Jump to content
IGNORED

Lloyd Kelly Bournemouth 13 million


Dynamite Red

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Bri Stool City said:

Option 1 invest the fee x 2  and build a title chasing squad.

Option 2 invest less than half the fee, and then say goodbye to Kalas, ODowda, Dsilvia and others = around and around we go.

?

We're Bristol City - it will be option 2 every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think Kalas is a must now personally- well I thought so before but definitely now.

No signing is 'a must'. Quality player, yes, but breaking the bank to sign him would be foolhardy and likely to create unrest in the dressing room. See what happens, but may well just be a case of letting go and moving on. From his perspective, he's proved himself as a terrific player at Top 10 Championship Clubs, I suspect he'd like to move on to a higher level, or one that offers the immediate prospect of European football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know they're a prem club and all that but it still p***es me off that we sell one of our best prospects to Bournemouth, would feel the same with clubs like Burnley, Watford, and Fulham, know it seems daft but don't like losing players to teams like that IF only we could get to the promised land that would be hopefully the last time we lose players to the likes of them and Cardiff.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Robin Wood said:

I thought he really struggled towards the end of the season made quite a few mistakes. Think that's fantastic business 

His mind was clearly elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bri Stool City said:

Option 1 invest the fee x 2  and build a title chasing squad.

Option 2 invest less than half the fee, and then say goodbye to Kalas, ODowda, Dsilvia and others = around and around we go.

?

Option 3 - Invest wisely so that the club continues to progress, without the risk of serious financial problems. Sheff Utd and Norwich spent well, not big.

The flaw with option 1 is that spending big guarantees absolutely nothing. Option 2 is just drivel, O'Dowda looks like he will go regardless, and any decisions by Kalas and Da Silva will be driven by the options available, not whether we chuck money around recklessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

It wasn’t long ago that City Academy players were only getting deals in the Conference.

Lansdown is a money man and anyone not happy with that in the world of FFP and points deduction or transfer embargo’s is delusional 

I agree and I disagree with this viewpoint .

I am a big advocate of sticking to these regs and I get it too. It's the world we're in.

We did heavy lifting last summer though- the big 3, plus the 2 squad players- sold. As 2 of the big 3 were academy products, that is pure profit. I accept that- it's reality. I get it.

Then in January we loaned Palmer but no loanee striker but again as above.

Having done that heavy lifting and shown restraint in January, of course it's good financially however can't help but wonder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Redwhitepurple said:

So much money weve made past 3 years and less than 40% spent!!!!

Great business. But that is all it is. It wasnt long ago city. Academy players were in the team for years. The only reason for an academy now is money money money. Bristol city business club or bcbc. Lansdown is a money man.  Sad state of football.

A sign of the times.

A more optimistic take might be that- looking further afield- in Italy there are a club called Atalanta. Different context I know but they traditionally have a strong academy and have utilised this in laat 2 and half seasons to great effect, to sell and trade their way to improvement.

Likewise, Sheffield United selling Brooks helped fund their unlikely promotion last year. I think a balanced approach is good though- some academy, some Championship ready, some PL loanees, some if they fit foreign players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AshtonGreat said:

13 million is crazy money for someone who's probably not even had one whole good season. Jay Da Silva is better than him and would probably be cheaper!

Different types of player. It’s like saying Maenpaa is better than Elliason . 

:disapointed2se:

Never mind how many Tilsons that is , how about how many Bristol Rovers ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Our “misspending” has seen us climb the league ladder for five consecutive seasons, the only team in all four divisions to do so, while selling good players along the way to balance the books. Long may the misspending continue.

I think his misspending comes from the likes of Duric, Marley Watkins and hopefuls from abroad and youth who have either made handful of appearances or none and never seen again...... I'm certainly hoping it gets reinvested where it matters but won't hold my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, pillred said:

I know they're a prem club and all that but it still p***es me off that we sell one of our best prospects to Bournemouth, would feel the same with clubs like Burnley, Watford, and Fulham, know it seems daft but don't like losing players to teams like that IF only we could get to the promised land that would be hopefully the last time we lose players to the likes of them and Cardiff.   

^ Zac Coughs Dad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, pillred said:

I know they're a prem club and all that but it still p***es me off that we sell one of our best prospects to Bournemouth, would feel the same with clubs like Burnley, Watford, and Fulham, know it seems daft but don't like losing players to teams like that IF only we could get to the promised land that would be hopefully the last time we lose players to the likes of them and Cardiff.   

LJ didn't rate him m8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Allwaysred said:

LJ didn't rate him m8.

Yes, of course.

LJ didn’t rate him so much he gave him his debut, played him c30 times last year and talked him up constantly. He only had to do the last of those if he “didn’t rate him” as the others directly effect LJs job.

Next, please tell me how LJ despises Josh Brownhill as there’s clearly evidence for that as well based on the above precedent...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Allwaysred said:

I think his misspending comes from the likes of Duric, Marley Watkins and hopefuls from abroad and youth who have either made handful of appearances or none and never seen again...... I'm certainly hoping it gets reinvested where it matters but won't hold my breath.

I wouldn’t call that misspending as such, just the hit-and-miss nature of transfers that pretty much all clubs suffer to some extent. Particularly when you are working with a moderate budget that requires you to take a few chances on less established talent; some will pay off (eg Kodjia), some won’t (eg Engvall).

Given that our league position has continuously improved over five years, I would argue that our recruitment has - overall - evidently been effective over that period, and that the overtly negative outlook of the poster I was responding to is nowhere near justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Norn Iron said:

Or release Kalas (and Brian), bring in Taylor Moore and use the money for Da Silva and two strikers.

I’d be amazed if vyner or Taylor Moore are ever good enough to be regular squad members for us. The squads evolved over the last 18 months - 2 years to be playoff chasers . Kalas has set the standard of players that need to come in if we’re to go up in the next couple of years . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I agree and I disagree with this viewpoint .

I am a big advocate of sticking to these regs and I get it too. It's the world we're in.

We did heavy lifting last summer though- the big 3, plus the 2 squad players- sold. As 2 of the big 3 were academy products, that is pure profit. I accept that- it's reality. I get it.

Then in January we loaned Palmer but no loanee striker but again as above.

Having done that heavy lifting and shown restraint in January, of course it's good financially however can't help but wonder.

I guess it’s just a difficult balance between trying to build a squad and show fans we have ambition and sell when the money is too good to refuse.

It’s a pecking order isn’t it. Top Prem clubs can buy from just about anyone, other Prem clubs and top Championship can buy from similar and we look to lower Chamionship, League One ( and even non league) or develop our own. Occasionally a diamond is found and we cash in to pay for several ‘lesser’ players and cross our fingers they will either be good enough to help the cause or at least sellable.

I’m wondering, infact I am believing LJ has been told ,as last year,  to finish higher next season than this. Well why wouldn’t he be told that? He proved he was capable after selling. 3 loans have returned to Chelsea, two played very regularly and now we have lost their understudy. Interesting times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lympsham Red said:

GMcG reporting that Lansdown said the Kodjia deal was £15m, hence this must be upwards of that amount to be a club record fee.

It's poor journalism from Gregorian Gregory Gregor McGregor Face. He says the Kodja deal was 15 million, and then provides a link which says what we have always thought, that it was 11 million possibly rising to 15 million with add-ons. So for Kelly to be our record sale, at this moment in time, it only has to be over 11 million not 15 million. Still, it is only his job to get these things right, why should we complain.................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I wouldn’t call that misspending as such, just the hit-and-miss nature of transfers that pretty much all clubs suffer to some extent. Particularly when you are working with a moderate budget that requires you to take a few chances on less established talent; some will pay off (eg Kodjia), some won’t (eg Engvall).

Given that our league position has continuously improved over five years, I would argue that our recruitment has - overall - evidently been effective over that period, and that the overtly negative outlook of the poster I was responding to is nowhere near justified.

Exactly. No team gets every transfer right and we are doing better than most in the division. The “misspend” is wildly exaggerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Redwhitepurple said:

So much money weve made past 3 years and less than 40% spent!!!!

Great business. But that is all it is. It wasnt long ago city. Academy players were in the team for years. The only reason for an academy now is money money money. Bristol city business club or bcbc. Lansdown is a money man.  Sad state of football.

If, by 'money made' you mean transfer fees, yes, we made a lot. £23m on the three sales last summer. But money spent had left us with a new deficit in that years accounts of, guess what, £23m. That makes 100% spent in my book? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...