January Fire Sale

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.

Hourihane would have had nothing to gain and much to lose by not trying his best had the club said that they did not wish to sell him. He had no leg to stand on, legally, professionally or morally by taking a negative stance and indeed it's very arguable that his long term prospects would have been diminished at all by staying at a successful and progressive Argyle rather than going to Barnsley. And Hourihane was not an average L2 player-surely that much has been proved already by his goals and performances in a league higher?

Greenskin wrote:

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.

Hourihane would have had nothing to gain and much to lose by not trying his best had the club said that they did not wish to sell him. He had no leg to stand on, legally, professionally or morally by taking a negative stance and indeed it's very arguable that his long term prospects would have been diminished at all by staying at a successful and progressive Argyle rather than going to Barnsley. And Hourihane was not an average L2 player-surely that much has been proved already by his goals and performances in a league higher?

Hourihane was sold a vision of a club that was going for promotion, by the time he could have been in League 1 with Argyle he could have been in the Championship with Barnsley (And still might end up there next year, although more likely with someone else), he wanted out, whether he wanted it to or not his performances would probably have dropped from not wanting to be here.
He wasn't an average L2 player no, but the average L2 player generally wouldn't be joining a L1 side.

Argy1e wrote:

Greenskin wrote:

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.

Hourihane would have had nothing to gain and much to lose by not trying his best had the club said that they did not wish to sell him. He had no leg to stand on, legally, professionally or morally by taking a negative stance and indeed it's very arguable that his long term prospects would have been diminished at all by staying at a successful and progressive Argyle rather than going to Barnsley. And Hourihane was not an average L2 player-surely that much has been proved already by his goals and performances in a league higher?

Hourihane was sold a vision of a club that was going for promotion, by the time he could have been in League 1 with Argyle he could have been in the Championship with Barnsley (And still might end up there next year, although more likely with someone else), he wanted out, whether he wanted it to or not his performances would probably have dropped from not wanting to be here.
He wasn't an average L2 player no, but the average L2 player generally wouldn't be joining a L1 side.

So where would that have left him at the end of the season?

Well if his form dipped so much that would have left us worse off which means we possibly wouldn't have been promoted, would we have offered him a new contract? yes probably. Even with a dip in form though he could still probably have found a L1 club interested in signing him.

Argy1e wrote:

Well if his form dipped so much that would have left us worse off which means we possibly wouldn't have been promoted, would we have offered him a new contract? yes probably. Even with a dip in form though he could still probably have found a L1 club interested in signing him.

His form wouldn't have dipped, the progression would have been maintained as it was in every season since he joined the club-what would there have been to stop it,barring injury or whatever?. Another if-if Hourihane had stayed, Argyle had got promotion, then Hourihane had joined someone else for free-so what? Argyle would have lost £200k from the transfer fee, gained considerably more from other avenues. I've watched Argyle selling their best talent for 50 years now and the only thing it's achieved for us is a decline to the extent that even getting out of this division is a struggle. You can accept that if you want to, entirely your decision, but not for me. Plenty of other clubs have put their foot down as far as saying no go to players who want away is concerned and benefitted from that policy, high time that Argyle did the same.

A players mentality can affect their form, if he didn't want to play for us there's a good chance his form would have been affected. You raise a perfectly fair point, but say if we'd have had Bobby Reid on loan from the start of the season we could probably be in the same position we'd be if we still had Hourihane. I was gutted Hourihane left, but i felt it would be okay as long as we replaced him. We didn't, not to begin with anyway but we've got a good chance of promotion this season anyway. If we go up without Hourihane (and we have a decent chance) we've not lost out on anything and we're 170k better off (even though we only see 85k of it, as we still had to pay off the creditors at some point).

Argy1e wrote:

A players mentality can affect their form, if he didn't want to play for us there's a good chance his form would have been affected. You raise a perfectly fair point, but say if we'd have had Bobby Reid on loan from the start of the season we could probably be in the same position we'd be if we still had Hourihane. I was gutted Hourihane left, but i felt it would be okay as long as we replaced him. We didn't, not to begin with anyway but we've got a good chance of promotion this season anyway. If we go up without Hourihane (and we have a decent chance) we've not lost out on anything and we're 170k better off (even though we only see 85k of it, as we still had to pay off the creditors at some point).

It's news to me that Bobby Reid or any of the other midfielders has come anywhere near replacing Hourihane in terms of goals scored. Not knocking Bobby or anyone else, the midfielders all have qualities of their own but prolific scorers they ain't and it's useless to rely entirely on the strikers to win you promotion. Even if you have two 20 goals a season strikers, a hefty contribution is still needed from other departments of the team and a dozen or so from Hourihane would have been worth their weight in gold, not to mention his accuracy from dead ball situations. I'll just close this debate from my perspective by saying that I hope you're right about the scenario put forward in your last sentence but can't help getting a dread feeling that the decision to sell him may turn out to be much more costly than £200k in the long term.

Interesting debate here to read, generally kept polite yet also enthusiastic with opposing viewpoints put across passionately as you would in the pub. A good while since I've seen that about Argyle given the tendency on multiple platforms to descend to all levels of pettiness these days.

Fwiw, I think it was wrong to sell Hourihane for what we did. Even if Sheridan was wrong that we could/should have got more money for him (I'm not sure if he was) then we should have just let him go at the end of his contract for nothing. Hourihane for a year would have made promotion a lot more likely. Promotion to league one is worth more to this club than the small amount of money that we got for Hourihane and I think it was wrong of Argyle not to realise that. Unless there was something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about (such as Hourihane threatening to strike) then I think the sale of our best player is very, very difficult to defend. Almost indefensible in fact.

I don't however think that Reuben is going anywhere in January. Not so much because Brent wouldn't sell him, more because Reuben wouldn't want to leave. He turned down bigger clubs in the summer. He wants to finish what he started here.

If we stay down however, he's off this coming summer. As is Nelse. The latter may leave even if we do go up.

A cracking debate with good points made by both posters and mutual respect shown, well done.

PS............I think you should meet outside the Lyndhurst tomorrow at 2.30pm sharp and kick the living shit out of each other.

AstiSpumante wrote:

A cracking debate with good points made by both posters and mutual respect shown, well done.

PS............I think you should meet outside the Lyndhurst tomorrow at 2.30pm sharp and kick the living shit out of each other.

Make it the Trust gazebo for maximum impact

AstiSpumante wrote:

A cracking debate with good points made by both posters and mutual respect shown, well done.

PS............I think you should meet outside the Lyndhurst tomorrow at 2.30pm sharp and kick the living shit out of each other.

I'm game. Crombie with red top pocket hanky, Levi's, Ben Sherman, Tank top and Docs on, knuckle dusters at the ready.

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?

If the owner of the club is begging the council for money to bring the debt down i would say he isnt turning any sort of profit to suggest the club int operating on losses.  Hourihane had a whole year left on his deal and should have commanded a higher fee between £250,000 - £400,000 range. However given the CVA and Ipswich did benefit form Hourihane sale (alot less than your £85k fee) more than we did letting him go for free probably wouldnt have made any difference. Has Sheridan seen any of that money to strengthen?

Greenskin wrote:

AstiSpumante wrote:

A cracking debate with good points made by both posters and mutual respect shown, well done.

PS............I think you should meet outside the Lyndhurst tomorrow at 2.30pm sharp and kick the living shit out of each other.

I'm game. Crombie with red top pocket hanky, Levi's, Ben Sherman, Tank top and Docs on, knuckle dusters at the ready.

Lovin' yer style skin.

I don't think Hourihane's form would have dipped either. Schneiderlin wanted out of Southampton at the start of this season, so far he's had his best season yet for the Saints.

He might have tried harder to get a move he wanted. Or, he might have found out he liked playing at the club after all - this team at the moment with Hourihane would, I think, be easily a top three side. I think we'd have been better off trying for promotion with him on board rather than receiving the ultimately small amount of money we did for him.

MannameadGreen wrote:

I don't think Hourihane's form would have dipped either. Schneiderlin wanted out of Southampton at the start of this season, so far he's had his best season yet for the Saints.

He might have tried harder to get a move he wanted. Or, he might have found out he liked playing at the club after all - this team at the moment with Hourihane would, I think, be easily a top three side. I think we'd have been better off trying for promotion with him on board rather than receiving the ultimately small amount of money we did for him.

That's the crux of it.

A bird in the hand being worth three in the bush is only true to a certain extent. If it's one measly little bird with a broken wing in the hand, and three big fat juicy ones in the bush then it's worth holding out for the ones in the bush.

Obvious, Brent needed the money..........

Angry wrote:

If the owner of the club is begging the council for money to bring the debt down

Hourihane had a whole year left on his deal and should have commanded a higher fee between £250,000 - £400,000 range. However given the CVA and Ipswich did benefit form Hourihane sale (alot less than your £85k fee) more than we did letting him go for free probably wouldnt have made any difference. Has Sheridan seen any of that money to strengthen?

That's the first i've heard of that

How many players in League 2 go for 400k? You'd be unlikely to get that for a player even with 4/5 years on his contract unless they're a teenager. Conor is 23, 24 at the end of the season when he could walk for free. No-one would pay 400k for a L2 player with 12 months left on his contract.

Why would we have had less than 85k? Ipswich's sell on clause was 15% and 50% of unbudgeted income goes to the creditors, that would've left us with 85k

Everyone also seems to be forgetting the "comprehensive series of add-ons" we're meant to have, the original fee doesn't look or sound that good but it could end up being a lot more.

MannameadGreen wrote:

I don't think Hourihane's form would have dipped either. Schneiderlin wanted out of Southampton at the start of this season, so far he's had his best season yet for the Saints.

He might have tried harder to get a move he wanted. Or, he might have found out he liked playing at the club after all - this team at the moment with Hourihane would, I think, be easily a top three side. I think we'd have been better off trying for promotion with him on board rather than receiving the ultimately small amount of money we did for him.

It can work both ways, just as many players who want out at clubs have bad seasons as one's that have good. If Hourihane had stayed and had a really good season and then walked out for free at the end of it the board would still be slated for not managing to keep hold of him, they can't win with our fans. On top of that we'd have missed out on a potentially large fee from the sale and add-ons. We're not a one man team and although our chances were dealt a blow by losing Hourihane the board still felt we'd have a very good chance of promotion. As it stands we do have a chance at promotion so it would look like their decisions have been vindicated.

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.

Sheridan said that he was going to build a team around Conor about 3 months before the board sold him, this sale was not good for the club in any way imaginable, we got feck all money and sold our captain and almost certainly our second highest goal scorer? Wtf?

Managers seem able to build teams around certain players quite easily, Sheridan signed Banton in his first season and the team was very much built around him in the last few months (Interestingly our best performance during that time was actually the game after he was recalled against Chesterfield). Last season the team was built around Hourihane and his goal tally showed that we brought out the best in him, and our team at the moment in built around Reuben Reid. Sheridan said that he expected there to be interest in Hourihane and i think i read somewhere that he expected Hourihane to leave so it would seem odd if he did say he was building his team for this season around him (although i'm not saying you're wrong).

The long and the short of it is that Argyle have been mugged again, just my POV.

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

If the owner of the club is begging the council for money to bring the debt down

Hourihane had a whole year left on his deal and should have commanded a higher fee between £250,000 - £400,000 range. However given the CVA and Ipswich did benefit form Hourihane sale (alot less than your £85k fee) more than we did letting him go for free probably wouldnt have made any difference. Has Sheridan seen any of that money to strengthen?

That's the first i've heard of that

How many players in League 2 go for 400k? You'd be unlikely to get that for a player even with 4/5 years on his contract unless they're a teenager. Conor is 23, 24 at the end of the season when he could walk for free. No-one would pay 400k for a L2 player with 12 months left on his contract.

Why would we have had less than 85k? Ipswich's sell on clause was 15% and 50% of unbudgeted income goes to the creditors, that would've left us with 85k

Everyone also seems to be forgetting the "comprehensive series of add-ons" we're meant to have, the original fee doesn't look or sound that good but it could end up being a lot more.

clearly dont read the paper or forums then youngling if you didnt know he was begging for loans from the council to half the debt to CVA.
We got less than £85k and even if it were that fee its still far too low for a player of Hourihanes ability and still bad buisness no matter how its dressed up. Barnsley got a bargain and they know it. £200,000 was a piss take offer to accept and i dont but buy you he only had a year left theory as that still doesnt excuse that low sale fee. Oh and btw there were no add ons so forget what Football manager says

Argy1e wrote:

How many players in League 2 go for 400k? You'd be unlikely to get that for a player even with 4/5 years on his contract unless they're a teenager. Conor is 23, 24 at the end of the season when he could walk for free. No-one would pay 400k for a L2 player with 12 months left on his contract.

Why would we have had less than 85k? Ipswich's sell on clause was 15% and 50% of unbudgeted income goes to the creditors, that would've left us with 85k

Everyone also seems to be forgetting the "comprehensive series of add-ons" we're meant to have, the original fee doesn't look or sound that good but it could end up being a lot more.

What does it matter how many players in League 2 go for £400k, in fact how many clubs in League 2 are fortunate enough to have a £400k rated player? You talk as if we have a divine right to receive a fee at the end of a players contract, we don't. Conor came to us as a freebie so we shouldn't be disappointed if he leaves as a freebie after giving us 3-4 years of good service.

I don't believe for one minute Conor was desperate to go as soon as the mighty Barnsley came calling. Team captain who was playing the best football of his career to date, guaranteed 1st team football in a side hoping to win promotion after securing the services of a number of quality signings. Nope, I find it hard to believe he was desperate to go but if we go along with what you said, that's probably the end of receiving anything worthwhile via add-ons. As soon as struggling Wigan put in a cheeky little offer, history says Conor will go, right?

It was a terrible deal from a footballing POV. We've basically received £85k for a key player whose goals would've almost certainly seen us in the top 3 right now. Same old Argo!

Angry wrote:

Argy1e wrote:

Angry wrote:

If the owner of the club is begging the council for money to bring the debt down

Hourihane had a whole year left on his deal and should have commanded a higher fee between £250,000 - £400,000 range. However given the CVA and Ipswich did benefit form Hourihane sale (alot less than your £85k fee) more than we did letting him go for free probably wouldnt have made any difference. Has Sheridan seen any of that money to strengthen?

That's the first i've heard of that

How many players in League 2 go for 400k? You'd be unlikely to get that for a player even with 4/5 years on his contract unless they're a teenager. Conor is 23, 24 at the end of the season when he could walk for free. No-one would pay 400k for a L2 player with 12 months left on his contract.

Why would we have had less than 85k? Ipswich's sell on clause was 15% and 50% of unbudgeted income goes to the creditors, that would've left us with 85k

Everyone also seems to be forgetting the "comprehensive series of add-ons" we're meant to have, the original fee doesn't look or sound that good but it could end up being a lot more.

clearly dont read the paper or forums then youngling if you didnt know he was begging for loans from the council to half the debt to CVA.
We got less than £85k and even if it were that fee its still far too low for a player of Hourihanes ability and still bad buisness no matter how its dressed up. Barnsley got a bargain and they know it. £200,000 was a piss take offer to accept and i dont but buy you he only had a year left theory as that still doesnt excuse that low sale fee. Oh and btw there were no add ons so forget what Football manager says

Sorry i read your original post wrong, i read it as to bring the rent down rather than debt. To pay off the 1.5m in two years off money made by a League 2 football club would be quite difficult, so to be able to half that would be of massive benefit. I was quite worried about the loan also before interviewing Starnes last month. Barnsley did get a bargain but clubs often do when poaching players with 1 year left on their contracts, the main thing that was making the deal okay for me was the add-ons but you claim we don't have any, despite our board telling us otherwise.

Coxside_Green wrote:

What does it matter how many players in League 2 go for £400k, in fact how many clubs in League 2 are fortunate enough to have a £400k rated player?  You talk as if we have a divine right to receive a fee at the end of a players contract, we don't.  Conor came to us as a freebie so we shouldn't be disappointed if he leaves as a freebie after giving us 3-4 years of good service.

I don't believe for one minute Conor was desperate to go as soon as the mighty Barnsley came calling.  Team captain who was playing the best football of his career to date, guaranteed 1st team football in a side hoping to win promotion after securing the services of a number of quality signings.  Nope, I find it hard to believe he was desperate to go but if we go along with what you said, that's probably the end of receiving anything worthwhile via add-ons.  As soon as struggling Wigan put in a cheeky little offer, history says Conor will go, right?

Are you actually saying if Conor had turned us down at the end of this season and walked out for free you'd have been perfectly fine with it? I don't talk as if we have a divine right to receive a fee for a player, i'm saying i would rather the club get money for a player (in most situations) than lose the player for free, obviously i'd rather we keep our best players but if they don't want to be here then i'd rather we got something from them. A good season out of them is an option, and it's one that i'd probably preferred if we didn't still have a debt to pay off.

You say Conor would want to stay because;
Captain, Playing his best football, Guaranteed first team football, side hoping to win promotion

At Barnsley, he had the opportunity to further his career playing the best football of his life at a higher level, they'd released a lot of players so he'd have known if he's playing well he'll be guaranteed first team football at a higher level and in a side where he was told they they aiming for promotion. Why wouldn't he want to leave. Young was released from us for being in his comfort zone and not pushing himself to improve apparently, so why would Hourihane stay in his comfort zone when there is a very good chance to progress offered to him.

He's not likely to go off to a struggling Championship side in January, because it's a completely different scenario to the one he was sold at Barnsley.