The short sightedness in loaning out players.

[Give it to Ron]

But Alpine said Rupert wouldn't buy Saha ???

Actually it was Strachan in his autobiography as I have just finished it.

WGS wanted Malbranque and Saha and we could of got them for 11m but Rupert was of the opinion that you do not give team in the same league as you 11m as that would make them stronger.

Ignoring the fcat that it also makes your team stronger .

[Weston Super Saint]

How can the argument be dead in the water. We know from the last accounts that outgoings exceeded incomings so our overdraft is increasing. we have read statements in various reports saying that the club would have to raise money or reduce costs to keep the bank happy. Just about everything written about the club in the media since the end of last season has mentioned that we are cash strapped.

 

We might not have definitive financial information but I think we've got enough to believe that Saints have needed to raise money / reduce costs since the SISU deal was vetoed. Crouch started the process by loaning out Rasiak and Skacel last January and it just continued with John, Rasiak and Saga going out last summer. I'm guessing we would have preferred to sell at least one of them but there were no offers. I don't think the new players coming in either permanently or on loan would have brought costs to the wage bill any where near the combined wages of the three above that were loaned out plus the other players that left at the end of last season that they replaced.

 

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but people seem to be putting this enormous wage tag on the head of the three, but somehow I don't see it!!

 

I fail to see how the wages of the three in question cost MORE than the loans and signings we've made this season to replace them.

 

Unfortunately, until the accounts are published, we really won't be presented with any empirical evidence either way, so will have to believe [or not], the spin and rhetoric that was published by the club to justify the moves....

[londonsaint1604]

Been moaning about Rasiak's loan since the summer. The fact he is likely to keep them up whilst we go down is criminal incompetence. Add Dyer and Stern John and it gets worse. What's worse it that appears we have allowed them to go without recall clauses. Utter incompetence.

 

Lowe has killed/is killing our club.

 

Classic reactionary anti-lowe ******** that is completely removed from reality. 'he is likely to keep them up' ffs! Are you actually talking about Rasiak still? Watford have won 5 of their last 7 games, how many goals has Rasiak scored in that time?

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Time will tell....

 

Agree, see post #15

[londonsaint1604]

Further to my previous comments about the short sightedness of this thread, Stern John has scored twice for Bristol city this season: once in a 4-1 defeat to reading, and once in a 3-1 defeat to ipswich.

[saintjay77]

Actually it was Strachan in his autobiography as I have just finished it.

WGS wanted Malbranque and Saha and we could of got them for 11m but Rupert was of the opinion that you do not give team in the same league as you 11m as that would make them stronger.

Ignoring the fcat that it also makes your team stronger .

 

Not that I am sticking up for anyone and although Rupes sounds like a bit of a plank by saying that there are plenty of other reasons as to why a club our size is not in a position to spend that kind of money on 2 players. Plus had our bid been accepted what kind of wages would they have wanted? Did we really know they were worth 11mil at the time? I actually think if we had got just Saha for his share of that 11mil we now would be slating Rupes for spending so much money on another sick note.

 

So giving a rival team that kind of money for a player that probably wasnt worth that much considering how much he played after that period and considering we probably didnt have that kind of money to throw around might not actually have been that bad an idea.

 

Its ok for the big boys like Manu U and Arsenal and Chelsea to go splashing that kind of money to clubs like us as we are not going to be challenging them or there position as for 1 we will be weeker having sold one of our better players and 2 what we buy with it will not be anything to get the big boys shaking.

[londonsaint1604]

So giving a rival team that kind of money for a player that probably wasnt worth that much considering how much he played after that period and considering we probably didnt have that kind of money to throw around might not actually have been that bad an idea.

 

Its ok for the big boys like Manu U and Arsenal and Chelsea to go splashing that kind of money to clubs like us as we are not going to be challenging them or there position as for 1 we will be weeker having sold one of our better players and 2 what we buy with it will not be anything to get the big boys shaking.

 

Exactly right. It's easy to criticise mistakes with the benefit of hindsight but who knows what would have happened instead, we can only speculate.

 

This thread is a great example: supposing we'd kept John and Rasiak and they had produced as poor form for us as they have for their respective loan clubs. This could have prevented us from signing JPS or maybe we'd have got rid of Davis or Euell instead and we could, in theory, be in an even worse position than we are now.

[Alanh]

I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but people seem to be putting this enormous wage tag on the head of the three, but somehow I don't see it!!

 

I fail to see how the wages of the three in question cost MORE than the loans and signings we've made this season to replace them.

 

Unfortunately, until the accounts are published, we really won't be presented with any empirical evidence either way, so will have to believe [or not], the spin and rhetoric that was published by the club to justify the moves....

 

Agreed, we won't know until the accounts are published, but remember that the 15 or so players brought in weren't just to replace those loaned out, they were to replace all the players that left at the end of last season as well - Lundekvam, Wright, Ostlund, Powell, Viafara, etc, etc.

 

Also, I think it's fair to say Rasiak, John and Saga have combined wages of around £40K per week. Do you really think we were paying that much combined per week for the likes of Peckhart, Robertson, Schneiderlin, Holmes, Smith - the attacking players who have been brought in this year and who could be loosely considered replacements for those three?

[RinNY]

Been moaning about Rasiak's loan since the summer. The fact he is likely to keep them up whilst we go down is criminal incompetence. Add Dyer and Stern John and it gets worse. What's worse it that appears we have allowed them to go without recall clauses. Utter incompetence.

 

Lowe has killed/is killing our club.

 

 

Or, of course, we could have kept these guys, paid their inflated salaries all year, gone into administration as a result, been deducted 10 points, and be bottom of the league, below Charlton, and staring at certain relegation. In fact, if Lowe really wanted to destroy SFC, that's exactly what he'd have done: kept Rasiak & John & Davies and paid Saints into a decline.

 

Dyer is another issue, but there are reasons why it seemed best to loan him out too, as you might recall if you cast your memory back to last summer.

 

But all you people moaning about Rasiak & John might at least try to remember why they were loaned out: nothing to do with footballing choices or incompetence or what have you; it was quite simply fiscally necessary to get their salaries off the books in whatever way could be contrived. Unfortunately, like Skacel and Saga, no-one wanted to buy them. In the cases of Skacel and Saga that is benefitting us now; in the case of Rasiak it may harm us. So it goes.

[Give it to Ron]

Not that I am sticking up for anyone and although Rupes sounds like a bit of a plank by saying that there are plenty of other reasons as to why a club our size is not in a position to spend that kind of money on 2 players. Plus had our bid been accepted what kind of wages would they have wanted? Did we really know they were worth 11mil at the time? I actually think if we had got just Saha for his share of that 11mil we now would be slating Rupes for spending so much money on another sick note.

 

So giving a rival team that kind of money for a player that probably wasnt worth that much considering how much he played after that period and considering we probably didnt have that kind of money to throw around might not actually have been that bad an idea.

 

Its ok for the big boys like Manu U and Arsenal and Chelsea to go splashing that kind of money to clubs like us as we are not going to be challenging them or there position as for 1 we will be weeker having sold one of our better players and 2 what we buy with it will not be anything to get the big boys shaking.

 

But what we actually did was bloat the squad with loads of players in fact we had 41. Van Damme cost 3.5m, McCann was 2m etc etc anyway its gone now and no point in going over that I posted that to clarify who actually said it. History shows which way it went anyway.

[70's Mike]

But what we actually did was bloat the squad with loads of players in fact we had 41. Van Damme cost 3.5m, McCann was 2m etc etc anyway its gone now and no point in going over that I posted that to clarify who actually said it. History shows which way it went anyway.

 

exactly we bought squad players then , and have done so again this season.The concept of improving your first 11 players appears alien to Rupert

[saintjay77]

But what we actually did was bloat the squad with loads of players in fact we had 41. Van Damme cost 3.5m, McCann was 2m etc etc anyway its gone now and no point in going over that I posted that to clarify who actually said it. History shows which way it went anyway.

 

im not saying what we did was right. just looking at it with hind sight spending 11mil would have been a different reason to slate him with. what we actually did doesnt give us any less to slate him with.

[saintjay77]

exactly we bought squad players then ' date=' and have done so again this season.The concept of improving your first 11 players appears alien to Rupert[/quote']

 

I think the plan of not spending inflated prices to our rivals for players that often go on to prove they are injury prone but instead try to find the next prem star from other leagues at allot less of the price is a good idea.

 

trouble is the people that tried to carry that out kept coming up with squad players and we never got rid of the dead wood. truth is for that to work the scouting network and backroom staff need to be emence and we never matched up to that standard.

 

so sounds good in theory but in practise we were lacking

[ooohTerryHurlock]

Does anyone remember that we were paying massive amounts on wages we couldn't afford and had to get some players off the wage bill? Does no-one remember that? Honestly?

 

I remember that - But the whole front line - £ x 20 goal a season strikers (potentially) then play one up front - a lad who has just broken through from the reserves? How bad do you think the financial situation will be if we take the drop. saga has already proved what a difference a proven goalscorer will make. The decision was unbelievably bad and short sited.

[ooohTerryHurlock]

The advantage of hind sight eh?

 

I am struggling to understand the logic here. Who are these three 20+ goals per season players we have loaned out? We have not had any of those since Matt Le Tiss, Micky Channon, Ron Davies and Derek Reeves (OK they were a few more) but in recent times we have not had one. Raisak, John and Dyer are hardly in that category and, apart from a short spell of good reviews at Swansea for Dyer, none have really set the world alight elsewhere. So Raisak scored for Watford on Saturday - are you telling me that we are where are because of that!!!!

 

Saga has a strike rate of 20 odd goalsin 33 games? rasiak was about 33 goals in 66 and I don't know Johns but he was well into double figures for the part of the season he played last year - ~ so I think that makes them all touching 20 goals a season if you look at the maths!

[saintjay77]

I remember that - But the whole front line - £ x 20 goal a season strikers (potentially) then play one up front - a lad who has just broken through from the reserves? How bad do you think the financial situation will be if we take the drop. saga has already proved what a difference a proven goalscorer will make. The decision was unbelievably bad and short sited.

 

As Weston said earlier shipping them all out meant that our OD was coming down which seems like what was designed to happen. What we had left wasnt good enough to keep us in a safe position and keep the crowds up so it seems like a decission has been made to include the high earners at the risk of upsetting the bank in order to keep us in the CCC.

 

So you say the decission was bad and shorsat sighted but to not make that decission may have put us into admin and staring up wishing we were as high up the table as Charlton.

[saintjay77]

Saga has a strike rate of 20 odd goalsin 33 games? rasiak was about 33 goals in 66 and I don't know Johns but he was well into double figures for the part of the season he played last year - ~ so I think that makes them all touching 20 goals a season if you look at the maths!

 

How many other seasons have they been that sucsessful?

[Weston Super Saint]

Agreed, we won't know until the accounts are published, but remember that the 15 or so players brought in weren't just to replace those loaned out, they were to replace all the players that left at the end of last season as well - Lundekvam, Wright, Ostlund, Powell, Viafara, etc, etc.

 

Also, I think it's fair to say Rasiak, John and Saga have combined wages of around £40K per week. Do you really think we were paying that much combined per week for the likes of Peckhart, Robertson, Schneiderlin, Holmes, Smith - the attacking players who have been brought in this year and who could be loosely considered replacements for those three?

 

That is assuming....

 

1. The loaned players have ALL their wages paid by the loanee clubs.

2. They earn £40k between them in the first place.

3. The five players brought in earn less than about £7k per week.

 

Again, all facts and figures that we will probably never know the answer to

[Window Cleaner]

As compared to the short-sightedness of hiring players you can't afford I suppose.

[saintjay77]

That is assuming....

 

1. The loaned players have ALL their wages paid by the loanee clubs.

2. They earn £40k between them in the first place.

3. The five players brought in earn less than about £7k per week.

 

Again, all facts and figures that we will probably never know the answer to

 

Its certainly hard to imagine that everything we got in was much cheaper than what went out but considering our finacial situation its also hard to imaging that the whole excersise wasnt done to save a huge wedge?

 

The accounts never really mean that much to me and IMO they are always dressed up a little to either highlight the positive or hide the negative. Not in a fraudulent way but can you imagine if Rupes was responcable for last seasons accounts? Would he really have come out gobbing off about all the over spending or would he be saying we saved our skin by spending big?

[Redondo Saint]

Its a paradox. People will return if Lowe goes as he fails to generate optimism. How he can be allowed to continue by the shareholders and bank I dont know - its insane.

 

Fans wont return with Lowe. That's reality. So we need to remove Lowe.

 

I liked the idea of picketting Barclays Bank and Lowe's other businesses until he leaves.

 

Your dislike of Lowe is clouding any sense you may have.

 

The shareholders and banks don't want the club to enter administration. Reducing the wage bill was a condition set by the banks some time ago.

 

Rasiak was not part of the previous managers plans and neither were some of the others.

Dyer had an attitude issue and had to be gone - despite his talent and worth to the team.

 

 

You were probably slagging of Rasiak and others last season, and now you think the club dumb to have loaned them.

 

 

Another pint of hindsight please......

[Weston Super Saint]

Its certainly hard to imagine that everything we got in was much cheaper than what went out but considering our finacial situation its also hard to imaging that the whole excersise wasnt done to save a huge wedge?

 

Hhhhmmmmmmm.

 

With our current Chairman's propensity for exacting his revenge, I wouldn't put anything past him......

 

But, again, one of those questions that we'll never get the [true] answer too

[aintforever]

Think the schneiderlin deal was purely commercial - give a young player with potential a year or 18 months and then sell on for a profit - seen as a better option that 'spunking' 1.2 mil on wages for teh overpaid or on players near the ned of careers with no sell on value.... does not amke sense from a footballing perspective but does from a commercial one when in the mire financially - naturally you have to choose a player that will improve' date=' shine and increase in value though! ;-)[/quote']

 

I would say you are right, the problem, apart from the fact that Scheiderlin isn't even that good, is the fact that he was bought for "commercial reasons".

 

In our situation the only reason a player should be bought in is to increase the quality of the first team to keep us up - that's all that matters this season.

[saintjay77]

Hhhhmmmmmmm.

 

With our current Chairman's propensity for exacting his revenge, I wouldn't put anything past him......

 

But, again, one of those questions that we'll never get the [true] answer too

 

Personally I dont think does bad things out of spite but tottaly understand why people could think that way. he certainly doesnt help himself and it doesnt matter if he is trying to do good or trying to do bad. the sooner there is someone else to push him out for good the better.

[alpine_saint]

Rasiak has scored again..........

[SB]

Rasiak has scored again..........

 

Which is goood....

[londonsaint1604]

Rasiak has scored again..........

 

Exactly. Rupert Lowe knew all along that Watford would stay up either way, but Rasiak would score crucial goals against charlton and forest which would ultimately send them down, hence the decision to loan out rasiak. I bet you still won't give him any credit though.

[ottery st mary]

Exactly. Rupert Lowe knew all along that Watford would stay up either way, but Rasiak would score crucial goals against charlton and forest which would ultimately send them down, hence the decision to loan out rasiak. I bet you still won't give him any credit though.

 

No the unfortunate sodds just don't understand us Lowey Luvvies, do they?

All the effort we put into our smart Ra Ra skirts and the amount of practice we put in perfecting our routine with the Red and White Pom Poms.

Rupert has led us Cheerleaders, Pixies, Groupies, so well and yet they still pick on us and poor old Rupert about his lack of ability in running a Football club.

 

I wonder why they do not at least credit for Ruperts wonderful formation team as we swoop down onto this forum daily to give these real football fans of the mighty Saints what for.

 

Back to training eh! londonsaint and let us get our next routine ready for Rupes next inspection of us poor misunderstood Lavender Hill Mob.

 

Shake those Pom Poms..Go for it.:smt049

[LostBoys]

I do not want to rub it in but he scored last night as well and I appreciate that it is a two edged sword as if Watford did not win Notts Forest who are our immediate target could not lose. While I did not expect Watford to be down among the dead men like us the sheer folly of loaning out all of your strikers financial constraints or not will be written on Lowe's epitaph at the end of the season if not earlier.

[sidthesquid]

Rasiak scored for Watford this weekend against Charlton - the two points difference between the win and draw could make the difference between CCC survival for us and admin and relegation - so how much financial sense is there in getting these players off the wage bill - To me its like dropping a tenner and finding a penny.

 

Super Brett scored for Blackpool as well this weekend to make things even worse. It is easier to swallow with him but Rasiak remains a saints player and therefore by scoring for watford can actually jepordise our future - can't grasp this really. Have struggled to understand the motives behind the way all the senior players have been dealt with this season. 3 20plus goalscorers bombed out on loan, other senior payers left to laguish in the reserves whilst we have been struggling..... madness!

 

How many times does this thread re-invent itself - this season, like last season, Rasiak has gone on loan because someone was prepared to take the burden of his wages on. That is all there is to say

[ooohTerryHurlock]

How many times does this thread re-invent itself - this season, like last season, Rasiak has gone on loan because someone was prepared to take the burden of his wages on. That is all there is to say

 

But I still stand by statement that the short term burden of his wages verses the long term burden of Administration was not a risk that should have been taken. The reinvention of the thread represents people who don't necessarily sit on forums all day reading every single post that is ever written! some of us are still working despite the recession!!! It is a point that still needs addressing as it is one of the main reasons we are still in the cart we find ourselves in. It was a very poor decision and who ever was culpable for shipping the whole front line out on loan needs to stand up and be counted.

 

The fact they went out onloan in the first place is the reason not so much where or to who. But it is ironic that in a bid to save 10-15K a week, we are prepared to gamble with bankrupcy? If luker had done his job properly and marketed the games right we could have had bigger crowds and then not been in the position that we had to ship all three out on loan.