if any of the present first team players are sold then it’s obviously the latter - just a shop window - the club going nowhere - Stendel just wasting his time. Supporters are not daft - if they sense this then they will walk away.
Sorry Nudge but you know as well as I (and everyone else for that matter) knows that we buy low and sell high. This was the model of the previous ownership structure and it was outlined from the start that it wouldn’t change under the new ownership. As supporters we want to see our best players stay, be paid accordingly, rise up through the leagues and keep progressing as we are currently. Unfortunately for us that isn’t going to happen. We either embrace it and see what other gems we can unearth or we can get depressive every time a Hourihane, Winnall, Potts or Pinnock leaves.
Roll on the company accounts being released in the next month or so? We will get a better idea of where money is going, what's been removed under words such as dividend or loaned or where we are spunking the millions away that should be stockpiled up. It's worrying if billionaires can't increase club revenue without weakening the playing squad which the coaching team and us the fans suffer the most with through no fault of our own. It's one of the worst things about being a football fan. Owners seeing players as assets to sell so guys only hang around here 2-3 years max and we no longer make future legends that hang around as long as guys like Hassell and Foster did.
I know NICE is a different entity but they sell players to pay the loans they borrowed to buy club. Perhaps we have been bought in same way and as such loans need repaying.
If Real Madrid offered £100m for Kieffer Moore and we accepted it, would that make us a shop window? All players have their price.
Nudge, I don't say this lightly and I mean it with huge respect, but get on pornhub and knock one out, yeah?
Billionaires loan money to buy something instead of just paying outright which they can more than afford to do? It would be very concerning if it's a similar situation to Manchester United with the Glaziers. They didn't want to spend their own money to buy the club so put it in big debt with loans and paid them off over years, which annoyed fans enough to wear yellow scarfs and start a new club (not that I see us doing that as their case is extreme). Now Man United are worth hundreds of millions more than when they bought it, which covers the loans they took out to buy the club without buying without the loans.
I think the worrying point when Potts was sold was that this was for the 'sustainability' of the club. When sales happened in the past we sort of recognised it was necessary given the ongoing funding that Patrick had put in to keep the club going. The optimism for the new owners was based on the view that, to some extent, the sales needed to keep the club ticking over would be less so, but acceptance if massive offers came in, just like any club, we would not turn them down. The statement of the Nice Chairman when he resigned was very worrying with the owners wanting to extract £30m of player trading profit from their club. I think this gives us good insight in to the motives of our new owners, develop players and sell on at a profit. You could argue this is no different to the previous approach. However, if the profits are not reinvested in the club but channelled back to the owners our long term future and ambitions become challenged. Current crowds are strong but just like in the late '80's early '90's if success is not delivered on the pitch then crowds will fall. Three or four years in the third flight would undoubtedly put a strain on gates. If Barnsley FC is to be a small part in the owners' global player trading plan then the likelihood for any sustained success on the pitch is limited. I really hope I'm wrong but time will tell.
You make some good points but mine would be surely there’s more riches for them in the premiere league and to stabilise with investment will gain more capital for their investment , summising if that is their goal
I actually would start to somewhat agree with Nudgers sentiments. We have let Potts and Moncur leave. Losing a key player like Pinnock will seriously weaken the squad. In fact the only way that I would be happy to see him leave even for big money now would be that he gets loaned straight back to us until the end of the season. We have let 2 good players leave, three becomes a bit groundhog day from when the team was dismantled in the championship and the team has to be substantially rebuilt. This transfer window is the worst possible time to break up a winning team and hope that any replacements can step up. At the moment, we have let these players go and replaced with 'gambles'. So tell any club wanting to sign any 1st team regulars, it is a condition that it is silly money and we retain on loan untl end of season. We have to get out of this division 1st attempt IMHO, we are talking probably 7-8 million in revenue.. I keep saying 1 player sold can be replaced, 3 players who have all proven to be decent at this level is a big rebuild ask.
I would hazard a guess that if you take away the incoming transfer fees the club runs at a significant loss. The owners never expressed any intention to invest significant funds for anything other than improving facilities and infrastructure. Therefore we are a selling club. Every club is a shop window if players want to move on anyway. Man Utd had to sell Ronaldo!
My biggest worry is if we sell pinnock.....thiam....and moore...all beacause "its what we do!" in this window and therefore acceptable because every player has price!
I’m not bothered if we sell players during January if we are mid-table. But selling first team players when we are in the middle of a relegation or a promotion fight is strictly a NO NO !!!
Wrong, they've paid off b*gger all and have spent huge amounts of money just to keep the plates spinning. The club was bought using debt of £525m and that debt is still at £487m. Since 2010 (I don't have figures for the period of their ownership before then) they have spent £784m just servicing that debt, which is more than their total transfer expenditure in that same period. They have to make a ridiculous amount of cash just to be able to stand still.