Jump to content
IGNORED

19/20 accounts released


Fordy62

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

My point is that crowds will come back but in lower numbers overall as:

A few people will take some persuading for a long time to come that it is safe to return to large gatherings

Some people will either not be able to afford or not be able to justify the expense of watching football after Covid

Other people will simply fall away and not bother to renew a season ticket as they simply aren't missing it like they thought they would

We only need a 10% drop on our attendances and we are talking £1m plus on revenue reduction. That has to be factored in somewhere and given you need a certain amount of people to run a football club the obvious and simplest thing to do is reduce your transfer budget and player wages because that's where the huge money is spent.

This won't be a problem unique to us though. Far from it and it might be argued we are in a better place than plenty of so called "bigger" clubs you could mention.

 

As soon as the team starts winning the fans will flock back no doubt. They always do.

£1m less revenue is just £1m more loss that Steve L will absorb - don't see that having a massive bearing on wages at our level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not an accountant but do work in Finance. A cursory glance at these figures points to more systemic problems with Championship football rather than Bristol City itself. I don't know where the club's wage bill sits but I am guessing between 8th-12th. For a club with a average wage bill, significant income from player sales, strong average gates (probably around 8-10th in the league) and a steady commercial income to post this loss is worrying for other clubs as well as Bristol city. 

It is increasingly apparent that the Championship is a closed shop with recently relegated sides either yo-yoing via parachute payments (Villa, Fulham, Norwich, Swansea, Bournemouth, WBA) or suffering an element of financial collapse (Hull, Bolton). Notable that clubs these days trying to breach the gap (Sheffield Wednesday and Derby) that full short essentially approach bankruptcy. I think Brentford might be the one outlier given their production line, but they are unique. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You are using the fact that the club, ultimately run by Steve Lansdown, is losing money hand over fist as a reason to defend him? The mind boggles. 

The question is: do you know how much it costs SL to run BCFC in the context of his overall wealth? We have run up a £10m loss in the 19/20 season. SL is worth around £1.72bn. That's 1,720 million pounds, and his wealth is increasing year on year. Suddenly that £10m sounds like a drop in the ocean, doesn't it? 

You are right, he is better than some owners, however his overall achievement at BCFC over the past 20 years versus his investment is well below par. 

Do you seriously think if BCFC went up for sale tomorrow there wouldn't be a healthy list of interested parties? I think there would be. 

A healthy list of parties, yes.

A list of healthy parties (for the club) ... less confident

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

No chance will transfer fees and wages at the top level change. Clubs at our level will obviously be impacted on transfers in short-term but I don’t expect wages to suddenly drop like a stone with generally rich owners in championship willing to cover the losses for now. 

Simple reality is football isn’t like a normal business - clubs are in it to minimise losses and progress up the ladder etc but that’s about it. Not to turn a profit unless you are one of the top few in the world. 

Top level to top level probably won’t change much, e.g. PL to PL, Bundesliga to / from PL.

But the PL clubs are gonna “bum” the Championship clubs going forward.  Sheff Utd did it to Derby in the summer buying Bogle and Lowe as pair for £6-8m, not each, combined.

If this coming summer, we were looking to sell Webster, who we value at £20m, Brighton offer us £10m and offer him twice the wages they offered him last summer, so 6-8 times what he’s on here.  They are gonna know we are desperate.  Whatever they don’t pay in fees they can pay in wages.

All my opinion, but the signs are already there.

36 minutes ago, Taz said:

If a big offer were to come in this month......

See above. Bentley is our biggest saleable asset, especially in the form he is in at the moment. 

Nagy?

Kalas?

Next prospect - Vyner?

If a big offer came in for any of them we will sell.

Bentley agreed....and luckily we only paid £3m (between £2-4m) for him.  This summer he will sit on our books at £1.5m....so anything over that will be “transfer profit”.

Kalas will sit on our books currently at £5m....£4m in the summer.

What would we get for Kalas in the summer?

We will be drip feeding the £25m transfer profit....not adding £13m like Kelly or £16m like Webster to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Chairman Mao said:

I'm not an accountant but do work in Finance. A cursory glance at these figures points to more systemic problems with Championship football rather than Bristol City itself. I don't know where the club's wage bill sits but I am guessing between 8th-12th. For a club with a average wage bill, significant income from player sales, strong average gates (probably around 8-10th in the league) and a steady commercial income to post this loss is worrying for other clubs as well as Bristol city. 

It is increasingly apparent that the Championship is a closed shop with recently relegated sides either yo-yoing via parachute payments (Villa, Fulham, Norwich, Swansea, Bournemouth, WBA) or suffering an element of financial collapse (Hull, Bolton). Notable that clubs these days trying to breach the gap (Sheffield Wednesday and Derby) that full short essentially approach bankruptcy. I think Brentford might be the one outlier given their production line, but they are unique. 

Millwall operate on 1/3rd of our budget!  They’ve remained pretty competitive.  Preston, about 40-50% of our budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

Football in business terms really is a basket case, it will never be sustainable if staff costs are higher than turnover.

This pandemic hopefully will bring a sense of realism to the industry and a complete rethink is required in terms of wages and distribution of TV money.

No business can expect to survive without income and whilst our accounts are sobering many other clubs are in a far worse position and the only surprise to me is that none have gone out of business.

 

 

 

Agree. I think it'll bring a sense of realisation, unfortunately not realism. Very little will change until some of the more attractive clubs go to the wall - and that would have to be one of the big 6. Football doesn't exist outside of the PL and smaller clubs have been disappearing for a while now and nothings changed.  

Mind, I suspect the PL wouldn't allow one of their own to financially collapse....be bad for business.

One thing seems more certain after this news. We won't be spending £m and buying anyone in January.  I think if anyone still expects that, then they need their head examining....or take a holiday, save their disappointment and go and support Man U, Liverpool, Man C. etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davefevs said:

Millwall operate on 1/3rd of our budget!  They’ve remained pretty competitive.  Preston, about 40-50% of our budget.

They are not going to get promoted barring some miracle. In order to compete with the top 6 these days and have a good chance of going up the sums are increasingly out of reach. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Alessandro said:

If they do that or try and do that, I think they will lose even more credibility, if i'm honest.

If they had worked this all out in the summer and communicated the fact to us, I think more might have understood, but that's not "on message" and tantamount to an admission of incompetence. So they fed us the usual BS. 

BS - in this case not Bristol Sport, but bullshit. See what I did there?!

I agree to be honest.

If the club had said at the outset "this Covid thingy is going to have a serious impact and we believe the way forwards in the short to medium term is to develop and PLAY young players, which is why we brought Keith and Paul in to assist Dean given their obvious experience of developing young talent, and we feel this gives us our best chance of sustaining a push at the right end of the Championship table and at the same time minimizing losses as much as we can in what will be very troubling times for football clubs at our level as a whole. We did seriously consider Chris Hughton but felt that the direction of travel required for him to succeed would have been too risky to the financial wellbeing of the club. We had lots to think about in both scenarios and this is why the process took six weeks to conclude." there is no doubt that the Board and Owner would still have copped for plenty of flak AT THE TIME for lacking ambition but right now, in hindsight, all but the most one-eyed of the critics would be looking at it and saying "you know what, they might just have come up with a cunning plan here".

However, as we know, they didn't. They announced "breaths of fresh air" on national radio, came out with BS about DNA, wonderful human beings, how shit Chris was at interview and were still trying to sell the dream (you don't have to believe it, I don't believe much of what comes out of that Boardroom personally, but many do) and trying to protect future season ticket revenues. If we end up in a position where we are more competitive by taking the course of action we have you can forgive many people for thinking "sorry, Steve, sorry Mark, sorry Jon but you have literally got us here by accident not planning".............which could be wrong and would totally be their own doing imo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

Agree. I think it'll bring a sense of realisation, unfortunately not realism. Very little will change until some of the more attractive clubs go to the wall - and that would have to be one of the big 6. Football doesn't exist outside of the PL and smaller clubs have been disappearing for a while now and nothings changed.  

Mind, I suspect the PL wouldn't allow one of their own to financially collapse....be bad for business.

One thing seems more certain after this news. We won't be spending £m and buying anyone in January.  I think if anyone still expects that, then they need their head examining....or take a holiday, save their disappointment and go and support Man U, Liverpool, Man C. etc etc

The return of the loanees should have told everyone that. Use what you have got is the message..........and it has worked ok for two games tbf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

The return of the loanees should have told everyone that. Use what you have got is the message..........and it has worked ok for two games tbf.

Agree and why not. Its a good opportunity to give more of the youngsters a chance. We are in a much more fortunate position than others in that we have a good academy set up - and spend a lot on it i expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Based on these numbers we actually need to make a “transfer profit” of £35m to break even.  This year we made £25m, but still lost £9m ???

If you were SL wouldn’t you then absolutely want to recruit the very best scouting and recruitment team / set up available

One decent sale funds even a quality set up for years 

 

Mystifying......

 

The alternative , (To reducing losses and make the business viable ) is to headhunt a top coach who will get you promoted

 

Unfortunately SLs Thinking And plan appears  rather flawed due to his recruitment   and appointments .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Now you're being silly. I am simply putting the losses the club makes in the context of Steve's wealth. 

Some more context for you, his wealth has increased by around £500m since 2015. These are numbers that bring him unimaginable wealth in comparison to most of us. He could give away 75% of his wealth and still afford to run City. 

 FFP started in 2012.

As a result, since then it is not how much SL has invested relative to his overall wealth. It is how much FFP allows him to invest, irrespective of his wealth ( apologies if I’m teaching granny to suck eggs KITR)

I also apologies for posting what I have posted previously, but we have been lucky to have an owner whose background in finance and a regulatory environment enabled him to foresee the impact and consequence of financial rules. Asa result, he made changes to the clubs longer term strategy to deal with this, with the aim of making the club more self-sustainable, even though this  was widely derided by many on here, who only saw it as an excuse for SL not having to “stick his hand in his pocket” and pay what was needed to fund a promotion push.

He also saw that the financial rules did allow investment by an owner to infrastructure and used this option to redevelop the outmoded old stadium so that ti could generate more commercial income, which in turn could then be used to benefit the football side. Similarly, he has invested in the academy so we are better placed to bring in and develop our own young players, who can then either contribute to the team at lesser cost than expensive transfer or who will give the club a healthy profit should they want to leave to progress further ( e.g. Bobby Read and Joe Bryan).

Obviously, no one could have anticipated the pandemic and the huge consequences would have for football and football finances. Looking at the mess in which Derby find themselves, and many more will surely do in the coming months, again it is perhaps lucky that our owners foresight will enable us to be impacted less than many others, even though I expect out figures to look scary when the next year’s accounts are released.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate there is a point of view that SL's management of the club not not be deemed a success because; a) We are a loss making entity year on year b) we have seen little to no success in footballing terms.

However, it's evident to me that the football industry is completely toxic, one in which financial success is nigh on impossible for any but a few, and a club's ambition to become financially prudent is now hopelessly at the mercy of an exponentially increasing wage bubble and player agent culture that is slowly eating the game from the inside out. In terms of Footballing ambition, this is, and forever will be, difficult. Yet, due to it's intextricable link to financial power (which as previously mentioned - is completely bat sh** crazy), clubs and owners become so hamstrung by the system they have to play in.

I guess in conclusion I don't really know what to think about the whole footballing system anymore. I love watching games, and will always be excited (or frutrated) by City's exploits in trying to make it to the promised land, but can't help but think the system is so broken that any attempt to objectively analyse a owners 'success' is just finding vague trends in a complete clusterf*ck of data. Yes, we have the odd outlier like Brentford, but I can't help but feel the rest are just throwing sh*t at the wall and hoping it sticks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Based on these numbers we actually need to make a “transfer profit” of £35m to break even.  This year we made £25m, but still lost £9m ???

Hang on Dave - that's because our net transfer position was £15m banked when we received £25m because of onward spending on other players or existing further amortisation of signings we already had.

@WolfOfWestStreet is right, we're averaging about £20m loss without transfers, so that is the breakeven transfer target.

City provide a handy line item in their results to show profitability excluding transfers, as follows - left 19/20, right 18/19

1116555571_Screenshot2021-01-20at13_51_39.thumb.png.0f955f71c686656155ffd6993d7bc2f1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, steviestevieneville said:

I don’t want to put words in kids mouth , so here’s my take on one aspect where we waste money.

scouting/ recruitment

The article states the players we made a profit on . It doesn’t however state the millions wasted in our scattergun recruitment process . We don’t have a philosophy of play and recruit to it , ie Brentford , Swansea . The amount of players we’ve bought we didn’t need is ridiculous. One example, signing Palmer & szmodics a few weeks apart with no idea how we would play them. 

Surprisingly ?, he is turning out to be quite some player - a goalscoring midfielder at Peterborough, just the sort pf player we should be signing.

I appreciate it is easy with hindsight and, of course, we were overwhelmed with midfielders when we let him go, but it doea seem a shame as, apparently, he really liked it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Leveller said:

Since the 19/20 operating loss is £35M, before any Covid impact, then surely £33-35M for 20/21 has to be very optimistic? It implies Covid won’t add to the losses at all, which seems unrealistic.

True - I may be misreading how they allocate things. I use the loss excluding player trading as a shortcut to calculate, as the £35M operating losses line seems to include amortisation expense which is also broken out in the player trading number. As I'm assuming no transfer activity I'm using the loss excluding player trading to deal only with economics of running the club. 

You might have a point that even prior transfers will still be carrying cost of amortisation into 20-21, in which case yes, £35 would be a best case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

Football in business terms really is a basket case, it will never be sustainable if staff costs are higher than turnover.

This pandemic hopefully will bring a sense of realism to the industry and a complete rethink is required in terms of wages and distribution of TV money.

No business can expect to survive without income and whilst our accounts are sobering many other clubs are in a far worse position and the only surprise to me is that none have gone out of business.

This in a nutshel ARl!

How many business function on the basis of determining employees pay based on what they ( or their agent) demands and not on what the business can afford to pay?

How many business can function when 80, 90, 100 percent OR MORE of their income is paid out in wages?

How many businesses pay an agent for his services, when the agent is acting for the person on the other side of the negotiations?

How many other business have lost the ability to say NO when any on or more of the above factors me into play and could severely damage the financial viability of their business?

Football falls foul of all of these issues and it’s because no one has the ability/bottle to say no to players and agents, for fear of damaging their prospects. This has been the case for too long and the seemingly exponential increase in player wages, transfer fees and agents fees has become unsustainable.

Hopefully, as you say, the pandemic will force the football world to reset to reality, otherwise I cannot see the football world looking anything like it did pre-epidemic whenever we get back to whatever normal looks like in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no shock or surprise here. If you are to operate a buy and sell model, you need to buy and sell well. The Kodja money was wasted on awful purchases, which were subsequently shored up (in the accounts ) by selling Bryan, Flint and Reid. A super deal for Webster got us out of another big hole (well done all for that) but we have been papering over the huge cracks  of a flawed talent identity and player purchase policy (or total random policy). We have lost opportunity with Fam (and whilst his book value is low, that is only part of the story, he has a replacement cost and is a lost income stream) , Wells is lost money , and in the main, so is Kalas. These are big ticket items. 

Scratched record I know, but Brentford sold 3 prime assets, and still have many others of great vale (even a depleted covid value) . A starker contrast could not be made. If you are bored of hearing about Bretford , look at Burnley. If that bores you 

How after all this random spending, massive increase in wages, we still have no clue what our playing strategy is (apart from boring the hell out of everyone ) or any semblance of player recruitment policy in place, it is extraordinary that the architect of this shambles is still at the club. If you are going to reply on transfers to fund your club you had better be good at it and consistent. 

No wonder Holden is playing Semenyo, they are praying he comes good so someone will throw money at him. 

So much opportunity lost and resources wasted. We may look glossy on the surface, but underneath we are as amateur and shambolic as ever. 

In any case, football is the creator of it's own downfall. No one puts a gun to any club to pay salaries they cannot afford. Parachute payments have been the devil, as they encourage clubs to risk a rapid return to the Prem and create an imbalance at the competitive level. Salaries should drop on relegation , due to a revised financial environment. Clubs chase the dream and cannot help themselves. If FFP was implemented correctly and with much tighter limits, centralised filing of players contracts, control over investment and subsequent draconian penalties for non adherence it might make sense. As it is, it serves little real purpose and is a gesture. Players are drastically overpaid in the Championship. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

If you were SL wouldn’t you then absolutely want to recruit the very best scouting and recruitment team / set up available

One decent sale funds even a quality set up for years 

 

Mystifying......

 

The alternative , (To reducing losses and make the business viable ) is to headhunt a top coach who will get you promoted

 

Unfortunately SLs Thinking And plan appears  rather flawed due to his recruitment   and appointments .

 

I think Steve just may have come to the realisation, following the David James debacle and LJ, that it’s best not to have a ‘hands on’ approach to recruitment. 

So suspect he has delegated recruitment  to Ashton, his ‘football man’. The right approach but wrong man. 

We know Steve won’t admit to being wrong, so the best we can hope for is a Director of Football appointment at the top of the football club’s management pyramid and reporting directly to Steve. The chances of that happening, next to zero unfortunately. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

 FFP started in 2012.

As a result, since then it is not how much SL has invested relative to his overall wealth. It is how much FFP allows him to invest, irrespective of his wealth ( apologies if I’m teaching granny to suck eggs KITR)

I also apologies for posting what I have posted previously, but we have been lucky to have an owner whose background in finance and a regulatory environment enabled him to foresee the impact and consequence of financial rules. Asa result, he made changes to the clubs longer term strategy to deal with this, with the aim of making the club more self-sustainable, even though this  was widely derided by many on here, who only saw it as an excuse for SL not having to “stick his hand in his pocket” and pay what was needed to fund a promotion push.

He also saw that the financial rules did allow investment by an owner to infrastructure and used this option to redevelop the outmoded old stadium so that ti could generate more commercial income, which in turn could then be used to benefit the football side. Similarly, he has invested in the academy so we are better placed to bring in and develop our own young players, who can then either contribute to the team at lesser cost than expensive transfer or who will give the club a healthy profit should they want to leave to progress further ( e.g. Bobby Read and Joe Bryan).

Obviously, no one could have anticipated the pandemic and the huge consequences would have for football and football finances. Looking at the mess in which Derby find themselves, and many more will surely do in the coming months, again it is perhaps lucky that our owners foresight will enable us to be impacted less than many others, even though I expect out figures to look scary when the next year’s accounts are released.

 

I don't think many disagree with all of what you've said here.

But for me that's not the issue, the issue is the need to hire the best people available to us to fulfil our admirable plan, the best coaches, the best football people, directors, recruiters and scouts and then you have a damn good chance of overcoming the external issues you talk about, ala Brentford. 

Until we do, we're treading water, producing and selling academy players, signing and selling the odd gem: rinse and repeat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chairman Mao said:

They are not going to get promoted barring some miracle. In order to compete with the top 6 these days and have a good chance of going up the sums are increasingly out of reach. 

 

No, the point was that they are competitive (less so this season) on a fraction of our budget.  And in recent seasons both have finished above us iirc.  Do I’m saying it’s possible to be there or thereabouts...our current position...on significantly smaller budgets.

1 hour ago, Sheltons Army said:

If you were SL wouldn’t you then absolutely want to recruit the very best scouting and recruitment team / set up available

One decent sale funds even a quality set up for years 

 

Mystifying......

 

The alternative , (To reducing losses and make the business viable ) is to headhunt a top coach who will get you promoted

 

Unfortunately SLs Thinking And plan appears  rather flawed due to his recruitment   and appointments .

 

Jokingly a few years ago, someone said, “don’t buy Diedhiou, buy the Angers scouting team”!!

40 minutes ago, Olé said:

Hang on Dave - that's because our net transfer position was £15m banked when we received £25m because of onward spending on other players or existing further amortisation of signings we already had.

@WolfOfWestStreet is right, we're averaging about £20m loss without transfers, so that is the breakeven transfer target.

City provide a handy line item in their results to show profitability excluding transfers, as follows - left 19/20, right 18/19

1116555571_Screenshot2021-01-20at13_51_39.thumb.png.0f955f71c686656155ffd6993d7bc2f1.png

In fairness Rob, this is the bit I never can quite understand, but the difference £11,125,274 is shown in point 12....

49ED6805-847D-4771-9D66-5096C84900B4.thumb.jpeg.e04e9512872ae82f0287c7a57992d4cc.jpeg

in effect, had we not sold those players was our loss was £34m....is that not right?  But I’d need an accountant to tell why Player Trading is one figure and transfer profit another.

All I do know is that it’s a bloody big loss W/o selling players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Surprisingly ?, he is turning out to be quite some player - a goalscoring midfielder at Peterborough, just the sort pf player we should be signing.

I appreciate it is easy with hindsight and, of course, we were overwhelmed with midfielders when we let him go, but it doea seem a shame as, apparently, he really liked it here.

Like adelukan , Eisa and there’s probably others. Those  signings really smacked of LJ not wanting the player but bought by the club and he wouldn’t play them. I don’t blame him either. It a ridiculous way to recruit. SL would never do that in any other of his businesses 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/city-announce-201920-accounts/
 

I believe this requires the attention of @Davefevs and @Mr Popodopolous  

 

£10m loss with what’s ahead doesn’t sound ideal...

Losses at this level were within expectations of the board. Given all that is happening then really not too bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You are using the fact that the club, ultimately run by Steve Lansdown, is losing money hand over fist as a reason to defend him? The mind boggles. 

The question is: do you know how much it costs SL to run BCFC in the context of his overall wealth? We have run up a £10m loss in the 19/20 season. SL is worth around £1.72bn. That's 1,720 million pounds, and his wealth is increasing year on year. Suddenly that £10m sounds like a drop in the ocean, doesn't it? 

You are right, he is better than some owners, however his overall achievement at BCFC over the past 20 years versus his investment is well below par. 

Do you seriously think if BCFC went up for sale tomorrow there wouldn't be a healthy list of interested parties? I think there would be. 

He might be worth £1.7bn but that is paper money and is tied up in the value of several enterprises. He can't go and draw that much cash on his debit card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, steviestevieneville said:

Like adelukan , Eisa and there’s probably others. Those  signings really smacked of LJ not wanting the player but bought by the club and he wouldn’t play them. I don’t blame him either. It a ridiculous way to recruit. SL would never do that in any other of his businesses 

To be fair, I had seen snippets of Szmodics before we signed him, and I must say I thought he was quite a useful player and, as with Liam Walsh, I was looking forward to seeing him break in to the team.

A shame for all parties concerned that it didn't work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PHILINFRANCE said:

To be fair, I had seen snippets of Szmodics before we signed him, and I must say I thought he was quite a useful player and, as with Liam Walsh, I was looking forward to seeing him break in to the team.

A shame for all parties concerned that it didn't work out.

Imagining Szmodics in the Weimann/Pato style role for us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

To be fair, I had seen snippets of Szmodics before we signed him, and I must say I thought he was quite a useful player and, as with Liam Walsh, I was looking forward to seeing him break in to the team.

A shame for all parties concerned that it didn't work out.

Agree , I liked szmodics. This is what I mean . There seemed to be no plan as to how he was going to be used ,as we were signing Palmer as well. I think adelukan was signed the same summer. So we had 3 number 10 type midfielders and plenty of wingers . None of it made any sense . 

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...