Mendip City Posted May 8, 2013 Report Share Posted May 8, 2013 Is it just me or has Baldock not really proven anything yet? Yes, the story so far is: we blew the Maynard money on him. He scored a few early on, then spent most of the rest of the season out of the team injured or dropped or in it not scoring. He appeared to be a player who's head dropped more than most (and that's saying something). Hopefully a fresh start and full pre-season will help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Do The Dziekanowski Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Really? I hope there is some sarcasm in there! No I'm stating a fact, Austin will be able to replace Baldock, Whether we can get him is a whole different story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
You Do The Dziekanowski Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 Charlie Austin made 40 appearances for Burnley 2012/13 scored 28 goals. Proven goalscorer at Championship level. Why on earth anyone thinks he would turn his back on the Championship to Drop to Third rate football is a joke. The silly season is well under way. Ooooooh my First..... WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH Ah that felt good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 You're right. His wages don't count towards FFP, no. But surely if we sold him for say, £600k that sum would then count towards our turnover? We'd then be in the position of funding his replacement with that total, wouldn't we? Is that definite Graham? I knew Cunningham was exempt but though that was down to him signing a 4 year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 But doesn't count, I believe, towards the 60% next season, so im essence is a free player. (Obviously we pay his wages but in terms of abiding by the rules for next season) Unless the offer is substantial we do not have to and arguably are not in a position to sell. If his wages do not count towards the 60% then we have to fund his replacement from that 60... Which means we lose out by getting him off the wage bill in terms of our budget. That's my understanding of it, anyway. It a bit of a laugh you keep harping on about this 'he does not count' and 'he's free' etc... who do you think has to physically pay his hefty wages? Just because he may not come into the FFP count does not suddenly mean his salary is of absolutely no consequence. Laughable. The club is attempting to reduce its costs across the board, in ALL areas. If a good offer comes in he will be off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 No I'm stating a fact, Austin will be able to replace Baldock, Whether we can get him is a whole different story I would strongly suggest its the other way around! Of course you may have been being facetious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lita For Congo Posted May 9, 2013 Report Share Posted May 9, 2013 It a bit of a laugh you keep harping on about this 'he does not count' and 'he's free' etc... who do you think has to physically pay his hefty wages? Just because he may not come into the FFP count does not suddenly mean his salary is of absolutely no consequence. Laughable. The club is attempting to reduce its costs across the board, in ALL areas. If a good offer comes in he will be off. But the point is, if we sell him, whoever we sign to replace him WILL come into the FFP so its almost a waste of a wage. He will be on significantly less wages this season also. May aswell keep him on this season so we dont have to go out and sign someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC101 Posted May 10, 2013 Report Share Posted May 10, 2013 Footy Rumours @_FootyRumours_3h Bristol city look set to lose Sam Baldock in the summer many championship clubs are interested #BristolCityTwitterFamily #Bristolcity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BdR2000 Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 I'd make him do at least until January for the club . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibs Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 It a bit of a laugh you keep harping on about this 'he does not count' and 'he's free' etc... who do you think has to physically pay his hefty wages? Just because he may not come into the FFP count does not suddenly mean his salary is of absolutely no consequence. Laughable. The club is attempting to reduce its costs across the board, in ALL areas. If a good offer comes in he will be off. It will have to be a very good offer and it will probably require him handing in a transfer request. It simply wouldn't be worth while selling otherwise with the compensation we would have to pay him due to the length if his contract. As others have tried to explain, his salary doesn't count toward SCMP next season so if we sell, we need to replace and the replacements salary WILL count towards it. We must be struggling to hit the threshold and this wouldn't help. Strikers salaries aren't cheap. I expect to see him in a City shirt next season and listening to O'Driscoll in the radio the other week, I think he does to. If we were looking to sell, it would make much more sense to to it in a years time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric04 Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 Footy Rumours @_FootyRumours_3h Bristol city look set to lose Sam Baldock in the summer many championship clubs are interested #BristolCityTwitterFamily #Bristolcity I don't know why people post from this site. It's 99% nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC101 Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 I don't know why people post from this site. It's 99% nonsense. It's not from that site. It's from a Twitter account. It could still be nonsense but just thought I'd put it on here to see what people make of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 It a bit of a laugh you keep harping on about this 'he does not count' and 'he's free' etc... who do you think has to physically pay his hefty wages? Just because he may not come into the FFP count does not suddenly mean his salary is of absolutely no consequence. Laughable. The club is attempting to reduce its costs across the board, in ALL areas. If a good offer comes in he will be off. Well, if you read my post properly you'd see I acknowledged we still pay his wages. But, the fact that he doesn't count towards the 60% and the required replacement would means he is a free player in terms of those rules. It means we can bend the 60% (still a massive reduction on 156%) and increase the budget we're physically allowed to spend. Obviously we're trying to cut costs, but the forced reduction of our wage bill means we've already made significant steps towards that! It would take a very large fee for us to even entertain selling Baldock. I'd put money on him being here next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mendip City Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 Well, if you read my post properly you'd see I acknowledged we still pay his wages. But, the fact that he doesn't count towards the 60% and the required replacement would means he is a free player in terms of those rules. It means we can bend the 60% (still a massive reduction on 156%) and increase the budget we're physically allowed to spend. Obviously we're trying to cut costs, but the forced reduction of our wage bill means we've already made significant steps towards that! It would take a very large fee for us to even entertain selling Baldock. I'd put money on him being here next year Agree with that....but... and I made this point before and i will try again. We can forget FFP for a minute, everyone seems to have lost track of the reality of modern football that still remains. If a higher ranked club turns a player's head and he wants to go - he WILL go. The club's job is then to grab as much money as they can for him. That's where we might struggle to get a big fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 Agree with that....but... and I made this point before and i will try again. We can forget FFP for a minute, everyone seems to have lost track of the reality of modern football that still remains. If a higher ranked club turns a player's head and he wants to go - he WILL go. The club's job is then to grab as much money as they can for him. That's where we might struggle to get a big fee. If a club don't meet out evaluation we have no need to sell, Baldock has given no reason for me to believe that if he did want to leave he wouldn't play to the best of his abilities. He is under contract for a considerable amount of time and as such we have absolutely no reason to sell for less than we value him at. He might well be able to engineer a move, but we remain in a strong enough position financially to tell any club looking to take the piss where to stick it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friendlygas Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 In this day and age it is never on the clubs terms and FPP will not come into it as you need to reduce your wage bill anyway and if you get a REASONABLE offer for Baldock then I think you will sell. When he was at MK Dons he was a very good striker but the big difference was that at that level and within that team he received very good service from a team that played very good passing football. Since he left them he has been distinctly average and would have lost value on what you paid for him. There is also no guarantee he will be any better next season and I shall be very surprised if he is up with the top scorers in League 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 In this day and age it is never on the clubs terms and FPP will not come into it as you need to reduce your wage bill anyway and if you get a REASONABLE offer for Baldock then I think you will sell. When he was at MK Dons he was a very good striker but the big difference was that at that level and within that team he received very good service from a team that played very good passing football. Since he left them he has been distinctly average and would have lost value on what you paid for him. There is also no guarantee he will be any better next season and I shall be very surprised if he is up with the top scorers in League 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.