Jones is Out (pg 49)

[Jeterpool]

Can't think of any players we developed or sold for profit. We usually just let guys go for free, and do **** all development.

As Grim says, we had them but let them go for free...because we ****ed up

[The Dunster]

I'll help (even if we didn't profit from them because, as Grim says, we stuffed it up)...Birrighitti, Chapman, Goodwin, Brillante, Taggart

But we didn't develop them. Birra = Adelaide, Chapman = AIS, Goodwin = Melb Heart, Brillante = Gold Coast , Taggart = Perth Glory.

The risk factor on these players was very low because they were somewhat proven already and only lacking in game time / opportunities.

So this sort of thing I think is very good because it gets you bargains without the financial burden of developing them through youth programs and so on which more often than not fails.

[Jeterpool]

But we didn't develop them. Birra = Adelaide, Chapman = AIS, Goodwin = Melb Heart, Brillante = Gold Coast , Taggart = Perth Glory.

The risk factor on these players was very low because they were somewhat proven already and only lacking in game time / opportunities.

So this sort of thing I think is very good because it gets you bargains without the financial burden of developing them through youth programs and so on which more often than not fails.

100% agree we didn't develop them - We gave them game because, as you rightly said, they weren't given that at their previous team (except Chapman). I'd differ with you as I don't think they were even "somewhat proven" but that's not what we're discussing.

As Grim suggested, we buy good young players (those I mentioned above fall into that category), we give them game time and sell them on while supporting them with some quality middle-aged players with exeprience.

That's how I understood it, anyway.

[Grimario]

100% agree we didn't develop them - We gave them game because, as you rightly said, they weren't given that at their previous team (except Chapman). I'd differ with you as I don't think they were even "somewhat proven" but that's not what we're discussing.

As Grim suggested, we buy good young players (those I mentioned above fall into that category), we give them game time and sell them on while supporting them with some quality middle-aged players with exeprience.

That's how I understood it, anyway.

Yep. We don't have the mega bucks to bring in a Bobo or Fornaroli. Problem we have now is shit management at pretty much all levels so it's bleedingly obvious why someone like Jamie Maclaren wouldn't have even considered us after the PG celery cap debacle. We're a joke club, really.

[The Dunster]

Yep. We don't have the mega bucks to bring in a Bobo or Fornaroli. Problem we have now is shit management at pretty much all levels so it's bleedingly obvious why someone like Jamie Maclaren wouldn't have even considered us after the PG celery cap debacle. We're a joke club, really.

Yep.. I agree.

The club should include a cyanide tablet in every membership kit instead of those shit key rings and stickers

[Jeterpool]

Yep.. I agree.

The club should include a cyanide tablet in every membership kit instead of those shit key rings and stickers

Will raise at the meeting on Tuesday, but you'll have to wait until next year

[plague]

A club like ours without massive financial backing needs to go down that path. Invest in youth, develop, sell for profit. That's where we were and it's where we should be.

I don't disagree with this strategy.
Quick question for anyone who knows:
How many players have we ever 'sold' and have we ever made any significant money?

[plague]

Once the more cashed up clubs adopt similar methods to Leicester City the results will once again show that the clubs who spend the most money will be the most successful.

Yeah but if you swapped Claudio Ranieri and Kevin Muscat would the results have been the same?

[RAM]

But we didn't develop them. Birra = Adelaide, Chapman = AIS, Goodwin = Melb Heart, Brillante = Gold Coast , Taggart = Perth Glory.

The risk factor on these players was very low because they were somewhat proven already and only lacking in game time / opportunities.

So this sort of thing I think is very good because it gets you bargains without the financial burden of developing them through youth programs and so on which more often than not fails.

We haven't developed anyone.

We don't make profits from transfers.

We're mugs.

[margie]

I don't disagree with this strategy.
Quick question for anyone who knows:
How many players have we ever 'sold' and have we ever made any significant money?

Nicky Carle is the only one that comes to mind

[Cabaye#4]

The club should include a cyanide tablet in every membership kit instead of those shit key rings and stickers

You got a key ring? la de da!

[Tommyjet]

Did we sell holland?

[plague]

Did we sell holland?

That's kind of my question.
Plenty of good players left while under contract (or we didn't have the foresight to extend them sending a departure) but did we ever get any decent transfer fees?

[lquiquer]

We never found out how much we got for Ryan ?

[lquiquer]

We got few dineros for Birraz ?

[lquiquer]

And I think WE paid WSW to take Sam Gallaway

[Wilso8948]

Dunster deserves a ban

Farrrrrr too much sense being spoken.

[pv4]

I remember reading Fiorentina paid 1mil euros for Brillante. That coin almost definitely went directly to tinklers tax man though.

[The Dunster]

Yeah but if you swapped Claudio Ranieri and Kevin Muscat would the results have been the same?

It still comes down to money and Ranieri would cost a lot more to obtain as a coach than Muscat.

So if you are saying the more a club spends the more successful they would be I would say - Yes. The club that spends the most would more than likely be more successful in any given league.

The fact that Ranieri is better than Muscat is well established but that sort of talent and reputation comes at a premium that the Jets certainly cannot afford.

How would Ranieri go in the A-league ? I'm not sure if he'd be able to adjust to the massive drop in talent and professionalism he's used to.

[plague]

It still comes down to money and Ranieri would cost a lot more to obtain as a coach than Muscat.

So if you are saying the more a club spends the more successful they would be I would say - Yes. The club that spends the most would more than likely be more successful in any given league.

The fact that Ranieri is better than Muscat is well established but that sort of talent and reputation comes at a premium that the Jets certainly cannot afford.

How would Ranieri go in the A-league ? I'm not sure if he'd be able to adjust to the massive drop in talent and professionalism he's used to.

I've never been more disappoint in you than I am right now Dunster.