16k wages for the next 18 months. To play for Sheffield Wednesday. The joys of being over a barrel.

Although in mitigation a) his bonuses were probably significant b) we did the same thing with Leicester and Beckford IIRC and c) this is all our fault for offering contracts we couldn't honour.

[StaffsTrotter]

nahh - offloading an asset that costs us tons of cash in order to make the business more attractive is NOT the same logic as offloading an asset that brings in cash to make the business more attractive.

either way - I don't share your conclusion that Birch is some kind of raging thicko who doesn't know what he's doing.

The training ground doesn't make us money. It will have a running cost associated with it though, so lets pay someone to take that off our hands?

now you're just being silly! we may have to sell the training ground - but it's not the same scenario or logic as selling a player.

a player is much easier to replace with a less costly alternative than a training ground is - and we have spare players already on the books.

and - I was referring to your hotel comment...

Its worrying if these consortiums do not see the value of the assets to provide potential income or indeed the basic benefit to higher level football of the training ground. It does makes me wonder what on earth commercial model they are using and what their ambitions are for the club. It may all be needs must and part of the hard faced negotiation but if at the end of all this we just have a stadium and depleted team we will have been set back 20 odd years and all the efforts & money expended over that time would have been poured down the drain

[Jugs]

The beeb say that we've complained to the Football League over Sheffield Wednesday's conduct during Mavies' transfer. There's no article currently but it's the 09:21 update on their live sportsday page on the website.

Article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35308514" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd say getting Mavies off the wage bill might mean having someone in the team who plays for more than five mins per game!

It might be tongue in cheek, but he's completed more games than most this season ...

Although I think Hobo is talking about consistency of output rather than appearance, you're right. Only Amos (26) and Feeney (25) have started more league games this season than Mavies's 19 (interestingly, Prince is also on 19). He was subbed off three times, subbed on once and an unused sub twice, so he has been in the matchday squad for 22 or our 26 games.

Very slightly interestingly, Madine (17 starts, 7 subs) has spent more time on the pitch than him, second only to Feeney among our outfielders.

If so, I would disagree with that as well But I've said all I need to say on Mavies, and he's gone now so good luck to him.

[thebish]

But I've said all I need to say on Mavies, and he's gone now so good luck to him.

has he? what - as in, actually gone? I may have missed that in all the excitement!

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I have a hunch that this season has been Mavies's most reliable in terms of appearances. Maybe I'll get round to checking that, but I'm not promising. I do have work to do...

(Speaking of which, if anybody knows a site that shows a team's results by opponent - eg Norwich not beating Liverpool in ages, Spurs usually losing to Chelsea - I'm all ears)

[thebish]

I have a hunch that this season has been Mavies's most reliable in terms of appearances. Maybe I'll get round to checking that, but I'm not promising. I do have work to do...

(Speaking of which, if anybody knows a site that shows a team's results by opponent - eg Norwich not beating Liverpool in ages, Spurs usually losing to Chelsea - I'm all ears)

there's one for just arsenal here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_F ... y_opponent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

you're welcome!

(and the telegraph did a premiership bogey-teams feature here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... meses.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )

[malcd1]

I have a hunch that this season has been Mavies's most reliable in terms of appearances. Maybe I'll get round to checking that, but I'm not promising. I do have work to do...

(Speaking of which, if anybody knows a site that shows a team's results by opponent - eg Norwich not beating Liverpool in ages, Spurs usually losing to Chelsea - I'm all ears)

This season has certainly been one of Mavies's more reliable seasons. Only 2011-12 looks like he would have played more games (35 League appearances with a further 8 in the cup competitions*). He has played 18 games this season*.

*According to Wiki so must be true.

[Dr.Karl]

I have a hunch that this season has been Mavies's most reliable in terms of appearances. Maybe I'll get round to checking that, but I'm not promising. I do have work to do...

(Speaking of which, if anybody knows a site that shows a team's results by opponent - eg Norwich not beating Liverpool in ages, Spurs usually losing to Chelsea - I'm all ears)

http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/head_to_head.sd" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Has all the results between two teams. On a side note, I'm surprised there isn't a go to website like IMDb for football. Soccerway is good, but only for recent seasons. I think there could be a market for it, add features like which player played with which player at which club etc