Jump to content
IGNORED

Sound of the City


Red Army 75

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, pl00peh91 said:

I’ve heard the new presenter is Mark Carter, it should be an interesting interview.

First caller:

Mark Carters Mum “Mark, get off your Cee-Bee from Tandy and tidy your bedroom or they’ll be no supper”

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Curr Avon said:

He's signed up for Classic FM to present 'Twentyman Talks Bach'.

Much in demand is GT.

I hear he was asked to do a podcast for The Woodland Trust.

Twentyman Talks Bark.

But he had to tell them he'd already committed to do Twentyman Talks Bark for the Dog's Trust. :doh:

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BCFCGav said:

Anyone want to do a quick summary? Since this thread is quiet I’d imagine it was fairly run of the mill ?

Biggest talking point I reckon is that he said even if we sell Scott we won’t be able to sign many more players as we are at the top end of our wage budget already.

He also referred to us looking to sign one more player which I inferred was a goalkeeper (although he didn’t specify that).

The rest of it was the usual stuff but he seemed happy with how things are shaping up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, pl00peh91 said:

Have to say there’s an unnerving serenity and lack of controversy / drama about this whole pre-season period. Hopefully that reflects well in our performances and we can have a stress free season for once!

There's nothing stress free about challenging for the title.?

  • Flames 1
  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pl00peh91 said:

Biggest talking point I reckon is that he said even if we sell Scott we won’t be able to sign many more players as we are at the top end of our wage budget already.

He also referred to us looking to sign one more player which I inferred was a goalkeeper (although he didn’t specify that).

The rest of it was the usual stuff but he seemed happy with how things are shaping up.

Can anyone explain how this works? And when any potential AS-transfer funds could be reinvested in the squad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, firstdivision said:

Can anyone explain how this works? And when any potential AS-transfer funds could be reinvested in the squad?

We could perhaps use the money to subsidise an increase in the wage budget but that is the Mark Ashton way and we know what that can lead to.

It seems we have set a limit and are going to stick to it. Good financial management imo.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
16 minutes ago, firstdivision said:

Can anyone explain how this works? And when any potential AS-transfer funds could be reinvested in the squad?

Basically we pissed so much money up the wall in the past that we need to balance the books (FFP) and the easiest way is to make a big SALE, this will massively take off future spending restrictions. 

Hence why we are looking for £10m up front and the remaining balance paid over the following two years 

I honestly thought that it was accepted that it didn't suddenly mean we have spare money in the bank to spend 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listened & the only surprise was NP appeared to say he didn’t expect Rob Atkinson back until potentially the New Year?

As for the one further addition that seems likely to either be goalkeeping cover or a CB, based on his answers.

Very grateful that they do this but not the first time there have been mobile signal issues with Nige so why it isn’t pre recorded & those glitches ironed out beats me.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, phantom said:

Basically we pissed so much money up the wall in the past that we need to balance the books (FFP) and the easiest way is to make a big SALE, this will massively take off future spending restrictions. 

Hence why we are looking for £10m up front and the remaining balance paid over the following two years 

I honestly thought that it was accepted that it didn't suddenly mean we have spare money in the bank to spend 

I’m sure some thought if we get £20 million + for Scott we could afford to spend at least half of it,thankfully the days of Johnson and Ashton are long behind us 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, phantom said:

Basically we pissed so much money up the wall in the past that we need to balance the books (FFP) and the easiest way is to make a big SALE, this will massively take off future spending restrictions. 

Hence why we are looking for £10m up front and the remaining balance paid over the following two years 

I honestly thought that it was accepted that it didn't suddenly mean we have spare money in the bank to spend 

& Scott is such a low earner, it won’t make a difference to the wage bill which is/was the major issue. Very different to Palmer/Bentley/JD/HNM going. But that’s far more in line with ‘normal’ now. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

We could perhaps use the money to subsidise an increase in the wage budget but that is the Mark Ashton way and we know what that can lead to.

It seems we have set a limit and are going to stick to it. Good financial management imo.

I don't understand why we couldn't allocate x amount of money from the sale for wages over the next 3/4 years? 

I think the issue seems to be is we have set a limit on how much any given player will earn and that we will not budge from that. That's quite wise but it does limit the type of players we can bring in. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't understand why we couldn't allocate x amount of money from the sale for wages over the next 3/4 years? 

I think the issue seems to be is we have set a limit on how much any given player will earn and that we will not budge from that. That's quite wise but it does limit the type of players we can bring in. 

 

Jees, nothing to do with ffp then and how much we have spunked previously 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

I’m sure some thought if we get £20 million + for Scott we could afford to spend at least half of it,thankfully the days of Johnson and Ashton are long behind us 

I think that was fueled by them saying we have a transfer plan for if Scott stays and we have a transfer plan for if Scott goes and that we can easily pivot. 

What Pearson said today goes against that but maybe these sound bites aren't for us but for clubs that we are looking to do buisness with. Pearson is very savy with how he uses the media! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

Perhaps he's also suggesting tight finances regardless of any potential AS money to stop other clubs thinking we're quids in and they can charge us inflated prices ?

EXACTLY this. 

Pearson knows how to use the media to our advantage. 

It's likely that we are already in preliminary talks with clubs/agents pending the Scott sale. 

  • Like 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said:

Not that i expect us to spend much should Scott leave, but would anyone think Pearson would give much away?

IMO Pearson has been upfront regarding signing information with the supporters, since he’s been here. We might sign a couple, but I have no reason to doubt it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red Army 75 said:

IMO Pearson has been upfront regarding signing information with the supporters, since he’s been here. We might sign a couple, but I have no reason to doubt it 

Yeah agree with that Pearson is as straight as they come, but don't think he would come on air and say should Scott leave this is the plan.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phantom said:

Basically we pissed so much money up the wall in the past that we need to balance the books (FFP) and the easiest way is to make a big SALE, this will massively take off future spending restrictions. 

Hence why we are looking for £10m up front and the remaining balance paid over the following two years 

I honestly thought that it was accepted that it didn't suddenly mean we have spare money in the bank to spend 

How this is paid has no impact of FFP. As soon as Scott is sold, the whole fee goes into this seasons FFP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, petehinton said:

& Scott is such a low earner, it won’t make a difference to the wage bill which is/was the major issue. Very different to Palmer/Bentley/JD/HNM going. But that’s far more in line with ‘normal’ now. 

Very much like when we sold Bobby Reid or more recently Antoine, a fairly large fee but virtually nothing off the wage bill.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't understand why we couldn't allocate x amount of money from the sale for wages over the next 3/4 years? 

I think the issue seems to be is we have set a limit on how much any given player will earn and that we will not budge from that. That's quite wise but it does limit the type of players we can bring in. 

 

Because under Ashton we used transfer receipts to keep increasing the wage budget as if that was an end in itself. The assumption seemingly being that a higher wage bill equals a better team.That proved not to be the case.

Nigel described that strategy as bonkers. I don't think we will be doing that again.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:
  • The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

Didn't listen to the show, so don't know the context.

But...  is that a club set limit, or a FFP limit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Just listened & the only surprise was NP appeared to say he didn’t expect Rob Atkinson back until potentially the New Year?

As for the one further addition that seems likely to either be goalkeeping cover or a CB, based on his answers.

Very grateful that they do this but not the first time there have been mobile signal issues with Nige so why it isn’t pre recorded & those glitches ironed out beats me.

I am surprised that you are surprised, the timescales were pretty well laid out and communicated when Rob first went under the knife. He started running on grass last week but it's all very gentle stuff right now. He has to build up all the muscles again and then have some sort of pre-season, some U21 games and so on, and that's assuming every goes to plan of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Why do we need to entice him? He's under contract until 2025.

It's a matter of when he goes not if (not necessarily this window)

Protects the club IF he didn't leave in this window fr. With just 1 year left on his contract, our trading position would be a lot weaker than it is currently. Hypothetical I agree but I want what's best for BCFC before Scotty. 

FWIW, I agree it's 'when' not 'if' too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am surprised that you are surprised, the timescales were pretty well laid out and communicated when Rob first went under the knife. He started running on grass last week but it's all very gentle stuff right now. He has to build up all the muscles again and then have some sort of pre-season, some U21 games and so on, and that's assuming every goes to plan of course.

I had in my mind they said he could be back earlier than that, he’s been out since February so was certainly expecting him back this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I am surprised that you are surprised, the timescales were pretty well laid out and communicated when Rob first went under the knife. He started running on grass last week but it's all very gentle stuff right now. He has to build up all the muscles again and then have some sort of pre-season, some U21 games and so on, and that's assuming every goes to plan of course.

I thought more like September or October, November at a push?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I thought more like September or October, November at a push?

I assumed around 9 months - which would be Nov - but of course depends how quickly he can get up to speed given no pre season etc. Plus I suspect Pearson won’t want to rush him/put pressure on to get him back too soon - so new year doesn’t sound unreasonable. 

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
1 hour ago, James54De said:

How this is paid has no impact of FFP. As soon as Scott is sold, the whole fee goes into this seasons FFP. 

Not if its paid over a number of seasons, which is why we're looking for at least £10m this season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:
  • The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

Scott isn’t signing a new contract . As has been mentioned on here previously - he has already told the club he isn’t signing a new contract and wants to take the step up 

The club know this . Everyone’s on the same page 

I would be shocked if he is still here end of August 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

& Scott is such a low earner, it won’t make a difference to the wage bill which is/was the major issue. Very different to Palmer/Bentley/JD/HNM going. But that’s far more in line with ‘normal’ now. 

a bit of this ⬆️

1 hour ago, Loco Rojo said:

Perhaps he's also suggesting tight finances regardless of any potential AS money to stop other clubs thinking we're quids in and they can charge us inflated prices ?

and a bit of that ⬆️

51 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:
  • The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

also 1) a bit of prep for new P&S rules re wages to turnover and 2) the budget set by SL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:
  • The only slight concern from Nige's comment, if our wage spend is so close to our limit, is what can we offer AS to persuade him to re-sign?

Scott signing a new contract at City on terms we could afford is a total non-starter. He's off. Most likely end of this window.

Signing on better terms would price out suitors so not in Scott's interest. And that's why he hasn't accepted the improved deal that has been on the table for months.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

I had in my mind they said he could be back earlier than that, he’s been out since February so was certainly expecting him back this year.

⬇️

4 minutes ago, eardun said:

I assumed around 9 months - which would be Nov - but of course depends how quickly he can get up to speed given no pre season etc. Plus I suspect Pearson won’t want to rush him/put pressure on to get him back too soon - so new year doesn’t sound unreasonable. 

It was some weeks before he actually had the op, had to wait for the knee to settle down first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

a bit of this ⬆️

and a bit of that ⬆️

also 1) a bit of prep for new P&S rules re wages to turnover and 2) the budget set by SL

This message has subtlely been peddled by the club for a while now, that we would seriously have to change how we spent the money and work to the new regs 

I would assume it's going to impact all clubs very soon but it feels like we are getting our house in order earlier than others 

My personal opinion is that we've learnt our lessons from the Ashton problems and won't be making those financial mistakes again 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phantom said:

My personal opinion is that we've learnt our lessons from the Ashton problems and won't be making those financial mistakes again 

Your personal opinion matches the club's opinion that they had an effing stupid strategy.  Nige has said so himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ska Junkie said:

I totally agree. Still concerned how we can entice Scotty though.

We can't entice him.

He has 2 years left on his contract and beyond the end of this season, his value will drop, unless he has been playing at a different level.

He'll want (I guess), Premier wages, European competition and financial security for the next 4 years.

He isn't a City fan, he's an employee.

  • Thanks 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, phantom said:

This message has subtlely been peddled by the club for a while now, that we would seriously have to change how we spent the money and work to the new regs 

I would assume it's going to impact all clubs very soon but it feels like we are getting our house in order earlier than others 

My personal opinion is that we've learnt our lessons from the Ashton problems and won't be making those financial mistakes again 

So you're saying we're behaving like a well run club?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Bard said:

So you're saying we're behaving like a well run club?

Maybe, but it's all relative. The Championship must be the most financially unviable competition in English (possibly European/World) football, where practically all the clubs fail on a going concern basis, and would face being wound up under normal business practices.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pl00peh91 said:

Biggest talking point I reckon is that he said even if we sell Scott we won’t be able to sign many more players as we are at the top end of our wage budget already.

He also referred to us looking to sign one more player which I inferred was a goalkeeper (although he didn’t specify that).

The rest of it was the usual stuff but he seemed happy with how things are shaping up.

Agree biggest talking point but even if we can reinvest any of it he’s not going to publicly promote that we can surely if he clubs would be pushing up prices on any bids we may make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Henry said:

Disappointing that they didn’t ask him about Kalas.

Just not the same without, your host, my host, Twentyman.

Because NP spoke for longer than expeected he was cut off before they could get round to TK.   Gary Owers mentioned Kalas saying that as TK's contract ended only yesterday he thought we would hear about him joining another club this week

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, westonred said:

Because NP spoke for longer than expeected he was cut off before they could get round to TK.   Gary Owers mentioned Kalas saying that as TK's contract ended only yesterday he thought we would hear about him joining another club this week

Just to be clear, Gary confirmed that his contract ended on 30th of June and that he was now receiving his month’s severance.  That is now all done and dusted.  Ditto Massengo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...