Chairman January transfer window DIDNT lack ambition

[Berliner]

From the notes the telling point is that both players wanted to leave - they weren't sold on or shoved our the door, they looked at the grass on the other side of the fence & opted to go and play there.

Once a player, any player, had decided that he doesn't want to be at the club, any club, the best thing you can do is realise a price for him and move on - and after last night, it would seem that others have now stepped up to the challenge of replacing them in the team....

Not what Karl said on the radio the night before it happened, and of course easier to say things about people no longer in your employment.
I think Tiger is being a little economical with the truth here.

 

[Scotchegg]

Stop being so positive ?

And smug!!

 

[Scotchegg]

Not what Karl said on the radio the night before it happened, and of course easier to say things about people no longer in your employment.
I think Tiger is being a little economical with the truth here.

I think it's more about the way Robinson worded it. He said the same about Gavin Whyte. None of these players were pushing for a move away. All enjoyed their time at Oxford, especially Baptiste who was supported through some really difficult times. But once an offer came in, all were allowed to talk to the clubs and all took what was ultimately a better deal (big jump in wages and a league higher).

So I think you can say that none wanted to leave Oxford, but all wanted the better opportunities elsewhere, without either view being conflicted.

 

[WRox]

Window made sense.

Tiger and Co aren't here to take chances. Moneys clearly available but in low risk scenarios I.e. £500k for someone we know is highly likely to grow in value (Cadden), previously Dickie, Cam etc.

People like Taylor back in August, Grigg this window represented value in a different way (likely performance vs wage contribution).

Sensible that we target leagues like Scotland - SPL wages are poor for L1 quality players, National League, previously the best in Northern Ireland etc, and young loanees to support club's reputation for growing players (gives us a better chance of retaining these perm too).

Same principles apply to selling. Will we risk turning down millions for someone who's had two or three bad injuries? Not unless the financial risk it offsets makes it worthwhile (missing the L1 playoffs is not this). Doesn't matter to the strategy which day it is particularly.

January's a good time to sell and a bad time to buy. Expect we'll go and find the next Gorrin or Sykes in the summer, and splash out for someone like Browne or Holland. Much harder/more expensive to do in January and as this certainly wouldn't guarantee promotion anyway, the financial rewards don't justify breaking the model that is clearly serving us very well.

 

[Osleroad]

Not what Karl said on the radio the night before it happened, and of course easier to say things about people no longer in your employment.
I think Tiger is being a little economical with the truth here.

I think there is a lot of splitting hairs here...of course it was a wrench to go certainly for SB after he had been brought on so much by the club and overall all had their desire to say no sale but realism stepped in so it was not stretching the truth imo

 

[Millman]

My take is that the Jan window is that it may have shown ambition but it lacked planning.

The club seems to have spent have the summer and a lot of time in the run up to Jan chasing Cadden where even as far back as the summer once he made his mind up to go to America we would have been better chasing alternatives.

As for strikers we knew we possibly needed another one in the summer but again they did not arrive . We are lucky that Agyei is showing so much promise. But still with an aging Mackie not contributing goals we are light in options up front.

As for selling the players yes I fully back the only method of the club making any money. However the timing of this is very poor. Not one but two players at the last minute in the window. Its debatable that you get the best value at this time of year, plus it leaves you with a mid season rebuild at a difficult time to do it. Not great also not replace by permanent signing but loans just means that come the summer we now have huge rebuild in store.

I hope that we are making loans now with options to genuinely sign these player permanently if they turn out good. Its a good policy that worked to some extent under MApps. Making loans that will not sign permanently to fill gaps made by selling our players is a not sustainable. Likewise if you have a good loan with an option to buy we need to do it. I really hope we do sign Taylor in the summer as finding a replacement (plus someone to replace Mackie is going to be hard as we have already proved).

For me the club should be looking to sell one or two players a year, in the summer, agreed internally before the window opens. This means replacements could be already at the club or bought in quickly. We need to get better a agreeing deals early. We need to use loans with options to buy at the end (the odd one or exceptions here for top quality players is fine). We need to avoid half season loans unless they are to replace injured players. We need to avoid to many changes in January (players need to know that moves will be done in the summer to avoid dips in form). We need to be able to start the season properly not spend the first few weeks putting the team together. Plus we must avoid a mid season slump due to another set of changes. This may mean we have to settle for a little less quality in some areas but the disruption it avaoid should make up for this in the long run.

 

[Brahma]

However, this season has been much more successful and shows signs of our ambitions just as much as with the players we've bought. Cadden and Taylor were great deals, as was Woodburn and (less so) Thorne until their injuries. In January, the addition of Holland and Browne (and glimpses of Kelly) have taken our play on to another level. These deals are not cheap, and we would have been competing with some big clubs for these players.

Without wanting to be pedantic, I question the 'these deals are not cheap' line.

We don't pay towards Woodburn after Liverpool agreed to cover his wages from DEC and Thorne is playing here for peanuts after getting a huge payoff from Derby County.

Please continue.

 

[Northernyellow]

What is the similar pattern to Reading?

Multiple references in local (Reading) paper and fans forums. Check it out.

 

[greatunclekip]

Without wanting to be pedantic, I question the 'these deals are not cheap' line.

We don't pay towards Woodburn after Liverpool agreed to cover his wages from DEC and Thorne is playing here for peanuts after getting a huge payoff from Derby County.

Please continue.

And Robbo has already confirmed we made a very low offer for Holland and was amazed we got him.

Id envisage we got a pretty good deal on Browne too given Boro just wanted rid.

Nothing wrong with driving value of course, but January was about recouping not investing, make no mistake.

 

[Scotchegg]

Multiple references in local (Reading) paper and fans forums. Check it out.

Maybe you can provide a link?

 

[Northernyellow]

Maybe you can provide a link?

There are multiple articles and references. Maybe you can do your own research

 

[Scotchegg]

Without wanting to be pedantic, I question the 'these deals are not cheap' line.

We don't pay towards Woodburn after Liverpool agreed to cover his wages from DEC and Thorne is playing here for peanuts after getting a huge payoff from Derby County.

Please continue.

Woodburn has had his wages covered since December, but we were contributing prior to that and would have paid a loan fee. Also Thorne has only just had his contract paid off and we would have been contributing prior to that. Cadden was on decent money and Taylor is right at the top of our pay scales for our contributions alone.

Browne and Holland would have also included a loan fee and will again be on decent wage contributions.

The relationship we have with other clubs, and our record for looking after and developing players helps us get better deals. But the idea that loans are cheap (or free as some think) is simply not the case.

 

[Scotchegg]

There are multiple articles and references. Maybe you can do your own research

When you make accusations on the credibility of our owner, it is useful to add a little substance otherwise it lacks the credibility you complain about.

Tiger and others were accused of asset stripping at Reading, but how is that relevant to Oxford? We have no assets! We have a leased training ground (paid for by Tiger), a rented stadium (arbitration costs and extra service costs that have been paid for by Tiger) and players (who have nearly all been paid for by Tiger). So the only assets he could strip are those he paid for!

So, maybe you could explain your comments if they offer something different from the above?

 

[RyanioBirdio]

Without wanting to be pedantic, I question the 'these deals are not cheap' line.

We don't pay towards Woodburn after Liverpool agreed to cover his wages from DEC and Thorne is playing here for peanuts after getting a huge payoff from Derby County.

Please continue.

You won’t get far around here by speaking factually and quoting things that people at the top of the club have said themselves, of their own free will. It doesn’t always go down well and tends to clash with things that others have been passing off as fact.

 

[Robie]

It's funny that people are willing to treat what Robinson says as gospel when it suits.

 

[holdsteady]

Woodburn has had his wages covered since December, but we were contributing prior to that and would have paid a loan fee. Also Thorne has only just had his contract paid off and we would have been contributing prior to that. Cadden was on decent money and Taylor is right at the top of our pay scales for our contributions alone.

Browne and Holland would have also included a loan fee and will again be on decent wage contributions.

The relationship we have with other clubs, and our record for looking after and developing players helps us get better deals. But the idea that loans are cheap (or free as some think) is simply not the case.

How do you know we are paying a loan fee for Holland? The others maybe but for a lad we are giving game time and experience to who previously had none I doubt we are doing more than paying a small percentage of his wage. The others are probably more expensive as they are more senior players.

Not all loan players deals are the same I suppose, some are cheap and some are as expensive as signing a player.

 

[Scotchegg]

You won’t get far around here by speaking factually and quoting things that people at the top of the club have said themselves, of their own free will. It doesn’t always go down well and tends to clash with things that others have been passing off as fact.

Except that it has no relevance to the post I made!

The FACT is that we entered into deals for a number of players which all had a cost to the club. One of those players became injured and their parent club covered the wages for the duration of the recovery. Another player subsequently had his contract terminated and decided to play for us free of charge. Neither has any bearing on the initial deals.

 

[Scotchegg]

How do you know we are paying a loan fee for Holland? The others maybe but for a lad we are giving game time and experience to who previously had none I doubt we are doing more than paying a small percentage of his wage. The others are probably more expensive as they are more senior players.

Not all loan players deals are the same I suppose, some are cheap and some are as expensive as signing a player.

I agree that all have varying degrees of cost, and all are cheaper than buying players on long term contracts. Loan fees are fairly standard these days, and it is like putting down a deposit on a lease car. We paid a loan fee for Browne last season from West Ham, and also Martinez a few years back, so I'd be amazed if we didn't do the same with a player as sought after as Holland.

 

[Sarge]

I agree that all have varying degrees of cost, and all are cheaper than buying players on long term contracts. Loan fees are fairly standard these days, and it is like putting down a deposit on a lease car. We paid a loan fee for Browne last season from West Ham, and also Martinez a few years back, so I'd be amazed if we didn't do the same with a player as sought after as Holland.

I do 'get' why some loanees come with a loan fee required to be paid,.... however, I think that the parent club should be the ones paying a fee, to the club where their 'asset' has been loaned, after all, its often the club where a player is loaned to where the said player gets not only match fit, but can also get themselves in form too, so when the loanee player returns to their parent club theyre matchfit and firing on all cylinders form-wise , - the club utilizing the loanee not only gets the player on loan fit n ready to play, but has to pay to do so on behalf of a generally higher level/ 'richer' club, to me that simply isnt right

 

[Scotchegg]

I guess it's supply and demand. Matt Taylor, as an example, would have been wanted by most of league 1 and all of league 2 clubs. So Bristol City would know that they could charge a fee to recoup some of their costs and it will be paid by clubs wanting to beat off competition from others. In our case, we save on the signing on fees, nominal transfer fee, agent fees etc, and Bristol City get an extra fee quid in the bank.

I accept that PL teams hardly need the money, but Ben Woodman would have a valuation of several million but we get him for a very small percentage whilst also having much of his wages covered. So whilst Liverpool don't need a fee, we potentially get a player way beyond our budget for a fairly small outlay.