• ***IMPORTANT*** SOME PASSWORDS NOT WORKING

    There has been some issues with user passwords. Some users may need to reset their passwords to login to the forum. Please use the password reset option when logging in. If you do experience issues and find our account is locked then please email admin@jackarmy.net Thanks

Bashir Humphreys

  • Thread starter Risc
  • Start date
  • Replies: Replies 71
  • Views: Views 10,180
Londonlisa2001 said:
We really have not.

We’ve sold Obafemi remember. That was c.£3.5m ish and Whittaker for a million ish and Lati for half a million.

We’ve signed the Ukrainian, Key, Ginelly (who was free) and Yates. Plus we’ve generated more from Martin et al than from getting in Duff et al, and we’ve got rid of Manning and Ntcham (hopefully once the negotiations are complete) who were two of our top earners. And shipped out a few otters as well.

I’m not complaining - it’s utterly sensible, but let’s not pretend we’ve suddenly been spending money from equity investments.

If we sell Piroe or Grimes that will then plug a gap in our operating expenditure by generating player trading profits. Which is why we should do it.

Now if we sign Piroe to a new deal and keep him until January or next summer, the equity investments will mean we don’t need to worry too much about day to day cash flows as we’re effectively subsiding an advance on future sale from money received into the club now rather than having to take a loan until we sell him. But that’s not happened as yet.

Agree to disagree then, I see a potential £24m shortfall needing to be serviced as an extremely big elephant in the room.

Selling players would go to that without any investment. These investments have allowed that debt to be serviced by player sales as well as supplementing the incoming players not just now but for a few windows to come no doubt.

To ignore the loss and to count the sales
vs purchases isn’t giving a true representation of the use of funds and our ability to do work in the transfer market with or without it.
 
DuffleCoat said:
Agree to disagree then, I see a potential £24m shortfall needing to be serviced as an extremely big elephant in the room.

Selling players would go to that without any investment. These investments have allowed that debt to be serviced by player sales as well as supplementing the incoming players not just now but for a few windows to come no doubt.

To ignore the loss and to count the sales
vs purchases isn’t giving a true representation of the use of funds and our ability to do work in the transfer market with or without it.

Of course it’s an elephant in the room. That’s why I said a few posts above yours

“ Last year we lost around £24m (alleviated by sale of Downes). That’s a hell of a hole from a cash flow perspective. If Ntcham goes that eases monthly cash flow deficit somewhat as he’s on a large whack, but we cannot run the club on the basis of having to sell £15m each summer and still need loans / equity of £10m +
We have to get closer to break even and cash in on valuable assets to give us a buffer. All that this summer’s equity injections have done is get us to the point where we were by selling Downes (from a cash perspective, not P&L of course). Without a big sale we are still operating at a place where we will need more injections, and at around another £10m or so, just to remain cash neutral.”

when you’d said we don’t need to sell anyone.

The reality is that the equity injections are, for now, alleviating the immediacy of covering our monthly outgoings.

The players brought in have been covered by the players out (with some monthly outgoings also reduced).

You can’t get rid of 10 players and not bring any in since we then wouldn’t have a team we could put on the field.

The owners need to do two things - firstly sell at least one of our major assets (a difficult task, obviously, as we’ve been trying to sell Piroe all summer to no avail). Secondly, we need a reduction in our monthly outgoings. We have achieved that a little so far (Manning was on a big chunk) Ntcham will be a huge weight off our financial shoulders (and I applaud the club for standing up to the bollox from him and whatever that Turkish club is called, but actually we need to get rid at this point), but we need more cost cutting. We will be spending a fair whack on Coleman and that second American that has come over whose name escapes me and our back room costs have been way to high for a club in our position for quite a few years.

The recruitment of Watson seems positive to me, and the recruitment of Duff (getting rid of Martin was excellent in my opinion).

So there’s plenty that seems to be on the right track but they are really behind in sorting out the finances here. People are talking as though we’ve been taken over by the House of Saud - Bristol City have had more money in this summer from their owners and I haven’t noticed anyone ripping them off in the transfer market or suddenly talking as though they’re a shoo in for promotion.

Let’s get a sense of perspective. This is a hard league this year.
 
Londonlisa2001 said:
Of course it’s an elephant in the room. That’s why I said a few posts above yours

“ Last year we lost around £24m (alleviated by sale of Downes). That’s a hell of a hole from a cash flow perspective. If Ntcham goes that eases monthly cash flow deficit somewhat as he’s on a large whack, but we cannot run the club on the basis of having to sell £15m each summer and still need loans / equity of £10m +
We have to get closer to break even and cash in on valuable assets to give us a buffer. All that this summer’s equity injections have done is get us to the point where we were by selling Downes (from a cash perspective, not P&L of course). Without a big sale we are still operating at a place where we will need more injections, and at around another £10m or so, just to remain cash neutral.”

when you’d said we don’t need to sell anyone.

The reality is that the equity injections are, for now, alleviating the immediacy of covering our monthly outgoings.

The players brought in have been covered by the players out (with some monthly outgoings also reduced).

You can’t get rid of 10 players and not bring any in since we then wouldn’t have a team we could put on the field.

The owners need to do two things - firstly sell at least one of our major assets (a difficult task, obviously, as we’ve been trying to sell Piroe all summer to no avail). Secondly, we need a reduction in our monthly outgoings. We have achieved that a little so far (Manning was on a big chunk) Ntcham will be a huge weight off our financial shoulders (and I applaud the club for standing up to the bollox from him and whatever that Turkish club is called, but actually we need to get rid at this point), but we need more cost cutting. We will be spending a fair whack on Coleman and that second American that has come over whose name escapes me and our back room costs have been way to high for a club in our position for quite a few years.

The recruitment of Watson seems positive to me, and the recruitment of Duff (getting rid of Martin was excellent in my opinion).

So there’s plenty that seems to be on the right track but they are really behind in sorting out the finances here. People are talking as though we’ve been taken over by the House of Saud - Bristol City have had more money in this summer from their owners and I haven’t noticed anyone ripping them off in the transfer market or suddenly talking as though they’re a shoo in for promotion.

Let’s get a sense of perspective. This is a hard league this year.

I said we don’t need to sell anyone this year.

My point was cash flow is not currently an issue, in terms of stopping us doing deals.

Due to the investments, which are not only covering our shortfall but giving us the freedom to not have to sell a Piroe to get the players we need into the club.

When did we last spend £6m+ in the transfer market without selling one of our marquee players? I don’t think it’s happened since our relegation. This, after back to back heavy losses.

We agree on the departure of Martin, to have a manager who doesn’t care if his team wins or not is barmy. We also agree on the appointments in the staff.

I don’t think anyone is claiming we are oil tycoons playthings, what is being said is there is clear investment allowing us to compete amongst the top echelon of teams in this league (excluding relegated teams).

That’s fantastic considering our burn rate and relatively small self generated income.
 
We spent £6m+ in 2021 having only sold Roberts and Lowe for relatively small fees. Ayew had left but the parachute dropped by more than his wage.
 
jasper_T said:
We spent £6m+ in 2021 having only sold Roberts and Lowe for relatively small fees. Ayew had left but the parachute dropped by more than his wage.

What site did you check for that Jasp :D But yes, you are right and of course TM will
reflect that too.

Shows how rare it is, that will be the only other time in our history outside the EPL.

People should be over the moon with how we have conducted this pre season.
 
jasper_T said:
We spent £6m+ in 2021 having only sold Roberts and Lowe for relatively small fees. Ayew had left but the parachute dropped by more than his wage.

What site did you check for that Jasp :D But yes, you are right and of course TM will of course reflect that too.

Shows how rare it is, that will be the only other time in our history outside the EPL.

People should be over the moon with how we have conducted this pre season
 
What site did you check for that Jasp :D But yes, you are right and TM will of course reflect that too.

Shows how rare it is, that will be the only other time in our history outside the EPL.

People should be over the moon with how we have conducted this pre season
 
Neath_Jack said:
Not sure.

Swansea's efforts to sign Bashir Humphreys have seemingly hit a snag. Told Chelsea still haven't given the green light for loan move and may yet decide to keep him at Stamford Bridge. Remains to be seen whether there will be a breakthrough

According to Tom Coleman, that’s that then.
 
Swansea93 said:
Swansea's efforts to sign Bashir Humphreys have seemingly hit a snag. Told Chelsea still haven't given the green light for loan move and may yet decide to keep him at Stamford Bridge. Remains to be seen whether there will be a breakthrough

According to Tom Coleman, that’s that then.

With Chelsea having apparently found Mickey Thomas's old £50 note printing machine over the last few weeks, you'd think they'd sign off on sending a young kid with no hope of first team football with them down here for a few months.
 
Swansea93 said:
Swansea's efforts to sign Bashir Humphreys have seemingly hit a snag. Told Chelsea still haven't given the green light for loan move and may yet decide to keep him at Stamford Bridge. Remains to be seen whether there will be a breakthrough

According to Tom Coleman, that’s that then.

That will please a few of the anti-loan brigade. :D :D
 
CurtessECarr said:
That will please a few of the anti-loan brigade. :D :D

I think even the most anti-loan fan would jump at the chance of getting a centre back better than those currently at the club, even if it is only a rental. Not that I have a clue if Humphreys is better than what we have of course.
 

Norwich City v Swansea City

Online statistics

Members online
52
Guests online
441
Total visitors
493

Forum statistics

Threads
21,022
Messages
287,095
Members
4,725
Back
Top