Grey Fox

55 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

True, true, that is imo equally ridiculous given we've been in no danger of relegation since "peak" Holden-ball, and we are probably stronger than we've been at anytime since then.

@Grey Fox...really?

Really ??? Simply no, I just want to rise above the mediocre, to match the “mighty” Bournemouth & Boscombe or Luton, even Brentford. Why is it so difficult to look up ?

57 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I don't know but I think @Grey Fox is the 1 person who thinks we'll get relegated. 

Absolutely not, top six with Alex Scott, mediocre mid table without. That’s why we need to keep him, very simple really 

With Alex Scott , 5th, without Alex 15th.

18 minutes ago, TheReds said:

Bring back Ashton and LJ, I mean let's not worry about that balance sheet, what could go wrong.

Don. be silly

34 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just Nige playing things down, as he knows players and clubs will try to add Scott-Tax in any dealings.

Who knows, we could be in contract talks with our own players, new players and they are pushing for more. Nige doesn’t want to blurt out something on the wireless does he?

I don’t think anyone wants him to go. Posters are just playing out scenarios. 

As others have posted, there’s a player in the middle of this too.  You keep suggesting it’s just City’s decision. It ain’t, regardless of “he’s under contract”.

Obviously, but as far as I’m aware he has not demanded a move, why therefore assume this is the case ?

1 hour ago, Philly The Kid said:

I understand your argument and to a lesser extend I agree. However, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. No where in any of your replies have you mentioned what the player actually wants. It's easy to say he's under contract he'll have to knuckle down and get on with it.. That doesn't work with modern professionals who basically, hold all the cards. Once their head is turned it's nigh on impossible to get them back (although it can happen).
When Alex goes away on his England duties don't you think he talks to other players about their contracts, Financial and anything else? Once he realises he's getting a fraction of what they're on he knows he can do better.
Up until now he's been a model pro. But if I was a betting man (and I'm not) I would wager he's had a conversation with uncle Steve and stated his desire to play at the highest level and if they can do a deal which is right for the club, right for his development and career then can we do that please? I very much doubt he's said I'll forgo whatever earnings I could make elsewhere to stay and try and win promotion with City, unless no deal is done before the start of the season and come January we're fourth with 3 games in hand, then the dynamic changes.
I think the notion you have, whilst being morally right is somewhat romantic and just doesn't stack up in the real world. The realities of what we are as a club, our past mistakes and an uncertain future with Steve trying to punt us on means we won't always get what we want...

From what I have seen/ heard, and I am not in the know, Alex has not demanded a move, so with respect your argument is conjecture. Alex could equally be happy to spend a further season with us , and then review his options with our blessings should he wish to move on aka Harry Kane.

Who knows, but we should, imo, at least try

12 hours ago, bcdc said:

Oh I try so hard to criticise the post and not the poster, but you are an utter, utter plank. Bristol City should not a ‘selling club’ even though the likes of ooh, I don’t know, Manchester United recognise financial reality and sell CR7 in the appropriate circumstances

How many times have football fans discussed and recognised that all but a handful of clubs in the world (add the Saudi ones to that skinny number) who aren’t in that position, but in your myopic particularism you reckon that BCFC ought to included. For pity’s sake.

As to the personal stuff, I’ll ignore that, it doesn’t bother me, and I know the schools go back in September.

Manchester United sell when it is in their interest, not as a matter of policy.

According to Mr Pop , this forums financial guru, we do not need to sell this summer, therefore retain Scott, try for promotion, and review In January or next summer when we will have a clearer idea as to our chances, or not, of going up. 
 Really is a straight forward proposal, which doesn’t need some of the rather ridiculous responses from those desperate to sell to the first suitor that comes along..

Looking forward to going to the Gate on Saturday, suggest some of you turn off your calculators and join me.

COYRs

15 hours ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Yes that perfectly describes a selling club.
 

Name one club worth their salt (minus Real Madrid) who aren’t a selling club?Even the likes of Man United will sell players if another club hits their valuation of a player. 
 

All clubs will sell when it suits their needs, a “selling club” is one whose whole financial plan is to produce young players and sell them for a profit. The latter is what, in my opinion, you described.
As a football fan I want to support a club who try and win something, rather than just concentrate on their balance sheet.

14 minutes ago, Redrascal2 said:

What concerns me is if he goes did I understand it correctly that we will not be using the money to replace him as we have already reached a wage ceiling. So lose your best player for a lot of money and spend none of it in bringing some sort of replacement and all this happening a few days before the start of the season. Perfect nightmare scenario. Have I got this right or have I had a bad dream trying to follow this saga.

No, you are not dreaming, this is what some on here appear to want.

1 hour ago, Betty Swallocks said:

100% pure waffle isn’t it. 
 

We’re only a few years into this new cycle of either producing our own players or recruiting younger players and helping them develop. We as fans have got to trust the process, one player leaves (for decent money….) and along comes an opportunity for someone else.

Nice description of a “selling club “

2 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

This.

FWIW if Scott goes I do think we will look at bringing in a project, a midfielder with L1 or maybe even L2 experience who is a bit like George Tanner was when he signed, someone for the medium term who could possibly still do a job now.

We would still have James (plays 33-35 games a season on average, a top player), Knight, who is a certainty to start, Williams whose availability has improved & so would probably play a similar amount to James, plus King who is ostensibly cover for those named above.

If we bring in a CB before the end of August I would also see Naismith & McCrorie as possibles, the former certainly would give us creativity with his passing. McCrorie has definitely played as a DM & if Tanner starts well he’s going to find it very difficult to take his place.

Then we have Weimann who as you say is ideal for the 10 role, especially when we already have 6 others competing for the 3 front places.

Finally Benarous who we need to be careful with after 2 ACLs but could come back & be a very valuable midfield squad option.

In other words, if we lose Scott, we won’t be as good. The team will be based on has beens , crocks , and youth to flog of as soon as they appear to be able to kick a ball in the right direction.

Looking forward to seeing Alex against Preston on Saturday ️

42 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

We get to 150 pages, we go through City playing hardball for an acceptable offer, Bournemouth step up to the plate and Alex says 'Nah! I don't fancy it' 

Let’s hope so

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

What do we do about Saturday IF a deal hasn't been completed? 

Do we risk a 25 million pound asset? Will his head be in the right place if a deal is close? 

We pick the best team to win the game, because we want promotion, simples

34 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

We are 140 pages in now and for me 3 things have become clear:

1) City don't want to sell (hence the hardball) 

2) The sit down price before we consider a sale is £25M and nothing less will do (hence the hardball) 

3) Quite a few on here would have happily sold their brand new still in the box Corgi James Bond Aston Martin for a winning conker and 2 everlasting gob stoppers. 

Great isn't it, City really showing ambition, not just words.

Time to "believe" 

COYRs

The consensus seems to be that without Scott our midfield is at best average, with Scott it is at least competitive. So why oh why would we sell him now when we could retain him for one more year and try for promotion.

No excuses for banging my drum for footballing common sense, and a desire to see a successful City, rather than the mediocre.

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Corrected above, ta Mr P.

So, a theoretical circa 1 in 6 chance of a non PP club getting promoted, and of that 1 in 6, about a 40% success rate.

Remind me, what four clubs contested the Play Offs last year?

I love statistics, my favourite concerns drunk drivers, according to my local police 20% of drivers breathalysed after an accident had been drinking, which must mean , to a statician that if we can ban the 80% of sober bastards life would be a lot safer for the rest of us

5 minutes ago, Fuber said:

To be fair GF - the point with regards to "stand in the players way" is not Monkeh's opinion or "mouthpiece" spiel from a "group of accountants"; but a partial quote of words that are attributable to our very owner.

While I can see youor viewpoint, I don't think its as black and white or small minded to be thinking about selling Scott. I don't think it was small minded when we did it with Bryan, Reid or Webster.

It just may be worth taking into consideration that we have chance here to completely wipe the FFP slate sparkling clean; as well as.spend on improving not just the midfield, but get a keeper, defender, and forward options if we so feel. For example, is we sell Scott now instead of next Summer for £15m - it may avoid us needing to sell a second player to balance costs - so better squad depth and planning for the longer term.

Fuber, I understand your point of view, which you state well, the “small minded “ comment was directed at Monkey, not the view, in response to his attitude to me expressing my view. I make no apology for this.

So no , it is not black and white, but the rewards of promotion, both financially and emotionally for us as fans, well, would be good , wouldn’t it .

1 hour ago, BigTone said:

The the insurance cover is for how much ?  Todays market price or tomorrows potential ?  Or most likely just a set figure pre agreed.

Typically a percentage of an agreed value, so no not for the full potential, but a method of mitigating risk.

My point however, is if you use the “ he might” argument, you always sell every talented player at the first opportunity, in case “he might”. In my opinion you will not win anything unless you take some risk, in this case that Alex Scott as a City player could help us in a promotion push, and if successful the financial rewards will dwarf the proceeds of selling him now.

The accountants on here say we don’t have to sell this year, so why not have some ambition and keep Alex for this coming season and go for it, we may even match the mighty Luton Town

2 hours ago, BigTone said:

And if he got a career ending injury ?

We would claim on the insurance. That logic also means you always sell, just in case. 

11 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

I cant really see, even with scott staying, that we will pull ourselves up 14 places based on the signings weve made? What from the last 8 years would give us any evidence that this will be our season finally?! If we could cut down on weak goals conceded and finish top 10 that would be a result as far as i can see.

Ten points was the difference, that’s all

36 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Doesn’t really matter though imo. With 18 months left, and definitely with 12, clubs know you risk losing your best asset for free in the not too distant future so have that extra bargaining power. Even with the season of his life, his value won’t be above £25m in January purely for that fact.

I could be wrong but purely from a transfer value perspective, this is the prime time to sell imo. Though I obviously hope we keep hold of him, who knows what we could achieve if we manage to do so.

“Who knows what we could achieve “, try “promotion “. Surely that is the real gamble , the value of Scott now verses the value of promotion and Scott then? 
 

I know which bet I would prefer, 

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

He's also in the final year of his contract next July ie it expires in summer 2025 as it stands...barring of course if it holds any kind of extension clause of some kind.

Not till NEXT year, so no rush this

8 hours ago, George Rs said:

Wrong topic Ik, but does anyone know if clubs have shown interest in TC. Looks the most natural goal scorer we’ve had since Tammy to me and he’s been electric so far this pre season. 
 

At only 20 years old if he continues this form into the season by next July he could be worth some serious money. 
 

 

And so the next is lined up , term “selling club “ ring a bell (we could sell Bell too)

1 hour ago, nebristolred said:

To be honest at that point he'd have 18 months left on his deal. I'd expect his value to drop rather than increase from £25m.

There are many unknown factors other than remaining length of contract, such as his form, luck with injuries, and the needs of bidding clubs. At his age my bet woke he continues to improve , as Will his value.

There is a strong case for keeping AS for this season.

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

how did we do with scott and semenyo in the team last season, as i don't remember this promotion push you keep telling us will 100% happen

By January, we would have a far better idea than current conjecture can possibly give us. We would have also enjoyed seeing our best players in City shirts, and of course made a serious signal of intent.