By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Am I the only one who isn’t that bothered? Can’t remember watching him and thinking he’d had a great game once. I’m not Gabriel Sutton though so I could be wrong.
He had 2 or 3 man of the match performances at home last season (we won those games too I think). M K Dons were a really good footballing team last season and should have got to the Play Off final but for some incredible/lucky defending from Wycombe. They've got themselves a bargain whatever they've paid - he's got lots of potential.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
He was the proverbial curate's egg for me. Decent speed, good balance, good with the ball at his feet, but like Newby, who RS rotated Grant for on a regular basis, too light in the tackle, could easily be pushed off the ball, dribbled into cul-de-sacs instead of laying the ball off and disappeared from games at times. His physicality improved at Dale along with his performances, but still a long way from the finished item for me. If he works on his weaknesses he could become very good. Time will tell.
He had 2 or 3 man of the match performances at home last season (we won those games too I think). M K Dons were a really good footballing team last season and should have got to the Play Off final but for some incredible/lucky defending from Wycombe. They've got themselves a bargain whatever they've paid - he's got lots of potential.
MOTM selections are often mocked on here due to them being from sponsors and not “football people”. If the club are happy with the deal then I’ll trust their judgement.
First time I have been really disappointed with a decision by the club, since the last years shenanigans. He had a year left, he improved no end last season. My expectation would be he could flourish and go in January, when the dent in his value due to contract length, I expected to be mitigated to a degree by further improvement in performance. You might say I don’t know what the deal is, but i’ll wager we won’t clear 400k out of it, add ons aside. You don’t readily replace players like that, and it puts the management in a very difficult position. Sure we are loyal and will keep the faith but for god sake give us some hope to cling onto occasionally. Leaves a question mark for me regarding the health of the club. That says something because I didn’t even question r Roger until he tried to lit the fuse. We need some quality recruitment now.
MOTM selections are often mocked on here due to them being from sponsors and not “football people”. If the club are happy with the deal then I’ll trust their judgement.
I couldn't care less what the sponsors award. By man of the match performances I meant more that he'd been our best player (in my view). He scored and contributed well in the 2nd part of the season - especially at home. As for the club being happy with the deal - Grant was in the last year of his contract so any cash offer would have been welcomed with open pockets.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
First time I have been really disappointed with a decision by the club, since the last years shenanigans. He had a year left, he improved no end last season. My expectation would be he could flourish and go in January, when the dent in his value due to contract length, I expected to be mitigated to a degree by further improvement in performance. You might say I don’t know what the deal is, but i’ll wager we won’t clear 400k out of it, add ons aside. You don’t readily replace players like that, and it puts the management in a very difficult position. Sure we are loyal and will keep the faith but for god sake give us some hope to cling onto occasionally. Leaves a question mark for me regarding the health of the club. That says something because I didn’t even question r Roger until he tried to lit the fuse. We need some quality recruitment now.
For all we know (which we don't) he might have a clause in his contract that allows him to talk to other clubs if certain conditions are met.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
I couldn't care less what the sponsors award. By man of the match performances I meant more that he'd been our best player (in my view). He scored and contributed well in the 2nd part of the season - especially at home. As for the club being happy with the deal - Grant was in the last year of his contract so any cash offer would have been welcomed with open pockets.
So him being the man of the match was your opinion then. Thanks for proving my point.
For all we know (which we don't) he might have a clause in his contract that allows him to talk to other clubs if certain conditions are met.
I would think most players we sign will have something of that nature included in their contract. I presume it’s what we do to attract them as we can’t compete financially with most clubs we offer it as a plus point to encourage them to sign ? We certainly need some go news on the recruitment front in the next couple of days. We don’t want players having to play catch up and not being available for three or four weeks due to fitness once the season starts.
This is a weakness of the financial model when we bring in players from other clubs, we often offer 2 year contracts with effectively means moving them on within 12 -18 months to at least recoup the outlay in wages, training, coaching etc. The contracts suit both parties to the extent that neither knows for sure what the outcome will be, but if you do unearth a diamond the option to capitalise is relatively short. If the club was financially stronger, it could offer longer contracts and take more risks, but it isn't and can't. Consequently the annual sales at Rochdale go on and on, talent has to be replaced, in some ways its the major job of our managers, maybe it shouldn't be and maybe isnt at many clubs but with small crowds and negligible non-match-day income its always going to be a struggle. KH always reckoned we needed an extra £2m a year to compete at the top end of L1 Its seems doubtful that fan-ownership as desireable as it is can provide that sort of money. So, we have to continue to sell to exist and other clubs take advantage of our predicament, saved by the occasional sell-on fee and transfer fees, we manage to hold our own, until the day comes when there is noone to sell......its imperative that some of our income is invested in securing the future of the club from other sources ....and that is the real test for the Board, management and indeed the shareholders and supporters.
This is a weakness of the financial model when we bring in players from other clubs, we often offer 2 year contracts with effectively means moving them on within 12 -18 months to at least recoup the outlay in wages, training, coaching etc. The contracts suit both parties to the extent that neither knows for sure what the outcome will be, but if you do unearth a diamond the option to capitalise is relatively short. If the club was financially stronger, it could offer longer contracts and take more risks, but it isn't and can't. Consequently the annual sales at Rochdale go on and on, talent has to be replaced, in some ways its the major job of our managers, maybe it shouldn't be and maybe isnt at many clubs but with small crowds and negligible non-match-day income its always going to be a struggle. KH always reckoned we needed an extra £2m a year to compete at the top end of L1 Its seems doubtful that fan-ownership as desireable as it is can provide that sort of money. So, we have to continue to sell to exist and other clubs take advantage of our predicament, saved by the occasional sell-on fee and transfer fees, we manage to hold our own, until the day comes when there is noone to sell......its imperative that some of our income is invested in securing the future of the club from other sources ....and that is the real test for the Board, management and indeed the shareholders and supporters.
I agree with a lot of your points 49th, but there is an overplaying of "the financial model" debate. We were ravaged by two factors - a rubbish ex-CEO and Covid.
League 1 and League 2 are in disarray after Covid-19. We have seen very fast and very private takeovers at clubs like Crawley, Walsall etc as former owners make way for current ones. That is a trend that looks like it will continue to continue.
Ourselves - we know now in 2022 that we were planned to be sold no matter what shareholders wanted and the only question was how that was to be done.
Our lauded Roger was telling all and sundry in the run up to a June AGM/EGM that we couldn't compete and led a controlled relegation to League 2 followed by the sudden arrival of a young lad from the Wirral and a payroll company from a postbox in London. Jarvis leaked Bottomley's AGM presentation so clearly in receipt of that, despite not being a shareholder.
"The club is certainly not a 'cash cow, far from it. It's got no money and without significant investment, the club will run out of money before the end of the year.
"The board has already confirmed it has no intention or means of putting in the funds required to sustain the club for the foreseeable future. (These include) a substantial outstanding loan (which) is secured against the stadium; HMRC payments are in arrears, and players have been sold below market value."
It actually transpires from publicly available information that:
* the club made a £1.2m loss in the year ending 31 May 2021, part of which involved largesse on the part of Roger on Covid handwash, barrier instalations and his own pay, a point which was asked at the AGM/EGM but not actually answered.
* the "published value" of the club at 31 May 2021 is £1,501,843 - about £1.65 per share.
* the ground has a number of legal and council protections on it so can't ever be sold or transferred or mortgaged under the Morris Resolution. The "published value" of the ground at 31 May 2021 is £1,561,205
* Excluding the ground the club was worth minus £59,562 - so minus £0.07 per share at 31 May 2021.
Given the shenanigans of last Summer where the plan was clearly to see a hostile takeover succeed and then attempt to sell or borrow against the ground (which would be illegal BTW without 75% shareholder approval / council approval for an Asset of Community Value) its clear that Bottomley had run out of money and ideas.
Signings like Grant are effectively no financial risk for either party; the club have had a player for free (wages and initial costs covered) and then benefit from an incoming fee to "reinvest" in the operations.
The agent will have told his player to go and do well and if that happens the next move will come off. A club like Rochdale will always help a player progress - its one of the key reasons that we are a desired destination to get a player in as we will play them and let them flourish.
Your point on the club needing to maximise multiple sources of income is spot on; it is the thing that Bottomley failed at IMO in actually wanting to get to people to come to games and abandoned most of the principles Russ Green had tried to set up on ticket prices to make coming to a game a good atmosphere.
Our season ticket prices are competitive and so the real financial model success involves getting season ticket holders to a level that matches other club. If we could get to say 3000 (this was the Russ Green/ Chris Dunphy aspiration) then that would give a better platform for long term planning.
Our model will be run to break even and then bank the cup run/player sale when it comes and reinvest that into the club. It's been this way as we know for over 45 years.
The biggest change I have seen in the last 12 months is that all monies received go directly back into the club - from what I can see there is no highly paid CEO or other nice to haves which are ultimately a drain on financial resources that can otherwise go towards players.
George Bernard Shaw had it right:
"He who can does; he who cannot, teaches."
https://www.visittheusa.co.uk/
"Our lauded Roger was telling all and sundry in the run up to a June AGM/EGM that we couldn't compete and led a controlled relegation to League 2 followed by the sudden arrival of a young lad from the Wirral and a payroll company from a postbox in London. Jarvis leaked Bottomley's AGM presentation so clearly in receipt of that, despite not being a shareholder". Indeed! If he were half as good at making money as spending it (on himself and his mates) there would have been no reason for suggesting we needed to be relegated. Instead of improving the Gold Bond Lottery, he decided that it was better to farm it out, an unbelievably poor decision, Covid or not. Or was it a measured, deliberate decision to undercut part of the club that might interfere with his plans? What we needed was an entrepreneur who knew how to make money for the club, what we got was a spendthrift who didn't give a toss about what he destroyed. I still maintain that it is essential for the club to reawaken the Gold Bond system at the earliest opportunity , cherish it and expand it so that Gold Bond sellers become evangelists for the club and as such part of the marketing effort linking sponsors, supporters, Lotto players and the Club in a virtuous circle capable of generating large cash returns as well as goodwill and greater community involvement right across Northern Greater Manchester.
He was the proverbial curate's egg for me. Decent speed, good balance, good with the ball at his feet, but like Newby, who RS rotated Grant for on a regular basis, too light in the tackle, could easily be pushed off the ball, dribbled into cul-de-sacs instead of laying the ball off and disappeared from games at times. His physicality improved at Dale along with his performances, but still a long way from the finished item for me. If he works on his weaknesses he could become very good. Time will tell.
I think Grant's decision-making was what made him a better option than Newby and although I may be wrong, in my head results did improve when he was in the team and Newby out of it. I agree that he was too light in the tackle, but think that was more due to physicality than mentality. Easy to forget he's still only 20 years old.
In the build-up to to the win over Carlisle, Stockdale alluded to choosing the kinds of players he thought were ready for the fight after a poor run had us lurking near the bottom two. That night, Grant was excellent, got involved throughout (even on the defensive side) and scored a great goal. Newby, meanwhile, didn't even come off the bench.
Without knowing the fee, I won't criticise the club for the sale as if he wanted to leave then we'd have had to see him go for free in 12 months time anyway, but there's no doubt in my mind which player we'll miss more between Grant and Newby.
I thought his comments in the latest interview were informative and I like it, when he implied that he had read or had calls which implied that we are deep in debt and had to sell players and he said, it was total rubbish. We had to sell Grant to MK Dons due to a clause in his contract, which no doubt DB and BBM agreed to.
I think Grant's decision-making was what made him a better option than Newby and although I may be wrong, in my head results did improve when he was in the team and Newby out of it. I agree that he was too light in the tackle, but think that was more due to physicality than mentality. Easy to forget he's still only 20 years old.
In the build-up to to the win over Carlisle, Stockdale alluded to choosing the kinds of players he thought were ready for the fight after a poor run had us lurking near the bottom two. That night, Grant was excellent, got involved throughout (even on the defensive side) and scored a great goal. Newby, meanwhile, didn't even come off the bench.
Without knowing the fee, I won't criticise the club for the sale as if he wanted to leave then we'd have had to see him go for free in 12 months time anyway, but there's no doubt in my mind which player we'll miss more between Grant and Newby.
Can't say I disagree with any of that ATP, but Newby did score at a clip of just over 1 every 6 whilst Grant was 1 every 10+ so on the decision making front, maybe Newby had more positional sense. Probably only a fag paper in it though. Newby was the bigger show pony, and whilst I favoured him initially, I too think Grant is a bigger miss than Newby and also has arguably the biggest upside, assuming his trajectory doesn't hit a glass ceiling.
Edit: good point about his age which I had forgotten!
People just seem to assume when we sell a player it is done on the cheap and at the club's discretion to boot.
As demonstrated here, the player had a minimum-release clause in his contract (not necessarily a bad thing if it's what it takes to get a player to sign for us). However, this was agreed by the previous regime and you get the feeling from the tone of Robbie's interview that the terms were maybe not as favourable to the club as they might have been.
I would be disappointed if MKD have paid us less than £350k for Grant, I guess thats down to Bottom's competency as a contract writer though , especially if there is a sell on clause to Sheffield. Its easy to see why players and agents might start to reveal contractual arrangements so that there is little negotiation to go through, so we might have expected the bar to be higher but I would be surprised if it was. These highlights that MKD released show why they have bought him. You just end up thinking " if only we had him on a 3 year contract" then we might well have been into big money.
I thought his comments in the latest interview were informative and I like it, when he implied that he had read or had calls which implied that we are deep in debt and had to sell players and he said, it was total rubbish. We had to sell Grant to MK Dons due to a clause in his contract, which no doubt DB and BBM agreed to.
“I thought his comments in the latest interview were informative and I like it, when he implied that he had read or had calls which implied that we are deep in debt and had to sell players and he said, it was total rubbish”
That’s not what he said, there was no implication of being in debt or having to sell players. You’ve made that up. He was referring to ‘reports’ that WBA had bid £1 Million for Grant, also made up.
Can't say I disagree with any of that ATP, but Newby did score at a clip of just over 1 every 6 whilst Grant was 1 every 10+ so on the decision making front, maybe Newby had more positional sense. Probably only a fag paper in it though. Newby was the bigger show pony, and whilst I favoured him initially, I too think Grant is a bigger miss than Newby and also has arguably the biggest upside, assuming his trajectory doesn't hit a glass ceiling.
Edit: good point about his age which I had forgotten!
[Post edited 29 Jun 2022 16:56]
I'd say part of the reason for that goalscoring stat is probably that Grant played a deeper role in a midfield three for a while under BBM.
If we add assists into the mix and focus on last season alone, Grant had a 'goal involvement' every 249 minutes compared to Newby every 266.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
