A Bit of Fun Transfer Rumours Thread (Potential New Signings)

[Barry.C]

Regarding the solidarity payment Barry, Ron did confirm that is what we would lose straight away next season, to the cost of approx. £465k in one of the last zoom meetings.

That was the meeting where he said some of that would be dealt with in the reduction of playing salaries.

Academy funding was retained for next season and 6 months into the following season, one of the reasons why an immediate return to the EFL was essential.

Not sure he mentioned exactly what the parachute payments were exactly, but I guess they will also go towards off setting the loss of the solidarity payment from the Premier League.

I hope that helps a little?

Thanks for that and it probably means as we got £1.3m last year, if we take off the £465, we get around £835, 000, ??

 

[Barry.C]

Three interesting signings made by chesterfield:

Jack Clarke, midfielder, on a permanent from Villa. He spent last half of the season on loan with them, aged 22.

Calvin Miller, winger from Harrogate, aged 23. On loan with Notts County previously.

Jeff King, full back 25 from FC Halifax and named in NL team of the year last season.

On paper, three solid signings, who know what the NL is all about. Also a sign that this division, if we didn't know it already, is going to be no cakewalk to get out of.

Very interesting but dont mention their you know what as it results in apoplexy

 

[bluesfansince1952]

Why should we be paying transfer fees for players?

In the recent past, we’ve barely paid our players, other staff members, taxman, local business etc.

Every summer, there are 100s and 100s of players on free transfers. Even more so this summer as clubs cut their cloths according because of the pandemic, wages budgets, squad size limits etc.

There is more than enough quality in free transfers for the Club to achieve their goals.

Free transfers doesn’t always mean lesser quality. Some of our better players have been free transfers.

What I will say, is for the first time in a long time, there is joined up thinking between all the decision makers at the Club (RM, PB, RD, CF & TL) and we aren’t being held to ransom by players (transfer targets and existing players contracts). We’ve missed out on some players as we couldn’t match the wages they demanded. We aren’t offering “cheap” wages, but aren’t going to the extremes we’ve done in the past to recruit players.

The players we’ve signed so far, and the ones we will be signing soon, genuinely want to play for the Club, make a fist of getting back into the Football League and not because we’ve offered the biggest wage, which hasn’t always been the case.

I know at least one of the players we’ve signed, could have stayed at their Club, or moved to other Clubs for more money.

I’d expect a GK to be next through the door, I’ve not been told any names on that, but Oxley is a goner and his replacement will be through the door sooner rather than later. I’d expect the vast majority of our business to be done before the start of pre-season.

PB and his team, have been working round the clock, have travelled huge miles, and spent hours on the phone trying to get players in. Meetings have taken place across the country, and at all different times.

It is not always so simple. Although 'free transfer' signings do not cost a transfer fee those players in demand essentially auction off their services and tend to sign for whoever offers them the largest signing on fee. The fact is it costs to make any kind of decent signing with or without having to pay any transfer fee.

 

[BoyWonder2]

It is not always so simple. Although 'free transfer' signings do not cost a transfer fee those players in demand essentially auction off their services and tend to sign for whoever offers them the largest signing on fee. The fact is it costs to make any kind of decent signing with or without having to pay any transfer fee.

Of course, but people want us to spend money on transfer fees. You’d still have signing on fees, bonuses, wages etc.

 

[bluesfansince1952]

Third that, wouldn't abuse him and nothing wrong with his effort, but you can't ignore what is in front of your eyes week after week. Sorry to say at L2 level, Emile was just not good enough. If we hadn't been desperate and in a transfer embargo, he wouldn't have been brought back. Not to mention the fact that no-one took a punt on him and he was a free agent, which was why we were able to take him back in the first place.

There's not a lot of difference between L2 and Nl, so I think he will struggle again, I hope he doesn't, but once again it is down to ability, not how nice a person is or where he comes from.

I thought he was ok performing a difficult role in a struggling team. I suspect had there not been an embargo he would not have been used in as many games as he was.
He was quite durable though and made thirty appearances for us. Let us hope in the coming season that all of our newcomers can at least equal if not exceed this figure!

 

[bluesfansince1952]

Of course, but people want us to spend money on transfer fees. You’d still have signing on fees, bonuses, wages etc.

I guess i was trying to say that sometimes a 'free transfer' can cost the Club more than when a fee is paid!
Either way, every season up and down the land there many examples of fees being paid for total duds and some absolute gems being signed on free transfers.

 

[Barry.C]

On the transfer front just wondering how many long term loanees we might pick up. ?

Obviously there will be a good mix of strong opinions on here as to whether we should have any. Give our own youth a chance etc

However it seems to pay off in this league packed with talented loanees. Maybe something for us to be aware of, but the TOP 7 clubs last year loaned in 33 players between them, 29 of which were youngsters from the efl

Sutton the champions brought in 5 , although 4 of their youngsters were from LOWER leagues

We are allowed to have 6 long term loanees, just saying, dont shoot the messenger


Hartlepool also promoted brought in 4, Torquay finished second with 3, Stockport 3rd with 3, Notts C finished 5th with 5, Chesterfield 5th with 2 and Bromley 7th with 3

These clubs brought in more loanees than others. All were ( y.u,g ) Message if you want to finish in the top 7 ??? get in a few loanees ?

 

[Supershrimper]

Our next signing has got to be a goalkeeper.

Hopefully one is already signed and we are waiting on Oxley to leave before announcing.

 

[SUBBlue]

Acquah joins Maidenhead

Good luck to the lad.
21 in a couple of weeks & a good opportunity to bring on his game there at a semi pro club.
Thanks for your efforts here.

 

[BedfordShrimper]

Three interesting signings made by chesterfield:

Jack Clarke, midfielder, on a permanent from Villa. He spent last half of the season on loan with them, aged 22.

Calvin Miller, winger from Harrogate, aged 23. On loan with Notts County previously.

Jeff King, full back 25 from FC Halifax and named in NL team of the year last season.

On paper, three solid signings, who know what the NL is all about. Also a sign that this division, if we didn't know it already, is going to be no cakewalk to get out of.

Yep I saw these signings made by Chesterfield. Halifax fans seem to be absolutely devastated they’ve lost Jeff King.
Chesterfield are going to be right up there at the top of the table by the looks of it.

This league is going to be extremely competitive, no doubt about that!

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

Yep I saw these signings made by Chesterfield. Halifax fans seem to be absolutely devastated they’ve lost Jeff King.
Chesterfield are going to be right up there at the top of the table by the looks of it.

This league is going to be extremely competitive, no doubt about that!

What makes this more interesting as a group of signings is on the same multi team site, Chesterfield fans are saying they have cut their wage budget for season 2021/22 by 20% on 20/21.

Also I see Ricky Miller has re-signed for Dover.

 

[SHRIMPERPETER]

Alright Peter, this post is **** and somewhat proves my previous point.

You think it does?

 

[Shepshead]

It is not always so simple. Although 'free transfer' signings do not cost a transfer fee those players in demand essentially auction off their services and tend to sign for whoever offers them the largest signing on fee. The fact is it costs to make any kind of decent signing with or without having to pay any transfer fee.

Of course, but people want us to spend money on transfer fees. You’d still have signing on fees, bonuses, wages etc.

My experience does tend to agree with your theory that players in demand can make lucrative deals at the end of their contracts, without the pressure of perspective new clubs requiring to pay a transfer fee. However, I don’t believe that signing on fees are that much of a reality. The range of players salaries within any given club can be miles apart and will range between £700 & £1400 per week.

 

[rigsby]

My experience does tend to agree with your theory that players in demand can make lucrative deals at the end of their contracts, without the pressure of perspective new clubs requiring to pay a transfer fee. However, I don’t believe that signing on fees are that much of a reality. The range of players salaries within any given club can be miles apart and will range between £700 & £1400 per week.

True what yo say about signing on fees but that will still be repeated along with older players demand big money because they once earned high wages further up the leagues.

As for wages. We offered £1200 to an experienced CB who was on £2,000 in the NL last season. He has resigned with his current club for £1650.

Interestingly Hornchurch offered £700 part time as they know he is currently retraining for a career after football.

The same player was offered a contract with Tranmere a few years back. He turned the chance of the EFL down as he had a young family and a wife who's business was expanding and earning more than he did......Offering more money has a big advantage but its not always the deciding factor in life.

 

[rigsby]

However it seems to pay off in this league packed with talented loanees. Maybe something for us to be aware of, but the TOP 7 clubs last year loaned in 33 players between them, 29 of which were youngsters from the efl


These clubs brought in more loanees than others. All were ( y.u,g ) Message if you want to finish in the top 7 ??? get in a few loanees ?

No Bazz, the message is the clubs with good set ups and facilities including the advantage of an artificial pitch......Get the best loanees offered to them. Dover instead of Torquay anyone?....Solihul Moors or Chesterfield?

We will get loanees in but their past treatment by some sections of our so called fans has done us no favours. I watched Les Ferdinand looking round in total disgust at certain comments, when he was watching in the East.

Hopefully a more positive atmosphere will have the Lincoln, Bristol R effect and bring back some of the better fans who gave up season cards because they got fed up with the same idiots spoiling the day.

 

[Barry.C]

No Bazz, the message is the clubs with good set ups and facilities including the advantage of an artificial pitch......Get the best loanees offered to them. Dover instead of Torquay anyone?....Solihul Moors or Chesterfield?

We will get loanees in but their past treatment by some sections of our so called fans has done us no favours. I watched Les Ferdinand looking round in total disgust at certain comments, when he was watching in the East.

Hopefully a more positive atmosphere will have the Lincoln, Bristol R effect and bring back some of the better fans who gave up season cards because they got fed up with the same idiots spoiling the day.

Back on the fans backs again are we ? Loanees not coming here because of the awful naughty fans reputation?

Aside from that got to admire your latest attempt as Rons number 1 lieutenant to distract from the point

You seem to be saying that the 33 on loan players who were key to the success of the top 7 National League clubs , all went their because of academies and an artificial pitch ? Is that how we attract Loanees is it?

And secondly what wondrous success we have had in terms of 3 seasons of abject failure and was that because of our loanees brought in, to do what, play in the Under 23s??

No Riggs, I take it you do know there are 24 Academies in the lower leagues. They all didnt attract loanees because of their academies and of course neither did they finish in the top 7 !! So sorry your view has no traction , especially where those with academies brought few loanees in and finished way down ??

You cant dismiss the fact that 33 loanees , all youngsters, made a huge contribution to the teams that finished in the top 7 and it had little to do with academies attracting them in

 

[Blue Yonder]

Last season Bolton after 3 years of transfer embargo and non paying of players were near the bottom of L2 halfway through the season. With the embargo lifted they signed 2 players plus 6 on loan and ended the season promoted. Loanees can definitely make a big difference. Having said that to enter a season with a strategy of getting promoted using loan players feels like crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

 

[kentblues]

Last season Bolton after 3 years of transfer embargo and non paying of players were near the bottom of L2 halfway through the season. With the embargo lifted they signed 2 players plus 6 on loan and ended the season promoted. Loanees can definitely make a big difference. Having said that to enter a season with a strategy of getting promoted using loan players feels like crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

In the end you want the best players you can get. Loanees can play a part but as we know can be a real mixed bag. If the best player who can get for a position is a loanee then fine.
There is the debate regarding how committed some are to a club that is a temporary home (but that varies by individual). as with everything very difficult to generalise and i will be surprised if we at least don't have a couple.

I think PB (and certainly RD & CF) are of the opinion that developing other people's youngsters at the expense of our own is perhaps OK if they are clearly better. To often they have been very clearly not better..

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

On the transfer front just wondering how many long term loanees we might pick up. ?

Obviously there will be a good mix of strong opinions on here as to whether we should have any. Give our own youth a chance etc

However it seems to pay off in this league packed with talented loanees. Maybe something for us to be aware of, but the TOP 7 clubs last year loaned in 33 players between them, 29 of which were youngsters from the efl

Sutton the champions brought in 5 , although 4 of their youngsters were from LOWER leagues

We are allowed to have 6 long term loanees, just saying, dont shoot the messenger


Hartlepool also promoted brought in 4, Torquay finished second with 3, Stockport 3rd with 3, Notts C finished 5th with 5, Chesterfield 5th with 2 and Bromley 7th with 3

These clubs brought in more loanees than others. All were ( y.u,g ) Message if you want to finish in the top 7 ??? get in a few loanees ?

I'm interested where those statistics come from. Looking at Transfermarkt, the top seven clubs loaned 63 players last season, including 42 from PL/EFL clubs. That's an average of 9 players per club in the top 7 positions, 6 of which were from the PL/EFL.

The other 16 clubs in the National League loaned 121 players in total (7.56 per club), of which 91 were from PL/EFL clubs (5.69 per club), which aren't too different to those in the top 7.

All clubs bring in loan players, to a greater or lesser extent, so bringing in loan players in itself doesn't suggest that a club will be successful. Sutton, the champions, and Dover, who were bottom, both brought in 5 loan players apiece (albeit Dover's were in a truncated season).

Barnet (9), King's Lynn Town (7), Woking (19), Wealdstone (13) towards the bottom of the table brought in more than Sutton (indeed Woking (20th) and Wealdstone (19th) brought in more than any other club, including those in the play-offs).

 

[Shepshead]

Back on the fans backs again are we ? Loanees not coming here because of the awful naughty fans reputation?

Aside from that got to admire your latest attempt as Rons number 1 lieutenant to distract from the point

You seem to be saying that the 33 on loan players who were key to the success of the top 7 National League clubs , all went their because of academies and an artificial pitch ? Is that how we attract Loanees is it?

And secondly what wondrous success we have had in terms of 3 seasons of abject failure and was that because of our loanees brought in, to do what, play in the Under 23s??

No Riggs, I take it you do know there are 24 Academies in the lower leagues. They all didnt attract loanees because of their academies and of course neither did they finish in the top 7 !! So sorry your view has no traction , especially where those with academies brought few loanees in and finished way down ??

You cant dismiss the fact that 33 loanees , all youngsters, made a huge contribution to the teams that finished in the top 7 and it had little to do with academies attracting them in

Clearly the reasons behind loan players is that the parent club see the benefits to a young player and is part of their development to higher standards. The NL in many cases is the youngsters first movement into men’s football. This can create an hit or miss situation and the challenge to our management team is to identify the potential of players available.