January Fire Sale

So who will be sold off first in jan? Nelson or Reid?

Who knows what the reluctant bidder/ex banker/non developing property developer/I know nothing about football, person has in his head?

It'll really upset some people if we don't sell anyone.

It want upset me, because the way the team is playingn which area would we need to streangth to push for promotion?

akagreengull wrote:

Who knows what the reluctant bidder/ex banker/non developing property developer/I know nothing about football, person has in his head?

Brent might be the chairman, but it's Martyn Starnes who runs the club and i'd imagine he plays a bigger part in transfers than Brent. Brent would have to finance them of course and so would probably have to give it the go ahead but with MS in charge of the day to day running it would make sense for him to play the biggest role

Starnes only does what he's told.

So a Chairman who has come out and said he's not capable of running a football club and appointed a Chief Executive and a board of directors to run it instead doesn't let them run it and tells them what to do? That makes plenty of sense.

Argy1e wrote:

So a Chairman who has come out and said he's not capable of running a football club and appointed a Chief Executive and a board of directors to run it instead doesn't let them run it and tells them what to do? That makes plenty of sense.

The reluctant one 'owns' everybody at HP................ I doubt he'll sell Reid or Nelson as that would really be the bitter end for any credibility he still has left and instead of a probable promotion push and rising gate receipts, the club will revert to mid table obscurity.
Some dumbassed Avivas will still enjoy the ride.

Argy1e wrote:

So a Chairman who has come out and said he's not capable of running a football club and appointed a Chief Executive and a board of directors to run it instead doesn't let them run it and tells them what to do? That makes plenty of sense.

they may run the club's daily buisness (well martyn does) but Brent does have the overall say in what goes on

I'd said Brent probably has the final say, but he's probably guided in some of those decisions by the board

Starnes is an employee of Brent. It's Brent that owns the club and okays all the major decisions. Brent was the one that made the decision to sell Hourihane for peanuts - that was a major decision.

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

Argy1e wrote:

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

Spot on.

Argy1e wrote:

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

If you think a player like Hourihane who had a year left with us can only attract a £200,000 offer of which the vast majority went to the CVA and Ipswich Town leaving us with more or less £60,000 is good buisness in your eyes and Martyns its not hard to understand why the club is still continuing to operate greeat losses.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

If you think a player like Hourihane who had a year left with us can only attract a £200,000 offer of which the vast majority went to the CVA and Ipswich Town leaving us with more or less £60,000 is good buisness in your eyes and Martyns its not hard to understand why the club is still continuing to operate greeat losses.

Exactly. How long does a player have to have left on his contract before he becomes a "must cash in " commodity for God's sake? 12 months? Which could soon become 18 months .Or two years. Etc,etc. You could understand someone like Hourihane being sold if in January the team didn't look like achieving anything but the bloody season hadn't even started and you can be sure that if Argyle had been at the very top of league and stayed there [which I think they would have with Hourihane's goals and assists] then an amount of money far in excess of £200k [which was actually deemed wholly inadequate in the professional opinion of the manager] would have been garnered by the club. Needlessly selling your best players is ultimately a false economy, sad but not very surprising that a number of Argyle fans have not grasped this simple fact in their nodding dog acceptance of the "club had to cash in "mantra.

The club must look longer term, perhaps we will strengthen in January?

Hourihane has scored 11 goals for a struggling Barnsley team in league 1, if he had played for Argyle this season we might well be top 3? but no, Brent took the peanuts and Argyle once again look like Monkeys.

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

If you think a player like Hourihane who had a year left with us can only attract a £200,000 offer of which the vast majority went to the CVA and Ipswich Town leaving us with more or less £60,000 is good buisness in your eyes and Martyns its not hard to understand why the club is still continuing to operate greeat losses.

Are we continuing to operate great losses? Starnes still expects us to break even this season.
15% (30k) would have gone to Ipswich, meaning 170k would have been split between us and the football creditors so yes as we only get 85k it does look a bad deal. However, when you take into account the add-ons and sell on % we're likely to make more than that.

Do you really think a League 2 player with 12 months left on his contract, who has said he wants to leave the club will attract more than 200k? I like Hourihane and valued him at a lot more than that, but realistically no-one is going to pay more than that. Greenskin, suggesting Hourihane would have been worth more than 200k is ludicrous. He'd have had 6 months left on his contract and he'd be walking out for free at the end of the season instead, why would a club shell out when they could sign him for free?

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

If you think a player like Hourihane who had a year left with us can only attract a £200,000 offer of which the vast majority went to the CVA and Ipswich Town leaving us with more or less £60,000 is good buisness in your eyes and Martyns its not hard to understand why the club is still continuing to operate greeat losses.

Are we continuing to operate great losses? Starnes still expects us to break even this season.
15% (30k) would have gone to Ipswich, meaning 170k would have been split between us and the football creditors so yes as we only get 85k it does look a bad deal. However, when you take into account the add-ons and sell on % we're likely to make more than that.

Do you really think a League 2 player with 12 months left on his contract, who has said he wants to leave the club will attract more than 200k? I like Hourihane and valued him at a lot more than that, but realistically no-one is going to pay more than that. Greenskin, suggesting Hourihane would have been worth more than 200k is ludicrous. He'd have had 6 months left on his contract and he'd be walking out for free at the end of the season instead, why would a club shell out when they could sign him for free?

Come on Jim admit it, you gave him away!

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Again, i've already said Brent would okay all the major decisions, but that doesn't mean he wont be influenced from the board in them at times, Brent supposedly knew nothing about football and so would be a complete fool not to do so. With that in mind, it also seems unlikely that it would be Brent that negotiates transfer prices as he hasn't any experience of dealing in footballing markets, he'd need to okay it of course but i don't think he'd have been the one to decide it.

Hourihane made the decision for us to 'sell Hourihane for peanuts' by saying he wouldn't sign a new contract. There wouldn't have been a great deal of point keeping an unhappy player for 12 months for him to walk out for free at the end of it when you have a chance to cash in on him and try and replace him with someone who actually wants to play for you. After saying he wouldn't sign a new contract Hourihane had to leave, and no club was going to pay over the odds for a player they could have got for free next summer. I too think he was worth more, but we don't know the clauses we have with that deal either, and we could end up getting a lot more from the deal. When i interviewed Martyn last month he said the club had done extremely well to get as much as they did and looking at it properly he's right.

If you think a player like Hourihane who had a year left with us can only attract a £200,000 offer of which the vast majority went to the CVA and Ipswich Town leaving us with more or less £60,000 is good buisness in your eyes and Martyns its not hard to understand why the club is still continuing to operate greeat losses.

Are we continuing to operate great losses? Starnes still expects us to break even this season.
15% (30k) would have gone to Ipswich, meaning 170k would have been split between us and the football creditors so yes as we only get 85k it does look a bad deal. However, when you take into account the add-ons and sell on % we're likely to make more than that.

Do you really think a League 2 player with 12 months left on his contract, who has said he wants to leave the club will attract more than 200k? I like Hourihane and valued him at a lot more than that, but realistically no-one is going to pay more than that. Greenskin, suggesting Hourihane would have been worth more than 200k is ludicrous. He'd have had 6 months left on his contract and he'd be walking out for free at the end of the season instead, why would a club shell out when they could sign him for free?

Ludicrous was it? Well, you'd better go and tell Sheridan that he was talking out of his arse as well then;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

While you're at it, you can also ask yourself if "Martyn" may have had a slightly self interested view point when he told you that the club had done well to get £200k for Hourihane. And you can also ask yourself what the financial benefits would have been if Argyle had enjoyed a successful season [and beyond] with Hourihane on the books-considerably more than £200k,i'd have thought.

But using the money we got to replace him we could also have got those same benefits with the extra cash already thrown in, Hourihane was worth 400-500k but not with 12 months left on his contract

Argy1e wrote:

But using the money we got to replace him we could also have got those same benefits with the extra cash already thrown in, Hourihane was worth 400-500k but not with 12 months left on his contract

What benefits?

The financial benefits of having a good season that you mentioned in your previous post. What's to say Hourihane would have been as good for us anyway though? he was adamant he wanted out and the chances are he wouldn't have been the same player for us, which would mean we'd have had to try and sell him in January but for less than we'd have got in the summer, or lose him for free.


Also, going back to one of your earlier points, the fact Barnsley's first two bids were reportedly 20k and then 80k shows how much an average L2 player left with 12 months on his contract would be worth, so to get 200k would seem we did do extremely well to do that.

Argy1e wrote:

The financial benefits of having a good season that you mentioned in your previous post. What's to say Hourihane would have been as good for us anyway though? he was adamant he wanted out and the chances are he wouldn't have been the same player for us, which would mean we'd have had to try and sell him in January but for less than we'd have got in the summer, or lose him for free.


Also, going back to one of your earlier points, the fact Barnsley's first two bids were reportedly 20k and then 80k shows how much an average L2 player left with 12 months on his contract would be worth, so to get 200k would seem we did do extremely well to do that.

I suppose you could say that if Hourihane was in the team yesterday, we would not be losing to teams like Newport county and tomorrow 15 thousand would turn up, not  the likely 8 thousand they will get.