*** Hearts Summer Transfer Thread*** Offiah signs on loan

[Taffin]

Michal Karbownik

 

That's my random guess from 2 seconds looking.

[Negan]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Yes we are. This is the Budge model - but again, people don’t want to see it. Pretend to be ambitious and make some of the right noises to keep the pledges and season ticket sales coming but do nothing which actually progresses us as a team.

 

I’d almost rather the club just came out and said ‘look, this is it, this is as good as it will get’. At least it would be honest. And as an aside, we can easily be this mediocre with £140k pledges a month. 

Budge of all people should know that football is a business. Aberdeen splashing the cash they earned on players like miovski and Duk for example. They are a higher standard than players we have and probably on more money? Who knows. We can't just sit and act as if scraping 4th place is acceptable. 

[CMc]

5 minutes ago, Heartsofgold said:

That is massively over our salary cap and would make him the highest paid player at the club, far higher than Gordon or Shankland.

 

People have to remember that, excluding the benefactors donations last year, we made a loss, quite a big one too, from the football club income.  The clubs directors will be well aware of this and will have cut the cloth to suit, as it were.

 

 

Yep. 
 

Going to £10k for one player over a three year contract (assuming 30% on costs) is approx £1m. 
 

Maybe we can afford this. Maybe we can afford to do this a couple of times for “star players”. 
 

Issue we then have is the half milly per head we need to bump up all our current top boys from £5k pw to £10k a week to prevent them from walking. 
 

Shanks, McKay, Gordon, Halkett, McKay, Cochrane, Devlin and Baningame would likely be in this category. 
 

So going to £10k for one player could end up costing £5m. 
 

Obviously, these are rough numbers to illustrate the point - none of us know they money the players are actually on - but holding a firm line on the wage structure is a good thing. I’m certain it was critical to the successful extensions for Halks, Kingsley, Gordon, etc after strong seasons last year. 
 

When we can afford to give that sort of money out for renewals, then absolutely we should be offering it to new folk - but it would be crazy (IMO) to alienate our existing assets to draw in a couple of new players. 
 

If it is a few hundred quid a week more than our current cap, there might be an argument there (assuming budget projections are confident of growth), but anything else is leading to trouble (again IMO). 

[Dayman]

56 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

Agreed. If we sign another ch, (preferably an aggressive brute!), we'll have 4 very very good CHs. Yes Kye and Toby have things to work on, but they will. Theyre both good players. Getting the mix right will be the thing. Youd have to say toby-kye isnt perfect but any other combo, we're golden

 

(A lot rests on the new guy obvs!!)

I think people underestimate their abilities as they’ve been forced to try and replace Halkett. Both are more “sweepers” than ball winning CB’s. So yeah, I agree the pairing isn’t great, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good players.

 

I was discussing this the other day. I searched on WyScout for headers won by Halkett whilst playing with Kye/Toby. The first video I watched illustrated it perfectly.

 

They all start in line(actually a Halkett is deepest by a tad). Halketts first instinct is “My ball!”. Rowles and Sibbick’s first instinct is “We’re here if you miss that mate”.

 

Neither decision is wrong, but it’s hard to reprogram yourself to make the other decision. Try telling Halkett to be the sweeper and he’d be caught in no man’s land just as much as Rowles/Sibbick are caught out in the air.

 

This also emphasises the need for a big brute of a CB this window. 

 

 

[Mr Elwood P]

6 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Yes we are. This is the Budge model - but again, people don’t want to see it. Pretend to be ambitious and make some of the right noises to keep the pledges and season ticket sales coming but do nothing which actually progresses us as a team.

 

I’d almost rather the club just came out and said ‘look, this is it, this is as good as it will get’. At least it would be honest. And as an aside, we can easily be this mediocre with £140k pledges a month. 

What do you think paying £10k a week for a few players is actually going to achieve?

[Taffin]

5 minutes ago, CMc said:

Yep. 
 

Going to £10k for one player over a three year contract (assuming 30% on costs) is approx £1m. 
 

Maybe we can afford this. Maybe we can afford to do this a couple of times for “star players”. 
 

Issue we then have is the half milly per head we need to bump up all our current top boys from £5k pw to £10k a week to prevent them from walking. 
 

Shanks, McKay, Gordon, Halkett, McKay, Cochrane, Devlin and Baningame would likely be in this category. 
 

So going to £10k for one player could end up costing £5m. 
 

Obviously, these are rough numbers to illustrate the point - none of us know they money the players are actually on - but holding a firm line on the wage structure is a good thing. I’m certain it was critical to the successful extensions for Halks, Kingsley, Gordon, etc after strong seasons last year. 
 

When we can afford to give that sort of money out for renewals, then absolutely we should be offering it to new folk - but it would be crazy (IMO) to alienate our existing assets to draw in a couple of new players. 
 

If it is a few hundred quid a week more than our current cap, there might be an argument there (assuming budget projections are confident of growth), but anything else is leading to trouble (again IMO). 

 

This just isn't true. Players and in fact employees in all markets have variable salaries. Just because one person commands a bigger wage doesn't suddenly mean others do. They may be in a position to negotiate towards it when their current contract is nearing its end.

 

Why would you pay a 40 year old who's not yet back from a serious injury who likely wouldn't get his current terms anywhere else the same as a player in red hot form in his peak years? Just because?

 

The only one in your list who'd remotely have a case would be Shankland...and even then he's on a contract that he agreed to. Ginelly wasn't and thus has leverage to negotiate.

Edited July 14, 2023 by Taffin

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

This just isn't true. Players and in fact employees in all markets have variable salaries. Just because one person commands a bigger wage doesn't suddenly mean others do. They may be in a position to negotiate towards it when their current contract is nearing its end.

 

Why would you pay a 40 year old who's not yet back from a serious injury who likely wouldn't get his current terms anywhere else the same as a player in red hot form in his peak years? Just because?

You are right but it, rightly or wrongly, does cause unrest, in any business but particularly team sports it seems, when you have big disparities. 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

June 2021 that’s from. 

 

I was too busy looking for clues in the video and missed that.

 

Why do people do this? What's wrong with folk? 😂😂

[Rocky jamboa]

I'm sure the club would push to £10k for the right player, like another Rudi, but Gino isn't that player. He was very up and down in his time with us so the £6k we offered him was right.

[WDJ87]

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Or it was when he was moved centrally. Either way, 1 in 3 goal contributions doesn't come cheaply regardless of what's motivating the player. If it was money, which I wouldn't expect differently tbh, then so be it...it is his job afterall.

Possibly 🤷‍♂️ guess we'll never know. He was one I wanted to keep. Not worth upsetting the rest of the group by breaking the wage cap for tho imo.

[CMc]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

This just isn't true. Players and in fact employees in all markets have variable salaries. Just because one person commands a bigger wage doesn't suddenly mean others do. They may be in a position to negotiate towards it when their current contract is nearing its end.

 

Why would you pay a 40 year old who's not yet back from a serious injury who likely wouldn't get his current terms anywhere else the same as a player in red hot form in his peak years? Just because?

 

The only one in your list who'd remotely have a case would be Shankland...and even then he's on a contract that he agreed to. Ginelly wasn't and thus has leverage to negotiate.

I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this then. I recon most of the folk I mentioned will have been told they are getting the best money we can give them and that we would have loved to have been able to give them more. I suspect they would want levelled up. But just opinions as ever. 
 

 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

9 minutes ago, Dayman said:

I think people underestimate their abilities as they’ve been forced to try and replace Halkett. Both are more “sweepers” than ball winning CB’s. So yeah, I agree the pairing isn’t great, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good players.

 

I was discussing this the other day. I searched on WyScout for headers won by Halkett whilst playing with Kye/Toby. The first video I watched illustrated it perfectly.

 

They all start in line(actually a Halkett is deepest by a tad). Halketts first instinct is “My ball!”. Rowles and Sibbick’s first instinct is “We’re here if you miss that mate”.

 

Neither decision is wrong, but it’s hard to reprogram yourself to make the other decision. Try telling Halkett to be the sweeper and he’d be caught in no man’s land just as much as Rowles/Sibbick are caught out in the air.

 

This also emphasises the need for a big brute of a CB this window. 

 

 

We will address it. Hill would have imho had we been consistent with him 

[Taffin]

Just now, davemclaren said:

You are right but it, rightly or wrongly, does cause unrest, in any business but particularly team sports it seems, when you have big disparities. 

 

It can do, yes. And that's where managers earn their corn imo. If someone has a good and comparable case then you'd work with them to find an equitable outcome if replacing their contribution would likely cost you more.

 

Why you'd just double the salary of a host of guys who've been out injured and others you may be looking to upgrade on already...I don't know. 

 

It could see players in the future demanding more, I appreciate that is a risk.

[Chimp]

26 minutes ago, We_are_the_Hearts said:

There is a medical today so maybe it hasn't, or maybe it is someone else

 

Or maybe it's just another medical for the women's team 😴

[Cheile]

47 minutes ago, Harryspocket said:

Today is the day I can feel it 😊

 

Scott Brown certainly felt it!

[Chimp]

19 minutes ago, OmiyaHearts said:

I see Kanji Okunuki bagged a goal v Arsenal yesterday in a friendly. I'd really like if we revisted Omiya Ardija and signed Masaya Shibayama - always thought he was better option than Kanji and a lot more potential. 

 

Where in midfield and what kind of player is he?

[Robbo-Jambo]

29 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Or it was when he was moved centrally. Either way, 1 in 3 goal contributions doesn't come cheaply regardless of what's motivating the player. If it was money, which I wouldn't expect differently tbh, then so be it...it is his job afterall.

Too many folk saying Ginnelly only started playing near the end of his contract.

 

I personally think he started playing well when he got moved to his correct position and thrived on it 

 

Whose to say if he was put in a more central role two years ago he might have had two brilliant seasons 

 

This guy will be very hard to replace absolutely no doubt about that.

[Sooks]

11 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Yes we are. This is the Budge model - but again, people don’t want to see it. Pretend to be ambitious and make some of the right noises to keep the pledges and season ticket sales coming but do nothing which actually progresses us as a team.

 

I’d almost rather the club just came out and said ‘look, this is it, this is as good as it will get’. At least it would be honest. And as an aside, we can easily be this mediocre with £140k pledges a month. 

The Budge model is exactly what you are wanting your self , to push up the amount we can spend on players . The only difference is she and the board are quite sensibly doing it by growing the turnover of the club in a sustainable way , and keeping our player budget as a percentage of that which will not endanger our existence again . If we want to spend more per week on wages then we need to invest the money we take in from benefactors and the foundation on increasing our turnover and then the 70 odd percent of it that we spend on wages will allow us to increase that sum . Your plan of using the benefactor and foundation cash on salaries and fees would put the club straight in to boom and busy cycle all over again . If some thing happened to Anderson and his money like what happened to Romanov in the global banking crisis , we would suddenly have to find the wages to pay the players that were on these contracts that we could not afford to pay through our turnover . I am glad we are taking the path we are because I do not ever want to have to face the prospect of losing the club I love ever again 

[soonbe110]

15 minutes ago, CMc said:

Yep. 
 

Going to £10k for one player over a three year contract (assuming 30% on costs) is approx £1m. 
 

Maybe we can afford this. Maybe we can afford to do this a couple of times for “star players”. 
 

Issue we then have is the half milly per head we need to bump up all our current top boys from £5k pw to £10k a week to prevent them from walking. 
 

Shanks, McKay, Gordon, Halkett, McKay, Cochrane, Devlin and Baningame would likely be in this category. 
 

So going to £10k for one player could end up costing £5m. 
 

Obviously, these are rough numbers to illustrate the point - none of us know they money the players are actually on - but holding a firm line on the wage structure is a good thing. I’m certain it was critical to the successful extensions for Halks, Kingsley, Gordon, etc after strong seasons last year. 
 

When we can afford to give that sort of money out for renewals, then absolutely we should be offering it to new folk - but it would be crazy (IMO) to alienate our existing assets to draw in a couple of new players. 
 

If it is a few hundred quid a week more than our current cap, there might be an argument there (assuming budget projections are confident of growth), but anything else is leading to trouble (again IMO). 

£10k pw for three years is over £2m when all the extras are added in. 

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, CMc said:

I guess we will need to agree to disagree on this then. I recon most of the folk I mentioned will have been told they are getting the best money we can give them and that we would have loved to have been able to give them more. I suspect they would want levelled up. But just opinions as ever. 
 

 

 

 

Maybe that was true at the time from both their value and our finances. Their value and leverage, and our finances are variable though and it may not be true today. Would I make Shankland a top earner if he was going out of contract? You bet. He's not though.

 

You're right though as it's opinions so happy to agree to disagree 👍

[soonbe110]

48 days of the window left.  Players and agents probably happy to sit out another few weeks to see what’s the best offer they get.  Pretty understandable and hopefully the main reason we haven’t made signings yet. 

[CMc]

6 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

£10k pw for three years is over £2m when all the extras are added in. 

You’re right - did the sums for the £5k difference then forgot 🤦🏻‍♂️

[Wilson]

8 minutes ago, Sooks said:

The Budge model is exactly what you are wanting your self , to push up the amount we can spend on players . The only difference is she and the board are quite sensibly doing it by growing the turnover of the club in a sustainable way , and keeping our player budget as a percentage of that which will not endanger our existence again . If we want to spend more per week on wages then we need to invest the money we take in from benefactors and the foundation on increasing our turnover and then the 70 odd percent of it that we spend on wages will allow us to increase that sum . Your plan of using the benefactor and foundation cash on salaries and fees would put the club straight in to boom and busy cycle all over again . If some thing happened to Anderson and his money like what happened to Romanov in the global banking crisis , we would suddenly have to find the wages to pay the players that were on these contracts that we could not afford to pay through our turnover . I am glad we are taking the path we are because I do not ever want to have to face the prospect of losing the club I love ever again 

Well said.

[I.T.K]

23 minutes ago, CMc said:

Yep. 
 

Going to £10k for one player over a three year contract (assuming 30% on costs) is approx £1m. 
 

Maybe we can afford this. Maybe we can afford to do this a couple of times for “star players”. 
 

Issue we then have is the half milly per head we need to bump up all our current top boys from £5k pw to £10k a week to prevent them from walking. 
 

Shanks, McKay, Gordon, Halkett, McKay, Cochrane, Devlin and Baningame would likely be in this category. 
 

So going to £10k for one player could end up costing £5m. 
 

Obviously, these are rough numbers to illustrate the point - none of us know they money the players are actually on - but holding a firm line on the wage structure is a good thing. I’m certain it was critical to the successful extensions for Halks, Kingsley, Gordon, etc after strong seasons last year. 
 

When we can afford to give that sort of money out for renewals, then absolutely we should be offering it to new folk - but it would be crazy (IMO) to alienate our existing assets to draw in a couple of new players. 
 

If it is a few hundred quid a week more than our current cap, there might be an argument there (assuming budget projections are confident of growth), but anything else is leading to trouble (again IMO). 

 

 

This happened at Hibs with Chris Mueller. He was on a reported 10k a week and other players used this as the bench mark for their contract negotiations. 

[mellors1874]

See Rangers are looking to get wright and the young keeper of the books at Ibrox.

Wonder if Naismith will enquire as both would be good additions.

As we know our keepers may not be fully fit for spells this season.

[RustyRightPeg]

1 minute ago, mellors1874 said:

See Rangers are looking to get wright and the young keeper of the books at Ibrox.

Wonder if Naismith will enquire as both would be good additions.

As we know our keepers may not be fully fit for spells this season.

I’d quite like Scott Wright. Would be a super player for us. 

[Borders Jambo]

1 minute ago, Wilson said:

Well said.

👏spot on.

 

It may appear cautious and very considered but I’d much rather have that than what we went through before or what happened to Wigan.

[alanjambo]

2 minutes ago, mellors1874 said:

See Rangers are looking to get wright and the young keeper of the books at Ibrox.

Wonder if Naismith will enquire as both would be good additions.

As we know our keepers may not be fully fit for spells this season.

 

I'd like both. I've always rated Wright an McCrorie is good (if he's the keeper).

[BackOfTheNet]

June is where the players that pretty much knew what offers were on the table and therefore already (likely) knew where they’d be going signed for the clubs expected. It’s also by the end of June clubs have released players.

 

July is when clubs start to really hone in on what players (rather than just positions) they want and start bidding for specific players. Success or failure in that department then has a knock on effect as to what players they sell or go on loan.

 

August is when teams either go for their backup targets, or unforeseen circumstances such as first choice players suddenly becoming available, unexpected injuries require more strengthening or unexpected offers for players not expected to sell are too good to turn down so they’re left with a gap to fill. And we know that deadline day can be a mix of desperation as well as players becoming available last minute as a one time offer too good to turn down (which can be said for the buying or selling club).

 

We’re not even half way through July. There’s a lot of moving chess pieces during the transfer window, and sometimes you have to bide your time before going for checkmate. That, and the fact that our core squad right now is a strong Scottish Premiership squad still, mean there’s no need to panic just yet.

[CMc]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

Maybe that was true at the time from both their value and our finances. Their value and leverage, and our finances are variable though and it may not be true today. Would I make Shankland a top earner if he was going out of contract? You bet. He's not though.

 

You're right though as it's opinions so happy to agree to disagree 👍

Totally accept how we value our existing players will change over time. 
 

If it was blatantly obvious that new folk had daylight between them and everyone else in terms of quality, that might be easier to take and cause less friction. But then it would be really hard to land them (hey, want to come play with folk who are a fair bit worse than you? We’ve got a castle?). 
 

We have often left our negotiations on extensions too late - we should really be looking to extend when they have 18 months to 2yrs left - but I take the point about it not being an instant hit. 
But we’ve been burned by overburdening our future revenues in the past. 

[alanjambo]

14 minutes ago, Sooks said:

The Budge model is exactly what you are wanting your self , to push up the amount we can spend on players . The only difference is she and the board are quite sensibly doing it by growing the turnover of the club in a sustainable way , and keeping our player budget as a percentage of that which will not endanger our existence again . If we want to spend more per week on wages then we need to invest the money we take in from benefactors and the foundation on increasing our turnover and then the 70 odd percent of it that we spend on wages will allow us to increase that sum . Your plan of using the benefactor and foundation cash on salaries and fees would put the club straight in to boom and busy cycle all over again . If some thing happened to Anderson and his money like what happened to Romanov in the global banking crisis , we would suddenly have to find the wages to pay the players that were on these contracts that we could not afford to pay through our turnover . I am glad we are taking the path we are because I do not ever want to have to face the prospect of losing the club I love ever again 

 

Exactly right. I couldn't go through those sleepless nights like in 2013 again. And for what? Trying to get to a perceived next level? 

[Mr Elwood P]

10 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

48 days of the window left.  Players and agents probably happy to sit out another few weeks to see what’s the best offer they get.  Pretty understandable and hopefully the main reason we haven’t made signings yet. 

That would be fine if it wasn't for other teams in our same league having made 6,7 or 8 signings already. 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

On 13/07/2023 at 07:25, gorgie rd eh11 said:

We finished above them, they were put out the league cup by Falkirk and Morton, we emptied  them 3-0 out the Scottish cup and they’ve lost there top scorer for a fee way lower than some of the exaggerated claims

 

It’s amazing what pumping out positive/negative propaganda can achieve.

 

They've been fueled by hype and bullshit for years; last year, what? 16 red cards in their favour too! Bet it was even more than that

 

10 hours ago, CMc said:

...Everyone is increasingly using the same data to identify players and we are stuck with the double glass ceiling of the Scottish TV deal and the OF stranglehold on our game. When the market sets the prices internationally for the known commodities, this is a massive handicap.

 

I know it doesn't matter too much, but it's the green mhanky mob currently strangling Scottish football and tampering with the TV deal to keep it low, amongst other things; rangers copped it tight from the fixtures last year too; no wonder they're begging for brandan, because the fixtures have to be more or less reversed this year

 

celtic would've had 5 away games due, if livi hadn't weirdly collapsed and the midden suddenly found form, helped by us at home too

 

10 hours ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

...And let’s not pretend it was just all down to Snodgrass. They are also players who effectively downed tools for at least 6 games to get a manager sacked...

 

But didn't you blame Naismith for that already?

 

3 hours ago, Ribble said:

Playing devils advocate, maybe we are taking our time for that very reason, to actually sign players that naturally fit the way we want to play and therefor don't need time to gel with the system?? You know, instead of the old way of buying a no 10 and playing him as a defensive midfielder etc

 

I think the plan is to announce all the signing together, or at least the vast majority

[Graham Thomson]

I liked Sott Wright the first time he came on against us. 

He would be a very good signing ..

[CMc]

16 minutes ago, Sooks said:

The Budge model is exactly what you are wanting your self , to push up the amount we can spend on players . The only difference is she and the board are quite sensibly doing it by growing the turnover of the club in a sustainable way , and keeping our player budget as a percentage of that which will not endanger our existence again . If we want to spend more per week on wages then we need to invest the money we take in from benefactors and the foundation on increasing our turnover and then the 70 odd percent of it that we spend on wages will allow us to increase that sum . Your plan of using the benefactor and foundation cash on salaries and fees would put the club straight in to boom and busy cycle all over again . If some thing happened to Anderson and his money like what happened to Romanov in the global banking crisis , we would suddenly have to find the wages to pay the players that were on these contracts that we could not afford to pay through our turnover . I am glad we are taking the path we are because I do not ever want to have to face the prospect of losing the club I love ever again 

Good post. The day as the tiger under Vlad was… interesting? (Was going to write fun - but feels like an oversimplification). 
 

But if you twist forever, you bust. 
 

Evolution is less glamorous the revolution - but is so much more sustainable. 

[BackOfTheNet]

1 minute ago, Mr Elwood P said:

That would be fine if it wasn't for other teams in our same league having made 6,7 or 8 signings already. 

With as many if not more outgoing. The question is have those 6, 7 or 8 signings strengthened them? Looking at the squads of the other teams I still say ours is 3rd best when you talk about a starting XI. So if that’s the case when they’ve signed players before we have, then hopefully once we’ve signed players our position in the regard will be further strengthened.

[Mr Elwood P]

4 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

June is where the players that pretty much knew what offers were on the table and therefore already (likely) knew where they’d be going signed for the clubs expected. It’s also by the end of June clubs have released players.

 

July is when clubs start to really hone in on what players (rather than just positions) they want and start bidding for specific players. Success or failure in that department then has a knock on effect as to what players they sell or go on loan.

 

August is when teams either go for their backup targets, or unforeseen circumstances such as first choice players suddenly becoming available, unexpected injuries require more strengthening or unexpected offers for players not expected to sell are too good to turn down so they’re left with a gap to fill. And we know that deadline day can be a mix of desperation as well as players becoming available last minute as a one time offer too good to turn down (which can be said for the buying or selling club).

 

We’re not even half way through July. There’s a lot of moving chess pieces during the transfer window, and sometimes you have to bide your time before going for checkmate. That, and the fact that our core squad right now is a strong Scottish Premiership squad still, mean there’s no need to panic just yet.

This post just doesn't even begin to make sense. Rangers have revamped their entire squad and are approaching the point where we are ready to go. Hibs and Aberdeen have made most of their signings. We've signed nobody. 

[Mr Elwood P]

1 minute ago, BackOfTheNet said:

With as many if not more outgoing. The question is have those 6, 7 or 8 signings strengthened them? Looking at the squads of the other teams I still say ours is 3rd best when you talk about a starting XI. So if that’s the case when they’ve signed players before we have, then hopefully once we’ve signed players our position in the regard will be further strengthened.

We've lost our 2nd best player from

last season and we still need to replace our best centre back from the season before. I was all for patience but there doesn't seem to anything happening at all. 

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, Mr Elwood P said:

That would be fine if it wasn't for other teams in our same league having made 6,7 or 8 signings already. 

Genuine question as I am only paying a cursory amount of attention to the transfer business at other clubs , but have any of the other nine clubs that we are competing with made a stand out really encouraging signing ? Admittedly me not knowing who they are does not mean they couldn’t be real gems , but the only names that stuck out for me were Adam LeFondre and Levitt . I would have been happy to take a chance on the latter and hope he found consistency , but I would not have been happy with the former . I am probably forgetting about a stand out signing else where though 

[Heartsofgold]

42 minutes ago, Negan said:

That's fine but we can absolutely splash out to 10k a week max. It's not outwith out budget, well it shouldn't be to be honest but sadly it is because we don't take risks. The Anderson money, the FOH money, can't remember the last time when we had a big wow factor moment at hearts regarding signings. It would be nice to just once have that again. 10k is not a huge price to pay for someone for a 1 year deal for a club of our stature.

Really?  On how many players?  2,3,4?  Each one at £10k per week is £520,000 in wages.  They you have the employer NI contributions and pension requirements.  Then you may have other expenses, say goal bonuses or accommodation expenses.  Those take the total figure we are actually paying to £550K- £600k per year, per player.  So 4 players on that amount is £2.2 -£2.4 Million a year.  Say our turnover grows to £20 million per annum?  Not outwith the bounds of reality, this means we are paying 11 -12% of our annual income on 4 players.  Just 4 from a squad of 25.  

 

Then we get into the realms of disrupted dressing rooms due to these players being paid massively more than, say the club captain for example.

 

I actually agree with you when my heart rules my decision making process, but then my practical side comes into play and realises that paying £10k per week in the Scottish league, out with the 2 arse cheeks, is going to be a VERY tough ask on a practical basis.

 

We have to remember that paying stupid level wages, in a valiant attempt to keep up with them, brough our club to its knees a decade ago.  I, for one, NEVER want to see that again.

[Negan]

Did I just dream it or is there an unveiling of a signing today? Brighton?

[Sooks]

4 minutes ago, CMc said:

Good post. The day as the tiger under Vlad was… interesting? (Was going to write fun - but feels like an oversimplification). 
 

But if you twist forever, you bust. 
 

Evolution is less glamorous the revolution - but is so much more sustainable. 

It should also be kept in mind that Hibs and Aberdeen are racking up big losses season on season with the suggested alternative model and they are not pulling ahead of us to this legendary next level . Our approach is forcing them to gamble and so far for those year on year losses all they have managed to do is finish well below us or on a very similar points haul . **** that 

[Mr Elwood P]

1 minute ago, Sooks said:

Genuine question as I am only paying a cursory amount of attention to the transfer business at other clubs , but have any of the other nine clubs that we are competing with made a stand out really encouraging signing ? Admittedly me not knowing who they are does not mean they couldn’t be real gems , but the only names that stuck out for me were Adam LeFondre and Levitt . I would have been happy to take a chance on the latter and hope he found consistency , but I would not have been happy with the former . I am probably forgetting about a stand out signing else where though 

The boy Will Fish Hibs have got back on loan from Man U seems to be highly rated by their fans? Levitt and Shinnie probably the two stand outs. All our winnable games are at the start of the season so we can't really afford to be unprepared or the season could quite quickly become a right off. Contrast our preparations for a UEFA play off with Rangers' preparations for theirs.

[Negan]

Just now, Heartsofgold said:

Really?  On how many players?  2,3,4?  Each one at £10k per week is £520,000 in wages.  They you have the employer NI contributions and pension requirements.  Then you may have other expenses, say goal bonuses or accommodation expenses.  Those take the total figure we are actually paying to £550K- £600k per year, per player.  So 4 players on that amount is £2.2 -£2.4 Million a year.  Say our turnover grows to £20 million per annum?  Not outwith the bounds of reality, this means we are paying 11 -12% of our annual income on 4 players.  Just 4 from a squad of 25.  

 

Then we get into the realms of disrupted dressing rooms due to these players being paid massively more than, say the club captain for example.

 

I actually agree with you when my heart rules my decision making process, but then my practical side comes into play and realises that paying £10k per week in the Scottish league, out with the 2 arse cheeks, is going to be a VERY tough ask on a practical basis.

 

We have to remember that paying stupid level wages, in a valiant attempt to keep up with them, brough our club to its knees a decade ago.  I, for one, NEVER want to see that again.

If we splash it on say 2 big name players, and manage to qualify for the Europa conference through finishing third the cash from getting into the competition alone should cover those costs. Any wins or draw are bonus money on top. 

[jamdunc]

Just now, Negan said:

Did I just dream it or is there an unveiling of a signing today? Brighton?

Think the clip was from 2021. Maybe Cochrane coming in? 

[Dick Dastardly]

[BackOfTheNet]

10 minutes ago, Mr Elwood P said:

This post just doesn't even begin to make sense. Rangers have revamped their entire squad and are approaching the point where we are ready to go. Hibs and Aberdeen have made most of their signings. We've signed nobody. 

But looking at their squads (Aberdeen and Hibs, since I’m clearly not talking about Rangers since I said 3rd best - maybe my posts would make more sense to you if you actually read them) and picking the best XI out of them, do you think they’re any better than they were last year and importantly are they better than us (as a starting XI, not talking strength in depth by numbers)?
 

Aberdeen maybe have made some decent additions to make them better than last year, but not to the point where they’re way above us. Because they’ve lost players too.

 

Point being, clubs signing players doesn’t automatically make them better. How many ‘bad’ windows have we had that our fans continuously complain about? So why is it other clubs signing in numbers is just assumed that they’re all quality? Maybe they will be, but looking at the squads now I’m not seeing much outside Rangers or Celtic to worry about. And the other clubs horses have already bolted as far as this window is concerned. We’ve not even started, and that’s a good thing in that context.

Edited July 14, 2023 by BackOfTheNet

[Mr Elwood P]

Just now, BackOfTheNet said:

But looking at their squads (Aberdeen and Hibs, since I’m clearly not talking about Rangers since I said 3rd best - maybe my posts would make more sense to you if you actually read them) and picking the best XI out of them, so you think they’re any better than they were last year and importantly are they better than us (as a starting XI, not talking strength in depth by numbers)?
 

Aberdeen maybe have made some decent additions to make them better than last year, but not to the point where they’re way above us. Because they’ve lost players too.

 

Point being, clubs signing players doesn’t automatically make them better. How many ‘bad’ windows have we had that our fans continuously complain about? So why is it other clubs signing in numbers is just assumed that they’re all quality? Maybe they will be, but looking at the squads now I’m not seeing much outside Rangers or Celtic to worry about. And the other clubs horses have already bolted as far as this window is concerned. We’ve not even started, and that’s a good thing in that context.

None of the other clubs are following your 'timeline' so the post doesn't make any sense. Understand?

[Brick Tamland]

32 minutes ago, Sooks said:

The Budge model is exactly what you are wanting your self , to push up the amount we can spend on players . The only difference is she and the board are quite sensibly doing it by growing the turnover of the club in a sustainable way , and keeping our player budget as a percentage of that which will not endanger our existence again . If we want to spend more per week on wages then we need to invest the money we take in from benefactors and the foundation on increasing our turnover and then the 70 odd percent of it that we spend on wages will allow us to increase that sum . Your plan of using the benefactor and foundation cash on salaries and fees would put the club straight in to boom and busy cycle all over again . If some thing happened to Anderson and his money like what happened to Romanov in the global banking crisis , we would suddenly have to find the wages to pay the players that were on these contracts that we could not afford to pay through our turnover . I am glad we are taking the path we are because I do not ever want to have to face the prospect of losing the club I love ever again 

Absolutely this. 

[BackOfTheNet]

1 minute ago, Mr Elwood P said:

None of the other clubs are following your 'timeline' so the post doesn't make any sense. Understand?

What timeline is that, exactly? The transfer window dates? I’m pretty sure every club is following that to be honest.