KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 It's hardly scraping the barrel. It's a fact. He will have played against, and with, some decent players playing in Europe with Rangers. Yes overall the standard isn't great. But it's still home to some decent players. As I have said he wasn't shipped out, there was a change of manager and he got the opportunity to play for the team he grew up supporting. How you can claim a striker that played under 40 times and scored 6 goals is more established than an international captain, with nearly 3 times as many games and European experience is truly baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 When and how often? This season, photographed in the Echo at least twice that I've seen (sat behind Cortese). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 Think he was Player of the year at Villa, wasnt he? Young player, Fans player & player of the year. Was poor though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 In his first season, I like Steven Davis as a player, he was superb for Rangers but an accomplised Premiership player when we signed he was not, we can argue concerning Crouch and the like all day long, but Villa Davis let him go for £4 Million and then Fulham did so for £3 Million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 In his first season, I like Steven Davis as a player, he was superb for Rangers but an accomplised Premiership player when we signed he was not, we can argue concerning Crouch and the like all day long, but Villa Davis let him go for £4 Million and then Fulham did so for £3 Million. They say you should never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you on experience. Sage words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 They say you should never argue with an idiot as they will drag you down to their level and beat you on experience. Sage words. You are so funny, where do you get your inspiration from? Syd Little? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 It's not so much 'the Don can do no wrong' as 'the Don ISN'T doing anything wrong'. If we had were offering 3 year £60kpw contracts to players like Bosingwa (and many would have us doing that because he is 'Premier League experience' then I would be worried. As it is we are buying £12m young players who we can sell for £12m if needed. We are buying £200k houses, whilst QPR are buying £200k Ferraris and Reading have a 2 man tent. Who is going to have the most valuable assets in 3 years time? Fair comment my friend, but the heart of the matter is that none us really knows what the clubs true financial situation is and we're all just speculating. There's nothing much wrong with that, but not for the first time we're long on opinion, and short on facts here. This grand dream we are supposed to be chasing of making SFC a club that can challenge for a top five PL place one fine day - just imagine the astronomical amount of money that would take, and then ask yourself how on earth are we supposed to sustain that lofty position even if we got there? Dirty Harry once said that a "man has to know his limitations" - well perhaps that wisdom could apply to overambitious football clubs too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 In his first season, I like Steven Davis as a player, he was superb for Rangers but an accomplised Premiership player when we signed he was not, we can argue concerning Crouch and the like all day long, but Villa Davis let him go for £4 Million and then Fulham did so for £3 Million. So any player that is sold by any club must have something wrong with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 (edited) In his first season, I like Steven Davis as a player, he was superb for Rangers but an accomplised Premiership player when we signed he was not, we can argue concerning Crouch and the like all day long, but Villa Davis let him go for £4 Million and then Fulham did so for £3 Million. when managers play one formation and one set of players, it invariably means that some players get left out...(even good players)...Gordon Strachan did it all the time** because he didn't have an alternative game plan, ..it doesn't make them bad players...because they are sold...they just don't fit the system, and one will always be "surplus to requirements". These days they either sit on the bench and wait - or move on because they want to play. ** Anders Svensson is on record - in a Swedish TV interview - saying that Strachan told him (and Fabrice Fernandes) ...... ..." that he thought they were both good players but he could only play one of them at a time because they were too much alike in their style " Edited 7 January, 2013 by david in sweden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 just think, if those idiots down the road had done so a few years ago, perhaps they wouldn't be standing on the precipice right now... The sad truth is though that it would've made no difference whatsoever. Just like it'll make no difference whether we ask the question or not. We have absolutely no influence in what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 (edited) I am quite concerned by the latest transfer rumours. I was concerned the moment BVI loans were mentioned. We've spent a bloody fortune already, yet still there are noises of further £10m players. You don't bring a player in for £10m and then pay him peanuts. I wonder how much STs will be next year? Edited 7 January, 2013 by Chez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 No. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 I'm subscribing to the ML legacy war chest theory. All this spending don't make sense to me otherwise, I reckon the ML legacy war chest is underwriting a two or three seasons of substantial loss making to get us established in the premier league. Then i spose the net transfer spend will get reined in a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 Na. I like a gamble. Keep the big signings coming Nicola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 I'm subscribing to the ML legacy war chest theory. All this spending don't make sense to me otherwise, I reckon the ML legacy war chest is underwriting a two or three seasons of substantial loss making to get us established in the premier league. Then i spose the net transfer spend will get reined in a bit. why the need for a BVI loan then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 Dunno. Maybe the ML legacy war chest is only released in stages over the next 5 years or whatever? That's a theory i just invented! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 why the need for a BVI loan then? Tax reasons innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 7 January, 2013 Share Posted 7 January, 2013 Tax reasons innit. how does that work then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 I'm subscribing to the ML legacy war chest theory. All this spending don't make sense to me otherwise, I reckon the ML legacy war chest is underwriting a two or three seasons of substantial loss making to get us established in the premier league. Then i spose the net transfer spend will get reined in a bit. Me? I suscribe to the Nicola gone mad with a '**** it, lets rumble' approach - blow the lot on a CL final within 3 years - yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingwing Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 how does that work then? Companies get taxed on their profit, operate with no actual profit (ie have to loan against future earnings) means no tax, which means a net gain overall. Something like that anyway means the club (like most) wont loose money on trivial things like paying excessive tax on earnings... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Companies get taxed on their profit, operate with no actual profit (ie have to loan against future earnings) means no tax, which means a net gain overall. Something like that anyway means the club (like most) wont loose money on trivial things like paying excessive tax on earnings... And breaking even ? isn't that even better ? No tax but no debt and no interest payments either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingwing Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 And breaking even ? isn't that even better ? No tax but no debt and no interest payments either. Ah but that doesn't account for the massive influx of sky money, so we might break even this year but next we will end up with a shed load more money that will look like a big taxable profit, if we are using it to pay back a loan though it becomes part of breaking even in the future, so we pay less tax both now and in the long game. Can only assume we are playing a long game with the finances to maximise profit at the company with minimising unnecessary outgoings (assuming tax is higher than loan interest, which should be a fair assumption). Anyway it shouldn't be a worry, we haven't signed Jermain Defoe for £18.5m with 9 other players all expecting 50k a week so it's not like we are loaning to stay afloat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 I'm subscribing to the ML legacy war chest theory. All this spending don't make sense to me otherwise, I reckon the ML legacy war chest is underwriting a two or three seasons of substantial loss making to get us established in the premier league. Then i spose the net transfer spend will get reined in a bit. Weren't Blackburn run off a Jack Walker trust fund for quite a while? with scheduled released payments, with any extras having to be agreed by a trust meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Weren't Blackburn run off a Jack Walker trust fund for quite a while? with scheduled released payments, with any extras having to be agreed by a trust meeting. Dunno but it's entirely plausible theory and ties things up quite nicely, even insofar as why we need short term BVI cash injections. Get behind the ML legacy war chest theory FFS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supergoose Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Hasn't done P*mpey any harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 I can understand where Gemmel is coming from, and I've always been wary of throwing money at football clubs if they can't sustain it in the long term, but I think we have to allow a certain amount of trust in our Chairman and judge things as best we can with the information available. A bit like Geoffrey Boycott's 'would it be a good score with 2 more wickets down?' mantra, I always wonder how the club finances would look if the club were sold or offloaded in some way by the current owners, and wages and transfers debts had to be picked up by a new owner. It's impossible to know. I will never blindly trust ANY owner of the club, nor will I be cynical and suspicious of them all the time. We seem to have some fans in both camps. We just have to judge things as best we can and put some trust in the owners (and management) to act in the best interests of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Dunno but it's entirely plausible theory and ties things up quite nicely, even insofar as why we need short term BVI cash injections. Get behind the ML legacy war chest theory FFS! I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Companies get taxed on their profit, operate with no actual profit (ie have to loan against future earnings) means no tax, which means a net gain overall. Something like that anyway means the club (like most) wont loose money on trivial things like paying excessive tax on earnings... Taxes are the price we pay for civilization - Oliver Wendell Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Taxes are the price we pay for civilization - Oliver Wendell Holmes Taxis are the price we pay for an uncivilised bus service – Anyone who’s travelled on a bus after closing time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 Originally Posted by Bearsy I'm subscribing to the ML legacy war chest theory. All this spending don't make sense to me otherwise, I reckon the ML legacy war chest is underwriting a two or three seasons of substantial loss making to get us established in the premier league. Then i spose the net transfer spend will get reined in a bit. why the need for a BVI loan then? The BVI loan is one off, designed to bridge a gap at a specific point for a relatively small amount of capital (£5M). The reason because they (third Party) don't wish any footballing control over the adjudication or route of payment. I think Bearsy is right and that ML has set aside a large fund, possibly over may years not at once. As with any club, we can only hope the people are doing things for the right reasons and huge debts can lie anywhere in the future. It's a simple question of trust, how have they behaved in the past and how could that change? Even if you know for sure that bad things are on the move, you have very little you can do to stop matters. Things are great at the present time but if anyone else were to buy the club I really doubt it would still be debt free as the purchase price will have been loaned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max_saints Posted 8 January, 2013 Share Posted 8 January, 2013 all these talk and we still aren't confirmed to be signing neither astori nor coutinho yet. imagine if we ended up with titus bramble and el hadji diouf. cheap and premier league experience innit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now