Transfer

[HarrytheQuaker]

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

[KCChiefs]

Scott to Port Vale according to twitter.

[AndyPark]

Scott to Port Vale according to twitter.

[coles]

That scott rumour was a wind up come on seriously

[tezza]

Maida Vale more like

[bigrichiet]

Hardy.

cheers for the goals

[al_quaker]

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

[Geordie Quaker]

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_F_C]

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]

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

[al_quaker]

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)

[D_F_C]

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]

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]

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]

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

Would love to bring this up at the next fans' forum.

[Undercovered]

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.

[Darlogramps]

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.

[AndyPark]

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

Paid back now though...

[tezza]

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]

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]

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.

“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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Have the accounts been released publicly yet?

[LoidLucan]

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]

Have the accounts been released publicly yet?

Not as far as I know only to Shareholders?

[bga]

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?