[The Black Triangle]

RPL42YEARS, on 22 June 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

you get what you pay for. Football is no different. Do you dispute this?

Correct, and the overall package, in terms of signing fee, extra wages and higher bonus for a player means we get better players for our money, and really get what we paid for instead of wasting a sizable chunk of the budget on transfer fees.

I`m glad you pointed that one out for those message board users to obstinate/foolish to realise there are many shades of gray and not just an over-simplified player transfer market

[fishini]

RPL42YEARS, on 22 June 2011 - 06:22 PM, said:

Sorry chaps but as in life, an in the long run, you get what you pay for. Football is no different. To paint the extremes - Manager A buys all his players and Manager B can only go with frees (inc ooc). 99 times in 100 A will have a better squad and more success than B. Do you dispute this?

Looking at our present squad. How many do you think can make the step up to league 1?
Then look at the fees that were paid for them? Lester a prime example free. Gritton £40k and Lee £250k. Who is the best out of these 3? If we had paid for the players we have now would they have been better players than they are now? If we get Donaldson on a free what score out of 10 would you give him? If we pay for him how would you score him?

[RPL42YEARS]

Fishini - I know what your saying but my point throughout various threads is a "balanced approach". It would be great if we coul achieve the Championship by picking up the "mercenary frees" - the players that would previously have commanded a free. However, in the end, I believe CFC must be prepared to stump up the odd transfer fee (linked to a longer contract), and frees of both types. Others, and I respect their opinion, believe that this is unnecessary.

Otherwise, I guess my only other issue is my debate with Moondog. He believes that CFC are prepared to pay transfer fees. I take the view is that if your value set is below the market then you won't sign anybody, and hence, in reality you have a policy not to sign. We've had the Hunt, Smalley and Giffiths issues as evidence. And dress it up as you might, an slag off certain other teams chairmen as we do, the transfer market is just that - you compete with other teams on the level of the fee, signing on fees, agents fees (the worst development in modern times) bonuses, facilities ... etc etc.

[moondog]

RPL42YEARS, on 23 June 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

Fishini - I know what your saying but my point throughout various threads is a "balanced approach". It would be great if we coul achieve the Championship by picking up the "mercenary frees" - the players that would previously have commanded a free. However, in the end, I believe CFC must be prepared to stump up the odd transfer fee (linked to a longer contract), and frees of both types. Others, and I respect their opinion, believe that this is unnecessary.

Otherwise, I guess my only other issue is my debate with Moondog. He believes that CFC are prepared to pay transfer fees. I take the view is that if your value set is below the market then you won't sign anybody, and hence, in reality you have a policy not to sign. We've had the Hunt, Smalley and Giffiths issues as evidence. And dress it up as you might, an slag off certain other teams chairmen as we do, the transfer market is just that - you compete with other teams on the level of the fee, signing on fees, agents fees (the worst development in modern times) bonuses, facilities ... etc etc.

As previously stated, if Hunt and Griffiths' fee's were set at market rates they would have moved on from their parent clubs, do you care to actually address this point

[DIFH]

RPL42YEARS, on 23 June 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

Fishini - I know what your saying but my point throughout various threads is a "balanced approach". It would be great if we coul achieve the Championship by picking up the "mercenary frees" - the players that would previously have commanded a free. However, in the end, I believe CFC must be prepared to stump up the odd transfer fee (linked to a longer contract), and frees of both types. Others, and I respect their opinion, believe that this is unnecessary.

Otherwise, I guess my only other issue is my debate with Moondog. He believes that CFC are prepared to pay transfer fees. I take the view is that if your value set is below the market then you won't sign anybody, and hence, in reality you have a policy not to sign. We've had the Hunt, Smalley and Giffiths issues as evidence. And dress it up as you might, an slag off certain other teams chairmen as we do, the transfer market is just that - you compete with other teams on the level of the fee, signing on fees, agents fees (the worst development in modern times) bonuses, facilities ... etc etc.

As a responsible 'Board' with DA, what do you do if that portion of your budget only allows for frees etc; there has to be monies held back for contingency loans etc. If you have 5 major vacancies you cannot blow that part of your budget at the cost of the remaining replacements - BALANCE, VALUE, STABILITY.

We would probably be paying fees in the Championship where the added League monies would give us that flexibility but the ground capacity/average has a bearing in setting your personnel budget.