Tekel Towers » Souttar

RRDH · 07/7/2015 6:26 pm

Lose him this closed season and I struggle to see how any of us can be positive. That's what it's come down to for me. I hope the Club is giving his re-signing 100% attention, selling the fact that he starts regularly and we will build the team around him the next year or two. Convinced we will get double what we would get this summer if we sold him in a couple of years.

Macho Man · 07/7/2015 6:33 pm

The word is he doesn't rate McNamara and his stooges, his old boy is acting as his agent and Souttar isn't going to sign.

If that's the case and we also have a very exciting prospect in Harry Souttar then surely the board have got to assess what is best for the club.

A vision-less, tactic-less, comes across like he couldn't give a toss manager or two very exciting football players that could help the club achieve things, help themselves achieve things and make the club and themselves a bit of money in the process. I know who my priorities would lie with and it ain't the manager who has been given more chances than he deserves.

RRDH · 07/7/2015 6:44 pm

First sentence doesnt/wouldnt surprise me.

honestly is sleighs me that he is profiting on player sales. I honestly believe he is happy with the squad because 5 or 6 of the squad will be boys, whichever show potential will be sold and he gets paid his wedge. Cant sell on experience so I dont expect too many experienced players coming in to help. Simple as that. He can say hes doing the club a favor by reducing the debt and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dont know how or why some support are ok with it. Makes me feel sick like.

07/7/2015 7:08 pm

RRDH wrote:
First sentence doesnt/wouldnt surprise me.

honestly is sleighs me that he is profiting on player sales. I honestly believe he is happy with the squad because 5 or 6 of the squad will be boys, whichever show potential will be sold and he gets paid his wedge. Cant sell on experience so I dont expect too many experienced players coming in to help. Simple as that. He can say hes doing the club a favor by reducing the debt and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dont know how or why some support are ok with it. Makes me feel sick like.

Don't think anyone has an issue with 5 or 6 of the squad being "boys" the issue IMO is with the quality of the experienced players Paton, Bilate, Anier etc etc.

Like it or lump it we are a selling club and that means blooding young players.

If anyone has an alternative plan to bring in revenue I've yet to see it.

RRDH · 07/7/2015 7:14 pm

scarpia wrote:
RRDH wrote:
First sentence doesnt/wouldnt surprise me.

honestly is sleighs me that he is profiting on player sales. I honestly believe he is happy with the squad because 5 or 6 of the squad will be boys, whichever show potential will be sold and he gets paid his wedge. Cant sell on experience so I dont expect too many experienced players coming in to help. Simple as that. He can say hes doing the club a favor by reducing the debt and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dont know how or why some support are ok with it. Makes me feel sick like.

Don't think anyone has an issue with 5 or 6 of the squad being "boys" the issue IMO is with the quality of the experienced players Paton, Bilate, Anier etc etc.

Like it or lump it we are a selling club and that means blooding young players.

If anyone has an alternative plan to bring in revenue I've yet to see it.

We've always been a selling club and always will be. I agree but think about that and then ask yourself, have our managers always gotten a wedge off player sales?

bowers · 07/7/2015 7:16 pm

Have we ever sold 5 top players in 12 month?

Last edited by bowers (07/7/2015 7:16 pm)

Sieb22 · 07/7/2015 7:25 pm

RRDH wrote:
First sentence doesnt/wouldnt surprise me.

honestly is sleighs me that he is profiting on player sales. I honestly believe he is happy with the squad because 5 or 6 of the squad will be boys, whichever show potential will be sold and he gets paid his wedge. Cant sell on experience so I dont expect too many experienced players coming in to help. Simple as that. He can say hes doing the club a favor by reducing the debt and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dont know how or why some support are ok with it. Makes me feel sick like.

To be honest RRDH this is not a new thing for managers getting a percentage of the transfer fee, rightly or wrongly. Remember Ian Holloway got just over £600'000 for the sale of Charlie Adam to Liverpool, also Harry Redknapp and Avram Grant used to have a 10% sell on fee from all outgoing transfers as well, to name but two.

It's more common than we think, it's just not that much common knowledge due to the two parties keeping it private, which Thompson and McNamara waived when questioned about the recent transfers and where the cash was going.

It's the recent trend of managers who are on a 'low' basic wage, and with Darren Jackson being a former agent, I would imagine, he would have advised McNamara with the sell on clauses etc.

I'm not defending this, or McNamara, or Stevie Thompson. But would we have a problem if we had someone like Ian Cathro as the next manager if he was on the same sort of deal and clauses?

Just playing devil's advocate

07/7/2015 7:28 pm

bowers wrote:
Have we ever sold 5 top players in 12 month?

Off the top of my head no, but then again the players didn't want to re-sign and we did have debt to clear.

Btw I thought selling GMS when we did and for what we did was stupid, and thought they could have taken a chance on hanging on to Armstrong for six months - couldn't really argue with the other ones though.

bowers · 07/7/2015 7:45 pm

scarpia wrote:
bowers wrote:
Have we ever sold 5 top players in 12 month?

Off the top of my head no, but then again the players didn't want to re-sign and we did have debt to clear.

Btw I thought selling GMS when we did and for what we did was stupid, and thought they could have taken a chance on hanging on to Armstrong for six months - couldn't really argue with the other ones though.

Our bank debt had been cleared and repayment of the buyout of that was sorted before we started punting players so we didnt need to.

RRDH · 07/7/2015 7:49 pm

Sieb22 wrote:
RRDH wrote:
First sentence doesnt/wouldnt surprise me.

honestly is sleighs me that he is profiting on player sales. I honestly believe he is happy with the squad because 5 or 6 of the squad will be boys, whichever show potential will be sold and he gets paid his wedge. Cant sell on experience so I dont expect too many experienced players coming in to help. Simple as that. He can say hes doing the club a favor by reducing the debt and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dont know how or why some support are ok with it. Makes me feel sick like.

To be honest RRDH this is not a new thing for managers getting a percentage of the transfer fee, rightly or wrongly. Remember Ian Holloway got just over £600'000 for the sale of Charlie Adam to Liverpool, also Harry Redknapp and Avram Grant used to have a 10% sell on fee from all outgoing transfers as well, to name but two.

It's more common than we think, it's just not that much common knowledge due to the two parties keeping it private, which Thompson and McNamara waived when questioned about the recent transfers and where the cash was going.

It's the recent trend of managers who are on a 'low' basic wage, and with Darren Jackson being a former agent, I would imagine, he would have advised McNamara with the sell on clauses etc.

I'm not defending this, or McNamara, or Stevie Thompson. But would we have a problem if we had someone like Ian Cathro as the next manager if he was on the same sort of deal and clauses?

Just playing devil's advocate

Hiya Sieb,

Harry Redknapp - twitchy mercenary crook. Didnt surprise me.
Ian Holloway - remember that, also remember Blackpool fans in uproar about it. IH has more than a few enemies in football.
Avram Grant: where at?

It happens at clubs in or around championship level in England but not as common as United would have you believe Sieb and am not going to conceded that it's a trend in football either.

That said, even if it was, it's not right at my Club & while we've always been a selling club... long before JMAC came on the seen, why should he be the one manager we bring in who f ucking profits from it? Firmly believe Jackson had something to do with at as you mention.

Souttar is an acid test as far as im concerned. Who is his agent?

07/7/2015 7:52 pm

bowers wrote:
scarpia wrote:
bowers wrote:
Have we ever sold 5 top players in 12 month?

Off the top of my head no, but then again the players didn't want to re-sign and we did have debt to clear.

Btw I thought selling GMS when we did and for what we did was stupid, and thought they could have taken a chance on hanging on to Armstrong for six months - couldn't really argue with the other ones though.

Our bank debt had been cleared and repayment of the buyout of that was sorted before we started punting players so we didnt need to.

Our bank debt was cleared partially through payment, partially through the bank taking a haircut and through £2.1m worth of term loans by unnamed individuals - we also had around £652k of related party loans - I think you have made the mistake of confusing bank debt with debt.

bowers · 07/7/2015 8:04 pm

scarpia wrote:
bowers wrote:
scarpia wrote:

Off the top of my head no, but then again the players didn't want to re-sign and we did have debt to clear.

Btw I thought selling GMS when we did and for what we did was stupid, and thought they could have taken a chance on hanging on to Armstrong for six months - couldn't really argue with the other ones though.

Our bank debt had been cleared and repayment of the buyout of that was sorted before we started punting players so we didnt need to.

Our bank debt was cleared partially through payment, partially through the bank taking a haircut and through £2.1m worth of term loans by unnamed individuals - we also had around £652k of related party loans - I think you have made the mistake of confusing bank debt with debt.

i said in my post our bank debt was cleared.
the repayment was sorted - meaning the set amount to the people who stumped up the cash.
there was no pressure for us to sell to repay these people.

that is what i ment in my post.

Beardy23 · 07/7/2015 8:04 pm

I don't think Souttar has an agent, his Dad deals with stuff for John and Harry

huntedbyafreak · 07/7/2015 8:11 pm

Has he not recently got JohnViola as an agent?

Sieb22 · 07/7/2015 8:23 pm

scarpia wrote:
bowers wrote:
scarpia wrote:

Off the top of my head no, but then again the players didn't want to re-sign and we did have debt to clear.

Btw I thought selling GMS when we did and for what we did was stupid, and thought they could have taken a chance on hanging on to Armstrong for six months - couldn't really argue with the other ones though.

Our bank debt had been cleared and repayment of the buyout of that was sorted before we started punting players so we didnt need to.

Our bank debt was cleared partially through payment, partially through the bank taking a haircut and through £2.1m worth of term loans by unnamed individuals - we also had around £652k of related party loans - I think you have made the mistake of confusing bank debt with debt.

Bit OT, but Scarpia, Tosca?

07/7/2015 8:24 pm

Bowers - apologies if I've picked you up wrong there.

I'd still say that making a dent in the debt was important - the first payment on the term loan was/is due Feb 2016 and was £350k.

If paying down the loan was put off then IMO we'd be heading right back into debt problems again as future transfer revenue can't be gaurenteed.

As I've said it's frustrating but hard to see what the alternative would be.

07/7/2015 8:28 pm

Sieb22 wrote:
scarpia wrote:
bowers wrote:

Our bank debt had been cleared and repayment of the buyout of that was sorted before we started punting players so we didnt need to.

Our bank debt was cleared partially through payment, partially through the bank taking a haircut and through £2.1m worth of term loans by unnamed individuals - we also had around £652k of related party loans - I think you have made the mistake of confusing bank debt with debt.

Bit OT, but Scarpia, Tosca?

Very OT Sieb, but yes, you've outed me there

Sieb22 · 07/7/2015 8:32 pm

Love it!

Like the avatar pic, and recognised the name, but couldn't quite put my finger on it, till it clicked tonight.

It's a bit more classy than 80's movies anyway!

bowers · 07/7/2015 8:36 pm

scarpia wrote:
Bowers - apologies if I've picked you up wrong there.

I'd still say that making a dent in the debt was important - the first payment on the term loan was/is due Feb 2016 and was £350k.

If paying down the loan was put off then IMO we'd be heading right back into debt problems again as future transfer revenue can't be gaurenteed.

As I've said it's frustrating but hard to see what the alternative would be.

my post wasnt as cler as i should have made it regrding the debt mate.

there is many ways to look on it and plus and minus points in all.

Beharder · 07/7/2015 8:38 pm

Macho Man wrote:
The word is he doesn't rate McNamara and his stooges, his old boy is acting as his agent and Souttar isn't going to sign.

If that's the case and we also have a very exciting prospect in Harry Souttar then surely the board have got to assess what is best for the club.

A vision-less, tactic-less, comes across like he couldn't give a toss manager or two very exciting football players that could help the club achieve things, help themselves achieve things and make the club and themselves a bit of money in the process. I know who my priorities would lie with and it ain't the manager who has been given more chances than he deserves.

Macho where did you hear this word, is it an internet based rumour or are you party to any factual information.

07/7/2015 8:40 pm

bowers wrote:
scarpia wrote:
Bowers - apologies if I've picked you up wrong there.

I'd still say that making a dent in the debt was important - the first payment on the term loan was/is due Feb 2016 and was £350k.

If paying down the loan was put off then IMO we'd be heading right back into debt problems again as future transfer revenue can't be gaurenteed.

As I've said it's frustrating but hard to see what the alternative would be.
my post wasnt as cler as i should have made it regrding the debt mate.

there is many ways to look on it and plus and minus points in all.

Agree, a starting point would be more clarity and better communication from the board (which could hardly get worse)....I live in hope

07/7/2015 8:45 pm

Sieb22 wrote:
Love it!

Like the avatar pic, and recognised the name, but couldn't quite put my finger on it, till it clicked tonight.

It's a bit more classy than 80's movies anyway!

It's taken that post for me to spot your avatar - love it, one of my favourite movies

(Sorry for OT guys)

09/7/2015 11:28 pm

Seems to have all gone quiet on the contract offer.

Bit odd as I thought both parties would have wanted things sorted one way or another ASAP.

Could be a good sign (still negotiating) or a bad one (board keeping their heads down until they get a few new signings in before breaking the bad news) .

Anyone heard anything more?

bowers · 10/7/2015 1:20 am

Heard that he had knocked it back few days ago but nothing official been said if he has or hasnt.

arabugsy · 10/7/2015 1:23 am

RRDH wrote:
scarpia wrote:
RRDH wrote:
First sentence doesnt/wouldnt surprise me.

honestly is sleighs me that he is profiting on player sales. I honestly believe he is happy with the squad because 5 or 6 of the squad will be boys, whichever show potential will be sold and he gets paid his wedge. Cant sell on experience so I dont expect too many experienced players coming in to help. Simple as that. He can say hes doing the club a favor by reducing the debt and laugh all the way to the bank.

Dont know how or why some support are ok with it. Makes me feel sick like.

Don't think anyone has an issue with 5 or 6 of the squad being "boys" the issue IMO is with the quality of the experienced players Paton, Bilate, Anier etc etc.

Like it or lump it we are a selling club and that means blooding young players.

If anyone has an alternative plan to bring in revenue I've yet to see it.
We've always been a selling club and always will be. I agree but think about that and then ask yourself, have our managers always gotten a wedge off player sales?

Possibly no, but it's better than giving shitintheshoes £1M/3years.