Pearson comments- might be a quiet summer

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, maxjak said:

With a brief look......Luton,     Coventry and Huddersfield, seem to have 7 players between them in on loan........which helps when not spending money on transfers..........but as Pearson doesn't believe in loans, that avenue is closed?     If Pearson can build a top 10 Championship side without spending any money on transfer fee's,  then I will   not just take my hat off to him, but also my coat and trousers!  Good luck to him, he'll need it?   

If Pearson had gone down the loan route, not doing so being a stick many want to beat him with, then the likes of Scott, Semenyo, Benarous, Pring and Tanner would have played little or no football at all this season.

Instead Pearson's had the bollocks, and the judgement, to give these youngsters plenty of games. Those players are now worth millions of pounds - which wouldn't be the case if we'd brought loan after loan in this season, improving other club's players at the expense of our own. Those millions might just be a get out of jail free card for us and save our FFP bacon. Bringing in loans just to play a bit better and finish higher up the table would have left us with no FFP quick fix, in fact the cost of those loans - never cheap these days - might have made our terrible position even worse.

The only possible justification for getting loans in this season is if you think we could have attracted such talented players as to get ourselves promoted and be playing premier league football next season. Trouble is, those sort of players we can't afford in our current position.

Meaning Pearson has achieved this season's goal of retaining Championship status - whether that's finishing 12th or 20th is irrelevant - and at the same time he's developed about 50 million quids worth of talent for our club. 

Not bad, eh? 

[Waconda]

36 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Top player, i doubt odowdas old contract and wallaces new one will be that much different as well

Players talk, there is absolutely no chance that Jed Wallace or anyone of a similar talent is going to sign for Bristol City in our current state or as "advertised" our continued battle to avoid relegation next season - Even if we can afford them in theory.

Expect more Leicester has been types mixed in with lower league youngsters.

 

[GrahamC]

17 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If Pearson had gone down the loan route, not doing so being a stick many want to beat him with, then the likes of Scott, Semenyo, Benarous, Pring and Tanner would have played little or no football at all this season.

Instead Pearson's had the bollocks, and the judgement, to give these youngsters plenty of games. Those players are now worth millions of pounds - which wouldn't be the case if we'd brought loan after loan in this season, improving other club's players at the expense of our own. Those millions might just be a get out of jail free card for us and save our FFP bacon. Bringing in loans just to play a bit better and finish higher up the table would have left us with no FFP quick fix, in fact the cost of those loans - never cheap these days - might have made our terrible position even worse.

The only possible justification for getting loans in this season is if you think we could have attracted such talented players as to get ourselves promoted and be playing premier league football next season. Trouble is, those sort of players we can't afford in our current position.

Meaning Pearson has achieved this season's goal of retaining Championship status - whether that's finishing 12th or 20th is irrelevant - and at the same time he's developed about 50 million quids worth of talent for our club. 

Not bad, eh? 

You’re spot on.

Only other justification for bringing a player in on loan is if you know his parent club is prepared to let him go & you think he’s better than what you have.

Steven Sessegnon probably came into that category, but he wasn’t though & is now on the subs bench at Argyle.

Edited April 9, 2022 by GrahamC

[maxjak]

19 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If Pearson had gone down the loan route, not doing so being a stick many want to beat him with, then the likes of Scott, Semenyo, Benarous, Pring and Tanner would have played little or no football at all this season.

Instead Pearson's had the bollocks, and the judgement, to give these youngsters plenty of games. Those players are now worth millions of pounds - which wouldn't be the case if we'd brought loan after loan in this season, improving other club's players at the expense of our own. Those millions might just be a get out of jail free card for us and save our FFP bacon. Bringing in loans just to play a bit better and finish higher up the table would have left us with no FFP quick fix, in fact the cost of those loans - never cheap these days - might have made our terrible position even worse.

The only possible justification for getting loans in this season is if you think we could have attracted such talented players as to get ourselves promoted and be playing premier league football next season. Trouble is, those sort of players we can't afford in our current position.

Meaning Pearson has achieved this season's goal of retaining Championship status - whether that's finishing 12th or 20th is irrelevant - and at the same time he's developed about 50 million quids worth of talent for our club. 

Not bad, eh? 

Your points are well made......however, I was referring to the coming season and not the current one.  

Edited April 9, 2022 by maxjak

[GrahamC]

57 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Top player, i doubt odowdas old contract and wallaces new one will be that much different as well

This is fantasy football stuff, like suggesting Tom Lawrence or John Swift.

He’s got 6 goals & with 10 assists already he is amongst the highest in the division this season, why on earth would a parachute payment club like West Brom not be interested?

This is like when Mowatt was on a free at Barnsley & people were seriously suggesting him.

Absolutely no chance.

[Davefevs]

58 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

You’re spot on.

Only other justification for bringing a player in on loan is if you know his parent club is prepared to let him go & you think he’s better than what you have.

Steven Sessegnon probably came into that category, but he wasn’t though & is now on the subs bench at Argyle.

And between Sess and Mawson, they cost us £750k in loan fees and god knows how much in wages…especially Mawson.

[Gol]

14 hours ago, maxjak said:

With a brief look......Luton,     Coventry and Huddersfield, seem to have 7 players between them in on loan........which helps when not spending money on transfers..........but as Pearson doesn't believe in loans, that avenue is closed?     If Pearson can build a top 10 Championship side without spending any money on transfer fee's,  then I will   not just take my hat off to him, but also my coat and trousers!  Good luck to him, he'll need it?   

Nige never said he was against loans just he would prefer to make permanent signings. What he said can be found here: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/every-word-nigel-pearson-said-6417713.amp

The key takeaway was:

 

Steve Cooper at Forest has said similar to Nige in that he’d rather have permanent players https://theathletic.com/3015221/2021/12/14/forest-have-five-valuable-loan-players-but-cooper-knows-risks-of-relying-on-similar-signings/?source=user_shared_article

Most loans have a fees/ obligations to play players X amount of games or pay additional funds attached to them? 

even if the loans go well you then have to make them permanent which would cost a lot of money just to stay where you are; just look at the summer we spent circa £13 million  (not including wages) on Kalas, Palmer and JD.
 

for Forest it will likely cost them over £50 million to keep their loan players. 

if we are fighting relegation or going for promotion and need a short term fix to het over the line I can understand it but otherwise you are just paying money to develop other clubs players, which in our current financial situation does not make a lot of sense. 

As mentioned would Pring, Scott, Benarous, Cundy and Tanner got the opportunities they have this season if we’d have brought players in on loan? I doubt it

some articles and examples of how expensive the loans can be

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ryan-kent-liverpool-bristol-city-1487267.amp

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gary-neville-urges-premier-league-18289345.amp

https://www.theweek.co.uk/chelsea/80991/chelsea-reap-the-financial-rewards-of-their-loan-factory?amp

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nat-phillips-liverpool-loan-breaking-22935150.amp

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/12040/12104580/liverpool-agree-1-2m-loan-fee-with-cardiff-for-harry-wilson

cc @headhunter and @3 Peaps In A PodCast who keep saying the same comments regarding loans on their podcasts

[Waconda]

39 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And between Sess and Mawson, they cost us £750k in loan fees and god knows how much in wages…especially Mawson.

Before Mawson got injured we were top of the league.

Sessegnon never looked like he wanted to be here (Kent !) and was a poor signing.

Not a fan of loans myself but the situation we find ourselves in they have to be in the mix.

Getting in the right ones is where a skilful and well connected Manager comes in.

[Rich]

Why do people read all the wrong things into a statement and subsequent twists of a statement? 

I believe Pearson said something along the lines of, "I can't see us spending any money at the moment". That doesn't mean we won't be spending any money and, it doesn't mean we won't be signing any players. He stated "at the moment", well at this moment, we are still in the season and, that only applies (if) we don't do any trading of players whatsoever.

We have possible funds coming in from sell on clauses and there appears to be other clubs willing to sign some of our players should we agree to that happening, along with hopefully the reduction of wages from bigger earners freeing up some more for other players.

Because of our reported loss £38m, people are looking at the doom and gloom side of things. It doesn't mean we have to get £38M before we can do any business or, that it has to be repaid, SL will cover that again, no doubt.

The only criticism of Pearson's post is, that it's come at a time when the club are promoting SC sales. He did also state that they'll have to be inventive and he's never paid much for a player anyway and, they'll possibly have to do some trading. So I'm far from unhappy at the upcoming seasons comings and goings, in fact, I'm quite excited to see how it progresses, as always.

Be happy, look at what the possibilities are, not what you think has been said.

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Rich said:

Because of our reported loss £38m, people are looking at the doom and gloom side of things. It doesn't mean we have to get £38M before we can do any business or, that it has to be repaid, SL will cover that again, no doubt.

That £38m on its own isn’t the issue, it’s the combined years losses for 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 (this season) and 2022/23 (next season) that cause the “projected” issue.  As it stands the likely losses this season and next (minus covid and ffp excludables) tip us over the £39m allowed.

Can it be remedied?

Yes, but we have to cut costs or raise income or combo of both.  There is no certainty to any of those options.  But you’re right, it’s not £38m we need to find, it’s a much smaller figure, but having already cut costs considerably this season, there’s less wiggle room within the existing squad to reduce those costs without weakening the squad.

Rest of your post, I totally agree with.

[Rich]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That £38m on its own isn’t the issue, it’s the combined years losses for 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22 (this season) and 2022/23 (next season) that cause the “projected” issue.  As it stands the likely losses this season and next (minus covid and ffp excludables) tip us over the £39m allowed.

Can it be remedied?

Yes, but we have to cut costs or raise income or combo of both.  There is no certainty to any of those options.  But you’re right, it’s not £38m we need to find, it’s a much smaller figure, but having already cut costs considerably this season, there’s less wiggle room within the existing squad to reduce those costs without weakening the squad.

Rest of your post, I totally agree with.

Yes Dave, of course you're correct, I just wanted to keep my post simple and didn't want to go into what has already been more than covered in the other topic. I'm confident we'll comply with FFP, through trading, reduced/torn up contracts, or with luck, sell on clauses. What we can't do is be held to ransom by clubs that want our players and letting them know that we're desperate, which is what I believe comes across from Pearson.

[JoeAman08]

My issue is NP can’t have both keep his best players and have money to spend. I think he needs to decide what is best for the squad. I don’t expect him to air his decision but if he is going to be here he needs to be heavily involved in these decision and I can’t tell if he is or isn’t. 
 

For my money, I’d sell up. Not what many want to hear but it is the only way to properly back him. Maybe even at slightly less prices than we want. I mean if we said we wanted 20m for Scott and we got an offer of 15m would it be worth it to fix the holes in the squad? Same with Semenyo and Massengo. Could someone want Weimamn for a good price for a 32 year old. Not all of them obviously but I can’t see us being able to attract players based on out current finances and with this season as evidence for players to look at. 
 

Also, is it worth maybe having money next summer off another meh season with NP going into his final year? This is the summer we need a hard reset. Last summer was trimming a bloated squad. This summer we need additions and more additions than our current finances allow. It is the only way we can get a real look at NP. 
 

Also, not advocating spending sprees like the past. Just a freedom to offer good players maybe 15-20% more than we could at present. Like being able to offer 10k instead of 7-8k. Being able to spend 1.5-2m on 1-2 players if we want. Find 3-4 more tanner like additions if we want. 

[GrahamC]

17 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

My issue is NP can’t have both keep his best players and have money to spend. I think he needs to decide what is best for the squad. I don’t expect him to air his decision but if he is going to be here he needs to be heavily involved in these decision and I can’t tell if he is or isn’t. 
 

For my money, I’d sell up. Not what many want to hear but it is the only way to properly back him. Maybe even at slightly less prices than we want. I mean if we said we wanted 20m for Scott and we got an offer of 15m would it be worth it to fix the holes in the squad? Same with Semenyo and Massengo. Could someone want Weimamn for a good price for a 32 year old. Not all of them obviously but I can’t see us being able to attract players based on out current finances and with this season as evidence for players to look at. 
 

Also, is it worth maybe having money next summer off another meh season with NP going into his final year? This is the summer we need a hard reset. Last summer was trimming a bloated squad. This summer we need additions and more additions than our current finances allow. It is the only way we can get a real look at NP. 
 

Also, not advocating spending sprees like the past. Just a freedom to offer good players maybe 15-20% more than we could at present. Like being able to offer 10k instead of 7-8k. Being able to spend 1.5-2m on 1-2 players if we want. Find 3-4 more tanner like additions if we want. 

There are several flaws in this argument & not only that Weimann is 30, not 32..

The players apparently coveted aren’t remotely the high earners, so yes, we could sell HNM, Scott & Semenyo (provided we get good offers) though even £15m seems optimistic to me bearing in mind Prem clubs know our financial position.

We would then still be left with Wells, Kalas & Palmer on our wage bill pushing our forecast expenditure on wages above FFP & good luck with doing deals for them that don’t either see us subsidise their current wages for a year or would see us get virtually nothing back on the £16m+ they cost us.

If we do spend, it will only be because we have managed to shift at least 2 of that bottom group & sold 2 of the top one, but even then I would expect any fee to be more like Tanner than Atkinson.

[eardun]

I certainly wasn’t expecting us to spend much this summer. To do so would be unrealistic. And I prefer that Pearson tells it how it us and is up for managing us taking account of how it is - and acting responsibly for the sake of the club. I’ve also never understood the  blaming of the club for a person’s decision not to renew a season ticket - ‘I’m not not enjoying it because Pearson/Lansdown have done/not done X and therefore I’m not renewing my season ticket’. In terms of the football, there is always something to enjoy - especially in the Championship which is one of the best leagues in the world. So I have renewed my season ticket for next season. I have not had a season ticket every season since I started watching in the mid 70s. When I have not renewed in the past, it was down to other family commitments, financial constraints, living away etc. So I can understand people having their reasons for not renewing. However I think that when someone blames the club for that decision, it is just their way of trying to find extra reasons/moans to grab onto by way of justification and so I tend not to take much notice of it! 

[Waconda]

18 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

There are several flaws in this argument & not only that Weimann is 30, not 32..

The players apparently coveted aren’t remotely the high earners, so yes, we could sell HNM, Scott & Semenyo (provided we get good offers) though even £15m seems optimistic to me bearing in mind Prem clubs know our financial position.

We would then still be left with Wells, Kalas & Palmer on our wage bill pushing our forecast expenditure on wages above FFP & good luck with doing deals for them that don’t either see us subsidise their current wages for a year or would see us get virtually nothing back on the £16m+ they cost us.

If we do spend, it will only be because we have managed to shift at least 2 of that bottom group & sold 2 of the top one, but even then I would expect any fee to be more like Tanner than Atkinson.

Kalas won't be here.

[JoeAman08]

26 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

There are several flaws in this argument & not only that Weimann is 30, not 32..

The players apparently coveted aren’t remotely the high earners, so yes, we could sell HNM, Scott & Semenyo (provided we get good offers) though even £15m seems optimistic to me bearing in mind Prem clubs know our financial position.

We would then still be left with Wells, Kalas & Palmer on our wage bill pushing our forecast expenditure on wages above FFP & good luck with doing deals for them that don’t either see us subsidise their current wages for a year or would see us get virtually nothing back on the £16m+ they cost us.

If we do spend, it will only be because we have managed to shift at least 2 of that bottom group & sold 2 of the top one, but even then I would expect any fee to be more like Tanner than Atkinson.

It is a waste but if you sold you could carry the wages and add new ones. Not ideal but you could do it.
 

Semantics on weimann, I only bring it up as a hypothetical. Would you sell a 30+ year old with one year remaining off his best season by far? Need to have an answer as a club. 
 

Wells, Palmer Dasilva etc all will be entering their final years under contract. Easier to sell in the scenario. Still tough to sell but easier to eat a portion of wages for a year with fresh sales behind it. 
 

I just don’t see another way NP can be successful. I can’t see us winning many free agent “auctions.” Not for the guaranteed types anyway. As it stands we need to be nearly perfect in what we bring in. Sales can put us in a better position to get our top targets. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by JoeAman08

[Waconda]

2 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

It is a waste but if you sold you could carry the wages and add new ones. Not ideal but you could do it.
 

Semantics on weimann, I only bring it up as a hypothetical. Would you sell a 30+ year old with one year remaining off his best season by far? Need t

Weimann will have decent offers for sure you would think, last big pay day, chance of promotion, Scottish title etc.

Big test of how much he likes Bristol.

 

[Superjack]

4 hours ago, Waconda said:

Sessegnon never looked like he wanted to be here (Kent !) and was a poor signing.

Not what I saw.

[Spike]

Forget the lack of spending driving people away, I think a 1-1 draw against one of the worst defensive teams at home after they were reduced to 10 men when we were winning will be far more likely to put people off attending.

[petehinton]

Will need a miraculous summer to stop us from being in a relegation battle for most of next season. As depressing as it is, we’ll need to sell the Crown Jewels in order to bring in 7 or 8 players to bolster us across the board.  

[GrahamC]

4 hours ago, JoeAman08 said:

It is a waste but if you sold you could carry the wages and add new ones. Not ideal but you could do it.
 

Semantics on weimann, I only bring it up as a hypothetical. Would you sell a 30+ year old with one year remaining off his best season by far? Need to have an answer as a club. 
 

Wells, Palmer Dasilva etc all will be entering their final years under contract. Easier to sell in the scenario. Still tough to sell but easier to eat a portion of wages for a year with fresh sales behind it. 
 

I just don’t see another way NP can be successful. I can’t see us winning many free agent “auctions.” Not for the guaranteed types anyway. As it stands we need to be nearly perfect in what we bring in. Sales can put us in a better position to get our top targets. 

He’s got 2 years left.

[JoeAman08]

26 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

He’s got 2 years left.

Thought he signed 1+1? I’m not going to find it so I’ll take your word for it  

[GrahamC]

2 minutes ago, JoeAman08 said:

Thought he signed 1+1? I’m not going to find it so I’ll take your word for it  

Weimann signed for 3 years last summer.

[ALG92]

Should be playing:

Dasilva  Cundy  Klose  Atkinson  Pring

                   Massengo  Scott

                          Benarous

                Weimann  Semenyo