Page 1 of 4

Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 10:32
by Lee
Ok, probably a very negative title. But as an outsider looking in BMD doesn't appear to be overwhelmed by the support he's getting from the board. His interviews are getting less and less positive.

I understand the need to balance the books and ship out one or two players (five or six if I had my way) to free up some funds, but surely GFH can allow McDermott to get his targets in now and work on getting the wage bill down during the rest of the transfer window.

Come on GFH. He appears to be a decent manager but he's no miracle worker. What's that saying about silk purses and pigs ears.

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 12:36
by Deleted User 2
Lee wrote:I understand the need to balance the books and ship out one or two players (five or six if I had my way) to free up some funds, but surely GFH can allow McDermott to get his targets in now and work on getting the wage bill down during the rest of the transfer window.

Easy to say, but if players and X and Y can't be shifted now, there's no guarantee they will be later in the transfer window, and I wouldn't borrow money now on the basis of paying it back when that happens.

It's frustrating, but if we are with the exact same squad come September 1st, I'll still consider it a progress on previous seasons, based on the fact that we've kept our best players and added something to them. Granted, not a lot, but something.

I've said it before, in the absence of any obvious signs of better, rich owners out there, we appear to be in the position of just a club that needs to build steadily and through its own means. It seems the next transfer will depend on more investment or commercial deal being secured, and as long as everything else about the way the club is run looks sensible (ticket prices, treatment of fans, commercial strategies), that is fine with me. It's not pleasant, but it's where we are.

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 12:49
by Sheepy
I think GFH are running the club on a reasonably sound financial basis, I think at the moment our situation is more to do with not overspending on the wage budget than it is penny pinching Bates style. I think we are all tarnished and cautious due to the Bates era at the club.

We do need a CD though and the other side of the coin is you have to speculate to accumulate...

Its a tricky one kids!

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 14:58
by Aces
Sheepy wrote:I think GFH are running the club on a reasonably sound financial basis, I think at the moment our situation is more to do with not overspending on the wage budget than it is penny pinching Bates style. I think we are all tarnished and cautious due to the Bates era at the club.

We do need a CD though and the other side of the coin is you have to speculate to accumulate...

Its a tricky one kids!



This might only be me, but if anyone is thinking about taking over one of the top ten teams potentially with future earnings, fans attendances and status in the game, like Super Leeds, you HAVE to have a lot of money to fund new players and pay good wages, if they haven't got this, then I don't see the point in them taking us over.

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 15:21
by SMorientes
Aces wrote:This might only be me, but if anyone is thinking about taking over one of the top ten teams potentially with future earnings, fans attendances and status in the game, like Super Leeds, you HAVE to have a lot of money to fund new players and pay good wages, if they haven't got this, then I don't see the point in them taking us over.


Not even that they got Bates out of the club, added a bit of transparency to the ownership, communicate with the fans, dropped ticket prices and enabled us to listen to games on the radio again?

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 15:34
by Aces
SMorientes wrote:
Aces wrote:This might only be me, but if anyone is thinking about taking over one of the top ten teams potentially with future earnings, fans attendances and status in the game, like Super Leeds, you HAVE to have a lot of money to fund new players and pay good wages, if they haven't got this, then I don't see the point in them taking us over.


Not even that they got Bates out of the club, added a bit of transparency to the ownership, communicate with the fans, dropped ticket prices and enabled us to listen to games on the radio again?



Well I didn't know all that, I'm not saying they aren't better than Bates, I thought they had some money behind them to buy some much needed players, who knows they might spend some more, I will then say, they are the dogs bollox.

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 15:43
by Fernandopartridge
With the new FFP Regulations coming into play I would say the future looks bright. You can only spend a certain percentage of what you earn as a club. The investment that GFH are seeking and seem to be successfully getting (SkyBet & Red Bull) along with the clubs branding and the crowds we get in would mean that we will have a lot more to spend on transfer fee's and wages over the coming years than the rival clubs around us. It might not be a quick fix, but in the long run the way GFH are going about business seems to be the most sensible, beneficial way for the future of the club.

Quite an interesting read on how the FFP is playing a part in the goings on at QPR.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/qpr-need-quick-premier-league-return-to-avoid-becoming-a-zombie-club-

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 16:03
by SMorientes
Fernandopartridge wrote:With the new FFP Regulations coming into play I would say the future looks bright. You can only spend a certain percentage of what you earn as a club. The investment that GFH are seeking and seem to be successfully getting (SkyBet & Red Bull) along with the clubs branding and the crowds we get in would mean that we will have a lot more to spend on transfer fee's and wages over the coming years than the rival clubs around us. It might not be a quick fix, but in the long run the way GFH are going about business seems to be the most sensible, beneficial way for the future of the club.

Quite an interesting read on how the FFP is playing a part in the goings on at QPR.
http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/latest-news/qpr-need-quick-premier-league-return-to-avoid-becoming-a-zombie-club-


Very interesting read that, heard a lot of people go on about FFP Regulations coming into play soon, but I'd never seen a demonstration of their implications. Gotta feel a bit for QPR fans, the club's in a tricky situation there. It will be even more interesting to see how much it actually impacts on transfer dealings in the coming seasons as the rules are implemented.
As you say, it makes it seem far, far more sensible to be a bit more careful with spending, and GFH seem to be treading the right path, as difficult as that is for impatient fans to swallow.

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 16:53
by isrodger
For all their good intentions, and they have made some good "easy win" off the pitch decisions, we can't get away from the fact that GFH haven't really got the funding to take the club forward. In terms of transfers like the signings of pugh, gray, varney, ashdown, Norris, Green ( a relative success), tonge & hall before him I can't help thinking the signing of hunt is a waste of resource. We have been desperate and I do mean desperate for pace, width and a commanding centre half for over a year now, but we sign another player who kind of plays off the point forward just like varney, McCormack, poleon, and arguably diuof. In critisism of BMc .....If our next acquisition is such a key signing why spend in excess the thick £1.5m on a player that adds little variety to our squad, ahead of getting your main man in? I am not having a go at the players mention above, it's just they are much of a muchness, squad players; not the type that are going to develop or feature in a top six side. GFHs funding of the acquisition of murphey was rightly lauded, but in fairness guys 3 or 4 signings of this nature is the least we should expect. GFH are a VC that came into this gig, with full knowledge of bates plunderings, sorry but making the best of a bad job really doesn't wash anymore.

Re: Doesn't look good does it?

PostPosted: 22 Jul 2013, 17:46
by Aces
I have to agree with isrodger, good post mate. Personally I expected between £5 and £7 million to be spent on new players, like I said before, anyone taking over such a BIG club like Leeds, should be coming in with SOME money to spend, £5 to £7 million is the least I expected, it doesn't mean we would be guaranteed promotion, but it would mean we were back in the game, it looks to be much the same as before to me. Hope I'm wrong, I'm sounding like a whinger. Lol