Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Wellens interview in the Grauniad  (Read 3487 times)
RobertT


+59/-30
Offline Offline

Posts: 7187




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 17:18:58 »

I am still not sure why it is a negative that we picked-up two, seemingly, good strikers on loan because loans cost less per week (it seems) for the the relative same level of talent vs a Perm signing?  There are clearly benefits to having your own players longer term, but our aim is to get up.  If we get better for a season by using the loan market, what is wrong with that?  Why would having a Norris type be better just because he might be here for two years instead of one?

It's no different to us taking a risk on a player like Isgrove because of historical injuries vs. taking lower talent with years of steady appearances behind them.

Each Manager gets a total budget and divides it up balancing those factors to get the best juice from the squeeze.
Logged
Flashheart


+61/-10090
Offline Offline

Posts: 27139


FUCK YEAH! ©™



« Reply #46 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 17:40:15 »

He's answered a question that the journo asked because they need to fill their rag with content.

Said journo then prints the story, making it out as though it's a serious concern for Wellens, even though Wellens would probably not have even been thinking about it until he was asked.

Happens all the time.
Logged

I like it firm and fruity.
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+156/-546
Offline Offline

Posts: 33815





Ignore
« Reply #47 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 17:57:26 »

I am still not sure why it is a negative that we picked-up two, seemingly, good strikers on loan because loans cost less per week (it seems) for the the relative same level of talent vs a Perm signing?  There are clearly benefits to having your own players longer term, but our aim is to get up.  If we get better for a season by using the loan market, what is wrong with that?  Why would having a Norris type be better just because he might be here for two years instead of one?

It's no different to us taking a risk on a player like Isgrove because of historical injuries vs. taking lower talent with years of steady appearances behind them.

Each Manager gets a total budget and divides it up balancing those factors to get the best juice from the squeeze.

As has been pointed out previously, it's a fair enough strategy, but does beg the obvious can we keep them past Jan question esp if they're doing well.  There still seems some confusion on this re Doyle, but Bradford are hardly going to pass up a chance to affect our season, if we're in direct competition with them.
Logged
RobertT


+59/-30
Offline Offline

Posts: 7187




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 20:42:21 »

But Wellens would have been a fool not to factor in that risk when making the decision, so it's on him.  If we lose them both, don;t replace them and sink, he'll be rightly criticised.  If they stay and succeed, all is well, and if they leave but we replace them like for like, it should work out ok.

It was just that there was some mention of this being seen as negative, I see it as the complete opposite - it's risk and reward.  It's not specifically negative or positive - it's a decision, the outcome of which can go one way or the other, but the decision itself is not inherently negative, nor is it positive.
Logged
Flashheart


+61/-10090
Offline Offline

Posts: 27139


FUCK YEAH! ©™



« Reply #49 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 21:27:44 »

It's a cognitive distortion - dichotomous thinking. It has to be all good or all bad, never something in between. It's a remnant of the fight or flight survival instinct.

Actually, scratch that. He's just a troll.
Logged

I like it firm and fruity.
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia


+156/-546
Offline Offline

Posts: 33815





Ignore
« Reply #50 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 21:59:48 »

But Wellens would have been a fool not to factor in that risk when making the decision, so it's on him.  If we lose them both, don;t replace them and sink, he'll be rightly criticised.  If they stay and succeed, all is well, and if they leave but we replace them like for like, it should work out ok.

It was just that there was some mention of this being seen as negative, I see it as the complete opposite - it's risk and reward.  It's not specifically negative or positive - it's a decision, the outcome of which can go one way or the other, but the decision itself is not inherently negative, nor is it positive.

Perhaps in an intellectual sense, but football fans don't really see the world that way. I'm sure most would have preferred the acquisition of our own players for key positions rather than relying on loans. It may turn out not to matter, in which case this might alter future thinking on the matter.
Logged
Oaksey Moonraker


+10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 585




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 22:22:22 »

If Bradford were to recall Doyle they can only do it to play him in their team. EFL rules state you can only register to play for two teams in a season (excluding youth loans). Doyle played for Bradford already.

Technically they could sell him to another side as he can sign for 3 clubs but only play for two in a season. No-one will buy a 31 year old striker they can't play.

So if Bradford if recall Doyle, they have to take the full hit on his wages, reintegrate himself into their side after half a season at Swindon or not play him whilst paying his wages.

I can't see that happening and the deal we did was a more a try 'before you buy' and letting his Bradford contract wind down if we fancy signing him in the summer when he will be 32 so won't attract the same wages.

Sent from my HTC U11
Logged
RobertT


+59/-30
Offline Offline

Posts: 7187




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: Thursday, September 19, 2019, 22:57:31 »

On the technicalities of the Doyle deal, not only would Bradford not be able to sell him, they'd have to absorb his full wage again.  They allowed him to come to enable them to spend those wages on other players - so they'd have to free up wages to make it happen - we have to assume they would now fail the wage limit.  Given they bank on high attendances, they are unlikely to have much wriggle room for suggesting increased Revenue.  I think he will stay regardless, but anything is possible.
Logged
The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey


+78/-103
Offline Offline

Posts: 5088




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 04:58:13 »

You’re spot on. The saving Bradford have made loaning us Doyle has been spent on other recruits. I presume, like most other clubs, they will want to tweak their squad again in January. Getting Doyle back on £5k a week and not playing him will prevent that.

I still don’t understand why the Wellens version of the loan deal is so different from that emanating from Bradford - or more particularly Radio Leeds who I presume have the club’s ear.
Logged
Exiled Bob


+18/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 1077





Ignore
« Reply #54 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 12:35:17 »

a bit more from Wellens....

 
I suppose you'll still carry on arguing that we could have afforded Doyle.....

No, because I never said that. What I did was speculate that, IF Wellens had managed to offload Diagouraga, or IF Wellens hadn't signed certain other (probably well paid) players such as Isgrove, we might have been able to afford him.

I know that's probably a bit difficult for you to understand because it doesn't fit in with your idea that we have the shittiest budget in the league and that Power doesn't want to splash the cash.
Logged
Exiled Bob


+18/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 1077





Ignore
« Reply #55 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 12:35:58 »

Bit rich non?  Wink
Oui....un peu. But fuck it.
Logged
Exiled Bob


+18/-15
Offline Offline

Posts: 1077





Ignore
« Reply #56 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 13:00:36 »

So  you think it's OK to accuse me of negativity and having some sort of way of twisting facts to support a narrative, whatever that is. and then not expect some sort of comback when evidence is there, for supporting what I do which is observe and then interpret.

Not how I understand debate.
I haven't accused you of negativity. What I accuse you of is being on a constant wind-up, cherry picking quotes and bits of posts to back up your views.

Let's take this thread as fairly typical of the way that you operate - it started off as a discussion on an article on Wellens that was quite complimentary of him and the pretty good start to the season that Swindon have had. So along you come with a little snipe about he's not really building a squad ready for next season.....don't want to get too carried away after all.....followed up by "quoting" Wellens in the article, saying that
Quote
we can't afford players like this on perms so have to settle for loans

Only it turned out you weren't quoting him from that article, it was some other article that you had read and what you "quoted" wasn't actually what he said at all, which was
Quote
Sometimes, you can’t compete with strikers’ money, so you have to move to the loan market. You get better quality players for a cheaper price

From then on the thread goes off into a debate on whether or not we can afford Yates/Doyle etc....and you have successfully derailed the thread from the original discussion.

What Wellens said, that you originally misquoted, is quite simple and surely not difficult to understand. He could have bought a couple of (inferior quality) strikers with the budget that was available. He chose to go down the loan route because he could get better quality players for a cheaper price. Whether he could afford to buy them is not relevant.




« Last Edit: Friday, September 20, 2019, 19:59:19 by Exiled Bob » Logged
Oaksey Moonraker


+10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 585




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 13:32:51 »

When I looked at the EFL loan rules what I didn't realise was the club taking a player on loan has to pay a proportion of the wages at least in line with what they pay their own players.

So you take a PL youngster on £10K a week and you're paying say £2K a week then you can't do a deal with the PL club at £500 a week. It's to stop conflicts of interest and supposed financial fair play.

In the Bradford and Swindon deal then it's what percentage of Doyle's wages we are paying and what Jewell/Power have negotiated with Bradford and how that compares to say signing a bog standard League Two striker.

I suppose Bradford could recall in January and ask us to bump up the proportion we pay versus risking Power saying bugger off I am not paying any more and Doyle returning.

Will be interesting come January and there could be a stand off or maybe nothing happens.

Sent from my HTC U11
Logged
Flashheart


+61/-10090
Offline Offline

Posts: 27139


FUCK YEAH! ©™



« Reply #58 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 13:35:44 »

I suppose Bradford could recall in January and ask us to bump up the proportion we pay

I'm only guessing, but that sounds to me like something that would not be allowed.
Logged

I like it firm and fruity.
RobertT


+59/-30
Offline Offline

Posts: 7187




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: Friday, September 20, 2019, 13:40:22 »

They still can't recall him if they don;t have the wage budget.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
Print
Jump to: