Deadline Day 1 September 2022

[StudentGrecian]

Yes, to some extent. But on the other hand the Watkins money has helped pay for so much more than increasing the playing budget. The pitch, training ground etc are all one-off investments that shouldn't need repeating ever / in the near future so uou would hope the playing budget would see more of future windfalls than it has previously.

You would hope so, but it’s still not sustainable, given we’d still have to sell players to get a league standard budget. If we can’t put out a L1 budget based on Project 6000 etc. alone, then we are never going to be sustainable at this level without relying on player sales.

Like I said, I love our model and don’t really want change, but the negative voices coming from the club about this window regarding our size and budget only furthers the point that it’s not sustainable.

 

[fred binneys head]

If we don’t sign anyone, surely we need to see how the season plays out before we decide whether the model is broken? If the youth players coming through are good enough to compete at League 1 level then the model is sustainable, if they’re not and we don’t have the resources to get the players we want, then the model can be called into question.

 

[Trampus]

Do you know what errors have occurred in the recruitment process?

I’m sure the club will do a full after action review of the soon finishing transfer window and tell us!

 

[angelic upstart]

The whole point is if, after today, we suddenly get injuries we won't be able to replace them, unless we can magic up a free agent that no one else wants.
When does the National League window shut?

We'll be fine.

I believe it closes today like the premier league. Not sure about loan window though

 

[Super Ronnie Jepson]

You would hope so, but it’s still not sustainable, given we’d still have to sell players to get a league standard budget. If we can’t put out a L1 budget based on Project 6000 etc. alone, then we are never going to be sustainable at this level without relying on player sales.

Like I said, I love our model and don’t really want change, but the negative voices coming from the club regarding our size and budget only further the issue that it’s not sustainable.

It's sustainable if we back our Academy to go on producing saleable players. We're loading our squad with saleable assets right now in numbers we've never seen before.

As I understand it we have a baseline playing budget which is presumably based on matchday income, sponsorship, TV income etc which then gets enhanced by windfalls such as transfer income and cup runs. Presumably the aim of Project 6000 is to raise the baseline budget and make our model more sustainable but we're still going to be behind the likes of Ipswich even if it comes off.

I just don't see what the alternative could be. Flog the club to someone promising us sunlit uplands?

 

[Red Devon]

This must be stressful for the social media team as well. Stuff happening but no deals being done. Are they needed or not? Can they pop out to the pub for a game of pool or do they need to stay on site?

Should we make a signing all that’s needed is for the name to be released….no need for one of those tease videos with someone walking across the C&F with a bag over their head and the name being released two hours later.

 

[Cowshed Grecian]

If we don’t sign anyone, surely we need to see how the season plays out before we decide whether the model is broken? If the youth players coming through are good enough to compete at League 1 level then the model is sustainable, if they’re not and we don’t have the resources to get the players we want, then the model can be called into question.

True Fred. We have no clue if we are going to be alright or not, I mean what are we all going to be like this time next year, when Super Matty Taylor leads us to the Championship against all odds! We will just have to hope Sonny, Alfie and Harry fulfil their potential and we net £5m a piece for each of them. Championship playing budgets are even higher!

 

[elginCity]

We were made to suffer by the first ever player from the loan system, and seems we're still suffering !



"Then, in 1966, the Football League made what newspapers called a “most startling proposal” to allow the “temporary transfer of players” – with certain restrictions. Each club could make only two loan transfers per season, and transfer fees could not be paid. Loans had to last for at least three months, and they could only be made between clubs in different divisions.

The rules surrounding loan transfers would be changed over subsequent years, notably in 1995 after the Bosman ruling – which shook up the entire transfer system – and then in 2003 with the lifting of the restriction on loans having to be made between clubs in different divisions. There were also temporary bans, such as in 1980, when loan transfers of players other than goalkeepers was outlawed. But the 1966 proposal effectively put into place the loan system as we know it today.

In 1967, Torquay United signed 19-year-old winger John Docker on loan from Coventry. Docker scored twice on his Torquay debut, a 3-0 win over local rivals Exeter, but played only three more games during his loan and never played at all for Coventry. So while he hardly had an illustrious career, Docker can perhaps be remembered as the first signing under the new loan transfer system."

A bizarre history of loans: Where did it really all begin?

Permanent deals might not be so hot in January, but short-term ones could be – especially after the Football League scrapped the ‘emergency loan’ window last summer. But how did it all start, and what brought the most controversy?

www.fourfourtwo.com

 

[StudentGrecian]

It's sustainable if we back our Academy to go on producing saleable players. We're loading our squad with saleable assets right now in numbers we've never seen before.

As I understand it we have a baseline playing budget which is presumably based on matchday income, sponsorship, TV income etc which then gets enhanced by windfalls such as transfer income and cup runs. Presumably the aim of Project 6000 is to raise the baseline budget and make our model more sustainable but we're still going to be behind the likes of Ipswich even if it comes off.

I just don't see what the alternative could be. Flog the club to someone promising us sunlit uplands?

I agree, but we can’t always rely on selling them. Imagine we thought Key would have netted us some money for this years budget, but we haven’t and as a result we’ve struggled in the market. So I personally don’t see it as a sustainable model.

It’s true and I don’t have the answers to what a good alternative would be. The negativity of the clubs statements about us this window have just started to make me question the long term. I’d love nothing more for it to work out as it is, I just can’t see it right now.

Anyways, I shouldn’t have brought up the model in the deadline day thread, Stansfield in yet?

 

[Grecianpasty]

I'd be shocked to see a signing today. But that doesn't mean another signing won't be made before January.