Page 5 of 17

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 13:25
by NorfolkGull
Reading back in the Herald it says we negotiated a 15% sell on clause. Very handy if it works out!

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 13:56
by Rjc70
NorfolkGull wrote: 18 Jan 2017, 13:25 Reading back in the Herald it says we negotiated a 15% sell on clause. Very handy if it works out!
Although I did read elsewhere that Dave Phillips did an early cash in of the second Barnsley instalment before they sold, so I wonder if that affected the sell on part?

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 17:02
by CP Gull
It is being reported as a 15% sell on fee so could be as much as £225k - based on a £1.5 million bid.

Just thinking, that sort of figure, as things stand, could just about see the "slate wiped clean" as far as the money lent by G.I and Masters is concerned, and so if G.I. don't get what they want as far as the freehold is concerned and if they have no real interest in the football club - then surely that opens up the possibility of the club being "sold" completely debt free again - perhaps to one of those "late" bidders from overseas who were supposedly only interested in taking the football club up the leagues? Just a thought ..

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 17:21
by portugull
Angus scored what I believe to be his first goal for Barnsley last night.

Salisbury, Torquay ,Barnsley Norwich City. What a progression. Well done Angus if it all goes through. Just brilliant.

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 17:51
by kevgull
McDonalds going to Norwich, soon to be followed by KFC and Burger king!

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 18:48
by PhilGull
I'm sure I read somewhere recently that Philipps agreed a deal on the sell-on to pay December's wages, or was that someone else?

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 19:10
by CP Gull
PhilGull wrote: 18 Jan 2017, 18:48 I'm sure I read somewhere recently that Philipps agreed a deal on the sell-on to pay December's wages, or was that someone else?
No, I don't think that's quite right. My understanding is that the (widely reported) transfer fee was £ 100k with half of it paid upfront in August - when he moved - and the other half paid in January.

The existing board (Phillips, Balson, Kerswell, Richards) knowing tha this money was imminent, but so was the sale of the club, negotiated a "deal" with Barnsley so that they could have the money earlier than agreed - in December - in order to be able to cover the monthly wage bill. Not sure how much they "gave up" in order to get the money early, but it could have been as much as £10k. Hopefully (fingers crossed) they didn't give up any potential sell on fee (widely reported as 15%) as part of this arrangement - if they did, then :@ :@ :@ :@ :@ :K

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 20:20
by PhilGull
CP Gull wrote: 18 Jan 2017, 19:10 No, I don't think that's quite right. My understanding is that the (widely reported) transfer fee was £ 100k with half of it paid upfront in August - when he moved - and the other half paid in January.

The existing board (Phillips, Balson, Kerswell, Richards) knowing tha this money was imminent, but so was the sale of the club, negotiated a "deal" with Barnsley so that they could have the money earlier than agreed - in December - in order to be able to cover the monthly wage bill. Not sure how much they "gave up" in order to get the money early, but it could have been as much as £10k. Hopefully (fingers crossed) they didn't give up any potential sell on fee (widely reported as 15%) as part of this arrangement - if they did, then :@ :@ :@ :@ :@ :K
Thanks for clearing that up!

New Players/Loan

Posted: 18 Jan 2017, 20:47
by lucy6lucy
Imagine the scenario where GI hadn't took over, and the 29th January deadline for the loan was looming. And suddenly Norwich could have sorted it all out. But I still think irrespective, we would still be in the shit under Dave Phillips regime.

New Players/Loan

Posted: 19 Jan 2017, 11:02
by wivelgull
Why on earth take someone on loan for two months (McCoulsky) and never play him?

New Players/Loan

Posted: 19 Jan 2017, 12:10
by Plainmoor78
wivelgull wrote: 19 Jan 2017, 11:02 Why on earth take someone on loan for two months (McCoulsky) and never play him?
Maybe they needed someone to hand out the bibs at training.

New Players/Loan

Posted: 19 Jan 2017, 20:25
by Magpiegull
Obviously Bristol City were not happy with his lack of game-time at Plainmoor, as, according to their website, he was recalled to Ashton Gate

New Players/Loan

Posted: 19 Jan 2017, 21:27
by PhilGull
wivelgull wrote: 19 Jan 2017, 11:02 Why on earth take someone on loan for two months (McCoulsky) and never play him?
Doesn't matter if you're a permanent signing or just on loan, you still need to work hard in training and earn a place in the starting eleven. Just because you were in the right place at the right time to get a go in a League club's youth system doesn't necessarily mean you are good enough to walk in to a Conference team.

New Players/Loan

Posted: 20 Jan 2017, 18:52
by Dazza
I am very surprised this thread has been so quiet. It's now four games without anyone with any presence up front. That's approaching 10% of the season. I don't think that's at all clever.

New Players/Loan

Posted: 20 Jan 2017, 19:10
by ROADRUNNER
what does that tell you, im sorry but kevins heart might be in the club and a great player he was and a nice bloke , but a manager he is not, its time to change if we are to move forward.
any other club in our position and the manager would be gone, he cant motivate the players, his tactics have been poor, he brings players in and then doesnt use them. im sorry if people dont agree but its a sad state. the sooner we get a change the better.