Rudkin

[Jimmy]

just have Rudkin become chairman of KP racing and find a new DOF

[kingkisnorbo]

29 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Big difference having an opinion and speaking as if something is fact. 

1. Rudkin spends too much time on KP Racing and it impacts the club.
2. If Rudkin is being asked to work on KP Racing and it's impacting his ability to do his job, it needs to stop.  

 

Post two, nobody would bat an eyelid and I'm sure 99.9999% are going to agree. Post one on the other hand would probably get you a reply of, "'how do you know what he does for them and whether it impacts his role "

 

Using guess work to slate people, when you have absolutely NO IDEA of the inner workings is just pointless really. We all fall into it, presuming things when we don't know, but stirring up the vitriol is not great. 

 

 

I'm talking about his role as chief of footballing operations, which by even the most dimwitted person's estimations had a lot to do with what went on. Articles like Percy's in May that explicitly told us how badly Rudkin had dealt with player contract situations. If the owner had anything about him, Rudkin would have been the first out the door. 

[Dan LCFC]

6 hours ago, Babylon said:

Where is the proof of this?

 

I'll say it again, just because someone is sold, doesn't make it a better deal than a loan. 

It does if you aren't going to play them, which has happened with us numerous times.

[westernpark]

The short sightedness of those even above Rudkin will equate the current winning of games, as job well done for everybody. There has been no forward planning since Pearson left this club, they will expect us to go up with this horribly balanced squad with ease. It is so obvious that Maresca named those two goalkeepers on the bench to prove a point, similar to Pep when he named 6 subs against Burnley a few seasons ago and said he needed better depth.

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, Lako42 said:

How did the post season review go? 

 

Mike Stowell takes the blame!

[Sol thewall Bamba]

7 hours ago, Babylon said:

Where is the proof of this?

 

I'll say it again, just because someone is sold, doesn't make it a better deal than a loan. 

 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

It does if you aren't going to play them, which has happened with us numerous times.

No, it doesn’t. 

[Babylon]

14 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

 

And that’s proof of what? 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, kingkisnorbo said:

I'm talking about his role as chief of footballing operations, which by even the most dimwitted person's estimations had a lot to do with what went on. Articles like Percy's in May that explicitly told us how badly Rudkin had dealt with player contract situations. If the owner had anything about him, Rudkin would have been the first out the door. 

Percy's article didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. Players wouldn't sign contracts, nothing Rudkin can do about that... he's already accused of paying too much. So safe to assume they were decent offers. 

 

If, lets say KP said we've got your back just get deals done for players... then, further down the line KP say, sorry John we don't actually have your back. We now don't have a pot to piss in... that his fault? The reality is, we don't know what conversations take place. 

 

Clearly, he's not going to be blameless in everything, but without cold hard facts to abuse is totally unwarranted. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

23 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

We've clearly learnt absolutely nothing in this regard, we're still demanding exorbitant fees for players its in our interests to have off the books.

 

8 hours ago, Babylon said:

Where is the proof of this?

 

24 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Not sure I can make it much clearer but I can try if you want?

[Babylon]

Just now, Sol thewall Bamba said:

 

 

Not sure I can make it much clearer but I can try if you want?

Could you point out where that proves we're asking "exorbitant fees". 

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Could you point out where that proves we're asking "exorbitant fees". 

No hard proof, but we obviously doing something that inhibits players leaving, and its likely ££ related.  I think KP has trouble stomaching losses on assets.

 

Also as a player if you witnessing cast out squad members been held prisoner because "valuation isnt met" and "we want you sold not loaned", then to avoid same fate you let contract run down.

Edited 15 August 2023 by Chrysalis

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

 

 

Not sure I can make it much clearer but I can try if you want?

 Very clear to me as well

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Could you point out where that proves we're asking "exorbitant fees". 

It is obvious that the club dines out on the fact we can sell good players for high fees. That's bloody easy.

 

It is also obvious that the club is incapable of shifting average players for any decent fee either because they're incapable of compromising or ask for too much.

 

Look at the record in the last five years and see who we've sold for decent money outside of chilwell, maguire, maddison, Barnes and fofana. We've basically given away players like Gray and others.

 

You don't have to be so difficult about this - the evidence is there for us all to see.

[mozartfox]

We need to cut our losses and save on wages.  A very thick line needs to be drawn under the horrid mess we have gotten into, which has been caused by the incompetence of people running this Club. Forget holding out for fees no other Club will ever pay - this will just piss of EM.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Could you point out where that proves we're asking "exorbitant fees". 

Being deliberately obtuse doesn't mean you're winning. Very strange hill to die on defending a bloke with a terrible reputation both inside and outside the club. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Being deliberately obtuse doesn't mean you're winning. Very strange hill to die on defending a bloke with a terrible reputation both inside and outside the club. 

I’m not being obtuse, you are yet to show how we are asking for exorbitant fees. All the link shows is that we would rather sell, which is pretty obvious.
 

But if a loan deal pays more than a sale, you take the loan. 

 

I’m defending facts, use some. 

[Ric Flair]

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I’m not being obtuse, you are yet to show how we are asking for exorbitant fees. All the link shows is that we would rather sell, which is pretty obvious.
 

But if a loan deal pays more than a sale, you take the loan. 

 

I’m defending facts, use some. 

What evidence is there we aren't asking for exorbitant fees? Because we haven't sold a single player who we've wanted to get rid of in the last 4 years for more than £2m. How do you explain that? 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

It is obvious that the club dines out on the fact we can sell good players for high fees. That's bloody easy.

 

It is also obvious that the club is incapable of shifting average players for any decent fee either because they're incapable of compromising or ask for too much.

 

Look at the record in the last five years and see who we've sold for decent money outside of chilwell, maguire, maddison, Barnes and fofana. We've basically given away players like Gray and others.

 

You don't have to be so difficult about this - the evidence is there for us all to see.

So we’ve given away players like Gray, accepted cut price offers for Verstergaard, who turned down a move…. But apparently we ask too much. 
 

Sounds to me like you evidence is pretty weak, if it contradicts what you are saying. 
 

I’ll say it again, a loan can pay more than a sale. Selling players doesn’t instantly make it a better deal. Keeping a player can be better than getting a pittance for them. Take Mendy and Amartey for instance. Having them in the squad was more useful than selling them for a few hundred grand or even a million or two, when you consider how much replacements probably would have cost.

 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

What evidence is there we aren't asking for exorbitant fees? Because we haven't sold a single player who we've wanted to get rid of in the last 4 years for more than £2m. How do you explain that? 

The burden of proof isn’t on me!

 

In one breath, we’ve got people saying Maddison and Barnes were sold under market value for a quick sale. We had people saying Fofana was sold for under what he should, you can’t have it both ways. 

 

Firstly, don’t sign players in the wrong age bracket. Don’t sign poor players. Don’t overpay them. 
 

Then, don’t get yourself into a financial mess whereby “cutting your losses” isn’t a particularly viable option, due to the fact players would cost vastly more to replace than you’d get in. 
 

As I said to you the other day, buying a player for £33m and selling him for £3m, doesn’t make other clubs transfer geniuses for shifting dead wood.
 

There are people in here daily saying we should “cancel” or “pay up” contracts, like it actually remotely makes any financial sense to do.

 

 

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

The burden of proof isn’t on me!

 

In one breath, we’ve got people saying Maddison and Barnes were sold under market value for a quick sale. We had people saying Fofana was sold for under what he should, you can’t have it both ways. 

 

Firstly, don’t sign players in the wrong age bracket. Don’t sign poor players. Don’t overpay them. 
 

Then, don’t get yourself into a financial mess whereby “cutting your losses” isn’t a particularly viable option, due to the fact players would cost vastly more to replace than you’d get in. 
 

As I said to you the other day, buying a player for £33m and selling him for £3m, doesn’t make other clubs transfer geniuses for shifting dead wood.
 

There are people in here daily saying we should “cancel” or “pay up” contracts, like it actually remotely makes any financial sense to do.

 

 

Sorry but you're defending the club over an issue that has been a major downfall of ours.

 

We simply cannot move on players who we no longer want. Other clubs around us have been able to do so and the example of getting £3m when signed for £33m is an isolated case. We haven't even done that, we've signed them for £30-40m and then had to wait until they leave on a free at the end of their contracts.

 

I repeat, we have not been able to sell a single player since 2018/19 for a fee of more than £2m for a player who we no longer wanted to keep. Astonishing.

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

No hard proof, but we obviously doing something that inhibits players leaving, and its likely ££ related.  I think KP has trouble stomaching losses on assets.

 

Also as a player if you witnessing cast out squad members been held prisoner because "valuation isnt met" and "we want you sold not loaned", then to avoid same fate you let contract run down.

There could be many reasons all linked as to why we haven’t sold players, as I intimated in another post. 
 

Average players, earning more than they are worth and in the wrong age bracket is a good start. It makes them undesirable, and it makes moving undesirable for them or their agents. 
 

Chuck into that being financially limited for a while. If you don’t have the funds to replace players with anyone better, then you have to ask what’s the point. MAYBE we could have sold Mendy last summer for instance, but with no budget to buy a replacement for the fee you are likely to receive, then you have the decision to make as to whether it’s better in footballing sense to keep what you have.

 

Then you have dickheads like Rodgers in charge, and we have actual quotes by his previous players about how bids were accepted and how what he told them to their face contradicts what he did behind their back. See Andy Carrol comments, that sound’s strikingly like what happened with Vestergaard.
 

Then, loaning players can be better than selling depending on what’s on the table, with loan fees, and wage contributions etc. 

 

MAYBE we are asking too much. Once again, without financial knowledge down to the smallest detail we don’t know. But these things are generally far more complicated than that. 

[Babylon]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Sorry but you're defending the club over an issue that has been a major downfall of ours.

 

We simply cannot move on players who we no longer want. Other clubs around us have been able to do so and the example of getting £3m when signed for £33m is an isolated case. We haven't even done that, we've signed them for £30-40m and then had to wait until they leave on a free at the end of their contracts.

 

I repeat, we have not been able to sell a single player since 2018/19 for a fee of more than £2m for a player who we no longer wanted to keep. Astonishing.

No we loaned them out and got loan fees, see Slimani £2m loan fee and all wages covered by Newcastle for just a few months. 

[Ric Flair]

Just now, Babylon said:

No we loaned them out and got loan fees, see Slimani £2m loan fee and all wages covered by Newcastle for just a few months. 

Still not breached that lofty £2m though have we. What a stat.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Still not breached that lofty £2m though have we. What a stat.

That’s from one loan, he went on numerous loans. The French based articles suggest the Monaco loan fee was nearing €2m. 

 

If a player has three loans for £2m a go and they cover most of their wages. It’s better than selling for £4m and subsidising the wages at a greater percentage. 
 

It simply cannot be judged as player sold = good. Player loaned = bad.