| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:47 - Jan 25 with 1450 views | AngelRangelQS |
I'm happy to be proven wrong but wouldn't we also have had to have paid money to Shelvey, Bony etc for terminating their contracts early? I am sure I have read elsewhere that some compensation at least is payable which is why you rarely see transfer requests handed in as if they are, the player forgoes this payment.
Whatever the payments are, they would also eat into any profit we make on the "newspaper figures" |  | |  |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:54 - Jan 25 with 1440 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:34 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh I don't for a moment think we've a mountain of cash, but the way it's been presented is not really a true reflection of what has happened.
I didn't know that figure was provided by the club - it makes a lot of sense now you've said that, as I think it shows what they wanted it to show.
There have been losses on players (Pablo, Chico, Pozuelo, Canas for example) but the big ticket players have all gone at a profit (Sinclair, Brendan, Bony, JJS, Joey). What the club (it seems) have done is decide to display increasing investments in assets as a deficit which it is not.
As with every business, revenues go up, profits go up and some of that gets invested in strengthening the asset base - no deficits involved in that.
And outgoings may well have exceeded incomings - the point being made is that I simply can't see that they have done so by £40m. The two examples you have given are actually both slightly in our favour (you've ignored the £5m we got for Brendan which was pure profit as an example). So there would have to be a lot of stuff that was out of our favour for that £40m to be built up and unless I can't think of a player that we've signed (and I've been going through them in my head) I don't think it's right.
As I said - it has to include signing fees that are actually taken through the P&L on the salaries line, and that's double counting in effect as its all covered and doesn't run at a loss (ignoring change in accounting dates as that's a wash in the longer term). |
There's been a massive turnover of players in the last 4 years. Looking at the XI from Saturday:
Fabianski (free, but what would signing on fee have been?)
Taylor (£100k but before timeline)
Williams (400k but before timeline)
Fernandez (£7m)
Rangel (free)
Ki (£5.5m)
Cork (£2m)
Britton (free)
Routledge (£2m but before window)
Sigurdsson (£10m but nets off Ben Davies)
Ayew (free but likely a few million signing on fee)
Bench:
Eder (£5m plus fees)
Naughton (£5m plus fees)
Montero (£5m plus fees)
Nordfeldt (£3m etc)
Amat (£2.5m)
There's nigh on £40m spent there, more maybe when factor in fees etc.
We realised value on Allen, Bony, JJS ... net around £30m, but lost on a host of loan fees, Pablo, Michu (amazingly after his first season), Canas, Lita and probably a load of bit-part players I forgot. I'd expect them to at least net off, if not worse. Actually I'd expect them to be worse.
That's kind of my point ... it's the little things that add up, and the hidden costs. Selling someone for £10m doesn't always bring in £10m, and buying someone for £10m usually ends up costing £12m.
The actual quote is "Over the past three and a half years the club have a net deficit on transfers of in excess of £40m when you factor in signing on fees and agent fees,", so yes it does include all that, and again why wouldn't it, these are the true costs of the transfer. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:55 - Jan 25 with 1432 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:47 - Jan 25 by AngelRangelQS |
I'm happy to be proven wrong but wouldn't we also have had to have paid money to Shelvey, Bony etc for terminating their contracts early? I am sure I have read elsewhere that some compensation at least is payable which is why you rarely see transfer requests handed in as if they are, the player forgoes this payment.
Whatever the payments are, they would also eat into any profit we make on the "newspaper figures" |
True enough. One thing I've learned is that these newspaper headline figures are often rather misleading. The club probably should distance themselves more from some of them. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:56 - Jan 25 with 1432 views | AngelRangelQS |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:54 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
There's been a massive turnover of players in the last 4 years. Looking at the XI from Saturday:
Fabianski (free, but what would signing on fee have been?)
Taylor (£100k but before timeline)
Williams (400k but before timeline)
Fernandez (£7m)
Rangel (free)
Ki (£5.5m)
Cork (£2m)
Britton (free)
Routledge (£2m but before window)
Sigurdsson (£10m but nets off Ben Davies)
Ayew (free but likely a few million signing on fee)
Bench:
Eder (£5m plus fees)
Naughton (£5m plus fees)
Montero (£5m plus fees)
Nordfeldt (£3m etc)
Amat (£2.5m)
There's nigh on £40m spent there, more maybe when factor in fees etc.
We realised value on Allen, Bony, JJS ... net around £30m, but lost on a host of loan fees, Pablo, Michu (amazingly after his first season), Canas, Lita and probably a load of bit-part players I forgot. I'd expect them to at least net off, if not worse. Actually I'd expect them to be worse.
That's kind of my point ... it's the little things that add up, and the hidden costs. Selling someone for £10m doesn't always bring in £10m, and buying someone for £10m usually ends up costing £12m.
The actual quote is "Over the past three and a half years the club have a net deficit on transfers of in excess of £40m when you factor in signing on fees and agent fees,", so yes it does include all that, and again why wouldn't it, these are the true costs of the transfer. |
You've also forgotten money spent on Grimes, McBurnie, Bapti?, Kingsley, etc which can't be insignificant | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:58 - Jan 25 with 1425 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:56 - Jan 25 by AngelRangelQS |
You've also forgotten money spent on Grimes, McBurnie, Bapti?, Kingsley, etc which can't be insignificant |
What was Grimes? £1.5m? Probably another 500k for the others, at least.
I might have to do a spreadsheet on the ins and outs over the last few years. There's going to be loads I've missed. Like everyone I tend to only remember the headline deals but it'll be the other stuff that eats into that. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:03 - Jan 25 with 1420 views | jackonicko |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 15:28 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
If I may be a little contrary Ux, the point that he's making (the general point rather than the way it's been expressed which I agree, is also arbitrary) is that there is a little judicious classification going on in the numbers (I did point that out the other day).
So while I agree with the thrust of the Trust's statement, it does seem as though the figures are presented in such a way to prevent outrage if we don't make a signing!
Because the reality of our time in the PL (which is actually the most logical starting point) is that we have received sums including £25m for Bony, £15m for Joe, £12m for Jonjo Sluggy) £7m for Sinclair, £5m for Brendan, a million or so for the various Spanish leavers (including Chico, Pablo, etc) , £1m loan fee for Nathan, c.£2m loan fee for Michu. There will be others that I can't recall - can't remember what we got for Danny Graham for example - was it £5m?
If so, that little lot amounts to £73m in to the club. If we have a £40m deficit, that means we have spent c.£110m on players and I simply can't see how we have, even if we include signing on fees and agents' fees.
Now what is possible is that the totality of 'additional cost' has been included - amounts that are paid through salaries as signing bonuses (eg. For Ayew and Gomis) but also all the signing bonuses for existing squad members. But that is not a transfer deficit, and also is double counting to an extent, as figures which get taken through the salaries line in our P&L account are more than covered by income (even if not by as much as we'd like). We are in the business of getting money in from football and paying footballers - that's to be expected that as one increases so does the other and isn't really a deficit.
It doesn't by the way detract from the thrust of the statement, namely we shouldn't sign stupid deals out of desperation, and I agree with that completely. But it is spun in a way that is, in my opinion (not that my opinion matters really to be honest) written to suggest that the club should not be expected to make a signing and to be frank, I disagree.
Caveat - I am not being negative, and am very positive about what we are seeing on the management and coaching side and am also optimistic that we will recover from this season and stay up!! [Post edited 25 Jan 2016 15:29]
|
Good post, Lisa.
However, the audited accounts pretty much back up your fag packet analysis. Since 1 June 2012, the club has spent £107,592,932 in total on player acquisition. This is the cumulative cost of transfer fees paid, transfer levies incurred and intermediary fees in the period to 31 July 2015. However, that figure excludes signing-on fees.
Signing-on fees will significantly add to this. As at 31 July 2015 (last accounts) the club were still committed to still paying over £19m over the life of the contract to players who were already signed to the club on 31 July 2015.
We have no idea what the amount of those signing on fees are, as the accounts don't separate this out. However, if £19m is still due to players over the life of their contract to players we had already signed, it does make you wonder how much was paid already when we, er, signed them!! |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:18 - Jan 25 with 1385 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 16:54 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
There's been a massive turnover of players in the last 4 years. Looking at the XI from Saturday:
Fabianski (free, but what would signing on fee have been?)
Taylor (£100k but before timeline)
Williams (400k but before timeline)
Fernandez (£7m)
Rangel (free)
Ki (£5.5m)
Cork (£2m)
Britton (free)
Routledge (£2m but before window)
Sigurdsson (£10m but nets off Ben Davies)
Ayew (free but likely a few million signing on fee)
Bench:
Eder (£5m plus fees)
Naughton (£5m plus fees)
Montero (£5m plus fees)
Nordfeldt (£3m etc)
Amat (£2.5m)
There's nigh on £40m spent there, more maybe when factor in fees etc.
We realised value on Allen, Bony, JJS ... net around £30m, but lost on a host of loan fees, Pablo, Michu (amazingly after his first season), Canas, Lita and probably a load of bit-part players I forgot. I'd expect them to at least net off, if not worse. Actually I'd expect them to be worse.
That's kind of my point ... it's the little things that add up, and the hidden costs. Selling someone for £10m doesn't always bring in £10m, and buying someone for £10m usually ends up costing £12m.
The actual quote is "Over the past three and a half years the club have a net deficit on transfers of in excess of £40m when you factor in signing on fees and agent fees,", so yes it does include all that, and again why wouldn't it, these are the true costs of the transfer. |
Without wanting this to become an argument, yes - those figs add up to a spend of about £40m.
And you've mentioned an income from the others of £30m net. So that's a net £10m down.
We made a profit on Graham (about £1m) and a substantial profit on Brendan (£5m). We also sold Scotty for about £7m.
So that's taken us back to net profit on the deals. Let's say that's all a wash and the £3m extra gets eaten by fees. Where is the other £40m to give the deficit coming from? Can't see it. Can see that we could have got up to about £10m or so (we disclose agents fees in our accounts every year and they've not added up to more than £10m - the first year or so, we were notorious for having really low fees). And yes, there have been amounts out to 21s players etc but equally there have been amounts in (Jazz as an example) that I've ignored and also the money we got for Chico and Pablo (because at the time, we said that we had sold them for fees not given them away for nothing).
Look - the only disagreement we have is that if you look over the whole PL period there is no way we have a transfer deficit of £40m. We may well have a deficit, it could be £10m on agents and £15m on signing fees but it won't be £40m. It's beginning to look like the starting date for the disclosed time period deficit was carefully chosen to be honest and the 'difference' between what we can see and the number stated was indeed, the £20m ish for Joey and Brendan. |  | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:28 - Jan 25 with 1367 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:18 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Without wanting this to become an argument, yes - those figs add up to a spend of about £40m.
And you've mentioned an income from the others of £30m net. So that's a net £10m down.
We made a profit on Graham (about £1m) and a substantial profit on Brendan (£5m). We also sold Scotty for about £7m.
So that's taken us back to net profit on the deals. Let's say that's all a wash and the £3m extra gets eaten by fees. Where is the other £40m to give the deficit coming from? Can't see it. Can see that we could have got up to about £10m or so (we disclose agents fees in our accounts every year and they've not added up to more than £10m - the first year or so, we were notorious for having really low fees). And yes, there have been amounts out to 21s players etc but equally there have been amounts in (Jazz as an example) that I've ignored and also the money we got for Chico and Pablo (because at the time, we said that we had sold them for fees not given them away for nothing).
Look - the only disagreement we have is that if you look over the whole PL period there is no way we have a transfer deficit of £40m. We may well have a deficit, it could be £10m on agents and £15m on signing fees but it won't be £40m. It's beginning to look like the starting date for the disclosed time period deficit was carefully chosen to be honest and the 'difference' between what we can see and the number stated was indeed, the £20m ish for Joey and Brendan. |
The £20m for Joey and Brendan are a bit offset by the purchases at the start of the PL term as well of course.
We'll have to agree to disagree I think. The £40m net spend to me looks entirely plausible. And the figure said net deficit on transfers and fees, not net profit or net loss. Our current squad alone could total that.
Ironically, I know that that paragraph wasn't even the point of that article, and to me the figure of net spend over the PL life means nothing to me in itself. The accounts are pretty clear where we are and what scope we have in the current window. That's really what's relevant to the here and now. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:29 - Jan 25 with 1360 views | Flashberryjack |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:18 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Without wanting this to become an argument, yes - those figs add up to a spend of about £40m.
And you've mentioned an income from the others of £30m net. So that's a net £10m down.
We made a profit on Graham (about £1m) and a substantial profit on Brendan (£5m). We also sold Scotty for about £7m.
So that's taken us back to net profit on the deals. Let's say that's all a wash and the £3m extra gets eaten by fees. Where is the other £40m to give the deficit coming from? Can't see it. Can see that we could have got up to about £10m or so (we disclose agents fees in our accounts every year and they've not added up to more than £10m - the first year or so, we were notorious for having really low fees). And yes, there have been amounts out to 21s players etc but equally there have been amounts in (Jazz as an example) that I've ignored and also the money we got for Chico and Pablo (because at the time, we said that we had sold them for fees not given them away for nothing).
Look - the only disagreement we have is that if you look over the whole PL period there is no way we have a transfer deficit of £40m. We may well have a deficit, it could be £10m on agents and £15m on signing fees but it won't be £40m. It's beginning to look like the starting date for the disclosed time period deficit was carefully chosen to be honest and the 'difference' between what we can see and the number stated was indeed, the £20m ish for Joey and Brendan. |
I wouldn't say "I smell a Rat" with the Trust statement.......but there certainly is a whiff of something. |  |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:35 - Jan 25 with 1348 views | Millie |
A good statement imo, trust are damned if they do and damned if they don't | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:35 - Jan 25 with 1347 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:03 - Jan 25 by jackonicko |
Good post, Lisa.
However, the audited accounts pretty much back up your fag packet analysis. Since 1 June 2012, the club has spent £107,592,932 in total on player acquisition. This is the cumulative cost of transfer fees paid, transfer levies incurred and intermediary fees in the period to 31 July 2015. However, that figure excludes signing-on fees.
Signing-on fees will significantly add to this. As at 31 July 2015 (last accounts) the club were still committed to still paying over £19m over the life of the contract to players who were already signed to the club on 31 July 2015.
We have no idea what the amount of those signing on fees are, as the accounts don't separate this out. However, if £19m is still due to players over the life of their contract to players we had already signed, it does make you wonder how much was paid already when we, er, signed them!! |
Does that figure include fees for existing players signing a new contract? And does it include a 'value' for example for Siggy (I haven't included Ben out at anything as assumed a swap).
If not, then how on earth have we got to that figure? It's crazy isn't it?
good to know though that my fag packet is accurate :-)
But that aside, that time period doesn't include Shelvey (it does his 'in' but not his 'out' so that's a £12m increase in my fag packet analysis ( I don't think we signed anyone in after 31 July but that could be wrong). As I said to Ux, I don't think the figures are utterly ridiculous, just that I think they may be overstated by say £20m ish (the Brendan / Joey money in falling outside the stated timeframe at a guess). That would be the £12m JJS, the c£3m difference between my quick estimate and the actual figure and a bit of rounding here and there.
I said the other day that the only money I would expect to be spent this window is the money we have not expected to be in the club. So plus £12m for Shelvey and minus £3m say for Monk. Anything else I understand is potentially a gamble, although I do find it surprising that we hadn't budgeted anything at all for this window. Seems short sighted to me.
On a wider note, I really hope that these signing on fees are being very carefully considered. I don't like them much (as I've said before) as I think it puts pressure on us getting players off the books very quickly if they don't work out (or if we went down) and probably more importantly, they put huge inflation pressure on our other players' salaries as players like Ash will expect to match.
Edited to say - sorry jacko - I just read my post again and realised that I did take in JJS transfer into account in my figures, so you're right that the 'expected figure' I came up with is almost exactly the same as what is shown in the accounts, so ignore my comment above - I had thought I'd ignored it. [Post edited 26 Jan 2016 14:24]
| | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:39 - Jan 25 with 1339 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:35 - Jan 25 by Millie |
A good statement imo, trust are damned if they do and damned if they don't |
I have stated on a number of occasions that I thought the statement was excellent. I don't think that stops us from having a very healthy and interesting chat about club business. No one is being negative, or critical in the slightest.
As I've said before, it is not a cult. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:42 - Jan 25 with 1337 views | Millie |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:39 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
I have stated on a number of occasions that I thought the statement was excellent. I don't think that stops us from having a very healthy and interesting chat about club business. No one is being negative, or critical in the slightest.
As I've said before, it is not a cult. |
pardon me for breathing | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:42 - Jan 25 with 1337 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:35 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Does that figure include fees for existing players signing a new contract? And does it include a 'value' for example for Siggy (I haven't included Ben out at anything as assumed a swap).
If not, then how on earth have we got to that figure? It's crazy isn't it?
good to know though that my fag packet is accurate :-)
But that aside, that time period doesn't include Shelvey (it does his 'in' but not his 'out' so that's a £12m increase in my fag packet analysis ( I don't think we signed anyone in after 31 July but that could be wrong). As I said to Ux, I don't think the figures are utterly ridiculous, just that I think they may be overstated by say £20m ish (the Brendan / Joey money in falling outside the stated timeframe at a guess). That would be the £12m JJS, the c£3m difference between my quick estimate and the actual figure and a bit of rounding here and there.
I said the other day that the only money I would expect to be spent this window is the money we have not expected to be in the club. So plus £12m for Shelvey and minus £3m say for Monk. Anything else I understand is potentially a gamble, although I do find it surprising that we hadn't budgeted anything at all for this window. Seems short sighted to me.
On a wider note, I really hope that these signing on fees are being very carefully considered. I don't like them much (as I've said before) as I think it puts pressure on us getting players off the books very quickly if they don't work out (or if we went down) and probably more importantly, they put huge inflation pressure on our other players' salaries as players like Ash will expect to match.
Edited to say - sorry jacko - I just read my post again and realised that I did take in JJS transfer into account in my figures, so you're right that the 'expected figure' I came up with is almost exactly the same as what is shown in the accounts, so ignore my comment above - I had thought I'd ignored it. [Post edited 26 Jan 2016 14:24]
|
Tend to agree with you on the budgeting or indeed the whole fallback position if things went awry in the first half of the season. Definite lessons learned there IMO.
The Shelvey sale should provide some scope this window I would also agree (your figures may be on the high side though ... not sure how much the club will clear on that ... less than £12m I'd wager), however to manage the sort of restructuring I'd like to see, I think a couple of others may need to make way. Interesting week ahead I suspect. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:45 - Jan 25 with 1329 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:28 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
The £20m for Joey and Brendan are a bit offset by the purchases at the start of the PL term as well of course.
We'll have to agree to disagree I think. The £40m net spend to me looks entirely plausible. And the figure said net deficit on transfers and fees, not net profit or net loss. Our current squad alone could total that.
Ironically, I know that that paragraph wasn't even the point of that article, and to me the figure of net spend over the PL life means nothing to me in itself. The accounts are pretty clear where we are and what scope we have in the current window. That's really what's relevant to the here and now. |
Yes but the biggest one at the start was Danny and we sold him at a profit. Anyway - i think that on reflection, it is the timing which is crucial to the validity of the statement and I hadn't really considered the three and a half years bit - I was thinking PL as one period. So I think we are probably both right.
Actually, reading the rest of your post, I think my real niggle (and why I think the wording was careful which I said at the time) is the use of the words transfer deficit.
As I said earlier, I agree with your conclusion which is not different to mine re spending now. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:47 - Jan 25 with 1318 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:42 - Jan 25 by Millie |
pardon me for breathing |
 | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:51 - Jan 25 with 1313 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:42 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
Tend to agree with you on the budgeting or indeed the whole fallback position if things went awry in the first half of the season. Definite lessons learned there IMO.
The Shelvey sale should provide some scope this window I would also agree (your figures may be on the high side though ... not sure how much the club will clear on that ... less than £12m I'd wager), however to manage the sort of restructuring I'd like to see, I think a couple of others may need to make way. Interesting week ahead I suspect. |
I'd sell Montero as well to give a bit of leeway to be honest.
Happily swap Montero for Sinclair, JDG (or another midfielder) plus an extra £7 or £8m to add to the JJS money for a cracking forward. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:52 - Jan 25 with 1312 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:45 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes but the biggest one at the start was Danny and we sold him at a profit. Anyway - i think that on reflection, it is the timing which is crucial to the validity of the statement and I hadn't really considered the three and a half years bit - I was thinking PL as one period. So I think we are probably both right.
Actually, reading the rest of your post, I think my real niggle (and why I think the wording was careful which I said at the time) is the use of the words transfer deficit.
As I said earlier, I agree with your conclusion which is not different to mine re spending now. |
Yeah, reading back maybe looking from different perspectives. Is it arbitrary? I dunno. Probably. As I've said earlier, getting the message across to the fans that we aren't awash with cash is a hell of a challenge and was one of the drivers for the piece (along with trying to give some much-needed clarity to what's been going on over recent months, and I wouldn't argue some of this should have been done more by the club) ... everyone sees the press say Bony went for £28m (he didn't but hey ho) and think there is £28m sitting in the bank. If only. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:55 - Jan 25 with 1303 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:51 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
I'd sell Montero as well to give a bit of leeway to be honest.
Happily swap Montero for Sinclair, JDG (or another midfielder) plus an extra £7 or £8m to add to the JJS money for a cracking forward. |
I'd take that. Sadly I suspect Jeff's going to be of precious little use as we revert back more to a footballing style of play. Shame really ... he's disappointed me more than any signing we've made in yonks, even Fat Frank. I had real high hopes for him and he's failed to deliver on them apart from in some glorious patches.
Oh for the likes of someone like Delefeu in our squad ... although I'd fear for Taylor if he'd have to deal with him in training every day, he's probably going to need counselling as it is after yesterday ... | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:04 - Jan 25 with 1293 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:55 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
I'd take that. Sadly I suspect Jeff's going to be of precious little use as we revert back more to a footballing style of play. Shame really ... he's disappointed me more than any signing we've made in yonks, even Fat Frank. I had real high hopes for him and he's failed to deliver on them apart from in some glorious patches.
Oh for the likes of someone like Delefeu in our squad ... although I'd fear for Taylor if he'd have to deal with him in training every day, he's probably going to need counselling as it is after yesterday ... |
Yes - me too. He's looking more and more like a good player who just doesn't fit 'us' now we've made steps to rediscover what 'us' is.
Still we live and learn and one thing that this season should have taught us (and maybe last) is that in the longer term, we should stick with what we do well, even if football fashions change from a Barcelona to a Bayern Munich as the benchmark.
That Deulofeu (I just checked how it was spelt as Warwick is on the prowl...) is a wonderful player.
I don't think that Taylor was particularly to blame - sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say what a lovely performance it was. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:08 - Jan 25 with 1266 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 17:52 - Jan 25 by Uxbridge |
Yeah, reading back maybe looking from different perspectives. Is it arbitrary? I dunno. Probably. As I've said earlier, getting the message across to the fans that we aren't awash with cash is a hell of a challenge and was one of the drivers for the piece (along with trying to give some much-needed clarity to what's been going on over recent months, and I wouldn't argue some of this should have been done more by the club) ... everyone sees the press say Bony went for £28m (he didn't but hey ho) and think there is £28m sitting in the bank. If only. |
Agree completely with the sentiment and I thought the statement did that.
One thing I've learned from writing trading statements over the years is never to over-egg the pudding in either direction (not saying it was done here, certainly not deliberately).
An impartial statement of facts goes a long way further than making things look either too rosy or too black. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:09 - Jan 25 with 1267 views | Dr_Winston |
If this thread (and the response to the Trust statement in general) demonstrates nothing else at all, it's that a bizarrely high number of people still labour under the belief that the only cost involved in the acquisition of players is the transfer fee.
The other thing it demonstrates is that there are some deeply troubled people out there who also believe that a Supporters Trust board who happily challenged almost every utterance from the club over their takeover shenanigans would supinely accept anything they tell them with regards the club finances.
I've seen nothing from those I know personally, to those I only know by reputation to suggest that they would be party to that.
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:12 - Jan 25 with 1256 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:09 - Jan 25 by Dr_Winston |
If this thread (and the response to the Trust statement in general) demonstrates nothing else at all, it's that a bizarrely high number of people still labour under the belief that the only cost involved in the acquisition of players is the transfer fee.
The other thing it demonstrates is that there are some deeply troubled people out there who also believe that a Supporters Trust board who happily challenged almost every utterance from the club over their takeover shenanigans would supinely accept anything they tell them with regards the club finances.
I've seen nothing from those I know personally, to those I only know by reputation to suggest that they would be party to that.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
I don't labour under either of those two misapprehensions. | | | |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:14 - Jan 25 with 1255 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:04 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes - me too. He's looking more and more like a good player who just doesn't fit 'us' now we've made steps to rediscover what 'us' is.
Still we live and learn and one thing that this season should have taught us (and maybe last) is that in the longer term, we should stick with what we do well, even if football fashions change from a Barcelona to a Bayern Munich as the benchmark.
That Deulofeu (I just checked how it was spelt as Warwick is on the prowl...) is a wonderful player.
I don't think that Taylor was particularly to blame - sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say what a lovely performance it was. |
Warwick can do one, the miserable plastic fan he is 
Completely agree on the "finding ourselves" comment, that's exactly what I've wanted us to do and while I don't always put much stock in press reports, it's clear the club are seeking to revert back to previous seasons and that might well mean the return of one or two. I wouldn't be averse to either Sinclair or JdG coming back, especially Johnny D. I wouldn't base too much on Sinclair not getting into the Villa team ... they've been playing him centrally whilst still playing as if Benteke is there. He'd have to be relatively cheap you'd think too, and that'll be a factor.
Guess there's the short term and long term view. We can do a bit now, but assuming we stay up (and I'd say we're about 65% sure of that at the moment) I think we do need a complete overhaul of the squad ... we're completely unbalanced, not just in terms of personnel in certain positions and weak in others, but of a certain more functional type of footballer. The new TV deal might be coming at just the right time ... we'd need to use it. | |
| |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:20 - Jan 25 with 1234 views | Uxbridge |
| Swans Trust Statement - Part 2 on 18:12 - Jan 25 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't labour under either of those two misapprehensions. |
I think that the comment maybe addressed to the likes of Flashberry who have latched onto your post as justification for his theories that the Trust are trying to hide things from the fans. Given that, as Jacko so wonderfully put it, there's plenty to read both on and between the lines, in the statement I thought that was a bit silly.
Not as silly as some of the stuff I've read online which has ranged from accusing the Trust board members of being paid off by the club and some clearly libellous comments regarding some people, but there we go. Bonkers stuff. All I can say is that I've never received a red cent from the club, and if Phil is keeping my share from me I'm going to be properly pee'd off | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.