• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

I'm assuming, so I could be wide of the mark, that over the past 3 years, our wage bill on 40-odd(?) loan players would be more expensive than if we'd have picked up 6/7 players on cheap deals and cheap wages?

The best thing about loan players is you can send them back if they do not perform.

It is only cheaper if you do not get stuck with a pile of s**t on 2 or 3 year deals!
 
I'm assuming, so I could be wide of the mark, that over the past 3 years, our wage bill on 40-odd(?) loan players would be more expensive than if we'd have picked up 6/7 players on cheap deals and cheap wages?

I wouldn't have thought so... Those 6/7 players would need to be paid in full (sic) throughout the year, including the offseason. Loans were brought in as and when we needed them, were usually kept over the course of 3-6 month period only during the course of the season and we usually paid a set percentage of their wage, with the parent club paying the remainder.

I'd also be surprised if the total number of loanees we've used would exceed 40. I'm guessing it's closer to 20-25.
 
I'm assuming you're talking about this coming season, what tough decisions has he made? He's sacked Tilly, but apart from that he hasn't brought the players in. Sturrock has. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what tough decisions he's had to make?

Without doubt the hardest decision he could possibly make! Tilson was the one untouchable thing at SUFC and the only thing he could have done to make himself look worse at the time was to sack Tilson, and he did it.

The manner in which Tilson has been treated was poor, but you cant say it wasnt a tough decision to make.

If that's true, why wasn't the same resources made available to Tilly.

Who said they werent ?

How often did we hear "we havent found the right players" ? Every single summer we had the same thing, a lack of signings and every year us supporters said the same thing, why arent we bringing anyone one ?

Even when finances were better we always had the same issues, and a lot of money has been given to Tilson over the past 4 years and a lot of it wasted.

Sturrock hasnt been given a penny for transfers and has brought in more players than we have had in over the past 3 seasons...

Really? a sterling job? Relegation would suggest otherwise. The point i'm making is throughout the last 3 years we've had a constantly changing starting XI. Yes we've had some good signings, and without a doubt better than what we could have afforded, but still they weren't ours, and we knew as soon as their loan period was over we'd have to start all over again

Yes the individuals who were brought in performed well, they cant save the team on their own. It doesnt matter how committed Baldwin was if our midfield couldnt string a pass together all season....

The point about not having a settled squad is the big one though and I totally agree contributed massively to our downfall. Again though, a decision may have been made that this was the only route we had to take last year and it backfired. I do think our squad from January had enough to survive, but the damage was already done.
 
Last edited:
I haven't criticised him for not spending money and you won't find a post by me saying he should. Plus I never advocated he should have spent big cash

However, i did say we need to buy players and stop relying on loans, as that itself was a bullsh*t tactic.

Maybe Tilly didnt have the money to fund transfers, or, didnt want to take a chance given his previous record.
When you have a limited budget its one hell of a gamble buying a player on a 2 or 3 year contract who might turn out to be not quite as good as you hoped.
 
I had a big reply all written out, then somehow deleted it all, :(

I wouldn't have thought so... Those 6/7 players would need to be paid in full (sic) throughout the year, including the offseason. Loans were brought in as and when we needed them, were usually kept over the course of 3-6 month period only during the course of the season and we usually paid a set percentage of their wage, with the parent club paying the remainder.

I'd also be surprised if the total number of loanees we've used would exceed 40. I'm guessing it's closer to 20-25.

The loanees would have had to have been paid aswell though. We might have only paid a % of loanees wages, but even stil, paying so many would rack up, and probably have been more expensive than getting in 6/7 on 2/3 year deals for cheap money. Also, as i've said a settled side would possibly/probably not have been relegated. You say we used them as and when needed, but that was all the time. It was basiclly a revolving door system, where one would leave and another would replace him. So in effect, we're constantly paying wages, the same as if we'd have had our own players.

I may have exaggerated my intial sum, but off the top of my head I counted 27 loanees in the past 3 years. I had them written down but that went tits up.

Without doubt the hardest decision he could possibly make! Tilson was the one untouchable thing at SUFC and the only thing he could have done to make himself look worse at the time was to sack Tilson, and he did it.

The manner in which Tilson has been treated was poor, but you cant say it wasnt a tough decision to make.

It seemed obvious to me that he was fed up with Tilly in charge. You could tell it was only a matter of time from Ron's blogs. So I would question if it was that tough a decision.


Even when finances were better we always had the same issues, and a lot of money has been given to Tilson over the past 4 years and a lot of it wasted.

Again, Tilly's bad-buys pale in comparison to his good-buys. It is a petty criticism.

Maybe Tilly didnt have the money to fund transfers, or, didnt want to take a chance given his previous record.
When you have a limited budget its one hell of a gamble buying a player on a 2 or 3 year contract who might turn out to be not quite as good as you hoped.

But do you think he preferred going through the season with 13 players? Do you honestly think Tilly was happy to continually use the loan market?
 
You can get as many opinions as you want but until we hear if from Tilly it's not a fact.
Perhaps you could tell me how many opinions equal a fact. 100 or 500 or maybe 1357?

No idea mate. I left Belfairs High 38 years ago aged 15, took no exams so perhaps you could answer your question for me?.
 
I've said it before - but imagine the uproar (on here at very least) if Martin would have come out in our CCC year and said;

"Sorry, we cannot sign anyone as we just cannot afford the wages"

Can see it now...

"WHERES THE MONEY GONE RON!"

"GO AND DO ONE!"

"WHERE IS THE WARCHEST"

"THIS ISNT TILSONS FAULT"

etc etc...

So I think you are wrong GraysBlue - we are and were responsible - as fans we always want more, better, stronger etc - we got what we wanted and whilst we dont decide the contracts of course, we were responsible in part for the recruitment drive.

And again, sorry to harp on with this oft repeated point, but I believe a 'better' manager could have spent the limited budget we had more wisely. Look at what Sturrock has achieved on a -£ budget! I'm not advocating getting rid of Tilson when we got promoted (though perhaps another chairman would have - after all, you have to do what is right for the club and in hindsight what was right for us perhaps, was a more experienced head for that level??).

All in hindsight anyways - what happened, happend. We enjoyed it at the time and are now reaping what was sown...


Argh......people saying things like this REAALLLLLLLY grinds my gears. RON MARTIN DEALT WITH TRANSFER FEES AND NEGOTIATIONS. All Tilson did was identify players. From there onwards, it was up to Martin and, in more recent times, Jennings. So enough of the 'a better manager would have spent the budget more wisely' ********, because Tilson didn't spend the budget. Martin did.
 
Argh......people saying things like this REAALLLLLLLY grinds my gears. RON MARTIN DEALT WITH TRANSFER FEES AND NEGOTIATIONS. All Tilson did was identify players. From there onwards, it was up to Martin and, in more recent times, Jennings. So enough of the 'a better manager would have spent the budget more wisely' ********, because Tilson didn't spend the budget. Martin did.

Tilson would still have had an input, and it was his suggestions that Revell was a goal scorer worthy of paying good money for. RM wouldnt have known what to negotiate without recommendations from the manager surely...

Tilson identified the players he wanted money spent on and Ron Martin backed him, as he should have.
 
Really and you know this for a fact, care to explain further.

I have heard that we have missed out on players due to Ron's slowness in getting the negotiations started on more than one occasion. and due to these events have sometimes appeared to make knee jerk signings, as all the groundwork was done on the particular player that we missed out on, and then we go to the next choice.

Oooooh, if people knew the HALF of it in relation to players who this football club missed out on, and not just because Ron was slow in negotiating. The level of interference in footballing matters by people above the management team was way beyond normal levels. Complete and utter undermining destroyed more than a few deals.

If Tilson had pulled off even a third of the transfers which he'd arranged and were just waiting 'final approval', he'd be hailed a messiah.
 
What the **** is Paul Boreham on about...."a better manager"..Sturrock has done nothing yet apart from get a group of mercenaries together with ******** and promises fed to him by RM...Let us see if the great messiah comes through with his new promised land.
 
Tilson would still have had an input, and it was his suggestions that Revell was a goal scorer worthy of paying good money for. RM wouldnt have known what to negotiate without recommendations from the manager surely...

Tilson identified the players he wanted money spent on and Ron Martin backed him, as he should have.

Yes, Tilson highlighted players and suggested transfer fees and wage packets to be offered.....which were in some cases doubled by the two men who actually handled the negotiations.
 
What the **** is Paul Boreham on about...."a better manager"..Sturrock has done nothing yet apart from get a group of mercenaries together with ******** and promises fed to him by RM...Let us see if the great messiah comes through with his new promised land.

Don't get me started! He has a vendetta against Tilson.....
 
Nice to see that this thread can go on the pile of others that have, yet again, descended into mudslinging and abuse between other posters despite starting as pages of well reasoned debate.

This is all getting a bit tiresome, really...
 
Nice to see that this thread can go on the pile of others that have, yet again, descended into mudslinging and abuse between other posters despite starting as pages of well reasoned debate.

This is all getting a bit tiresome, really...
Be patient ESB, James is going to tell us about all the players Ron didn't sign.
 
Back
Top