Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Possibly his contract was nearing an end and they took the money rather then let him go for nothing. Berra and Driver both have several years left on their contracts. Another reason may be that FBK Kaunas simply needed the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? PTBCAL hinted on KB earlier in the week that Hearts/UBIG had a previous cash flow crisis around March, thus the Velicka sale was necessary to ensure liquidity. Berra and Driver would both be too expensive for Scandanvian markets and would probably turn down the move. The liquidity theory may also explain why Hearts put this years season ticket's up for sale at the ridiculously early time of March... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? There never seems to be any logic in Romanovs desiscions ,he's a kamikaze who does not know how to run a football club proparly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartgarfunkel Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? I've often wondered about this. He's not exactly at the end of his career, so surely could have been sold for more to a club where he would be less likely to bounce back to one of the OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? It might have been to help eash cash-flow it might also have been the opportunity to realise a transfer fee on a player Romanov had invested over a decade in & whose contract was running down. That said I'd much prefer Velicka was still playing at Hearts than not playing at Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 It might have been to help eash cash-flow it might also have been the opportunity to realise a transfer fee on a player Romanov had invested over a decade in & whose contract was running down. That said I'd much prefer Velicka was still playing at Hearts than not playing at Rangers. The best way to free up cash flow would be to get rid of the dead wood that is floating around riccarton at the moment banking fairly large sums of money for not a lot of input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest casper Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Because the money was too good to turn down. Scored a few goals for us last season but given his age and previous form a ?100k player at best. Huns were mad to pay ?1M for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 The best way to free up cash flow would be to get rid of the dead wood that is floating around riccarton at the moment banking fairly large sums of money for not a lot of input. Can you explain how this is possible Luke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Can you explain how this is possible Luke? Less wages = less outgoings = "freeing up cash" I am not a business man or accountant but this seems logical to me , i think we have too big a squad so cutting squad numbers should not be to much of a problem imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Because the money was too good to turn down.Scored a few goals for us last season but given his age and previous form a ?100k player at best. Huns were mad to pay ?1M for him. ?100K??? 20 league goals in 47 league games, in a mince side. Yeah, we'll replace that for ?100k right enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Less wages = less outgoings = "freeing up cash"I am not a business man or accountant but this seems logical to me , i think we have too big a squad so cutting squad numbers should not be to much of a problem imo. Cutting squad numbers is a problem when players already have contracts and there is no offers to buy them ... the only other way to get them off the wage bill is to pay up their outstanding contract and that costs you money not saves you money (at least in the short term). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EH23-Jambo Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Is he currently injured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cow Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Cutting squad numbers is a problem when players already have contracts and there is no offers to buy them ... the only other way to get them off the wage bill is to pay up their outstanding contract and that costs you money not saves you money (at least in the short term). Yes i would agree with that , i think to many below average players were/are given contracts that they dont deserve and now we are stuck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunny Munro Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I heard he went to Romanov and said "I wan't to leave hearts" and Romanov said "ok, i'll fix it out"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Maybe this was a chance for Romanov to finally sell on one of his Lithuanian players for a tidy sum; like a Norfolk farmer rearing prized turkeys at the village fair. As a Hearts supporter, I'd have kept the turkey. Buffalo Bill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Lithuania Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Is he currently injured? Probably not, the huns just bought him so nobody else would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 It might have been to help eash cash-flow it might also have been the opportunity to realize a transfer fee on a player Romanov had invested over a decade in & whose contract was running down. That said I'd much prefer Velicka was still playing at Hearts than not playing at Rangers. Agreed we are screaming out for a 20 goals a season man, i don't think his contract was due to end soon though, so i doubt it was a contract issue, my only thought is that he was sold after the transfer window was shut so it left limited options, he must have been punted for financial reasons a need for the cash at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3inaBednar Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I heard that Vlad heard him talking in Russian to one of his mates from the old soviet block. So Vlad says, 'Velicka - you are vorking vor da KJB you imposter, you will be sold at once. i am a former captain of a Lithianian sub marine and I will not tolerate KGB in my club! now leave - nnnnnoooooooowwwwww!! sounds about as good a reason as any given vlads ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi must stay Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? think it's fair enough we sold him, he's an average player who is never worth ?1 million. We would have got nowhere near that much for him if we hadn't sold him at that time. It was a good deal for us IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 think it's fair enough we sold him, he's an average player who is never worth ?1 million. We would have got nowhere near that much for him if we hadn't sold him at that time. It was a good deal for us IMO So you're a Kaunas fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudi must stay Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 So your a Kaunus fan? no. i'm a Hearts fan. i think it made sense to sell a player when you are going to get the most money for him though especially if he isn't that brilliant. i understand your point though that it was Kaunas who got the money for him, us and them though are pretty much the same club IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo walesy Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Don't know if this is true or not but i heard that Velicka was happy to leave due to the wage increase being fairly dramatic. Was he not reported to be on very low wages at Tynecastle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 think it's fair enough we sold him, he's an average player who is never worth ?1 million. We would have got nowhere near that much for him if we hadn't sold him at that time. It was a good deal for us IMO Fair point, but every other player that vlad has sold, or had offers for, he has always not accepted there offers and he always seems to negotiate good money for them, Bednar as an example, with Vilicka it was okay fine and he was sent to Coventry quicker than Lewis Hamilton with no bartering. I Suspect he has some injury that Vlad is aware of, or he is damaged goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N User Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 ?1m for a striker of his age and playing for us was pretty decent. Still would have prefered to keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Maybe this was a chance for Romanov to finally sell on one of his Lithuanian players for a tidy sum; like a Norfolk farmer rearing prized turkeys at the village fair. As a Hearts supporter, I'd have kept the turkey. Buffalo Bill . this is exactly why it happened, Romanov has made no secret of his plan to bring across Lithuanian talent on the cheap then sell for a profit - many of just chose to ignore him saying that early on. Velicka was his first real chance to prove he could do it. unfortunately the remaining Lithuanians don't have much sell on worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 this is exactly why it happened, Romanov has made no secret of his plan to bring across Lithuanian talent on the cheap then sell for a profit - many of just chose to ignore him saying that early on. Velicka was his first real chance to prove he could do it. unfortunately the remaining Lithuanians don't have much sell on worth. Dont know about that if Miko continues to improve he could turn out to be the next one sold, he is only 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.N.T.H. Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Is he injured at the moment? Or is he just the new Alan Gow? There was a photograph on BBC of him standing at Fester Road before the game today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Dont know about that if Miko continues to improve he could turn out to be the next one sold, he is only 22. if he adds more consistency, he could. i'd imagine Vlad was looking a faster turnaround time, tho i could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 ?1m for a striker of his age and playing for us was pretty decent.Still would have prefered to keep him. IIRC the transfer fee was ?600,000. And it was FBK Kaunas who sold him - not Hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Dont know about that if Miko continues to improve he could turn out to be the next one sold, he is only 22. He's 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Reekin' Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Cutting squad numbers is a problem when players already have contracts and there is no offers to buy them ... the only other way to get them off the wage bill is to pay up their outstanding contract and that costs you money not saves you money (at least in the short term). Not if they're Kaunas loanees it isn't. And no, this isn't an "anti-Lith" / "anti-Kaunas" post - particularly as most of the deadwood at Riccarton did not come from Kaunas - merely an observation that nothing could be easier than to get rid of the deadwood that is on loan from Kaunas. for Ksanavicius!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
south morocco Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Is he injured at the moment? Or is he just the new Alan Gow? There was a photograph on BBC of him standing at Fester Road before the game today. think he is the new gow,his choice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 think he is the new gow,his choice Connected to grumble about comparative salaries that got him punted home for a while is my guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Jambo Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Not if they're Kaunas loanees it isn't. And no, this isn't an "anti-Lith" / "anti-Kaunas" post - particularly as most of the deadwood at Riccarton did not come from Kaunas - merely an observation that nothing could be easier than to get rid of the deadwood that is on loan from Kaunas. for Ksanavicius!!! Depends if there is a legally binding agreement in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
south morocco Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Connected to grumble about comparative salaries that got him punted home for a while is my guess... probably , still a waste though,we could do with him now dont you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N User Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 IIRC the transfer fee was ?600,000. And it was FBK Kaunas who sold him - not Hearts. Yeah think you're right. Either way I'd prefer to have kept him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Velicka being traded for ?600k followed by ?1m in 6 months have to go down as 2 of the most unbelievable transfer deals in football history! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Price Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I am trying to understand the logic of why Velicka was sold. 1. It could not have been for the money, because if it was Berra and Driver would have been away to Wolves and Burnley. 2. Why sell him so cheap when he played hardball with everyone else he has sold. 3. He was our main striker, a 20 goals a season out and out center forward, which is exactly what we are looking for now. 4. He was sold at a stage in the season when we still could have made the top 6, which would have been worth around a 3rd of the fee he received for him. I just don't get Vlads logic in selling him ? Anyone got the answer? maybe because rangers had a wee 'plan' with VIKINGS and maybe a not so good team(vikings)bought him and sold him for more money than we did. in my opinion this has rangers written all over it. :107years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Yeah think you're right. Either way I'd prefer to have kept him. Definitely. One things for sure - we've missed his goal threat. Nobody can disagree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Should this thread not be on a Kaunas fans forum, he was their player after all. Velicka was on loan to Hearts, "we" didn't profit from his sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Examiner Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 All that money for a Rangers bench (make that stand) warmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie wallace Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Not many teams let the only goal scorer on their books leave for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Buttie Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Definitely. One things for sure - we've missed his goal threat. Nobody can disagree with that. I disagree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 He's 24. with over 100 games for us and a big cup medal to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 All that money for a Rangers bench (make that stand) warmer. wont be the first and wont be the last to leave a first team slot to warm the rank gers bench, and collect loads of weedgie dosh , paid for by the mass unemployed in glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 From the moment he left we have missed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 I disagree! We don't miss Velicka ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted September 28, 2008 Author Share Posted September 28, 2008 From the moment he left we have missed him. i agree we were just starting to see the best of hm, thats what i dont understand the thinking in vlads head , why sell him ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 i agree we were just starting to see the best of hm, thats what i dont understand the thinking in vlads head , why sell him ? Its been hinted by a poster who has some good info that it was due to money needing to be raised quickly. My own opinion was Vlad was delighted to see his idea of bringing over Lithuanian talent and then selling them on for profit could work. Thought the fee was a bit on the small side myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.