JBFC II Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, AshtonGreat said: I expect we paid that 425k profit on Eisa's wages for a year, so not really good business at all You really think we were paying him 8.5k a week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 3 hours ago, downendcity said: I thought that talking sense was forbidden on OTIB! Seems it is, just Talking shit about things people don’t seem to be able to grasp, too many football manager type fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmissionImpossible Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Some have been out in the sun a bit much today...:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumRed Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Yet again a lot of people talking about fees and wages when they know nothing. Pointless arguments. Whether we did well or badly out of his time here is chicken feed. Still have no idea why we signed him though, as pointless as most of these posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Red Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Darren McAnthony says they have "smashed" their transfer record. As that was 1.25 million I would have thought that meant somewhere between 1.6 and 1.9 million. He also said all the top end League 1 clubs were in for Mo, and two Championship clubs were in for him as well. They had been tracking Mo for 2 years ever since a pre-season friendly against Cheltenham where he ripped them apart. Said Mo had real pace. Who knows whether Eisa is good enough for the Championship. But just because a club does not play a player, does not automatically mean he is not good enough. Chelsea did not play Kevin De Bruyne and Mo Salah when they had them. Bearing in mind we spent most of the season playing four defenders, four midfielders, Fammy, and then Jamie Paterson, who was ineffective in terms of goals and assists, would it really have killed us to give Mo Eisa three consecutive starts? Even if it turns out he is rubbish, at least we know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 29 minutes ago, Boston Red said: Darren McAnthony says they have "smashed" their transfer record. As that was 1.25 million I would have thought that meant somewhere between 1.6 and 1.9 million. He also said all the top end League 1 clubs were in for Mo, and two Championship clubs were in for him as well. They had been tracking Mo for 2 years ever since a pre-season friendly against Cheltenham where he ripped them apart. Said Mo had real pace. Who knows whether Eisa is good enough for the Championship. But just because a club does not play a player, does not automatically mean he is not good enough. Chelsea did not play Kevin De Bruyne and Mo Salah when they had them. Bearing in mind we spent most of the season playing four defenders, four midfielders, Fammy, and then Jamie Paterson, who was ineffective in terms of goals and assists, would it really have killed us to give Mo Eisa three consecutive starts? Even if it turns out he is rubbish, at least we know for sure. It's a fair question I suppose, we aren't privy to all that goes on week to week in training, so maybe it was obvious to the management that he wasn't going to work out. I haven't heard any suggestions that the crucial three were in any disagreement on his lack of involvement anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Boston Red said: Darren McAnthony says they have "smashed" their transfer record. As that was 1.25 million I would have thought that meant somewhere between 1.6 and 1.9 million. He also said all the top end League 1 clubs were in for Mo, and two Championship clubs were in for him as well. They had been tracking Mo for 2 years ever since a pre-season friendly against Cheltenham where he ripped them apart. Said Mo had real pace. Who knows whether Eisa is good enough for the Championship. But just because a club does not play a player, does not automatically mean he is not good enough. Chelsea did not play Kevin De Bruyne and Mo Salah when they had them. Bearing in mind we spent most of the season playing four defenders, four midfielders, Fammy, and then Jamie Paterson, who was ineffective in terms of goals and assists, would it really have killed us to give Mo Eisa three consecutive starts? Even if it turns out he is rubbish, at least we know for sure. That would be the ineffective fammy who scored 13 goals despite a lengthy ban, our top scorer fammy? And patio who scored 5 and got 4 assists the best return from our midfield, that ineffective pato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Danny Rose about the only player who put in a decent performance. Must have been benefitting from his Bristol City experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBFC II Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Moor2Sea said: Danny Rose about the only player who put in a decent performance. Must have been benefitting from his Bristol City experience. Has he gone to Peterborough as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRock Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 18 minutes ago, JBFC II said: Has he gone to Peterborough as well? So bored with the Final, I think I put my Eisa posting on Mumsnet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curr Avon Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Damn you, Bristol City. Watch Mo score 90 goals for Peterborough next season. You have to wait for an Eisa to mature. Same old story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Hucker Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Monkeh said: That would be the ineffective fammy who scored 13 goals despite a lengthy ban, our top scorer fammy? And patio who scored 5 and got 4 assists the best return from our midfield, that ineffective pato Love Patio. Good on the deck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 Hopefully a sizeable sell on given p'boro's reputation for getting big fees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalcub Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 3 hours ago, RumRed said: Yet again a lot of people talking about fees and wages when they know nothing. Pointless arguments. Whether we did well or badly out of his time here is chicken feed. Still have no idea why we signed him though, as pointless as most of these posts. Agent , and both managers , just a little clue why we signed him .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 If the fee and a profit even if modest is as reported- even after under 10 games this season and his value surely taking a further dent after no loan to a good League One side in January. Well done MA and LJ. Good work on making the best out of a less than ideal situation. As for Eisa...good luck to him. If he does very well at Peterborough, who knows he may join a higher ranked Championship club and come back to haunt us in future. Hard to assess his capability as we saw so little of him! The leap too big at this time, this being compounded by no January loan to a high up League One side..fairly remarkable that we appear to have made a profit!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dredd Posted June 1, 2019 Report Share Posted June 1, 2019 9 hours ago, Redrascal2 said: He didn't play. Johnson would have seen him every day in training against championship players. He saw him play plenty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 9 hours ago, bengalcub said: Agent , and both managers , just a little clue why we signed him .... Dropping hints at something underhand going on would be more effective if we had been the only club looking to sign him at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogkev Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 All the best to Mo Eisa, a shame to see him go as I really hope and expect our signings to succeed at the club. Whatever we say here, it is a failure when you have to sell a player after just 12 months. For me, Mo should have been given more starts in the team during the course of the season, as we know he scores goals, and has frightening pace. Appreciate I'm making these comments from purely a fan's perspective, but if he had been played in the team during the middle period of the season, he may have developed a confidence / improved performance to go on and score a few goals in the latter period of the season, and make a difference in some of our games where we dropped points. Was he badly injured at some stage of the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcnsBcfc Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 As a side note. Do you think we have a sell on with Eisa? We normally publise if that's part of the deal; but I haven't seen anything. In that way we cover ourselves if Boro do another of their turning lower league strikers into gem moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangle Foot Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 12 hours ago, hodge said: Hopefully a sizeable sell on given p'boro's reputation for getting big fees I would be surprised, and very disappointed, if we haven’t demanded a sell on clause in the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 Unan you say "Eisa gone to Peterborough" Why youzza gone there for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 41 minutes ago, reddogkev said: All the best to Mo Eisa, a shame to see him go as I really hope and expect our signings to succeed at the club. Whatever we say here, it is a failure when you have to sell a player after just 12 months. For me, Mo should have been given more starts in the team during the course of the season, as we know he scores goals, and has frightening pace. Appreciate I'm making these comments from purely a fan's perspective, but if he had been played in the team during the middle period of the season, he may have developed a confidence / improved performance to go on and score a few goals in the latter period of the season, and make a difference in some of our games where we dropped points. Was he badly injured at some stage of the season? Do we want to be developing players in a first team game, or as a club are we better off developing them in training and with loan deals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoystonFoote'snephew Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 12 minutes ago, ncnsbcfc said: As a side note. Do you think we have a sell on with Eisa? We normally publise if that's part of the deal; but I haven't seen anything. In that way we cover ourselves if Boro do another of their turning lower league strikers into gem moments. I’d be amazed if any deal by any club doesn’t have a sell on clause as standard these days, with only the percentage to be negotiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NcnsBcfc Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 31 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said: I’d be amazed if any deal by any club doesn’t have a sell on clause as standard these days, with only the percentage to be negotiated. I agree. It's just that we normally publise it, to show how enhanced the deal is. No mention anywhere so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View from the Dolman Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 27 minutes ago, ncnsbcfc said: I agree. It's just that we normally publise it, to show how enhanced the deal is. No mention anywhere so far. When have the club publicised sell-on clauses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 4 hours ago, View from the Dolman said: When have the club publicised sell-on clauses? Not often, if at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, Monkeh said: Not often, if at all Indeed....with McCoulsky they said we have an investment in his future....but rare to see anything specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 58 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Indeed....with McCoulsky they said we have an investment in his future....but rare to see anything specific. It only tends to happen when smaller clubs sell one of their bright young stars to a higher club for not a huge amount and is only done then to reassure their fans that they`ve not let a good player go for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBCFC Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 On 01/06/2019 at 12:52, Davefevs said: 3.5 seasons into LJ’s reign, we are starting to see a bit of volume to the players he’s both signed and sold, rather than the ones he inherited and sold. I’ll miss some from the list, but here goes: Tomlin (probably broke even) O’Neil (free / free) Lucic (£200k loss) Steele (free / free) Hegeler (£300k loss) Magnússon (£250k profit) Engvall (£1m loss) Djuric (£1m loss) Eisa (£500k profit) We’ve yet to see the big one yet....although O’Dowda might be the first that gives us a multi-million net-spend profit. He has been afforded making a few mistakes in the deals of the players he inherited (Reid, Bryan, Flint....now Kelly). Is Kelly truly one he inherited? Kelly was an academy product, but let's say Johnson is here in 5 years time. Would a player who comes through the academy in that time be someone he inherits? He wouldn't have been purchased, but still a club development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted June 2, 2019 Report Share Posted June 2, 2019 13 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said: Is Kelly truly one he inherited? Kelly was an academy product, but let's say Johnson is here in 5 years time. Would a player who comes through the academy in that time be someone he inherits? He wouldn't have been purchased, but still a club development. Think academy players are different, while LJ didn't sign Kelly he'd have been what, 17 when LJ took over. LJ would have seen enough to have wanted him kept at the academy and then promoted to the first team so will have had a significant enough input into his development to get credit for his valuation upon being sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.