Should we be looking to sell Ulloa now?

[Pavilionaire]

Bridcutt's motives are immaterial because he was always going to be sold. The question is whether it was an economic necessity to sell him or not.

If it wasn't then why did we end up weaker at the end of the January window?

If it was it makes it likely we'll have to sell again in order to FFP comply for 2014/15, which brings me back to my original point about Ulloa.

I don't see how you can build a team around Ulloa when you have to address PIG out of contract, three of the back four well into their thirties and a lack of pace and creativity in midfield. If we want to compete in 2014/15 I don't see that we have any choice but to sell Ulloa to reinvest some of the proceeds in 3 or 4 decent players.

 

[Triggaaar]

Unless I'm mistaken, we were on course to meet FFP rules before the January transfer window, so the money received from the Barnes and Bridcutt transfers should be reinvested in the summer?

If we were on course to meet FFP, then the money from Bridcutt and Barnes will have simply meant we came in nicely under the limit. But that season is now past, we can't use the money for next season's FFP. ie, even if the money was in the bank, there is a limit to the amount we're allowed to lose next season under FFP rules.

 

[The Wizard]

New manager might play 4-4-2! CMS + Ulloa

 

[Husty]

The stark reality of the reasons for Oscar's departure have been laid bare in the Argus. It also seems that the club had to sell Bridcutt to comply with FFP so our loss did not exceed £8 million for 2013/14.

Having missed out on promotion is now not the best time to sell Ulloa? If we cash in now the new manager will know exactly what his transfer and wages budget will be for the whole season, i.e. sell for £6million, trouser £2 million for FFP, give the new man £4million to spend over the summer.

I don't want to see Ulloa go, but more importantly I don't want another bad January window with FFP issues weakening our club at a critical time. Burnley got promoted having sold Charlie Austin to Top 6 club QPR, I think it's a step we'll have to take now with the caveat that we replace him with a decent signing.

Yeh, because selling perhaps your only key asset is a BRILLIANT way to entice a good manager in the wake of 2 consecutive managers walking out over the budget isn't it.

 

[smeg]

amazing idea - day after a manager leaves lets sell our only goalscorer.....while we are at it - lets sell the corner flags, and knock down the dressing rooms.

sell the ground and turn it into a retail park?

 

[ElectricNaz]

To be honest if we're gonna sell anyone it should be Buckley while we can still get a decent fee for him. Love him but i'd rather sell him and get maybe 2 players in who are maybe 95% of the quality, similar age, but will play double the amount of games. Get another winger in and a striker for that fee to compliment Ulloa and CMS (because what will happen if we play 4-4-2 and one of them gets injured and Hoskins is presumably released?)

 

[Pavilionaire]

Yeh, because selling perhaps your only key asset is a BRILLIANT way to entice a good manager in the wake of 2 consecutive managers walking out over the budget isn't it.

Garcia has just resigned because he didn't get the quality in that he wanted in the January window Either we haven't got the money or Burke f**ked up bigtime.

So how do you think we are going to afford to bring in the sort of quality that will enable us to challenge without selling Ulloa? There's a lot of people on here saying why we shouldn't sell him, but the fact is the likes of Derby and Burnley who, like us, are hard up as compared with Leicester, Forest, QPR etc play a joined-up team game with few stars.

I'm sure a lot of Burnley fans thought once they'd sold Charlie Austin to QPR that their season had ended before it had begun. Ulloa is our equivalent of Charlie Austin.

 

[nwgull]

What, as opposed to telling the new man what a wonderful squad we have including Ulloa, then selling him a week later and risk getting off on the wrong foot from the word go?

We clearly needed to sell Bridcutt to ensure we finished within FFP - otherwise if we were already comfortably under the £8million then why wouldn't we have reinvested part of that fee - say £1.1 million - to bolster the squad? I know we signed Stephens but effectively that was offset by Barnes / El-Abd / wages saved on Vicente.

We clearly didn't seeing as we turned down a transfer request by him mid-way through the January window.

 

[somerset]

Leo want Prem football, he will go for sure this summer,.... sadly.... if Gus doesnt take him, there are no shortage of admirers as we know,..... just a case of how much,... 4-5 million in my view.

 

[Husty]

Garcia has just resigned because he didn't get the quality in that he wanted in the January window Either we haven't got the money or Burke f**ked up bigtime.

So how do you think we are going to afford to bring in the sort of quality that will enable us to challenge without selling Ulloa? There's a lot of people on here saying why we shouldn't sell him, but the fact is the likes of Derby and Burnley who, like us, are hard up as compared with Leicester, Forest, QPR etc play a joined-up team game with few stars.

I'm sure a lot of Burnley fans thought once they'd sold Charlie Austin to QPR that their season had ended before it had begun. Ulloa is our equivalent of Charlie Austin.

It's all well and good saying 'ok that spanish malarky didn't work, I know let's start playing like Burnley with a tiny budget and squad getting lucky with barely any injuries all season and relying heavily on belief to take us up.

But it should SURELY be OBVIOUS that it doesn't just work like that. You can't snap your fingers and that will magically happen. Derby had better squad depth than us and made astute loan signings, Burnley got very lucky in a lot of ways. Burnley sold Austin/Rodriguez because they HAD to, that is very different to us selling him almost for the sake of it as we look to recruit a manager. That would just be stupid. Ulloa is not the problem in the squad. The problem lies in central midfield, my little sister has a box of magical ponies which are LESS pony than our central midfield.

 

[nwgull]

If we were on course to meet FFP, then the money from Bridcutt and Barnes will have simply meant we came in nicely under the limit. But that season is now past, we can't use the money for next season's FFP. ie, even if the money was in the bank, there is a limit to the amount we're allowed to lose next season under FFP rules.

I expect that there is some clever accountancy that can be done to carry over these fees into next season's costs, such as receiving the money in instalments over 2-3 seasons. Don't forget as well, money spent on transfers does not all count as a cost in the season that the transfer is made; it's split over the term of the contract.

 

[Biscuit]

Yeah, why not.

In fact if we release everyone on our books, we should be able to DRASTICALLY reduce our £22 million wage bill.

We'll have the best FFP credentials in the league! :clown:

 

[Pavilionaire]

We clearly didn't seeing as we turned down a transfer request by him mid-way through the January window.

We got £3million for Bridcutt. If the 2013/14 exceeds £5million then we DID need to money to stay within the £8 million cap. And if our loss is less than £5million then we would have cut our loss by £10million in one season, and I don't see how that would have been possible.

 

[nwgull]

We got £3million for Bridcutt. If the 2013/14 exceeds £5million then we DID need to money to stay within the £8 million cap. And if our loss is less than £5million then we would have cut our loss by £10million in one season, and I don't see how that would have been possible.

I'm am almost certain that the accountancy will load as much cost as it can into 13/14 to take us close to the 8m limit (to make it easier to meet the targets in 14/15 and subsequent seasons). And, like I said above, the chances are that the transfer deal would've been done so that the income is paid in instalments.

 

[Triggaaar]

Don't forget as well, money spent on transfers does not all count as a cost in the season that the transfer is made; it's split over the term of the contract.

I haven't forgotten that, I'm talking purely about the sale of players. Would the club really have agree the sale off Bridcutt to be payments over a few years? We'll see I guess.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

If a new manager came in and decided he wanted to play two up front and develop his team around that system I wouldn't have a problem letting ulloa go as I don't see him playing that well in that set up.

 

[Husty]

Yeah, why not.

In fact if we release everyone on our books, we should be able to DRASTICALLY reduce our £22 million wage bill.

We'll have the best FFP credentials in the league! :clown:

Don't go giving Barber any clever ideas now.

 

[Biscuit]

We got £3million for Bridcutt. If the 2013/14 exceeds £5million then we DID need to money to stay within the £8 million cap. And if our loss is less than £5million then we would have cut our loss by £10million in one season, and I don't see how that would have been possible.

The £14 million reported last year contained a lot of 'preloaded' and one-off costs that won't apply this year. That combined with player sales/TV revenue etc *should* mean we fall well within our FFP commitments.

Let's not forget that TB could, if he so wished, put in a further £3million of his own dosh should we not exceed the £5million mark.

 

[RexCathedra]

Let's not forget that TB could, if he so wished, put in a further £3million of his own dosh should we not exceed the £5million mark.

In other words, coming up short an amount equal to 2x-3x the entire squad's wage bill only a few years ago, and, voila!, it's taken care of by the change from between the sofa cushions...

Nine years ago we were flogging "Tom Hark"....

 

[Greg Bobkin]

One thing that fascinates me about this whole episode is that A LOT of people on here slate The Argus (and Andy Naylor), and freely admit that it's a load of old tosh.

Now, all of a sudden, it is Gospel, and everything that is in the article with Oscar is true, in context and balanced. I'm not saying it is, or it isn't, but it still makes me laugh that people seem to switch their opinions to suit an agenda. Or is it just clutching at straws because the club haven't told us EXACTLY what's going on?