Chairman January transfer window DIDNT lack ambition

Holland and Woodburn are not just youth players needing match fitness they are two of the most promising players in their clubs youth teams and I wouldn't be surprised if there were several clubs willing to pay loan fees to get them playing at their club.
 
Scotchegg said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have to say that I admire your perseverance on here, Scotchegg. There are certain contributors who are absolutely determined to be negative about everything the club does (no matter who owns it) and will always refuse to believe anything those in charge say. I don't think I could bring myself to bother.

That doesn't mean that some scepticism isn't prudent, just that it doesn't matter what is said or done, there will always be some who insist on believing the worst and criticising everything.

For what it's worth, I think the club did good business in January.
 
WRox said:
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.
Click to expand...

how dare you post something so sensible and well balanced as your first post
 
Scotchegg said:
That's of course true. But I have it on pretty good authority that we met the asking price for Will Grigg, and I suspect that he is player mentioned that would have increased our wage structure. Sunderland then changed their minds, due to them not wanting to strengthen a rival. So, I would say that the ambition was very much there, but that doesn't mean that a deal will happen. As for the £500k offer for Cadden, I think that was a fair valuation, especially on a player who has cost nothing 6 months ago. Paying more would have stretched our playing budget and could have been an expensive mistake.

Of course, this is all irrelevant. Neither deal happened and we are where we are. But I have confidence that we can find the right players, and have the finances available to compete hopefully better in the summer.
Click to expand...

Maybe Grigg May be coming here in the summer.
 
Sarge said:
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 :cautious:
Click to expand...
They should pay us for taking their player to give game time and gain valuable experience. ?
 
SteMerritt said:
Only if the bids have a realistic chance of coming off. We could have bid for Messi and claimed ambition, knowing there was no chance in hell he would sign.m
Click to expand...

Bidding a quarter of what the board knew was Columbus Crews valuation of Cadden is an example of that.

KR was not backed, regardless of what tiger tries to spin.
What fans want to know is what exactly are the board here for.
Talk of wanting to get to the championship is cheap, when actions show such a lack of ambition
 
Mellowyellow said:
Bidding a quarter of what the board knew was Columbus Crews valuation of Cadden is an example of that.

KR was not backed, regardless of what tiger tries to spin.
What fans want to know is what exactly are the board here for.
Talk of wanting to get to the championship is cheap, when actions show such a lack of ambition
Click to expand...
We’re good again, no one wants to hear this moaning.
 
SteMerritt said:
Only if the bids have a realistic chance of coming off. We could have bid for Messi and claimed ambition, knowing there was no chance in hell he would sign.
Click to expand...
Like when DE made a big deal of how we had bid for Kieffer Moore. Technically he wasn’t lying that a bid had been placed, but he knew as much as anybody that there was zero chance of it coming off. It gave those who had been defending him to the hilt something to cling to in their war against those who said he was winding the infrastructure down while trying to sell. A fortnight or so later he wasn’t the owner anymore.

There are still pairs of pants littered across the floor as far as the eye can see over that particular period. In fact if you look closely (not too closely, mind...) you can see some very familiar names that have been sewn into a few of them!
 
Sarge said:
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 they're 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 :cautious:
Click to expand...

Chelsea make a lot of their money from this. Snap up "promising" youngsters and post them around Europe for 3-4 years and then sell them on without playing a game for them. Chelsea have at least 27 players out on loan at the moment (some young, some not).

While your point is valid, it is all about perspective. I suspect the player's "owners" see it as doing the loaning club a favour by letting them use "their player" and not forcing them to have to buy the player outright. They hold all the cards (including the player's registration ;)).

If the reserve leagues were any good, I suspect fewer clubs would consider sending their players out on loan.
 
Mellowyellow said:
Bidding a quarter of what the board knew was Columbus Crews valuation of Cadden is an example of that.

KR was not backed, regardless of what tiger tries to spin.
What fans want to know is what exactly are the board here for.
Talk of wanting to get to the championship is cheap, when actions show such a lack of ambition
Click to expand...

But to be fair mellow Columbus crew haven’t even admirers a fee for Cadden they are in some sort of dispute but it does make me wonder what they offered Motherwell if we offered 500k, which I’m sure would have been a profit for Columbus crew, so with them asking for a million is raking the P**s considering he hasn’t kicked a ball in anger for them and they haven’t sorted the transfer with Motherwell.
 
Left Wing Cross said:
Chelsea make a lot of their money from this. Snap up "promising" youngsters and post them around Europe for 3-4 years and then sell them on without playing a game for them. Chelsea have at least 27 players out on loan at the moment (some young, some not).

While your point is valid, it is all about perspective. I suspect the player's "owners" see it as doing the loaning club a favour by letting them use "their player" and not forcing them to have to buy the player outright. They hold all the cards (including the player's registration ;)).

If the reserve leagues were any good, I suspect fewer clubs would consider sending their players out on loan.
Click to expand...

a lot of the premier clubs send their youngsters and not so young out on loan to get around the FFP, and Chelsea have had over 50 players out on loan in the past during the season as have other premier clubs
 
bazzer9461 said:
But to be fair mellow Columbus crew haven’t even admirers a fee for Cadden they are in some sort of dispute but it does make me wonder what they offered Motherwell if we offered 500k, which I’m sure would have been a profit for Columbus crew, so with them asking for a million is raking the P**s considering he hasn’t kicked a ball in anger for them and they haven’t sorted the transfer with Motherwell.
Click to expand...

Columbus offered £0 as he was a free agent. US clubs do not have to pay compensation to British clubs for players who are under-24. We were at a disadvantage because we would have had to pay a fee which was either determined by tribunal or between ourselves and Motherwell (the second is how we paid for Fosu).
 
RyanioBirdio said:
Like when DE made a big deal of how we had bid for Kieffer Moore. Technically he wasn’t lying that a bid had been placed, but he knew as much as anybody that there was zero chance of it coming off. It gave those who had been defending him to the hilt something to cling to in their war against those who said he was winding the infrastructure down while trying to sell. A fortnight or so later he wasn’t the owner anymore.

There are still pairs of pants littered across the floor as far as the eye can see over that particular period. In fact if you look closely (not too closely, mind...) you can see some very familiar names that have been sewn into a few of them!
Click to expand...

Likewise Devante Cole..
 
Left Wing Cross said:
Columbus offered £0 as he was a free agent. US clubs do not have to pay compensation to British clubs for players who are under-24. We were at a disadvantage because we would have had to pay a fee which was either determined by tribunal or between ourselves and Motherwell (the second is how we paid for Fosu).
Click to expand...

I suspect MLS clubs will get regraded as Cat 2 or above clubs as it isn't only Motherwell who have been screwed by this anomaly.
 
Left Wing Cross said:
Columbus offered £0 as he was a free agent. US clubs do not have to pay compensation to British clubs for players who are under-24. We were at a disadvantage because we would have had to pay a fee which was either determined by tribunal or between ourselves and Motherwell (the second is how we paid for Fosu).
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that Columbus crew were in dispute with Motherwell over his signing, Motherwell are claiming 200k from Columbus crew yet if he had signed for us we would have had to pay roughly 320k to motherwell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
General Transfer deadline day
Replies
3
Views
2K
Marked Ox
M
Sarge
Chairman /vice Chairman called tranfer window wrong?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Fred
F
Back
Top Bottom