What have Coventry done differently to us?

Rofesleg said:
Why are you calling them "so called" first team players?
These have all had, or are having, periods out due to injury. Are you suggesting they are not first team players?

Dieng
 VDB
McGree
Hackney
Coburn
Lathe
Jones
Fry
Smith
Lenihan
Forss
Click to expand...
Reading the full paragraph, I'm referring to our so-called 1st team squad that won only 2pts out of a possible 21 pts at the beginning of the season, So what was the excuse for such a poor start? when we didn't have any injury worries for them games?
 
Alwaysaborolad said:
Reading the full paragraph, I'm referring to our so-called 1st team squad that won only 2pts out of a possible 21 pts at the beginning of the season, So what was the excuse for such a poor start? when we didn't have any injury worries for them games?
Click to expand...
It took time to blend them in and make them understand the way Carrick wanted them to play.
 
Do people really think our squad is better and the players are improving in value?
Does anyone really think Gibson will sanction big nett investment in the squad this summer?
He has scope, but he had so in the last two windows.
I must have been mistaken watching us the last few matches. We have got very welcome results, agreed, but let’s not make out we have a good squad and team.
 
indeedido said:
Do people really think our squad is better and the players are improving in value?
Does anyone really think Gibson will sanction big nett investment in the squad this summer?
He has scope, but he had so in the last two windows.
I must have been mistaken watching us the last few matches. We have got very welcome results, agreed, but let’s not make out we have a good squad and team.
Click to expand...

Some players are clearly improving in value. We made a massive profit on Rogers. We paid about a million for Rav and will over ten times that when he's sold. Dieng is being linked with moves away and for much more than we paid.

And the squad is much better in terms of it's value to us as we own them all. Our 'squad' last season was threadbare and held together by costly loans that ultimately didn't get the job done.
 
indeedido said:
Do people really think our squad is better and the players are improving in value?
Click to expand...

Do you mean proved from the minute before the final whistle Vs Coventry, or the minute after?

As soon as the whistle blew, the loan players were effectively nothing to do with us. We are definitely better than we were then.

Of course we're not as good as we were during last season. That's largely due to us going down the short termist rent-a-team route last season. I won't say our quality last season was illusionary (had we gone up, the promotion would still have counted, after all), but it meant we'd have had a hell of a lot to do over the Summer just to stand still.

I'm all in favour of using the loan market, but it should be to add depth to the squad, or that final bit of quality. We shouldn't build the spine of our team out of loanees.
 
Last edited:
Alwaysaborolad said:
Reading the full paragraph, I'm referring to our so-called 1st team squad that won only 2pts out of a possible 21 pts at the beginning of the season, So what was the excuse for such a poor start? when we didn't have any injury worries for them games?
Click to expand...
the same excuse as Coventry that also had those same issues, we had massive first team upheaval. We also didn't even have a bona fide LB or CF at the club.
 
indeedido said:
Do people really think our squad is better and the players are improving in value?
Does anyone really think Gibson will sanction big nett investment in the squad this summer?
He has scope, but he had so in the last two windows.
I must have been mistaken watching us the last few matches. We have got very welcome results, agreed, but let’s not make out we have a good squad and team.
Click to expand...
This is kind of the point I was getting at in my last post. Recent transfer window history has shown us cashing in on assets and spending a fraction of the income on projects. Long term it is potentially more sustainable but it doesn't scream short term success to me (which could be far more sustainable with £100+m from being a PL team).

The answer to the OP is that Coventry didn't take their big incoming fees and only spend a small amount on projects, they spent the lot and it has allowed continuity for them. We have not done that. It doesn't matter that we are pretty much level with Coventry because our baseline was being better than them. We have regressed while they have stood still.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
Some players are clearly improving in value. We made a massive profit on Rogers. We paid about a million for Rav and will over ten times that when he's sold. Dieng is being linked with moves away and for much more than we paid.

And the squad is much better in terms of it's value to us as we own them all. Our 'squad' last season was threadbare and held together by costly loans that ultimately didn't get the job done.
Click to expand...
Dieng 2m --> 4-8m
Gloer 0--> 300k
Rav 300k--> 15-20m
Engel 2m-->1m
Bangura 900k-->900k
Lath 4m-->5m
Rogers 1.5m-->16m
Silvera 500k-->500k
Gilbert 700k-->300k
Azaz 2.5m --> 2m

On the whole, I think we've made really good investments this season, ~44m value out of less than 15m spend
 
I'm not expecting that anyone knows the answer to this, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has the information.

How much did our loan signings cost us last season?
Did we pay loan fees, and if so, what were they? What percentages of wages did we pay? I read Steffan was the highest paid player in the Championship on 60-80k/week, but I'd be amazed if we were paying all of that.

I think it's easy to think of loanees as free signings; maybe the old stopgap 1 month loan didn't command a loan fee, but these half season/full season loans often do.

If the loan signings don't get you promoted, you're guaranteed not to see a return on that money. No doubt Villa did well from our showcasing and developing Archer and Ramsey, but the appreciation in value goes to them, not us.
 
Rofesleg said:
It's just a pity they took 6 points off us. That's the difference.
Click to expand...
Got their business done early and took advantage of us not having a left back or striker. Then met us again in a massive injury crisis. I don’t think they’re any better or worse than us today
 
BoroMart said:
If those two go we will have a 50m FFP positive balance. Instead of spending 700k on Silvera and 4m on Lath we can and probably will be shopping in the 6-10m category for those roles.
Click to expand...
The club is still running at a loss. Even with the large transfer fees we have received. Just because the FFP headroom is there doesn't mean Gibbo is willing to spend his own money on big fees.
Nothing we have seen recently suggests he is.

We have had FFP headroom in the last 2 or 3 windows and not used it. We just have more headroom now but Gibbo still needs to put the money up if we are going to spend big.
 
B_G said:
The club is still running at a loss. Even with the large transfer fees we have received. Just because the FFP headroom is there doesn't mean Gibbo is willing to spend his own money on big fees.
Nothing we have seen recently suggests he is.

We have had FFP headroom in the last 2 or 3 windows and not used it. We just have more headroom now but Gibbo still needs to put the money up if we are going to spend big.
Click to expand...
We were rumoured to have about 5m FFP headroom last summer for a CF we didn't sign. Teh sale of Rogers was too late in teh window to adjust our transfer policy and make a replacement signing. Plus the club doesn't want to pay big in the January wndow due to perceived over pricing. Prior to that we were maxed out due to previous expenditures such as Britts fee and wages. So the club has kept its powder dry once and been backed into a corner once.

I'm sure he doesn't want us to run at a loss, but investing in playing assets is just that, investment. If done well you make a profit. We seem to be doing a good job of player investment as a business strategy in the last couple of years.

What we do know is Gibson does not take any money out of the club. If hypothetically we sold Hackney and Rav for 45m+, the club would have zero debts, in fact it would have a cash surplus. But it would be poor on playing assets. It wouldn't make business, football or any sense not to spend that money and history of Gibsons ownership says he absolutely would spend most of that 45m surplus.

Financing? the club would have it's own cash surplus at such sales, but also has the ability to raise capital through loans like many clubs do. The fact the club now has relatively little debt and might get a massive cash influx means that Gibson wouldn't need to put more money in anyway. 2 sales for 45m+ would be self financing for a big player investment and be allowed under FFP. I think you are a lonely voice if you believe we are going to sell Rav and Hackney and spend buttons on squad investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top