Transfer

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

User avatar
HarrytheQuaker
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:57 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Transfer

Post by HarrytheQuaker » Mon Mar 06, 2017 9:06 pm

One in one out according to Stodd may be news tonight...

User avatar
KCChiefs
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:53 pm
Team Supported: Darlington/Forest
Location: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Transfer

Post by KCChiefs » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:12 pm

Scott to Port Vale according to twitter.

AndyPark
Posts: 11519
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by AndyPark » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:14 pm

KCChiefs wrote:Scott to Port Vale according to twitter.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
coles
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by coles » Mon Mar 06, 2017 11:03 pm

That scott rumour was a wind up come on seriously

tezza
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Transfer

Post by tezza » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:04 pm

Maida Vale more like

User avatar
bigrichiet
Posts: 323
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:07 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bigrichiet » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:47 pm

Hardy.

cheers for the goals

al_quaker
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by al_quaker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:50 pm

Not a huge surprise, although it's a shame as I think he's a good player.

He will leave me with one of my favourite memories (from a regular game) - that goal v Salford.

Interesting from the Echo - he cost us £14k, and we're expected to get a similar fee from Buxton. Wonder if we're likely to see any movement in

User avatar
Geordie Quaker
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:32 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: See Username

Re: Transfer

Post by Geordie Quaker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:12 pm

If there is one thing more ridiculous than us spending £14k on Hardy at the time, it is the idea that Buxton are willing to do the same / similar now.

In 1997 Jim Platt was refused £2k to sign Matt Carmichael :D

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by D_F_C » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:15 pm

al_quaker wrote:Not a huge surprise, although it's a shame as I think he's a good player.

He will leave me with one of my favourite memories (from a regular game) - that goal v Salford.

Interesting from the Echo - he cost us £14k, and we're expected to get a similar fee from Buxton. Wonder if we're likely to see any movement in
Can't see Buxton paying anything for him, but if that's what's reported then fine. Surely we can't expect Saunders to be our third striker already after a handful of appearances.

I assume Gray has been told one in can only come with one out.

olrad
Posts: 289
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by olrad » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:27 pm

Oh dear, with liam gone and beck ( looking like ) going it looks like another rebuilding job up top for next season .

al_quaker
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by al_quaker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:31 pm

D_F_C wrote:
al_quaker wrote:Not a huge surprise, although it's a shame as I think he's a good player.

He will leave me with one of my favourite memories (from a regular game) - that goal v Salford.

Interesting from the Echo - he cost us £14k, and we're expected to get a similar fee from Buxton. Wonder if we're likely to see any movement in
Can't see Buxton paying anything for him, but if that's what's reported then fine. Surely we can't expect Saunders to be our third striker already after a handful of appearances.

I assume Gray has been told one in can only come with one out.
We've got Wearmouth coming back soon, so Thompson could be the third striker. Plus recently, Saturday aside, we've really only been playing 1 up top, with Cartman and Thompson wider, so if we are going to reinvest the money in this season's squad, then surely other positions are a priority (if the right player is available of course)

User avatar
D_F_C
Posts: 1769
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:43 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by D_F_C » Tue Mar 07, 2017 1:43 pm

al_quaker wrote:
D_F_C wrote:
al_quaker wrote:Not a huge surprise, although it's a shame as I think he's a good player.

He will leave me with one of my favourite memories (from a regular game) - that goal v Salford.

Interesting from the Echo - he cost us £14k, and we're expected to get a similar fee from Buxton. Wonder if we're likely to see any movement in
Can't see Buxton paying anything for him, but if that's what's reported then fine. Surely we can't expect Saunders to be our third striker already after a handful of appearances.

I assume Gray has been told one in can only come with one out.
We've got Wearmouth coming back soon, so Thompson could be the third striker. Plus recently, Saturday aside, we've really only been playing 1 up top, with Cartman and Thompson wider, so if we are going to reinvest the money in this season's squad, then surely other positions are a priority (if the right player is available of course)
Hate to see what we do if Beck gets injured

al_quaker
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by al_quaker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:00 pm

D_F_C wrote:
Hate to see what we do if Beck gets injured
Indeed. A striker coming in wouldn't be that ridiculous - Beck could well leave in the summer, and is Cartman out of contract too? However, the real pressing concern is someone who could make us more solid - if we can find the right player for that then the playoffs look a more realistic aim for the end of the season (which would involve bonus money from a sell out at BM of course).

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:02 pm

D_F_C wrote:
al_quaker wrote:Not a huge surprise, although it's a shame as I think he's a good player.

He will leave me with one of my favourite memories (from a regular game) - that goal v Salford.

Interesting from the Echo - he cost us £14k, and we're expected to get a similar fee from Buxton. Wonder if we're likely to see any movement in
Can't see Buxton paying anything for him, but if that's what's reported then fine. Surely we can't expect Saunders to be our third striker already after a handful of appearances.

I assume Gray has been told one in can only come with one out.
Firstly I cannot understand why we paid that ridiculous amount for him and have then used him so sparingly this season. 7 Goals in 14 appearances is impressive. IF we don't recoup a large percentage of what we paid for him then MG has to take that on the chin in my view.

Understand the point about Saunders but I am not sure if he has a contract (does he?) like the young lad Milburn we signed recently? Is it time to blood Milburn? It was Shankly who said "If you are good enough you are old enough" wasn't it? Give Yoof a chance!

Darlogramps
Posts: 4903
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:41 pm

Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Undercovered
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 1:35 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Undercovered » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:43 pm

Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Image

Darlogramps
Posts: 4903
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by Darlogramps » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:56 pm

Undercovered wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Interesting response which is essentially:
"Move along, nothing to see here."

I said at the time something didn't add up with the Hardy deal and was berated for it. Now I've been proven correct.

The club's attitude to keeping within budget is massively relevant, regardless of who is in charge.

Surely we'd want reassurances that money will be spent wisely and sensibly, and that the club won't in future try to claim a deal is cost-neutral when it blatantly isn't.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

AndyPark
Posts: 11519
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by AndyPark » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:30 pm

Apparently the funds used to buy Hardy was borrowed from 2 fans by the club.

Paid back now though...

tezza
Posts: 997
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington
Contact:

Re: Transfer

Post by tezza » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:32 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Undercovered wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Interesting response which is essentially:
"Move along, nothing to see here."

I said at the time something didn't add up with the Hardy deal and was berated for it. Now I've been proven correct.

The club's attitude to keeping within budget is massively relevant, regardless of who is in charge.

Surely we'd want reassurances that money will be spent wisely and sensibly, and that the club won't in future try to claim a deal is cost-neutral when it blatantly isn't.

Gets you thinking what he total transfer outlay v transfer income is over the last 12-18 months

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:38 pm

AndyPark wrote:Apparently the funds used to buy Hardy was borrowed from 2 fans by the club.

Paid back now though...
Still means he cost £14,000 though?

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5654
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:38 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Undercovered wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Interesting response which is essentially:
"Move along, nothing to see here."

I said at the time something didn't add up with the Hardy deal and was berated for it. Now I've been proven correct.

The club's attitude to keeping within budget is massively relevant, regardless of who is in charge.

Surely we'd want reassurances that money will be spent wisely and sensibly, and that the club won't in future try to claim a deal is cost-neutral when it blatantly isn't.

Never totally understood the term cost neutral, unless you were looking at the fact we had removed a number of players from the budget in advance. Cost neutral was a very loose term, below is the statement.

John Tempest was running the club at the time and is still involved so it can still be asked.
Board wrote:“We have agreed this transfer with the club’s financial position fully in mind. There have been several components to this transfer and other transfer activity this week, which has brought about a cost neutral signing.”
It doesn't state we went out of budget though, Gray was given his budget at the start of the season and may or may not have stuck to it. Whether that budget should have been reduced is a different question as we all knew by Nov 2015 (Fans forum) that the budget was more than we expected to bring in due to BM delay.

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:40 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Undercovered wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Interesting response which is essentially:
"Move along, nothing to see here."

I said at the time something didn't add up with the Hardy deal and was berated for it. Now I've been proven correct.

The club's attitude to keeping within budget is massively relevant, regardless of who is in charge.

I agree with you Gramps. I guess it might be cost neutral if we get the £14,000 back from Buxton but I doubt it!

Surely we'd want reassurances that money will be spent wisely and sensibly, and that the club won't in future try to claim a deal is cost-neutral when it blatantly isn't.

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:44 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Undercovered wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Interesting response which is essentially:
"Move along, nothing to see here."

I said at the time something didn't add up with the Hardy deal and was berated for it. Now I've been proven correct.

The club's attitude to keeping within budget is massively relevant, regardless of who is in charge.

I agree with Gramps. I guess it could still be cost neutral if we get £14,000 back from Buxton but I doubt it!

Surely we'd want reassurances that money will be spent wisely and sensibly, and that the club won't in future try to claim a deal is cost-neutral when it blatantly isn't.

super_les_mcjannet
Posts: 5654
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by super_les_mcjannet » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:44 pm

bga wrote:
AndyPark wrote:Apparently the funds used to buy Hardy was borrowed from 2 fans by the club.

Paid back now though...
Still means he cost £14,000 though?
Are people generally surprised at this, the figure was mooted at the time and not too different to what we have paid in the past.

Josh Hine who Salford signed from Chorley cost a similar fee, Fylde have just signed a player for something similar, it's not that surprising, although for a club who had a budget known to be bigger than what was coming in it was a strange move.

If you want to sign a player who is performing at the top end and under contract at this level then you are looking at the going rate for clubs like Fylde, Salford, Darlo, Stockport etc. well financed clubs are asked to pay more than others.

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:46 pm

I cocked up my reply above, for the avoidance of doubt.

I agree with Gramps. I guess it could still be cost neutral if we get £14,000 back from Buxton but I doubt it!

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 4:59 pm

tezza wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Undercovered wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:Remember when the club tried to claim the Hardy deal was cost-neutral?

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.
What would be the point, that board is no longer around. I'm sure you'd be politely told that it isn't relevant now.
Interesting response which is essentially:
"Move along, nothing to see here."

I said at the time something didn't add up with the Hardy deal and was berated for it. Now I've been proven correct.

The club's attitude to keeping within budget is massively relevant, regardless of who is in charge.

Surely we'd want reassurances that money will be spent wisely and sensibly, and that the club won't in future try to claim a deal is cost-neutral when it blatantly isn't.

Gets you thinking what he total transfer outlay v transfer income is over the last 12-18 months
On page 10 of the Club accounts (to 30th June 2016) it shows we received £11,583 in "Transfer fees". Below this it shows we paid £24,000 in "Signing on" fees. Does this mean we paid out no transfer fees in that period, which would appear a bit odd in that the selling club received nothing but the players did?

al_quaker
Posts: 5520
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:51 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by al_quaker » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:01 pm

Have the accounts been released publicly yet?

LoidLucan
Posts: 3205
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by LoidLucan » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:05 pm

I'm surprised he was used so sparingly given an outlay of that proportion. I would have expected that showing that kind of faith (transfer ££££s) in his ability to deliver the goods we would then have a strategy in mind to play to his strengths and give him a proper chance to thrive. Reading some of Hardy's earlier twitter comments I think he felt he was given a raw deal in terms of game time. He may have had a point.

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:11 pm

al_quaker wrote:Have the accounts been released publicly yet?
Not as far as I know only to Shareholders?

bga
Posts: 1337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Transfer

Post by bga » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:13 pm

LoidLucan wrote:I'm surprised he was used so sparingly given an outlay of that proportion. I would have expected that showing that kind of faith (transfer ££££s) in his ability to deliver the goods we would then have a strategy in mind to play to his strengths and give him a proper chance to thrive. Reading some of Hardy's earlier twitter comments I think he felt he was given a raw deal in terms of game time. He may have had a point.
Or more worryingly we signed him without knowing what his strengths and weaknesses were?

Post Reply