• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Bid rejected for Clarke


SAFC Billog said:
But you’re moving away from the model with your suggestion of what we should do. It’s not all about getting the cheque book out any longer, to be self sufficient we buy cheap, sell for big profit and so on. That includes our best players (more so than the average ones) and it is something we need to accept. Unfortunately.

It doesn’t make sense to think that selling our best players to buy promising youngsters will eventually get us promoted.
Click to expand...

Our best players are those promising youngsters we previously bought.

By selling them for a large profit, it would allow us to do the same again hopefully at a higher scale whilst keeping us from losing further money each year.

It's not even really a choice, if someone has outgrown us to the point where another club is offering them far more money than we can provide at this point, it's best to come to an agreement for many reasons, surely.
 
Father Jack Hackett said:
We won't be getting £10m for a player with 10 months left on his contract and who only played 13 games last season due to 2 serious injuries.

Burnley have only offered that for a lad who played 50 and has 3 years left on his deal.
Click to expand...

Just throwing figured out I’ve seen suggested, regardless where still going to make a profit
 
tim27w said:
Realistically 25-30m there between Ballard LND and Clarke, all 3 good but 2 didn't play too much last season. Clarke without doubt had a great season, big decision for the club but that's football can they replace him or them and maintain the push?
Click to expand...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no. We haven't even been able to replace Stewart and we've had a year. We couldn't replace Simms in January. We Haven't yet replace amad, adding Ballard (who hasn't even been rumoured away afaik) and Clarke to the mix would basically be pushing and hope of promotion out of the window.... Whilst signalling to Patterson, Neil, Roberts etc that we've no interest in furthering their careers either
 
Coeus said:
Our best players are those promising youngsters we previously bought.

By selling them for a large profit, it would allow us to do the same again hopefully at a higher scale whilst keeping us from losing further money each year.

It's not even really a choice, if someone has outgrown us to the point where another club is offering them far more money than we can provide at this point, it's best to come to an agreement for many reasons, surely.
Click to expand...

yes for the correct fee, we keep having this discussion. The principle you quote is fine BUT we need to maximise the fee.
 
Twisted said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no. We haven't even been able to replace Stewart and we've had a year. We couldn't replace Simms in January. We Haven't yet replace amad, adding Ballard (who hasn't even been rumoured away afaik) and Clarke to the mix would basically be pushing and hope of promotion out of the window.... Whilst signalling to Patterson, Neil, Roberts etc that we've no interest in furthering their careers either
Click to expand...
Ballard has been linked with west ham
 
Cjg5x said:
15 for him, 15 for Ballard & 10 for Stewart

40m raised from three players that cost a combined total of around 2/3m? Can’t say the model ain’t working.

All replaceable, think some already have been
Click to expand...
Ballard cost 2 million up front on his own, and I don't know what % sell on fee Arsenal had put in on the deal ,m if any. Clarke was more them figures on his own, and Levy would defo have had a sell on fee in place. We wouldn't be making 37 million profit , even if the prices were correct.

Nailed on Ballard and Clarke will be worth more than them figures at the end of this season (Injuries permitting) Sell this late in the window, and any profit will be eaten away by higher prices for players we want, if they know we have the cash.
 
Last edited:
North of the Smoke said:
yes for the correct fee, we keep having this discussion. The principle you quote is fine BUT we need to maximise the fee.
Click to expand...

Sure, I don't understand the price quoted, there's something wrong with it, whether that's a handshake agreement or something contractual but it's still profit and possibly what we may be getting, the process remains the same.
 
nandos sonic sauce said:
Ballard cost 2 million up front on his own, and I don't know what % sell on fee Arsenal had put in on the deal ,m if any. Clarke was more them figures on his own, and Levy would defo have had a sell on fee in place. We wouldn't be making 37 million profit , even if the prices were correct
Click to expand...
Suspect Clarke will be 10m (like they paid for him) with all add ons, which may well trigger if we're selling him on at a profit.

Cant see us having any interest selling him for 10m for that reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top