| Accounts 23:34 - Feb 11 with 17610 views | leedsdale |
|  | | |  |
| Accounts on 20:26 - Feb 13 with 2221 views | judd |
| Accounts on 19:09 - Feb 13 by rochedale |
I wonder after seeing these figures, certain people will, more so on the Facebook pages, stop insisting that we invest heavily in the squad due to being loaded! |
Those figures are from 9 months ago. Look at the income that has been generated since, alongside the cost cutting. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 20:34 - Feb 13 with 2192 views | VivaDonaldo |
| Accounts on 20:26 - Feb 13 by judd |
Those figures are from 9 months ago. Look at the income that has been generated since, alongside the cost cutting. |
Agreed. Also however look at the increased wage and commitment made to Ollie Rathbone. Look at the wages given to McShane and the 18month deal. Look at us bringing Matty Lund back into the club.
Additionally you could argue this is a good season not to throw good money away. In reality there's 1 relegation spot to avoid and with a fully fit squad we're looking good to avoid that.
Better to lose some higher earners and continue the rebuild in the summer, when a greater choice of player is available.
I think our board are playing this one the right way. |  | | |
| Accounts on 20:38 - Feb 13 with 2182 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 20:34 - Feb 13 by VivaDonaldo |
Agreed. Also however look at the increased wage and commitment made to Ollie Rathbone. Look at the wages given to McShane and the 18month deal. Look at us bringing Matty Lund back into the club.
Additionally you could argue this is a good season not to throw good money away. In reality there's 1 relegation spot to avoid and with a fully fit squad we're looking good to avoid that.
Better to lose some higher earners and continue the rebuild in the summer, when a greater choice of player is available.
I think our board are playing this one the right way. |
Except they did try to spend money this window, so not a deliberate play. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 20:44 - Feb 13 with 2162 views | VivaDonaldo |
| Accounts on 20:38 - Feb 13 by fitzochris |
Except they did try to spend money this window, so not a deliberate play. |
And presumably that player would have formed part (and still could) of our plans for next season.
I'm not saying they've deliberately withheld funding, quite the opposite, when a need or a target has been identified they've backed the manager in a responsible manner.
The figures from last year provide context for this approach. | | | |
| Accounts on 21:06 - Feb 13 with 2102 views | judd |
| Accounts on 20:34 - Feb 13 by VivaDonaldo |
Agreed. Also however look at the increased wage and commitment made to Ollie Rathbone. Look at the wages given to McShane and the 18month deal. Look at us bringing Matty Lund back into the club.
Additionally you could argue this is a good season not to throw good money away. In reality there's 1 relegation spot to avoid and with a fully fit squad we're looking good to avoid that.
Better to lose some higher earners and continue the rebuild in the summer, when a greater choice of player is available.
I think our board are playing this one the right way. |
Indeed.
The board sanctioned gamble of last season failed to deliver.
But fans will look for the type of investment that you have highlighted when undisclosed sums from transfers and cup matches cascade into the club | |
| |
| Accounts on 22:10 - Feb 13 with 2020 views | SuddenLad |
The stark reality is, despite anything else that appears in the numbers, the departure of KH and CB cost the club around £650,000, which neutralises the financial benefit to us, of the match at Old Trafford in the Carabao cup. Plus some more on top.
The house that he is currently having built, should be named Dale Towers, seeing as the club has largely financed it, with the money he has accrued from his tenure here.
Ultimately, it's a one-off payment, a repeat of which should be avoided at all costs. KH served us well, but was handsomely rewarded for his moment in the sunshine. I doubt he will ever reach the same heights as he did here. His stock has fallen dramatically, but he has something to show for the limited success he had overall.
Our club has moved on and must adjust accordingly. Whatever the figures show, it's no good bumping up the price of season tickets and 'punishing' the regulars.
It's doomed to failure. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| Accounts on 22:32 - Feb 13 with 1969 views | judd |
| Accounts on 22:10 - Feb 13 by SuddenLad |
The stark reality is, despite anything else that appears in the numbers, the departure of KH and CB cost the club around £650,000, which neutralises the financial benefit to us, of the match at Old Trafford in the Carabao cup. Plus some more on top.
The house that he is currently having built, should be named Dale Towers, seeing as the club has largely financed it, with the money he has accrued from his tenure here.
Ultimately, it's a one-off payment, a repeat of which should be avoided at all costs. KH served us well, but was handsomely rewarded for his moment in the sunshine. I doubt he will ever reach the same heights as he did here. His stock has fallen dramatically, but he has something to show for the limited success he had overall.
Our club has moved on and must adjust accordingly. Whatever the figures show, it's no good bumping up the price of season tickets and 'punishing' the regulars.
It's doomed to failure. |
I am still struggling to identify how it has cost the club such an astronomical sum to sever their contracts.
I doubt very much that we had to pay up "the remainder of their contracts". | |
| |
| Accounts on 22:43 - Feb 13 with 1963 views | 49thseason |
The best way forward is to sell more tickets , more footfall gives bigger sponsorship opportunities,. The assets need sweating as never before, the bars need to sell more beer during non-match periods, more events, weddings, funerals, whatever. And when you get people into the ground, make sure the PA works, cut the pie queues, make sure the loos are spotless, set up a bluetooth transmitter and send out team sheets and ticket offers. Mention kids who are on a birthday treat to the game, give more details about who the kids are playing at half time and,the score!
Its not about one or two big things its about a thousand very small things that make one or, two people smile and feel part of the club who will then want,to come back again and again and tell their friends how great it is. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Accounts on 22:48 - Feb 13 with 1945 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 22:32 - Feb 13 by judd |
I am still struggling to identify how it has cost the club such an astronomical sum to sever their contracts.
I doubt very much that we had to pay up "the remainder of their contracts". |
Yeah, there’s no way the club at the time would’ve financially handcuffed themselves that way. There will have been a get out that suited both parties without ruining the other. | |
| |
| Accounts on 23:34 - Feb 13 with 1884 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Accounts on 22:32 - Feb 13 by judd |
I am still struggling to identify how it has cost the club such an astronomical sum to sever their contracts.
I doubt very much that we had to pay up "the remainder of their contracts". |
Football contracts are usually fixed term contracts as opposed to most normal bods who have a rolling contract with a notice period (say a month)
When we gave Hill that contract in May 2017 we guaranteed him five years (60 months) employment that in March 2019 we chose to break with 37 months to go.
I don’t believe there were any get out clauses on either side. It would be a good question to ask at the fans forum.
At that point legally we owed Hill 37 months wages + performance bonuses accrued.
Say Hill was on £120k a year and Beech on £90k a year, you can see how you can get to a figure like £650k with some ease over 37 months.
Some people say we took time to pay them off. Well we only had £408k in the bank at the end of that season so we would have had to.
I do think the sudden Chris Dunphy exit made Hill’s negotiating position very easy. At that point he wasn’t arguing with a man whom he likes but with another businessman and then it just becomes business.
I do wonder what due diligence was done by those who sacked Hill after the public vote of confidence of the Luton (a) game and whether the understanding of the financial impact was considered and to what extent.
Hill’s sacking meant the fire sale of Adshead and Mathewson to two Premier League teams. Not the smartest business moves by us given the money washing around that league that we’ve disposed of them for peanuts. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 23:35 - Feb 13 with 1884 views | Sandyman |
| Accounts on 22:48 - Feb 13 by fitzochris |
Yeah, there’s no way the club at the time would’ve financially handcuffed themselves that way. There will have been a get out that suited both parties without ruining the other. |
Which is most likely why he went in March not January - negotiations, "vote of confidence" , and all that. Still, it looks like a hefty sum to get rid of Hill AND Beech as RAFCBLUE pointed out on page 1 of this thread. |  | | |
| Accounts on 23:52 - Feb 13 with 1858 views | judd |
| Accounts on 23:34 - Feb 13 by RAFCBLUE |
Football contracts are usually fixed term contracts as opposed to most normal bods who have a rolling contract with a notice period (say a month)
When we gave Hill that contract in May 2017 we guaranteed him five years (60 months) employment that in March 2019 we chose to break with 37 months to go.
I don’t believe there were any get out clauses on either side. It would be a good question to ask at the fans forum.
At that point legally we owed Hill 37 months wages + performance bonuses accrued.
Say Hill was on £120k a year and Beech on £90k a year, you can see how you can get to a figure like £650k with some ease over 37 months.
Some people say we took time to pay them off. Well we only had £408k in the bank at the end of that season so we would have had to.
I do think the sudden Chris Dunphy exit made Hill’s negotiating position very easy. At that point he wasn’t arguing with a man whom he likes but with another businessman and then it just becomes business.
I do wonder what due diligence was done by those who sacked Hill after the public vote of confidence of the Luton (a) game and whether the understanding of the financial impact was considered and to what extent.
Hill’s sacking meant the fire sale of Adshead and Mathewson to two Premier League teams. Not the smartest business moves by us given the money washing around that league that we’ve disposed of them for peanuts. |
I still do not believe that there was more fixed term than a reasonable notice period.
I do not believe that the 5 year contract meant 5 years to be run down. There had to be a severance clause that protected club funds in case of any number of reasons for contract termination | |
| |
| Accounts on 00:05 - Feb 14 with 1854 views | TalkingSutty |
I don’t believe Hills contract was paid up in full and agree it will have been written up to also protect the Club. No doubt we had to stump up cash to both Hill and Beech but not to the extent that is being suggested.
We budget to lose about £400-£500K/season and have done for a while, the difference in last season was the increase in the playing budget and changing managers, those two decisions made by the Chairman and Directors are the main reason for the bad set of financial accounts...the Club hasn’t suddenly started to implode! I actually agreed with the increase in Hills budget, unfortunately he was given such a free reign he decided to utilise it in other ways instead of strengthening the playing squad and producing saleable assets. I also agreed with his sacking, in the end he disrespected the Club and the Supporters.
We have always had good years and bad years financially, the last 12 months or so have been our best ever when it comes to generating money into the Club...the sale of Matheson, Adshead, Magahey, Cannon, Rafferty and the Dawson Transfer add on equates to roughly £2.8 million, admittedly we don’t get all the money at once but it can be budgeted for because we will receive the money.
The Cup ties against Man United and Newcastle twice, gate receipts for those three games coupled with money for live television games against Boston and Newcastle and payments for the Sunday cup games. Prize money for the FA Cup games. If you add up all the money from our cup exploits this season it will total well over £1 million pounds, there is well over £300K in payments from television and prize money alone. That’s without mentioning spin offs from selling the worlds most expensive bacon butties to Newcastle fans etc.
So EXTRA monies raised since Hill started his fire sale last January equates to somewhere around £4 million when you also factor in our exploits in both cup competitions/Live television money/ prize money/ gate receipts and player sales up to and including Matheson...just a rough calculation gets you near that total figure over the last 12 months or so . That could be give or take £200K but it highlights how fantastic the last 12 months has been. So at the forum let’s not fall into the trap of doom and gloom from the top table, yes we had a bad year but we’ve more than made up for it since and I expect David Bottomley etc to highlight that point in the interest of fairness. To not address and acknowledge this will cause further suspicion, it’s an ideal opportunity to build bridges with the fans because let’s face we are all capable of doing the sums, we aren’t daft. Past Chairman and Directors would have been doing cartwheels at fans forums, those are sums of money they could only have dreamed of.
It’s the performances on the pitch that generate the Club money, either by selling the players or winning Cup games etc, strengthening the product on the pitch should therefore always be the priority within reason. If you constantly sell your assets and fail to invest then eventually you are left with nothing. I think there is a over reaction to those accounts, there are mitigating circumstances behind them which when taken out of the equation take us nearer to our acceptable losses.
Regarding crowds, another thousand home fans equates to probably £200k over a season, it’s small fry when you look at what money can be generated by concentrating on the product on the pitch. A good manager with a eye for a player, who is being backed by the board ( within reason), is the way forward when it comes to finances. Relying on the people of Rochdale to suddenly start turning up at Spotland and boosting the finances is a pipe dream, it doesn’t happen! Selling players and hoping to generate money from the cup competitions is something that we have always had to rely on, nothings changed. It’s the same for every other lower league Club and not a problem unique to us. It’s a risky way to exist but it’s never been any different has it?
So as a glass half full man i’ll put a different spin on this, we should be talking about the fantastic money we have recently generated which will totally obliterate the debts incurred. It surprises me that there seems to be a reluctance to celebrate that fact..like it’s some sort of dirty secret and not to be mentioned! [Post edited 14 Feb 2020 5:01]
|  | | |
| Accounts on 05:41 - Feb 14 with 1743 views | D_Alien |
| Accounts on 23:34 - Feb 13 by RAFCBLUE |
Football contracts are usually fixed term contracts as opposed to most normal bods who have a rolling contract with a notice period (say a month)
When we gave Hill that contract in May 2017 we guaranteed him five years (60 months) employment that in March 2019 we chose to break with 37 months to go.
I don’t believe there were any get out clauses on either side. It would be a good question to ask at the fans forum.
At that point legally we owed Hill 37 months wages + performance bonuses accrued.
Say Hill was on £120k a year and Beech on £90k a year, you can see how you can get to a figure like £650k with some ease over 37 months.
Some people say we took time to pay them off. Well we only had £408k in the bank at the end of that season so we would have had to.
I do think the sudden Chris Dunphy exit made Hill’s negotiating position very easy. At that point he wasn’t arguing with a man whom he likes but with another businessman and then it just becomes business.
I do wonder what due diligence was done by those who sacked Hill after the public vote of confidence of the Luton (a) game and whether the understanding of the financial impact was considered and to what extent.
Hill’s sacking meant the fire sale of Adshead and Mathewson to two Premier League teams. Not the smartest business moves by us given the money washing around that league that we’ve disposed of them for peanuts. |
Let's start by getting his name right - it's Matheson, and his recent transfer/loan-back doesn't look anything like a fire sale
One can argue that point about Adshead, and this time last year Cannon & McGahey might also be included, but Matheson was always going to be subject to transfer after his televised exploits and the Wolves deal is something which suits all parties, in a similar way to the Dawson deal/loan-back and subsequent income
I continue to question why you have such an interest in our finances, to the extent of almost daily lengthy expositions of what you believe to be our position. Of course you're entitled to post whatever interests you. It just seems odd to me that you post almost exclusively about our finances without seeming to have much insight into our actual business, which is football. I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation |  |
| |
| Accounts on 06:05 - Feb 14 with 1727 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 23:35 - Feb 13 by Sandyman |
Which is most likely why he went in March not January - negotiations, "vote of confidence" , and all that. Still, it looks like a hefty sum to get rid of Hill AND Beech as RAFCBLUE pointed out on page 1 of this thread. |
Yes, absolutely. Sacking someone in football doesn’t come without cost. I just very much doubt we would have been liable to pay the entire term of the deal, if that is what anyone tries to imply. | |
| |
| Accounts on 06:22 - Feb 14 with 1722 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 20:44 - Feb 13 by VivaDonaldo |
And presumably that player would have formed part (and still could) of our plans for next season.
I'm not saying they've deliberately withheld funding, quite the opposite, when a need or a target has been identified they've backed the manager in a responsible manner.
The figures from last year provide context for this approach. |
Right. So I’m not sure what point you are making? If BBM wanted a player this window, the board did try to get that player. What constitutes ‘throwing good money away’?
For all the criticism, the board were willing to pay fees for players this January and not wait until the summer, regardless of the one relegation spot. [Post edited 14 Feb 2020 6:33]
| |
| |
| Accounts on 08:23 - Feb 14 with 1629 views | judd |
| Accounts on 00:05 - Feb 14 by TalkingSutty |
I don’t believe Hills contract was paid up in full and agree it will have been written up to also protect the Club. No doubt we had to stump up cash to both Hill and Beech but not to the extent that is being suggested.
We budget to lose about £400-£500K/season and have done for a while, the difference in last season was the increase in the playing budget and changing managers, those two decisions made by the Chairman and Directors are the main reason for the bad set of financial accounts...the Club hasn’t suddenly started to implode! I actually agreed with the increase in Hills budget, unfortunately he was given such a free reign he decided to utilise it in other ways instead of strengthening the playing squad and producing saleable assets. I also agreed with his sacking, in the end he disrespected the Club and the Supporters.
We have always had good years and bad years financially, the last 12 months or so have been our best ever when it comes to generating money into the Club...the sale of Matheson, Adshead, Magahey, Cannon, Rafferty and the Dawson Transfer add on equates to roughly £2.8 million, admittedly we don’t get all the money at once but it can be budgeted for because we will receive the money.
The Cup ties against Man United and Newcastle twice, gate receipts for those three games coupled with money for live television games against Boston and Newcastle and payments for the Sunday cup games. Prize money for the FA Cup games. If you add up all the money from our cup exploits this season it will total well over £1 million pounds, there is well over £300K in payments from television and prize money alone. That’s without mentioning spin offs from selling the worlds most expensive bacon butties to Newcastle fans etc.
So EXTRA monies raised since Hill started his fire sale last January equates to somewhere around £4 million when you also factor in our exploits in both cup competitions/Live television money/ prize money/ gate receipts and player sales up to and including Matheson...just a rough calculation gets you near that total figure over the last 12 months or so . That could be give or take £200K but it highlights how fantastic the last 12 months has been. So at the forum let’s not fall into the trap of doom and gloom from the top table, yes we had a bad year but we’ve more than made up for it since and I expect David Bottomley etc to highlight that point in the interest of fairness. To not address and acknowledge this will cause further suspicion, it’s an ideal opportunity to build bridges with the fans because let’s face we are all capable of doing the sums, we aren’t daft. Past Chairman and Directors would have been doing cartwheels at fans forums, those are sums of money they could only have dreamed of.
It’s the performances on the pitch that generate the Club money, either by selling the players or winning Cup games etc, strengthening the product on the pitch should therefore always be the priority within reason. If you constantly sell your assets and fail to invest then eventually you are left with nothing. I think there is a over reaction to those accounts, there are mitigating circumstances behind them which when taken out of the equation take us nearer to our acceptable losses.
Regarding crowds, another thousand home fans equates to probably £200k over a season, it’s small fry when you look at what money can be generated by concentrating on the product on the pitch. A good manager with a eye for a player, who is being backed by the board ( within reason), is the way forward when it comes to finances. Relying on the people of Rochdale to suddenly start turning up at Spotland and boosting the finances is a pipe dream, it doesn’t happen! Selling players and hoping to generate money from the cup competitions is something that we have always had to rely on, nothings changed. It’s the same for every other lower league Club and not a problem unique to us. It’s a risky way to exist but it’s never been any different has it?
So as a glass half full man i’ll put a different spin on this, we should be talking about the fantastic money we have recently generated which will totally obliterate the debts incurred. It surprises me that there seems to be a reluctance to celebrate that fact..like it’s some sort of dirty secret and not to be mentioned! [Post edited 14 Feb 2020 5:01]
|
Just a point re: "totally obliterate the debts incurred"
The club did not incur any debt. It posted a trading loss, funded by cash reserves generated by the preceding excellent stewardship.
Although there is a question re: the creditors due within 12 months of c. £700k as RAFCBlue has previously highlighted. | |
| |
| Accounts on 08:25 - Feb 14 with 1626 views | VivaDonaldo |
| Accounts on 06:22 - Feb 14 by fitzochris |
Right. So I’m not sure what point you are making? If BBM wanted a player this window, the board did try to get that player. What constitutes ‘throwing good money away’?
For all the criticism, the board were willing to pay fees for players this January and not wait until the summer, regardless of the one relegation spot. [Post edited 14 Feb 2020 6:33]
|
I suppose the point I was trying to make was that if the target or transfer business made sense and was borne out of longer term planning it's been backed by the board.
What they have resisted is the temptation to throw caution to the wind and make lots of short sighted investments in the playing squad, particularly when you could see that the return of a full compliment of players should deliver us enough results to avoid relegation this season without too much additional expenditure.
BBM has proven shrewd in his player identification and I look forward to seeing what he does in the summer. | | | |
| Accounts on 08:36 - Feb 14 with 1601 views | TalkingSutty |
| Accounts on 08:23 - Feb 14 by judd |
Just a point re: "totally obliterate the debts incurred"
The club did not incur any debt. It posted a trading loss, funded by cash reserves generated by the preceding excellent stewardship.
Although there is a question re: the creditors due within 12 months of c. £700k as RAFCBlue has previously highlighted. |
Yes I accept that, good point. | | | |
| Accounts on 09:17 - Feb 14 with 1559 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 08:25 - Feb 14 by VivaDonaldo |
I suppose the point I was trying to make was that if the target or transfer business made sense and was borne out of longer term planning it's been backed by the board.
What they have resisted is the temptation to throw caution to the wind and make lots of short sighted investments in the playing squad, particularly when you could see that the return of a full compliment of players should deliver us enough results to avoid relegation this season without too much additional expenditure.
BBM has proven shrewd in his player identification and I look forward to seeing what he does in the summer. |
Ah right. okay. Well, yes, I agree with you on that. [Post edited 14 Feb 2020 9:18]
| |
| |
| Accounts on 09:22 - Feb 14 with 1548 views | fitzochris |
| Accounts on 08:23 - Feb 14 by judd |
Just a point re: "totally obliterate the debts incurred"
The club did not incur any debt. It posted a trading loss, funded by cash reserves generated by the preceding excellent stewardship.
Although there is a question re: the creditors due within 12 months of c. £700k as RAFCBlue has previously highlighted. |
That does pose another interesting question. Dunphy, in the past, intimated he would use his own funds, generated by his own business, to cover any difficult months/periods in any given financial year, if it ever came to it.
I'm not so sure any of the remaining board can draw upon that resource. It may explain why they believe in selling assets now, rather than later. | |
| |
| Accounts on 09:22 - Feb 14 with 1548 views | AtThePeake |
| Accounts on 05:41 - Feb 14 by D_Alien |
Let's start by getting his name right - it's Matheson, and his recent transfer/loan-back doesn't look anything like a fire sale
One can argue that point about Adshead, and this time last year Cannon & McGahey might also be included, but Matheson was always going to be subject to transfer after his televised exploits and the Wolves deal is something which suits all parties, in a similar way to the Dawson deal/loan-back and subsequent income
I continue to question why you have such an interest in our finances, to the extent of almost daily lengthy expositions of what you believe to be our position. Of course you're entitled to post whatever interests you. It just seems odd to me that you post almost exclusively about our finances without seeming to have much insight into our actual business, which is football. I'm sure there's a perfectly good explanation |
Whilst I think 'fire sale' might be an exaggeration, I'm still not happy with the way the Matheson deal was concluded. The recent article in the Athletic from the Wolves correspondent (whose name now escapes me) suggests that although there was interest from elsewhere, they were the first team to make a concrete bid. I know there are add-ons, but I still think he's worth far more than the deal we got for him in the current market. The way that fans of other clubs have reacted to the news ("only £1m?!") tells a story. |  |
| |
| Accounts on 09:43 - Feb 14 with 1515 views | James1980 |
| Accounts on 09:22 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
Whilst I think 'fire sale' might be an exaggeration, I'm still not happy with the way the Matheson deal was concluded. The recent article in the Athletic from the Wolves correspondent (whose name now escapes me) suggests that although there was interest from elsewhere, they were the first team to make a concrete bid. I know there are add-ons, but I still think he's worth far more than the deal we got for him in the current market. The way that fans of other clubs have reacted to the news ("only £1m?!") tells a story. |
Perhaps all will be revealed at the forum.
Is it true no other club put in a firm bid for Luke? If yes considering his obvious talent why do the board think this was the case? | |
| |
| Accounts on 09:45 - Feb 14 with 1509 views | DaleiLama |
| Accounts on 09:22 - Feb 14 by AtThePeake |
Whilst I think 'fire sale' might be an exaggeration, I'm still not happy with the way the Matheson deal was concluded. The recent article in the Athletic from the Wolves correspondent (whose name now escapes me) suggests that although there was interest from elsewhere, they were the first team to make a concrete bid. I know there are add-ons, but I still think he's worth far more than the deal we got for him in the current market. The way that fans of other clubs have reacted to the news ("only £1m?!") tells a story. |
It's all opinions anyway, but my gut feeling is the same as yours. We still could have had him playing for us in the second half of the season and then invited offers in the summer, when more cash is splashed, knowing full well he'd be gone before the new campaign and been able to plan accordingly. I doubt we'd have got less than £1m in the summer. [Post edited 14 Feb 2020 9:45]
|  |
| |
| Accounts on 09:52 - Feb 14 with 1493 views | AtThePeake |
| Accounts on 09:43 - Feb 14 by James1980 |
Perhaps all will be revealed at the forum.
Is it true no other club put in a firm bid for Luke? If yes considering his obvious talent why do the board think this was the case? |
The quote from the Athletic article:
"Wolves had the youngster watched more several times but it wasn’t until late in last month’s window that they made their move, shortly after a deal to sign Portuguese forward Daniel Podence for £17 million from Olympiakos had been finalised, with the club running parallel first-team and under-23 transfer plans.
Rochdale had been aware of Wolves’ interest but a bid didn’t land until January 30. It’s believed that two other Premier League clubs were interested in signing Matheson, who has been watched by many more, but Wolves showed the first concrete interest – and were said to be a very easy sell." | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
