Matt Russell
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2017
- Messages
- 1,165
Not everyone is backward.........mate.We get it mate, you know the process.
Not everyone is backward.........mate.We get it mate, you know the process.
I was a bit complacent re the striker situation, put too much faith in Muskwe being the answer plus a potentially rejuvenated Scott with Sonny as a back up to be gently introduced. Got that wrong!We were two forwards down from what we should have had in August
Scott leaves another gap.
Mo Eisa on a 6 month loan, not a perm - should do the job to fit into one of these slots
Alli is a 10 - despite GC saying he might trying him up front in the future. Good potential signing and presumably a decent fee on him.
Harris was a summer transfer that didn’t go through. Loan.
Woods should be on a chunky wage given where he’s come from, another loan
Purrington a quality addition and will be one of the higher earners
Cummins is a kid, he isn’t going to be on loads for his shot at EFL football
It’s good business and yes loan fees often exist - however offering £200k shows there was more to play with. The idea that was linked to outgoings in going to disagree with - it was Stevenage who rejected that offer, not us pulling out because we needed to add funds from elsewhere.
The club have done well and I’m happy - GC said in his own words he’d have had more in and I reckon the club would have done too if we’d closed another deal.
None of this is criticism just analysis of what happened.
7/10 and I want to see proper Squad building in the summer with more investment in longer term deals where they make sense
Sturtz, your posts are becoming a little one dimensional. The fact is we don’t get enough information to know the financial status of the club.Think of how much less we'd have if we had sacked and had to pay off GC.
Even Nick Hawker averred that we could !Sturtz, your posts are becoming a little one dimensional. The fact is we don’t get enough information to know the financial status of the club.
Who says we couldn’t afford to sack GC and sign the new players?
I understand where you are coming from but the club have suggested it will be undertaking a forum to explain the ins and outs. There are no privately owned clubs either that give any information out like you are suggesting and that's probably for the same reasons we can't or wont. The term more open is vague and so subjective that what you may be happy with hearing may be miles off what other owners of our club feel is their right to know. Where is the line drawn thenI was a bit complacent re the striker situation, put too much faith in Muskwe being the answer plus a potentially rejuvenated Scott with Sonny as a back up to be gently introduced. Got that wrong!
Would be nice to have a post mortem on what happened in the summer however this is where I feel disconnected from the ownership model.
There’s too much secrecy/defensiveness. Nick Hawker did admit at the AGM that they had been too cautious in the past. How much of the summer failure was down to Board v GC? We just don’t know.
When the corny phrase ‘We’re no ordinary football club’ is bandied about it doesn’t to me feel we’re much different to any privately owned club. We as part owners are kept in the dark.
I realise commercial sensitivity needs to be considered but we should be more open than your average club owned privately.
I support the Trust Model but feel changes to transparency and engagement with the 4,000ish owners needs to be implemented immediately following the horrible period of Autumn 2023.
I didn't say that did I though?Sturtz, your posts are becoming a little one dimensional. The fact is we don’t get enough information to know the financial status of the club.
Who says we couldn’t afford to sack GC and sign the new players?
What ever happened to the sack Nick Hawker thread?Even Nick Hawker averred that we could !
PDF_GrecianWe get it mate, you know the process.