Rudkin

[Bayfox]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

No, it doesn’t. 

Nah keeping them around, paying them 1000s and letting them walk away for free makes much more sense.

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

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.

I don't disagree. But that's not what we've actually done with that many players either. 

 

When you stack up the activity of those clubs around us over the last 4-5 years on players that they wanted to move on, we come out really badly and it's of no surprise. 

 

Here we are in mid August having the exact same issues. We've even managed to get these players salaries cut by up to 40% and yet none of them have left. The common denominator is us, journos have alluded to the fees we ask for and I don't think we're being unreasonable to assume the fault lies with us and us only.

 

It comes down to a few key decisions. If you have players who no longer want to be here and aren't important 1st team players and you and the player are happy to part ways under the right circumstance then often compromise is needed. I understand the nuances of how loan fees vs amortisation of transfer fees for players with several years left on their contract can be equally as beneficial as selling at a big loss but we've also felt the downsides to holding on to players who don't want to be here and close to running down their contracts. There's also no cases of such players going on loan and either coming back here and being a huge asset to us again or us getting a satisfactory transfer fee for at a later date.

 

All that happens is we're at stalemate and have been for a few years now. Surely the club understand that whilst it's disappointing buying clubs won't offer what we value players (and seemingly are happy to whiff up to any club who we want players from) that if we continue to be in a position of multiple players needing to be moved on and multiple players with less than a year on that contract that we may have to soften our stance?

 

It'll be up to 17 players leave on a bosman over 2 years if we get to 2024 and all 10 put of contract leave when their contracts expire. The standard we hold pur club to has to be better than this.

[Daggers]

[Babylon]

9 hours ago, Bayfox said:

Nah keeping them around, paying them 1000s and letting them walk away for free makes much more sense.

Loans can be financially more beneficial. And yes, in some cases keeping a player and using them can make more sense, especially when budgets are tight.

 

As per my example of last summer, we had no money to spend until late. If you are faced with two options, using Mendy as an example. Let's say someone offers you a couple of million for him, yet you've got no money other than what you bring in. You are faced with the footballing and financial decision as to whether it makes more sense to keep the player, knowing he'll go on a free. Or replace him with someone you don't think is as good as him. Neither option is what you really want to do, you'd rather sell for a nice fee and get a great replacement... but... if you can't do that, you are faced with that choice. 

[Babylon]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I don't disagree. But that's not what we've actually done with that many players either. 

 

When you stack up the activity of those clubs around us over the last 4-5 years on players that they wanted to move on, we come out really badly and it's of no surprise. 

 

Here we are in mid August having the exact same issues. We've even managed to get these players salaries cut by up to 40% and yet none of them have left. The common denominator is us, journos have alluded to the fees we ask for and I don't think we're being unreasonable to assume the fault lies with us and us only.

 

It comes down to a few key decisions. If you have players who no longer want to be here and aren't important 1st team players and you and the player are happy to part ways under the right circumstance then often compromise is needed. I understand the nuances of how loan fees vs amortisation of transfer fees for players with several years left on their contract can be equally as beneficial as selling at a big loss but we've also felt the downsides to holding on to players who don't want to be here and close to running down their contracts. There's also no cases of such players going on loan and either coming back here and being a huge asset to us again or us getting a satisfactory transfer fee for at a later date.

 

All that happens is we're at stalemate and have been for a few years now. Surely the club understand that whilst it's disappointing buying clubs won't offer what we value players (and seemingly are happy to whiff up to any club who we want players from) that if we continue to be in a position of multiple players needing to be moved on and multiple players with less than a year on that contract that we may have to soften our stance?

 

It'll be up to 17 players leave on a bosman over 2 years if we get to 2024 and all 10 put of contract leave when their contracts expire. The standard we hold pur club to has to be better than this.

As I've tried to say in numerous posts, there is going to be far more to it than us asking stupid fees for players. Maddison and Barnes went below what they are probably worth now, considering what others are going for. People reckoned Fofana was worth £100m+.

 

We ended up paying Silva off to get him to leave, one of the few occasions. Do you not think if we'd had any sort of offer that wasn't financially terrible, we'd have taken it? We got decent money for Iborra and Musa, we took a loss on Rachid, got money for Gray, Zieler, Lawrence. If we were willing to accept a couple of million loan fee for slimani each season, I'm fairly are we'd have napped someone's hand off if they offered as little as £6-8m, if they were covering most of the wages. 

 

It was only really in the last couple of years we've not got money for players, but that's two fold. Players running down contracts purposely, the landscape changed and better players than ours were doing the same to get power back. And the what I think is the biggest reason, the financial constraints we placed ourselves under, unable to offer renewals, unable to afford replacements. We effectively snookered ourself. 

 

 

[Foxin_Mad]

Jon Rudkin is an absolute cluster****. How this incompetent halfwit has still hot a top job at the club is beyond Me. This is serious management incompetence and can quickly lead to a unravelling at the club. Any bit of luck we have papers over the sheer ineptitude of this arrogant bell piece. 

Edited 16 August 2023 by Foxin_Mad

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

As I've tried to say in numerous posts, there is going to be far more to it than us asking stupid fees for players. Maddison and Barnes went below what they are probably worth now, considering what others are going for. People reckoned Fofana was worth £100m+.

 

We ended up paying Silva off to get him to leave, one of the few occasions. Do you not think if we'd had any sort of offer that wasn't financially terrible, we'd have taken it? We got decent money for Iborra and Musa, we took a loss on Rachid, got money for Gray, Zieler, Lawrence. If we were willing to accept a couple of million loan fee for slimani each season, I'm fairly are we'd have napped someone's hand off if they offered as little as £6-8m, if they were covering most of the wages. 

 

It was only really in the last couple of years we've not got money for players, but that's two fold. Players running down contracts purposely, the landscape changed and better players than ours were doing the same to get power back. And the what I think is the biggest reason, the financial constraints we placed ourselves under, unable to offer renewals, unable to afford replacements. We effectively snookered ourself. 

 

 

I would be interested to hear you views on who is actually responsible for creating this situation?   

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

I would be interested to hear you views on who is actually responsible for creating this situation?   

I'm not sure there is anyone who can answer that question outside of a few people at KP and the club. 

 

Did Rudkin get told to just get the deals done that managers wanted and KP has his back. Did that all change after his death, with the KP board and his widow being ultimately the ones who agree or deny any backing now. 

 

How much impact did covid have? 

 

Who ultimately decided we would back Rodgers and move away from the sale each season model, which is where most of our cash flow came from. That backing, you'd think would have to come from above Rudkin. 

 

Should, despite any promises of backing he been more diligent in terms of wage to turnover percentages. Would anyone care about that if the signings had been good? (They didn't when things were going well).

 

Was there pressure to keep chasing successes from above, despite the financial implications (needing to expand squad for Europe).

 

Who handed over the keys to Rodgers? 

 

Ultimately it comes down to Rudkin, Top, The board, and KP. I very much doubt any of them walk away without a percentage of blame from it. 

 

If Rudkin was the boogie man people make him out to be, and he'd not been steered in come circumstances by those above his pay grade, I doubt he'd still be in a job. Ultimately he'll present things to the board and those above him to be signed off. 

 

 

[Albert]

20 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I don't disagree. But that's not what we've actually done with that many players either. 

 

When you stack up the activity of those clubs around us over the last 4-5 years on players that they wanted to move on, we come out really badly and it's of no surprise. 

 

Here we are in mid August having the exact same issues. We've even managed to get these players salaries cut by up to 40% and yet none of them have left. The common denominator is us, journos have alluded to the fees we ask for and I don't think we're being unreasonable to assume the fault lies with us and us only.

 

It comes down to a few key decisions. If you have players who no longer want to be here and aren't important 1st team players and you and the player are happy to part ways under the right circumstance then often compromise is needed. I understand the nuances of how loan fees vs amortisation of transfer fees for players with several years left on their contract can be equally as beneficial as selling at a big loss but we've also felt the downsides to holding on to players who don't want to be here and close to running down their contracts. There's also no cases of such players going on loan and either coming back here and being a huge asset to us again or us getting a satisfactory transfer fee for at a later date.

 

All that happens is we're at stalemate and have been for a few years now. Surely the club understand that whilst it's disappointing buying clubs won't offer what we value players (and seemingly are happy to whiff up to any club who we want players from) that if we continue to be in a position of multiple players needing to be moved on and multiple players with less than a year on that contract that we may have to soften our stance?

 

It'll be up to 17 players leave on a bosman over 2 years if we get to 2024 and all 10 put of contract leave when their contracts expire. The standard we hold pur club to has to be better than this.

Who were the clubs around us & what were their transfer activities you’re comparing with ours? 

 

 

 

 

[Ric Flair]

2 minutes ago, Albert said:

Who were the clubs around us & what were their transfer activities you’re comparing with ours? 

 

 

 

 

Those closest to us in wages West Ham, Everton, Wolves. I ignored any of the greedy 6 as its easy for them to flog players.

[SafewayFox]

I’m surprised there hasn’t been more “hindsight” posts doing the rounds on this thread.

 

I thought I’d rehash a previous comment aimed at our current staleness as a club - looking at clubs in the PL outside the so called top 7’s DoF.

 

Brighton - David Weir, made permanent in 2022 after Ashworth joined Newcastle.

 

Aston Villa - Damian Vidagant, June 2023

 

Everton - Kevin Thelwell, February 2022

 

There are more but this just confirms how our model could be considered as stale, reactive and passive at best.

 

Which sadly was evident with our transfer window last summer, I’m not a Rodgers fan but he definitely was not helped by Rudkin and co.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

11 hours ago, Babylon said:

If Rudkin was the boogie man people make him out to be, and he'd not been steered in come circumstances by those above his pay grade, I doubt he'd still be in a job. Ultimately he'll present things to the board and those above him to be signed off. 

 

 

This is just pure bollocks. Sadly.

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

This is just pure bollocks. Sadly.

I hope you've got a recorded statement from Top saying that or you know whats coming 

[Ric Flair]

We've 15 days of the window remaining, you could argue there's 9-10 players to leave and 4-5 come in. Jon needs to be able to finalise a deal a day every day until September 1st.

 

😳

[Jabfox]

15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We've 15 days of the window remaining, you could argue there's 9-10 players to leave and 4-5 come in. Jon needs to be able to finalise a deal a day every day until September 1st.

 

😳

Frightening when you put it that way! Issue is reintegrating those players (castange, daka, soumare) if we can’t shift em 

[Albert]

30 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Those closest to us in wages West Ham, Everton, Wolves. I ignored any of the greedy 6 as its easy for them to flog 

Come on Ric mate,

Which transfers? 

If you’re comparing our wages to those closest to us you can’t ignore our Net spends.

 

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

32 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We've 15 days of the window remaining, you could argue there's 9-10 players to leave and 4-5 come in. Jon needs to be able to finalise a deal a day every day until September 1st.

 

😳

Can't see us doing more than 5 total with *redacted* in charge!

[Ric Flair]

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

Come on Ric mate,

Which transfers? 

If you’re comparing our wages to those closest to us you can’t ignore our Net spends.

 

 

 

I think you've joined this half way through. In the last 4-5 years we have had a complete inability to sell players we no longer want or who's contract was expiring. We've something astonishing like 4 transfers since 2018/19.

 

Gray

Ghezzal

Diabate

Schmeichel

 

All for a few million. Over the same period, teams close to use in terms of wages (where it can then be difficult to move players on) have managed to get fees for players under similar circumstances (no longer wanted/contracts expiring) many more times. 

 

I was just highlighting how the conveyor belt of outgoings at our club has ground to a halt, only this summer have we had 8 players leave on frees transfers and it's looking likely another 10 next summer that we won't have been able to get fees for this summer. Not a healthy future.

 

[coolhandfox]

50 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We've 15 days of the window remaining, you could argue there's 9-10 players to leave and 4-5 come in. Jon needs to be able to finalise a deal a day every day until September 1st.

 

😳

Who your 10 

[The_Rorab]

3 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Who your 10 

It seems Maresca doesn't rate Iversen, Ward, Souttar, Thomas, Soumare, and Daka, in varying degrees, Castagne clearly wants to leave and really if we can get in replacements with their contracts on the verge of expiring next year we really should be trying to move on some combination of Vestergaard, Praet, Ndidi, Nacho, Hamza this year in order to not lose all of them on frees next year and make losses on them.

 

Obviously nowhere near all that will happen - but this window has been crying out for us to make some sort of attempt to shift the huge swathes of surplus players we have on our books but for whatever reasons we've yet again utterly failed in that regards thusfar.

Edited 17 August 2023 by The_Rorab

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

This is just pure bollocks. Sadly.

Yeah sure, he runs the club and makes all decisions despite not even being in the board. 
 

I’ve had people telling me for weeks he didn’t want Maresca, Top made that decision…. Now he’s a loan wolf making all the decisions again. 

Edited 17 August 2023 by Babylon

[Albert]

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I think you've joined this half way through. In the last 4-5 years we have had a complete inability to sell players we no longer want or who's contract was expiring. We've something astonishing like 4 transfers since 2018/19.

 

Gray

Ghezzal

Diabate

Schmeichel

 

All for a few million. Over the same period, teams close to use in terms of wages (where it can then be difficult to move players on) have managed to get fees for players under similar circumstances (no longer wanted/contracts expiring) many more times. 

 

I was just highlighting how the conveyor belt of outgoings at our club has ground to a halt, only this summer have we had 8 players leave on frees transfers and it's looking likely another 10 next summer that we won't have been able to get fees for this summer. Not a healthy future.

 

When you look at the actual Expenditure/Income/Net figures over that period which teams did better than us?

[1972 Fox]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

Yeah sure, he runs the club and makes all decisions despite not even being in the board. 
 

I’ve had people telling me for weeks he didn’t want Maresca, Top made that decision…. Now he’s a loan wolf making all the decisions again. 

When exactly did you become an apologist for the club and its alarming recent failings Babylon?

 

Edited 17 August 2023 by Blue Fox 72

[Dan LCFC]

This last page on here is classic of this place. So what we'll do is identify that the process is totally bogus yet absolve every specific individual of the blame so that nobody is at fault.

 

There is just simply no way Rudkin can be absolved of blame. If he isn't at fault, then what exactly is he in his role for?

 

Top isn't off the hook at all either, as he is ultimately the one who employs him, and continues to do so, seemingly allowing him to elevate further up the poorer he does.

 

It's a mess. It's gone pretty much entirely as I expected. Thankfully Maresca might apply enough paper over the cracks to get us up.

[mozartfox]

I would not be surprised if EM throws his toys out of the pram when Rudkin fails to move out the Dead-wood,  preventing him from recruiting further.
 

The next 14 days could be Rudkin’s defining moment?