SimplyRed Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 After the recent failures to sign Brooker and Wellens, and also the pre-season efforts to sign several players without success, I'm wondering what it is about the club players don't seem to like. It's not a new thing - we've always had trouble in the past getting first-choice targets and usually end up getting someone else in. There are several possibilities: 1. We don't offer enough cash to the player's club to entice them to sell. 2. The player/agent wants a large sign-on fee which we reject. 3. Our salary structure makes moving here unattractive to players. 4. Our location makes us unattractive because players don't want to move to the 'West Country'. 5. We're not deemed to be a "fashionable" club. I'm sure that all these reasons have been used in past negotiations, but I wonder which one is the most common? It would certainly make interesting reading if we could find out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich-TWSC- Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Maybe you've got to stop thinking you can bring in the "big" names? Bristol City are clearly not as well off as they have been... It's not about getting the names it's about getting in players with genuine determination of getting the job done (Jamie Smith) Rich.TGSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted September 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 I would think its (a) surely? I mean every club we've agreed a fee with has seen us sign that player. Fair point, but what about MacLean? Rangers agreed a fee with both the Owls and us, if I remember correctly, yet he went to the Owls. I would say that was probably either reason 3 or reason 5. ..and didn't falkirk agree a fee with Wigan about Miller? ok, we came out on top but I don't think it's as 'cut and dried' as it looks. However I do take your point and accept that, because we're splashing a big of cash around, it makes possible targets a tad more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyRed Posted September 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Maybe you've got to stop thinking you can bring in the "big" names? Bristol City are clearly not as well off as they have been... It's not about getting the names it's about getting in players with genuine determination of getting the job done (Jamie Smith) ...and what 'big names' would those be then? From my point of view, it seems we're targetting players at our own level. If anything the biggest 'name' we've signed is the one you mention, Smith. Besides, that wasn't my point. I wasn't commenting on WHO we target, merely speculating on the reasons why those we target don't sign for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grannyjoy Posted September 8, 2004 Report Share Posted September 8, 2004 Fair point, but what about MacLean? Rangers agreed a fee with both the Owls and us, if I remember correctly, yet he went to the Owls. I would say that was probably either reason 3 or reason 5. ..and didn't falkirk agree a fee with Wigan about Miller? ok, we came out on top but I don't think it's as 'cut and dried' as it looks. However I do take your point and accept that, because we're splashing a big of cash around, it makes possible targets a tad more expensive. ← Money was not the deciding factor for Lee joining this club. Wigan offered more, although I don't remember a final fee being agreed by any of the parties. Many factors contributed to Lee's decision, not least the way we were courted, and the picture painted by the Club representatives. Most of these have been proved correct, with only a few dissapointments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Fair point, but what about MacLean? Rangers agreed a fee with both the Owls and us, if I remember correctly, yet he went to the Owls. I would say that was probably either reason 3 or reason 5. ..and didn't falkirk agree a fee with Wigan about Miller? ok, we came out on top but I don't think it's as 'cut and dried' as it looks. However I do take your point and accept that, because we're splashing a big of cash around, it makes possible targets a tad more expensive. ← Didn't we also agree a fee with Port vale for McPhee but he went to Portugal. Anyone know how he's getting on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swindlered Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 After the recent failures to sign Brooker and Wellens, and also the pre-season efforts to sign several players without success, I'm wondering what it is about the club players don't seem to like. It's not a new thing - we've always had trouble in the past getting first-choice targets and usually end up getting someone else in. There are several possibilities: 1. We don't offer enough cash to the player's club to entice them to sell. 2. The player/agent wants a large sign-on fee which we reject. 3. Our salary structure makes moving here unattractive to players. 4. Our location makes us unattractive because players don't want to move to the 'West Country'. 5. We're not deemed to be a "fashionable" club. I'm sure that all these reasons have been used in past negotiations, but I wonder which one is the most common? It would certainly make interesting reading if we could find out! ← Your points could easily apply to any club who didn't get their number one target. You could argue that bar a couple of clubs no-one gets the players they want. Man Utd it would seem have more appeal than Newcastle does this make the Toon unfashionable? We have more pulling power than most clubs in League 1, should we also have more pulling power than clubs in the Championship - no. Also in todays climate the money to be gained from additional TV / Sponsorship from being in the Championship far outweighs what a club would receive for their star player so it is not in the interests of any club with an outside chance of promotion to accept bids for their stars. (Blackpool don't fall into this category). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pewsham Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Of course it has the power of attraction. The stumbling block will come down to money...and if we offered Port Vale and Brooker more money, he'd have signed. It is important though not to pay too high a price - eventually Tins will get his man for the right price...it's just a question of when Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadratinmycider Posted September 9, 2004 Report Share Posted September 9, 2004 Of course it has the power of attraction. The stumbling block will come down to money...and if we offered Port Vale and Brooker more money, he'd have signed. It is important though not to pay too high a price - eventually Tins will get his man for the right price...it's just a question of when ← Totally agree, i think we have pulling power in this league, no question. It is vital, though, that we do not get held to ransom by other rivals who think we have a lot of money. We could have got Brooker if we had paid silly money for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.