| City in for Baah? 10:47 - Jan 31 with 23927 views | oddjob007 |
|  | | |  |
| City in for Baah? on 21:12 - Feb 1 with 2461 views | TVOS1907 |
| City in for Baah? on 20:59 - Feb 1 by DaleiLama |
Him. See my comment above for context |
He should have signed for Tamworth. |  |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:12 - Feb 1 with 2462 views | Shun |
| City in for Baah? on 20:57 - Feb 1 by 1907 |
I’m bleating or he’s bleating?
I find it baffling how people are making out we’ve been shafted or the club have let us down in some way. |
Give over with the faux outrage, 1907. We’ve sold Matheson, Baah and Adshead (3 of the best prospects in the lower leagues at the time) for a combined total of not much more than £1million. Can you imagine a Peterborough fan saying that? Or any other club in the league?
We’ve moved on from the days when £300K was a brilliant fee for the likes of Holt. That was 15 years ago and the market has grown immensely since then. The only thing that hasn’t grown is what some Rochdale fans think is a good deal. |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 21:15 - Feb 1 with 2400 views | TVOS1907 |
| City in for Baah? on 21:04 - Feb 1 by 442Dale |
We also got someone from their staff once. That went well. |
Bet he's reading this thread right now, or certainly texting someone about it. | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:18 - Feb 1 with 2368 views | 442Dale |
| City in for Baah? on 21:12 - Feb 1 by Shun |
Give over with the faux outrage, 1907. We’ve sold Matheson, Baah and Adshead (3 of the best prospects in the lower leagues at the time) for a combined total of not much more than £1million. Can you imagine a Peterborough fan saying that? Or any other club in the league?
We’ve moved on from the days when £300K was a brilliant fee for the likes of Holt. That was 15 years ago and the market has grown immensely since then. The only thing that hasn’t grown is what some Rochdale fans think is a good deal. |
Never got it with Adshead, Baah is a real ‘could go either way’ situation and Matheson was sold at the right time for an amount that of all a sudden some seem to think isn’t enough, yet not sure what the evidence is for that.
If anything, 300k for Holt at the time was a bigger disappointment than any of the three named due to his importance to the side and the fact he was the finished article. If we had a Wayne Evans we wouldn’t miss Matheson at all, Adshead would still be on the bench on occasions and Baah is still best in that role. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:20]
|  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:18 - Feb 1 with 2365 views | IOMDale |
| City in for Baah? on 21:15 - Feb 1 by TVOS1907 |
Bet he's reading this thread right now, or certainly texting someone about it. |
.... which would be strange, considering he LOVECITY. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:19 - Feb 1 with 2349 views | D_Alien |
| City in for Baah? on 21:12 - Feb 1 by Shun |
Give over with the faux outrage, 1907. We’ve sold Matheson, Baah and Adshead (3 of the best prospects in the lower leagues at the time) for a combined total of not much more than £1million. Can you imagine a Peterborough fan saying that? Or any other club in the league?
We’ve moved on from the days when £300K was a brilliant fee for the likes of Holt. That was 15 years ago and the market has grown immensely since then. The only thing that hasn’t grown is what some Rochdale fans think is a good deal. |
And if we'd demanded more than City were prepared to pay, then lost him for "compensation" and no add-on in the summer?
And how would that have affected a highly impressionable young lad, if we'd scuppered his chances? There's so much more to these things than an up-front fee |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:19 - Feb 1 with 2338 views | 442Dale |
| City in for Baah? on 21:15 - Feb 1 by TVOS1907 |
Bet he's reading this thread right now, or certainly texting someone about it. |
Steve Kinsey is on here?
Talking of which, just looked on Wikipedia and was amazed to see he was only 28 when he was at Spotland. Always thought it was much later in his career just before he retired. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:27]
| |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:21 - Feb 1 with 2301 views | DaleiLama |
| City in for Baah? on 21:15 - Feb 1 by TVOS1907 |
Bet he's reading this thread right now, or certainly texting someone about it. |
Coaching ladies football now? Certainly looks like he's been dispossessed and he's taken it sitting down
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| City in for Baah? on 21:23 - Feb 1 with 2271 views | D_Alien |
| City in for Baah? on 21:21 - Feb 1 by DaleiLama |
Coaching ladies football now? Certainly looks like he's been dispossessed and he's taken it sitting down
|
Bet he kept his pullover on when they were conceived | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:26 - Feb 1 with 2224 views | DaleiLama |
| City in for Baah? on 21:23 - Feb 1 by D_Alien |
Bet he kept his pullover on when they were conceived |
Bet his moves were drawn up on a white board beforehand too. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:26 - Feb 1 with 2224 views | AtThePeake |
| City in for Baah? on 21:18 - Feb 1 by 442Dale |
Never got it with Adshead, Baah is a real ‘could go either way’ situation and Matheson was sold at the right time for an amount that of all a sudden some seem to think isn’t enough, yet not sure what the evidence is for that.
If anything, 300k for Holt at the time was a bigger disappointment than any of the three named due to his importance to the side and the fact he was the finished article. If we had a Wayne Evans we wouldn’t miss Matheson at all, Adshead would still be on the bench on occasions and Baah is still best in that role. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:20]
|
I don't think it's 'all of a sudden'. I felt it wasn't enough at the time. In hindsight I'm grateful we got the deal done given what happened afterwards but at the time I felt it was pretty poor to be getting a rumoured £1m for a player with a long-term contract, involved in the England youth set-up with a huge upside and who had media attention on him following some excellent performances in televised cup games.
A player in the same position in the same league with a similar amount of appearances but with less attention on him and no involvement with youth international set-ups joined Norwich for £3.5m in the same window, for context. I don't think Matheson was worth £1m to our team at the time and I don't think we miss him all that much, but I think his potential and value overall was worth more than what we got for him when I see similar deals elsewhere.
The Baah situation is totally different in that his contract is running up and it's a case of now or never if we don't want to be messed about with the compensation aspect. I'm not annoyed at all by £300k for a player we could very easily have ended up with £0 for, but I am annoyed at getting £1m for a player I think was worth more in the current market. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:28 - Feb 1 with 2196 views | D_Alien |
| City in for Baah? on 21:26 - Feb 1 by DaleiLama |
Bet his moves were drawn up on a white board beforehand too. |
...after he'd sent scouts to check things out | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:29 - Feb 1 with 2174 views | DaleiLama |
| City in for Baah? on 21:28 - Feb 1 by D_Alien |
...after he'd sent scouts to check things out |
Possibly shot a bit of footage too? | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:30 - Feb 1 with 2140 views | D_Alien |
| City in for Baah? on 21:29 - Feb 1 by DaleiLama |
Possibly shot a bit of footage too? |
Sounds a bit premature, but i'm sure it put him on the right track | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:32 - Feb 1 with 2124 views | Brierls |
| City in for Baah? on 21:18 - Feb 1 by 442Dale |
Never got it with Adshead, Baah is a real ‘could go either way’ situation and Matheson was sold at the right time for an amount that of all a sudden some seem to think isn’t enough, yet not sure what the evidence is for that.
If anything, 300k for Holt at the time was a bigger disappointment than any of the three named due to his importance to the side and the fact he was the finished article. If we had a Wayne Evans we wouldn’t miss Matheson at all, Adshead would still be on the bench on occasions and Baah is still best in that role. [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:20]
|
Pretty much this.
Adshead was promising but he wasn’t having a big impact in games.
Matheson was sold when his stock was high. He’s a good footballer but is always going to struggle defensively because of his height.
Baah is a hugely talented game changer but he’s out of contract this summer. |  | | |
| City in for Baah? on 21:33 - Feb 1 with 2103 views | James1980 |
Isn't the issue we can't afford to hold out for more and the rest of the pyramid know that. But if someone came along offering to take over and bankroll the club they would be met with suspicion. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:33 - Feb 1 with 2095 views | 442Dale |
| City in for Baah? on 21:26 - Feb 1 by AtThePeake |
I don't think it's 'all of a sudden'. I felt it wasn't enough at the time. In hindsight I'm grateful we got the deal done given what happened afterwards but at the time I felt it was pretty poor to be getting a rumoured £1m for a player with a long-term contract, involved in the England youth set-up with a huge upside and who had media attention on him following some excellent performances in televised cup games.
A player in the same position in the same league with a similar amount of appearances but with less attention on him and no involvement with youth international set-ups joined Norwich for £3.5m in the same window, for context. I don't think Matheson was worth £1m to our team at the time and I don't think we miss him all that much, but I think his potential and value overall was worth more than what we got for him when I see similar deals elsewhere.
The Baah situation is totally different in that his contract is running up and it's a case of now or never if we don't want to be messed about with the compensation aspect. I'm not annoyed at all by £300k for a player we could very easily have ended up with £0 for, but I am annoyed at getting £1m for a player I think was worth more in the current market. |
The all of a sudden was the mention of the price earlier in the thread not being what some thought, but yeah your point on the modern market meaning we could have got more is a valid one. It’s that focus on impact to the side that should, only in my opinion, be seen in the fee and as long as we get a decent amount that we can reinvest/use to cover shortfalls in the unlikely event of a global pandemic, then the amounts we get for younger players is usually a bonus. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:38 - Feb 1 with 2038 views | 1907 |
| City in for Baah? on 21:12 - Feb 1 by Shun |
Give over with the faux outrage, 1907. We’ve sold Matheson, Baah and Adshead (3 of the best prospects in the lower leagues at the time) for a combined total of not much more than £1million. Can you imagine a Peterborough fan saying that? Or any other club in the league?
We’ve moved on from the days when £300K was a brilliant fee for the likes of Holt. That was 15 years ago and the market has grown immensely since then. The only thing that hasn’t grown is what some Rochdale fans think is a good deal. |
Where’s the faux outrage?
The main difference is that we aren’t Peterborough are we. We don’t have their financial clout or backing. Everybody knows that we have a very small following & very little cash to play with. Our bargaining position will never be on par with clubs like Peterborough.
What we’re doing now is selling players before their prime for good fees. Not like when we lost the likes of Lambert & Holt who were hitting their prime. These players we’re selling to fund the future of the club are barely even regulars in the starting 11.
People need to stop getting so het up about undisclosed fees. We’ve been doing it this way for a while & it’s done us well so far, has it not? [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:41]
| | | |
| City in for Baah? on 21:39 - Feb 1 with 2023 views | DaleiLama |
| City in for Baah? on 21:26 - Feb 1 by AtThePeake |
I don't think it's 'all of a sudden'. I felt it wasn't enough at the time. In hindsight I'm grateful we got the deal done given what happened afterwards but at the time I felt it was pretty poor to be getting a rumoured £1m for a player with a long-term contract, involved in the England youth set-up with a huge upside and who had media attention on him following some excellent performances in televised cup games.
A player in the same position in the same league with a similar amount of appearances but with less attention on him and no involvement with youth international set-ups joined Norwich for £3.5m in the same window, for context. I don't think Matheson was worth £1m to our team at the time and I don't think we miss him all that much, but I think his potential and value overall was worth more than what we got for him when I see similar deals elsewhere.
The Baah situation is totally different in that his contract is running up and it's a case of now or never if we don't want to be messed about with the compensation aspect. I'm not annoyed at all by £300k for a player we could very easily have ended up with £0 for, but I am annoyed at getting £1m for a player I think was worth more in the current market. |
I confess to not having a knowledge of such contracts (other than what I've read) but I wonder if the "trigger" value, at which point another team can come in and make an offer is potentially being set too low? The flip side of setting it too high is that youngsters may not want to (or be told not to) come to our academy for fear of a glass ceiling.
I know Luke was with our academy a long time, but the principle would still seem to apply?
Guess you are only privy to such things when you join the Board. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:43 - Feb 1 with 1968 views | DaleiLama |
| City in for Baah? on 21:38 - Feb 1 by 1907 |
Where’s the faux outrage?
The main difference is that we aren’t Peterborough are we. We don’t have their financial clout or backing. Everybody knows that we have a very small following & very little cash to play with. Our bargaining position will never be on par with clubs like Peterborough.
What we’re doing now is selling players before their prime for good fees. Not like when we lost the likes of Lambert & Holt who were hitting their prime. These players we’re selling to fund the future of the club are barely even regulars in the starting 11.
People need to stop getting so het up about undisclosed fees. We’ve been doing it this way for a while & it’s done us well so far, has it not? [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:41]
|
And probably, if we survive, if BBMs signings work out, if he has another season to retool the squad and we end up stronger for it + with a few more decent sellable assets coming through, life will carry on as it has done. For better or worse. | |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:46 - Feb 1 with 1934 views | Brierls |
| City in for Baah? on 21:26 - Feb 1 by AtThePeake |
I don't think it's 'all of a sudden'. I felt it wasn't enough at the time. In hindsight I'm grateful we got the deal done given what happened afterwards but at the time I felt it was pretty poor to be getting a rumoured £1m for a player with a long-term contract, involved in the England youth set-up with a huge upside and who had media attention on him following some excellent performances in televised cup games.
A player in the same position in the same league with a similar amount of appearances but with less attention on him and no involvement with youth international set-ups joined Norwich for £3.5m in the same window, for context. I don't think Matheson was worth £1m to our team at the time and I don't think we miss him all that much, but I think his potential and value overall was worth more than what we got for him when I see similar deals elsewhere.
The Baah situation is totally different in that his contract is running up and it's a case of now or never if we don't want to be messed about with the compensation aspect. I'm not annoyed at all by £300k for a player we could very easily have ended up with £0 for, but I am annoyed at getting £1m for a player I think was worth more in the current market. |
Was the other lad 5’4” and an average defender?
Take away the story, the romance of it all, and you’re left with a very talented young footballer who is going to have to fulfil every single bit of his potential to make it even at Championship level. That’s not due to his ability, it’s due to his height and how teams would target that weakness.
There wasn’t a bidding war for Matheson, we got a good deal while we could. | | | |
| City in for Baah? on 21:47 - Feb 1 with 1921 views | dingdangblue |
If we don't sell Humphrys in the summer he's out of contract at the end of next season. It's always going to be an issue now for Dale because we can't hand out 3 - 4 year contracts. |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:49 - Feb 1 with 1903 views | fitzochris |
Where’s this £300k figure come from and why is it being taken as fact? |  |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 21:59 - Feb 1 with 1833 views | TVOS1907 |
| City in for Baah? on 21:38 - Feb 1 by 1907 |
Where’s the faux outrage?
The main difference is that we aren’t Peterborough are we. We don’t have their financial clout or backing. Everybody knows that we have a very small following & very little cash to play with. Our bargaining position will never be on par with clubs like Peterborough.
What we’re doing now is selling players before their prime for good fees. Not like when we lost the likes of Lambert & Holt who were hitting their prime. These players we’re selling to fund the future of the club are barely even regulars in the starting 11.
People need to stop getting so het up about undisclosed fees. We’ve been doing it this way for a while & it’s done us well so far, has it not? [Post edited 1 Feb 2021 21:41]
|
Agree with this and everyone does it now. We've signed a player today, with "undisclosed fee" tagged on the end, but that doesn't seem to generate the same angst.
There isn't one fee listed here in the EFL section: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/55860797 | |
| When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf? |
| |
| City in for Baah? on 22:03 - Feb 1 with 1799 views | Shun |
| City in for Baah? on 21:19 - Feb 1 by D_Alien |
And if we'd demanded more than City were prepared to pay, then lost him for "compensation" and no add-on in the summer?
And how would that have affected a highly impressionable young lad, if we'd scuppered his chances? There's so much more to these things than an up-front fee |
Potentially, but I doubt that would’ve been the case. We’d already rejected one bid and they came back within hours, so they clearly wanted him. This is the richest club in the world, I doubt they were going to balk at a club asking for a fee of £600K rather than £300K.
Other clubs were clearly interested, presumably they decided against putting in an offer when they learnt of City’s bid, knowing their pulling power is less than City’s, and also knowing how it would look when a failed bid came to light.
As for losing out on a sell-on, it’s common practice now when losing a player under-24 on a free transfer for a sell-on percentage to be inserted. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
