|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 21, 2014 20:53:09 GMT
The new mob must therefore decide whether to spend the surplus and the extra they claimed would be pumped in and hope that is enough for a promotion challenge, bringing the crowds they need. And it may be a forlorn one as even with that amount it would probably be no better than the 7th or 8th best budget. Or they could gamble on cheap signings (which they have done so far) and hope that a lower-table finish (which is exactly where you would expect them to finish given the budget) doesn't mean crowds hemorrhage. The third scenario is that this lot are just asset strippers, running the playing budget at an absolute minimum while they wait to get the land deal done and dusted. I'm sure most Oxford fans could be forgiven for beginning to worry the latter is most likely. I only quoted this bit, from a post I pretty much agree with, because it's a neat summary of the positions we (pardon if I underestimate your status) who aren't ITK can take. IMO the 3rd can be dismissed since a. we have no assets to speak of and b. the new management don't seem to have made any investigation of the potential asset of a ground move. The 2nd - moves them (and us) exactly nowhere; attendances will drop and apathy will reign even supremer [sorry] than it already does. They don't seem to be doing the first. I hope I eat my words before the window slams shut. Why not? I don't know. But I have a nasty feeling that this is a vanity project (I have said this before) that is so badly thought through that the money's already run out rather than the 2-3 years I predicted to myself. Or the cold shock of where we actually are (despite the alleged due diligence) has um revised expectations this soon. To avert my fears (which I confess may be groundless) the club needs to (at a minimum) get a big, ugly, fu ckoff striker, and maybe more, before the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 10:45:32 GMT
The new mob must therefore decide whether to spend the surplus and the extra they claimed would be pumped in and hope that is enough for a promotion challenge, bringing the crowds they need. And it may be a forlorn one as even with that amount it would probably be no better than the 7th or 8th best budget. Or they could gamble on cheap signings (which they have done so far) and hope that a lower-table finish (which is exactly where you would expect them to finish given the budget) doesn't mean crowds hemorrhage. The third scenario is that this lot are just asset strippers, running the playing budget at an absolute minimum while they wait to get the land deal done and dusted. I'm sure most Oxford fans could be forgiven for beginning to worry the latter is most likely. I only quoted this bit, from a post I pretty much agree with, because it's a neat summary of the positions we (pardon if I underestimate your status) who aren't ITK can take. IMO the 3rd can be dismissed since a. we have no assets to speak of and b. the new management don't seem to have made any investigation of the potential asset of a ground move. The 2nd - moves them (and us) exactly nowhere; attendances will drop and apathy will reign even supremer [sorry] than it already does. They don't seem to be doing the first. I hope I eat my words before the window slams shut. Why not? I don't know. But I have a nasty feeling that this is a vanity project (I have said this before) that is so badly thought through that the money's already run out rather than the 2-3 years I predicted to myself. Or the cold shock of where we actually are (despite the alleged due diligence) has um revised expectations this soon. To avert my fears (which I confess may be groundless) the club needs to (at a minimum) get a big, ugly, fu ckoff striker, and maybe more, before the deadline. PC - I was running through your penultimate paragraph in my mind a couple of nights ago. The more that drips out into the media the more the signs are they're either smokescreening in a big way (and are very good at it) or they are slightly on a learning curve and have had a few surprises. However I truly hope they are here with good intentions and I still offer myself that thought aswell whilst being wary. It would be incredibly clever of them to appear foolish in the hope that we forgive them a little for being simpletons, which in turn buys them time to achieve their actual objectives of finding a way to asset strip. But that might just be a little conspiratorial at this stage! However it's still all rather unclear. They are clearly good at PR. They're clearly engaged with the project. And they're aware of how to make the right noises and answer questions without necessarily giving us something tangible to grip to. I'm not sure which would be a worse scenario
|
|
|
Post by sihath on Aug 22, 2014 11:42:52 GMT
I only quoted this bit, from a post I pretty much agree with, because it's a neat summary of the positions we (pardon if I underestimate your status) who aren't ITK can take. IMO the 3rd can be dismissed since a. we have no assets to speak of and b. the new management don't seem to have made any investigation of the potential asset of a ground move. The 2nd - moves them (and us) exactly nowhere; attendances will drop and apathy will reign even supremer [sorry] than it already does. They don't seem to be doing the first. I hope I eat my words before the window slams shut. Why not? I don't know. But I have a nasty feeling that this is a vanity project (I have said this before) that is so badly thought through that the money's already run out rather than the 2-3 years I predicted to myself. Or the cold shock of where we actually are (despite the alleged due diligence) has um revised expectations this soon. To avert my fears (which I confess may be groundless) the club needs to (at a minimum) get a big, ugly, fu ckoff striker, and maybe more, before the deadline. PC - I was running through your penultimate paragraph in my mind a couple of nights ago. The more that drips out into the media the more the signs are they're either smokescreening in a big way (and are very good at it) or they are slightly on a learning curve and have had a few surprises. However I truly hope they are here with good intentions and I still offer myself that thought aswell whilst being wary. It would be incredibly clever of them to appear foolish in the hope that we forgive them a little for being simpletons, which in turn buys them time to achieve their actual objectives of finding a way to asset strip. But that might just be a little conspiratorial at this stage! However it's still all rather unclear. They are clearly good at PR. They're clearly engaged with the project. And they're aware of how to make the right noises and answer questions without necessarily giving us something tangible to grip to. I'm not sure which would be a worse scenario Should that not be: buy them time to FIND some assets to strip?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Aug 22, 2014 12:24:53 GMT
However it's still all rather unclear. They are clearly good at PR. They're clearly engaged with the project. And they're aware of how to make the right noises and answer questions without necessarily giving us something tangible to grip to. rickyotto - you posted this on the 'local guys' thread - Genuine question. Apart from doing a good PR job in terms of presenting themselves (not club PR), I'm not really clear on what they have done off the pitch that we can tangibly see a result from at this point? That's bullseye! I've never seen this sort of activity aimed at 'bigging up' the C-Level without a mention of the mission statement or the product strategy.
|
|
|
Post by barmyarmy on Aug 22, 2014 12:29:59 GMT
Myles I saw it, it was a quote that stuck in my mind for two reasons: How did you know? Why would you say it if you did? Very uncomplimentary comment about your preferred bidder. We have exchanged opinions many times on here, you usually jump on something I say if you disagree with me yet leave me to quote this several times without questioning it. Im not about to go looking for it, there may be a quick way to look, there may not. I would doubt its on here now anyway, delete/edit function and all that. Well, to be blunt, I don't recall saying it as categorically as that and think you may have misinterpreted what was being said. And I do hope you're not accusing me of deleting things. Its in the clarification on consortium bid thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 20:26:02 GMT
However it's still all rather unclear. They are clearly good at PR. They're clearly engaged with the project. And they're aware of how to make the right noises and answer questions without necessarily giving us something tangible to grip to. rickyotto - you posted this on the 'local guys' thread - Genuine question. Apart from doing a good PR job in terms of presenting themselves (not club PR), I'm not really clear on what they have done off the pitch that we can tangibly see a result from at this point? That's bullseye! I've never seen this sort of activity aimed at 'bigging up' the C-Level without a mention of the mission statement or the product strategy. In the corporate world they would have been severely dinged already for the lack of clarity on objectives. They are selling themselves and not the vision. That can only cause uncertainty and confusion.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 6:46:25 GMT
rickyotto - you posted this on the 'local guys' thread - That's bullseye! I've never seen this sort of activity aimed at 'bigging up' the C-Level without a mention of the mission statement or the product strategy. In the corporate world they would have been severely dinged already for the lack of clarity on objectives. They are selling themselves and not the vision. That can only cause uncertainty and confusion. Lack of clarity on objectives? Without giving it too much thought let me convey what I've heard (press, radio etc not claiming to be in the know!); Club to break even in 3 years Recognise the need to get club and stadium together Target is to fulfil potential which they believe oxford has to sustain a championship club Involvement in the community is central to their plans Continued focus on youth development So what is missing or do you want the 5 year strategic plan and the next 12 months operational plan/ budget published? And if so show me a comparative release or statement from any other football club! Try listening
|
|
|
Post by charliesghost on Aug 23, 2014 7:43:39 GMT
In the corporate world they would have been severely dinged already for the lack of clarity on objectives. They are selling themselves and not the vision. That can only cause uncertainty and confusion. Lack of clarity on objectives? Without giving it too much thought let me convey what I've heard (press, radio etc not claiming to be in the know!); Club to break even in 3 years Recognise the need to get club and stadium together Target is to fulfil potential which they believe oxford has to sustain a championship club Involvement in the community is central to their plans Continued focus on youth development So what is missing or do you want the 5 year strategic plan and the next 12 months operational plan/ budget published? And if so show me a comparative release or statement from any other football club! Try listening I think, to be fair, that Ricky Otto is a big enough wheel in the corporate world to understand (as you do not seem to) the difference between a wishlist and a plan. Oxford United's objective, according to everyone from Firoz Kassam to Nick Merry to Ian Lenagan, is to become a self-sustaining Championship club in its own stadium (yes, even Nick told me that). But, as anyone who has worked in corporate strategy will know, writing down the list of objectives is then the starting point for the hard work. And the start of the hard work is drawing up the plan to achieve those objectives. And that plan has to be drawn up acknowledging what we call 'strategic constraints' - ie the facts of life as we know them. Personally, I do not think we have heard the plan yet. We have been told what we already know about the club's potential, and that youth and community should play a big part in that (youth and community, by the way, being one area where we are already at least League 1 level, if not Championship). But that is a very, very, very different thing from explaining how one achieves break even. Or from explaining how a stadium deal is going to be achieved. Or from explaining how, within the constraints of FFP, we are going to get promoted to the Championship. I don't say that there IS not a plan. It's just that it has not yet been explained, and indeed in some areas - the stadium, most obviously - Darryl Eales has been quite honest and clear that he has no plan, and currently not very much of a clue about what is going on/ has been going on. This doesn't make him a bad man, or mean that he will not be successful, but I think it is reasonable for OxVox/ Otto/ whoever to ask the question as to what the plan is, given that it looks as if we are going to lose £2 million plus this year (a sum that really should guarantee promotion)
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 7:52:31 GMT
Lack of clarity on objectives? Without giving it too much thought let me convey what I've heard (press, radio etc not claiming to be in the know!); Club to break even in 3 years Recognise the need to get club and stadium together Target is to fulfil potential which they believe oxford has to sustain a championship club Involvement in the community is central to their plans Continued focus on youth development So what is missing or do you want the 5 year strategic plan and the next 12 months operational plan/ budget published? And if so show me a comparative release or statement from any other football club! Try listening I think, to be fair, that Ricky Otto is a big enough wheel in the corporate world to understand (as you do not seem to) the difference between a wishlist and a plan. Oxford United's objective, according to everyone from Firoz Kassam to Nick Merry to Ian Lenagan, is to become a self-sustaining Championship club in its own stadium (yes, even Nick told me that). But, as anyone who has worked in corporate strategy will know, writing down the list of objectives is then the starting point for the hard work. And the start of the hard work is drawing up the plan to achieve those objectives. And that plan has to be drawn up acknowledging what we call 'strategic constraints' - ie the facts of life as we know them. Personally, I do not think we have heard the plan yet. We have been told what we already know about the club's potential, and that youth and community should play a big part in that (youth and community, by the way, being one area where we are already at least League 1 level, if not Championship). But that is a very, very, very different thing from explaining how one achieves break even. Or from explaining how a stadium deal is going to be achieved. Or from explaining how, within the constraints of FFP, we are going to get promoted to the Championship. I don't say that there IS not a plan. It's just that it has not yet been explained, and indeed in some areas - the stadium, most obviously - Darryl Eales has been quite honest and clear that he has no plan, and currently not very much of a clue about what is going on/ has been going on. This doesn't make him a bad man, or mean that he will not be successful, but I think it is reasonable for OxVox/ Otto/ whoever to ask the question as to what the plan is, given that it looks as if we are going to lose £2 million plus this year (a sum that really should guarantee promotion) How big a wheel in the corporate world do you need to be? I repeat the question show me another football club that has published its 5 year plan? Perhaps you could publish your business plan for the club to help those of us who aren't big enough corporate wheels?
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 7:55:20 GMT
Also I would have thought that being such a big corporate wheel you would have understood the difference between objectives and a plan
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 9:29:52 GMT
Firstly I would be grateful if you could be a little less impolite. There was no need to say "try listening". I can recognise that we may have differing opinions but we do not need to descend into that.
With regards publishing their full business plan I'm not sure I or anyone else has asked for that. It would be slightly unusual particularly this early on. However when you takeover a business it is more common to present to your stakeholders a much clearer vision on what you are trying to achieve than they have to date in my opinion.
As an example I would take both the stadium issue and the playing budget. The clarity of what they are hoping to achieve seems either unclear or has been victim of conflicting messages. With the stadium, we had a very strange opening press conference. That wasn't broadcast at the last minute for no clear reason, but regardless, their entire focus appeared to be on the stadium and the essence of time for taking advantage of property opportunity. Since then we have heard very little, but what we have heard includes some muttering about Water Eaton (which is incredibly vague) and the need to own the stadium too. Which seems somewhat conflicting. And nothing about the property issues and time restrictive elements. If I've missed the details which clear this up I apologise but there doesn't seem to be much clarity to me.
With the playing budget we have seen numerous senior and expensive wage players depart. We were also informed about an extra £250k. And yet we have signed two players and four young (I'm guessing cheap) loanees who on first reports are no better than the youngsters we have. So again I'm not clear on the objectives. Are we actually going to increase the playing budget as was inferred? Or are the actions and words conflicting? Are we really focusing on our own youth? Or other teams youth?
It all just seems very fuzzy to me. With regards your list above , they have indeed thrown those morsels. I'd imagine those would be takeover 101s for Oxford and are akin to when a new player joins and says "I think the club has great facilities and a great fanbase with lots of potential"
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 9:40:35 GMT
Show me another club that publishes what you ask or any other business that publishes a budget!
No offence intended but I am a little frustrated as to how this sudden level of questioning has come to the surface now when it has been strangely absent as under IL' s stewardship we ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 9:52:17 GMT
I think we are at slightly different points. I'm not expecting budgets or 5 year business plans to be published in full.
But if Microsoft turned round and said within a few weeks that they were going to relocate from Washington to San Francisco, and also stated simultaneously it was essential they bought the freehold on their Washington site, it might leave their investors a little confused.
Ditto if Google said they were going to increase their R&D spend by x amount and then cut their headcount by 35% people would rightly ask questions.
Surely?
|
|
|
Post by Robin Shater on Aug 23, 2014 9:56:42 GMT
Show me another club that publishes what you ask or any other business that publishes a budget! No offence intended but I am a little frustrated as to how this sudden level of questioning has come to the surface now when it has been strangely absent as under IL' s stewardship we ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all! Better late than never? After IL's 5 year plan became another 'false dawn' what do you expect? Your last line says it all, IL ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all, despite telling us he had a 5 year plan. Eales and Ashton have listed objectives only, no plans. Are you honestly comfortable with that?
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 10:04:10 GMT
I think we are at slightly different points. I'm not expecting budgets or 5 year business plans to be published in full. But if Microsoft turned round and said within a few weeks that they were going to relocate from Washington to San Francisco, and also stated simultaneously it was essential they bought the freehold on their Washington site, it might leave their investors a little confused. Ditto if Google said they were going to increase their R&D spend by x amount and then cut their headcount by 35% people would rightly ask questions. Surely? So spell out what you want and how it should be delivered? You wanted objectives and I listed them
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 23, 2014 10:07:54 GMT
Show me another club that publishes what you ask or any other business that publishes a budget! No offence intended but I am a little frustrated as to how this sudden level of questioning has come to the surface now when it has been strangely absent as under IL' s stewardship we ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all! Better late than never? After IL's 5 year plan became another 'false dawn' what do you expect? Your last line says it all, IL ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all, despite telling us he had a 5 year plan. Eales and Ashton have listed objectives only, no plans. Are you honestly comfortable with that? Bit harsh, I think he did have a five year plan, building the youth set up being a major part of it. The plan may have gone of the rails and failed in the end but that does not mean there was no plan. Promotion last year or the year before would have left il in a much better light having lifted us from the conference to league 1.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 10:09:26 GMT
I wanted clarity on their objectives. It's slightly different. They've listed ideas and then sent out conflicting messages.
|
|
|
Post by Robin Shater on Aug 23, 2014 10:19:00 GMT
Better late than never? After IL's 5 year plan became another 'false dawn' what do you expect? Your last line says it all, IL ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all, despite telling us he had a 5 year plan. Eales and Ashton have listed objectives only, no plans. Are you honestly comfortable with that? Bit harsh, I think he did have a five year plan, building the youth set up being a major part of it. The plan may have gone of the rails and failed in the end but that does not mean there was no plan. Promotion last year or the year before would have left il in a much better light having lifted us from the conference to league 1. Agreed. Please note that it was yellowoptimist that suggested that IL apparently had no plan at all, I said that the 5 year plan had become another 'false dawn'. Without doubt, the youth set up is something that we can thank IL for, if those young players still get a chance, but for reasons known only to IL, when just a little extra was needed to reach promotion, he pulled the plug on his five year plan. Why?
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 10:22:44 GMT
I wanted clarity on their objectives. It's slightly different. They've listed ideas and then sent out conflicting messages. What conflicting messages? Have they subsequently come out and said anything different to what I listed? What further clarity do you need that is not a business plan or strategic plan?
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 10:24:45 GMT
Better late than never? After IL's 5 year plan became another 'false dawn' what do you expect? Your last line says it all, IL ran up £8m of debt and apparently had no plan at all, despite telling us he had a 5 year plan. Eales and Ashton have listed objectives only, no plans. Are you honestly comfortable with that? Bit harsh, I think he did have a five year plan, building the youth set up being a major part of it. The plan may have gone of the rails and failed in the end but that does not mean there was no plan. Promotion last year or the year before would have left il in a much better light having lifted us from the conference to league 1. Perhaps a bit harsh but did he specify his 5 year plan in great detail ? Or did he just give us a wish list as some choose to interpret a vision as?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 10:30:18 GMT
I wanted clarity on their objectives. It's slightly different. They've listed ideas and then sent out conflicting messages. What conflicting messages? Have they subsequently come out and said anything different to what I listed? What further clarity do you need that is not a business plan or strategic plan? I think I'll refer you to my previous posts and step away from the debate at this point.
|
|
|
Post by yellowoptimist on Aug 23, 2014 10:31:28 GMT
Convenient
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2014 10:40:21 GMT
I'm sorry you feel that way. I assumed having already described what I felt the conflicting messages were that would be sufficient to answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by foley on Aug 23, 2014 11:19:49 GMT
I am totally with Ricky Otto on this.
I am totally confused by the new owners strategy. I really have no idea in which direction they are hoping to take us.
The simplest example of this is the aim for us to be a Championship side, the 'promise' to invest a further £250K and then bringing in youngsters who are clearly not good enough (on their own) to score enough goals.
On the Stadium again I have no clue. From what I have heard the new owners have said that it is vital that we own our own ground at some stage and yet appear to have done no work prior to the takeover on this.
There is the issue re the preference shares, but again no clarity on the debt situation (with a likely £2M loss this season)
Communication was supposed to have improved, but after the original wish list, there has been very little. I am very surprised that we have not received far more clarity by now.
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Aug 23, 2014 11:33:03 GMT
Lenagan's strategy was to try and replicate what was and is successful at Wigan warriors. Youth development and sports science to build a team of home grown talent.
Rugby league is a much smaller game and that was achievable there. WW are a top level team and so can attract the best youngsters. Whereas the best youngsters in oxfordshire will get picked up by Chelsea etc.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Aug 23, 2014 11:37:28 GMT
I am totally with Ricky Otto on this.
I am totally confused by the new owners strategy. I really have no idea in which direction they are hoping to take us.
The simplest example of this is the aim for us to be a Championship side, the 'promise' to invest a further £250K and then bringing in youngsters who are clearly not good enough (on their own) to score enough goals.
On the Stadium again I have no clue. From what I have heard the new owners have said that it is vital that we own our own ground at some stage and yet appear to have done no work prior to the takeover on this.
There is the issue re the preference shares, but again no clarity on the debt situation (with a likely £2M loss this season)
Communication was supposed to have improved, but after the original wish list, there has been very little. I am very surprised that we have not received far more clarity by now. We have been experiencing this sort of spin/cr*p for years so why should anything be different. There is supposed to be a fans forum in September that should be very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Robin Shater on Aug 23, 2014 11:40:31 GMT
Lenagan's strategy was to try and replicate what was and is successful at Wigan warriors. Youth development and sports science to build a team of home grown talent. Rugby league is a much smaller game and that was achievable there. WW are a top level team and so can attract the best youngsters. Whereas the best youngsters in oxfordshire will get picked up by Chelsea etc. If our best youngsters were getting match time, maybe a few more would choose OUFC over larger clubs where they stand much less chance of first team football.
|
|
|
Post by oufcyellows on Aug 23, 2014 12:12:13 GMT
I am totally with Ricky Otto on this.
I am totally confused by the new owners strategy. I really have no idea in which direction they are hoping to take us.
The simplest example of this is the aim for us to be a Championship side, the 'promise' to invest a further £250K and then bringing in youngsters who are clearly not good enough (on their own) to score enough goals.
On the Stadium again I have no clue. From what I have heard the new owners have said that it is vital that we own our own ground at some stage and yet appear to have done no work prior to the takeover on this.
There is the issue re the preference shares, but again no clarity on the debt situation (with a likely £2M loss this season)
Communication was supposed to have improved, but after the original wish list, there has been very little. I am very surprised that we have not received far more clarity by now. Communication has improved massively . Ashton is on the radio every Monday, they have done a phone in, meet and great, the twitter feed is much better, Appleton is open and honest in his media interviews . They may not give the answers to the detailed questions that u want to hear but u can't say there is little communication
|
|
|
Post by gofish on Aug 23, 2014 12:14:04 GMT
I think Ricky has been completely clear and you're missing the point. As has been said earlier' "there's a difference between a wishlist and a business plan" (or words to that effect) I think you have to differentiate between what has been communicated through the media, which is essentially 'ambition', and the factual mechanics of how that 'ambition' might be realised. I think what Ricky is doing is navigating a diplomatic and considered path betweem the two, but posing some thoughtful questions on the way.
|
|
|
Post by yellowjam on Aug 30, 2014 14:47:51 GMT
No. The budget in the end last season ended up being circa £1.35 million. This was because the core budget of £1.2 million - already slightly over-spent because of Mullins' late arrival - was augmented by Hall, Connolly, Wroe, Williams etc (the latter cost very little indeed, by the way). This was a competitive budget, fairly well allocated. So a budget of 250 k over the formal £1.2 million of this year (which would have included Myles Weston had the ownership change not been pending) would end up with our budget this year being £1.45 million rather than £1.35 million last year - ie roughly comparable. The problem is that Williams, Hall, Wroe and Connolly were responsible for scoring and creating, between them, almost 20 goals, and creating at least another 10 or so for others. They were also, with an average age of about 28, well capable of playing week in, week out, unlike a group of teenagers. So the £150k laid out on them was effectively great value. Meanwhile, it looks as if rather more than that has been allocated to Morris, Riley and Long - £200k on an annualised basis... yet it does not look likely that they will be able to contribute anything like what their predecessors did, in terms of match-winning effectiveness. This is nothing against the new youngsters - and I well recognise that Melville did a great job in locating Ryan Williams - but it is another reality check. Our loanees were surprisingly effective last year. Replacing them - as well as replacing Constable, Rigg, Smalley, Kitson et al - is probably not do-able on a budget of £1.45 million. In my view. 3 youngsters on 200k between them that seems a lot. 3 young players on 6 month loans (26 weeks) £200.000 divid that by 3 then divid by 26 = £2.6k roughly per player per week for 3 unproven youngsters That can't be right we could sign decent proven League 1/2 on that money
|
|