Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? 11:35 - Oct 31 with 7217 viewsIllinoisblue

Approx 9mill in from Waghorn and Webster.... I lost track of what he spent on bringing in his League 1.5 all stars.

62 - 78 - 81
Poll: What sport is the most corrupt?

0
Think he spunked about.... on 11:37 - Oct 31 with 5367 viewsBloots

....£6m on the trash.

So Evans still pocketed a good few quid.

TWTD Leadership Group/Elite Level Supporter/Anti-Bullying Crusader

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 11:39 - Oct 31 with 5343 viewsReuser_is_God

Probably £10m in & £5/6m on all his sh1t.

Evans out
Poll: Are Burgers the new Cheese?

0
Think he spunked about.... on 11:40 - Oct 31 with 5341 viewsReuser_is_God

Think he spunked about.... on 11:37 - Oct 31 by Bloots

....£6m on the trash.

So Evans still pocketed a good few quid.


Lambert to have a mega £4m “war chest” in January.

Evans out
Poll: Are Burgers the new Cheese?

1
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 11:40 - Oct 31 with 5339 viewschicoazul

Kieffer Moore FIFA the kid we lost to Man City Garner and the two you mentioned adds up to about 11.5 I think. He spent more or less 6m.

In the spirit of reconciliation and happiness at the end of the Banter Era (RIP) and as a result of promotion I have cleared out my ignore list. Look forwards to reading your posts!
Poll: With Evans taking 65% in Huddersfield, is the Banter Era over?

0
Think he spunked about.... on 12:11 - Oct 31 with 5213 viewsBlueBadger

Think he spunked about.... on 11:37 - Oct 31 by Bloots

....£6m on the trash.

So Evans still pocketed a good few quid.


Loan fees to factor in as well.

I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
Poll: What will Phil's first headline be tomorrow?
Blog: From Despair to Where?

0
We'll probably have to sell.... on 12:20 - Oct 31 with 5183 viewsBloots

Think he spunked about.... on 11:40 - Oct 31 by Reuser_is_God

Lambert to have a mega £4m “war chest” in January.


...Dozzell and Crowe to get any money in.

And then we'll sell them for about £3m between them.

And he'll give PL £750K to spend.

It sounds ridiculous, but.....

TWTD Leadership Group/Elite Level Supporter/Anti-Bullying Crusader

1
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:27 - Oct 31 with 5158 viewsawayfan

Most figures below from transfermarkt.co.uk....
SPENT
Nolan & Nsiala - not published but was rumoured to be approx £2m combined
Jackson £1.6m
Harrison £750k
Edwards £700k
Donacien - loan, but reported £750k transfer at end of season if work permit sorted out
Total: about £5.8m

RECEIVED
Waghorn £5m
Webster £3.6m
Garner £1.3m
Total: about £9.9m
Not sure about potential add-ons re. the players sold (Webster deal is one that has substantial add-ons I think)
[Post edited 31 Oct 2018 12:31]
1
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:28 - Oct 31 with 5162 viewsitfcjoe

At a guess:
Webster - £3.5m
Waghorn - £5m
Garner - £1.25m

IN - £9.75m

Harrison - £750k
Jackson - £1.6m
Nolan and Nsiala - £2m
Edwards - £700k

OUT -£5.05m

So approx £5m profit on fees

Poll: Club vs country? What would you choose
Blog: What is Going on With the Academy at Ipswich Town?

0
Login to get fewer ads

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:50 - Oct 31 with 5045 viewsWickets

Our wage bill must be a fair bit reduced as well ?
1
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:50 - Oct 31 with 5047 viewsEly_Blue

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:28 - Oct 31 by itfcjoe

At a guess:
Webster - £3.5m
Waghorn - £5m
Garner - £1.25m

IN - £9.75m

Harrison - £750k
Jackson - £1.6m
Nolan and Nsiala - £2m
Edwards - £700k

OUT -£5.05m

So approx £5m profit on fees


Isn’t it funny how everyone is certain on what we spent but in terms of the incoming money it’s alway “I’d guess”

Poll: Will you still buy a Season Ticket for next year in league 1

2
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:55 - Oct 31 with 4993 viewsTractorCam

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:27 - Oct 31 by awayfan

Most figures below from transfermarkt.co.uk....
SPENT
Nolan & Nsiala - not published but was rumoured to be approx £2m combined
Jackson £1.6m
Harrison £750k
Edwards £700k
Donacien - loan, but reported £750k transfer at end of season if work permit sorted out
Total: about £5.8m

RECEIVED
Waghorn £5m
Webster £3.6m
Garner £1.3m
Total: about £9.9m
Not sure about potential add-ons re. the players sold (Webster deal is one that has substantial add-ons I think)
[Post edited 31 Oct 2018 12:31]


Only £1.3m for Garner? That is outrageous!

Poll: An interesting day for our politicians, but which one is worse?

0
Think he spunked about.... on 12:58 - Oct 31 with 4974 viewsGarv

Think he spunked about.... on 11:37 - Oct 31 by Bloots

....£6m on the trash.

So Evans still pocketed a good few quid.


Trash is harsh surely. No one can deny they haven't worked yet but they've had what, 15 games to prove their worth?

Poll: Pick a goal to win the derby in stoppage time...

0
Correct, "Trash" is the wrong word.... on 13:12 - Oct 31 with 4924 viewsBloots

Think he spunked about.... on 12:58 - Oct 31 by Garv

Trash is harsh surely. No one can deny they haven't worked yet but they've had what, 15 games to prove their worth?


....I should have said "Rubbish".

But I was replying to Illy, so I can be excused.

TWTD Leadership Group/Elite Level Supporter/Anti-Bullying Crusader

1
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:14 - Oct 31 with 4912 viewsReuser_is_God

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:50 - Oct 31 by Wickets

Our wage bill must be a fair bit reduced as well ?


Yes you'd have thought so.

Evans out
Poll: Are Burgers the new Cheese?

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:24 - Oct 31 with 4848 viewsJimmyJazz

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:28 - Oct 31 by itfcjoe

At a guess:
Webster - £3.5m
Waghorn - £5m
Garner - £1.25m

IN - £9.75m

Harrison - £750k
Jackson - £1.6m
Nolan and Nsiala - £2m
Edwards - £700k

OUT -£5.05m

So approx £5m profit on fees


You're not including Donacien? Once legal details sorted aren't we obliged to complete the transfer?

Poll: If we could perm sign just one, which would it be?
Blog: Top Championship Teams?

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:26 - Oct 31 with 4846 viewsWeirdFishes

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 12:28 - Oct 31 by itfcjoe

At a guess:
Webster - £3.5m
Waghorn - £5m
Garner - £1.25m

IN - £9.75m

Harrison - £750k
Jackson - £1.6m
Nolan and Nsiala - £2m
Edwards - £700k

OUT -£5.05m

So approx £5m profit on fees


I think in terms of the books and FFP Edwards and Harrison go down as £1.5m because of potential add ons.

TWTD Participant
Poll: Who's Worse?

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:40 - Oct 31 with 4794 viewsElephantintheRoom

You could also add in the £1million received as a lump sum for the schoolkid (Man City's hand bitten off, even though Chelski offered more in instalments). Tellingly Town are offering their academy players for sale again.

Blog: The Swinging Sixty

-2
Correct, "Trash" is the wrong word.... on 13:49 - Oct 31 with 4735 viewsIllinoisblue

Correct, "Trash" is the wrong word.... on 13:12 - Oct 31 by Bloots

....I should have said "Rubbish".

But I was replying to Illy, so I can be excused.


like, totally excused, dude

62 - 78 - 81
Poll: What sport is the most corrupt?

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:50 - Oct 31 with 4730 viewsIllinoisblue

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:40 - Oct 31 by ElephantintheRoom

You could also add in the £1million received as a lump sum for the schoolkid (Man City's hand bitten off, even though Chelski offered more in instalments). Tellingly Town are offering their academy players for sale again.


offering their players? Or just accepting the fact everyone has a price?

62 - 78 - 81
Poll: What sport is the most corrupt?

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 14:02 - Oct 31 with 4712 viewsTownly

Why is virtually everybody on this thread totally ignoring the cost of the loans.

These never come on the cheap especially from the three PL clubs involved.

The bad luck with Walters has cost a small fortune no doubt.

Take these into account and the pot is not likely very big.
1
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 14:54 - Oct 31 with 4595 viewsagentp

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 14:02 - Oct 31 by Townly

Why is virtually everybody on this thread totally ignoring the cost of the loans.

These never come on the cheap especially from the three PL clubs involved.

The bad luck with Walters has cost a small fortune no doubt.

Take these into account and the pot is not likely very big.


6 loan fees have to be around the £3m mark I would have thought.

They are ignoring the sell on fees to Rangers and Portsmouth as well. There is another £1m

In £8.75m plus £1.3 academy [Two youngsters went] minus £1.1m in sell ons = £8.95m

out 5.9 plus £3m [est] loans. = £8.9m


Guessing ALL of the £8.95m was not received upfront,
[Post edited 31 Oct 2018 15:10]

Poll: If only these two were available who would you choose for the rest of the season

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 14:56 - Oct 31 with 4589 viewsBluePG

Wages! Even the lowest paid squad players will be on £300,000 a year.

Poll: Best Dane?

0
What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 15:13 - Oct 31 with 4533 viewsBrixtonBlue

What was Hurst’s net spend with us? on 13:40 - Oct 31 by ElephantintheRoom

You could also add in the £1million received as a lump sum for the schoolkid (Man City's hand bitten off, even though Chelski offered more in instalments). Tellingly Town are offering their academy players for sale again.


All you do is post bullsh!t on here, are you a Norwich supporter?

I bet Bloots will downarrow this.
Poll: If you work in an office, when are you off over Christmas (not booked holiday)?

0
Think he spunked about.... on 15:19 - Oct 31 with 4524 viewscasanovacrow

Think he spunked about.... on 11:37 - Oct 31 by Bloots

....£6m on the trash.

So Evans still pocketed a good few quid.


I'm probably on my own here, I think Hurst spent well. I best explain...

Hurst's players hardly look outshone by those still here from before. If anything the opposite has slightly been the case, the few goals we have had seem to be from Hurst's lot for a start.
I just think the job wasn't finished due to time and money constraints and that is why everyone is looking poor.
Everyone suffers when you have half your team suited to play one way and you bring in a handful of new guys to do the opposite, especially when those of the Mick era on the whole looked very resistant to change. Too much too soon maybe, but when the brief was to change the style of play and with so many players out the door even before he arrived I don't think he had a choice.
It could also be argued maybe to little too soon, and he should've had that extra £10m and got to replace those who were here that will never fit progressive attacking football.
I keep thinking back to what happens to all of Mick's old clubs after he leaves, they go down. Why? I'd hazard a guess at it's because they are full of limited players who are stuck in their ways. Managers don't have a chance in making their mark on things without the risks involved with a complete overhaul and that needs a shed load more than £6m to do properly anyway.
Either way it's unwise to judge anyone on 15 games in a disjointed team.

Yep, someone fighting Hurst's corner

Let's hope Lambert can find a system that can get the best out of them and they come good in the end
0
Think he spunked about.... on 15:51 - Oct 31 with 4464 viewsJimmyJazz

Think he spunked about.... on 15:19 - Oct 31 by casanovacrow

I'm probably on my own here, I think Hurst spent well. I best explain...

Hurst's players hardly look outshone by those still here from before. If anything the opposite has slightly been the case, the few goals we have had seem to be from Hurst's lot for a start.
I just think the job wasn't finished due to time and money constraints and that is why everyone is looking poor.
Everyone suffers when you have half your team suited to play one way and you bring in a handful of new guys to do the opposite, especially when those of the Mick era on the whole looked very resistant to change. Too much too soon maybe, but when the brief was to change the style of play and with so many players out the door even before he arrived I don't think he had a choice.
It could also be argued maybe to little too soon, and he should've had that extra £10m and got to replace those who were here that will never fit progressive attacking football.
I keep thinking back to what happens to all of Mick's old clubs after he leaves, they go down. Why? I'd hazard a guess at it's because they are full of limited players who are stuck in their ways. Managers don't have a chance in making their mark on things without the risks involved with a complete overhaul and that needs a shed load more than £6m to do properly anyway.
Either way it's unwise to judge anyone on 15 games in a disjointed team.

Yep, someone fighting Hurst's corner

Let's hope Lambert can find a system that can get the best out of them and they come good in the end


Ah, that old argument that MMs teams go down after he leaves

That happens when

1. MM first gets the team promoted to the Prem
2. Team struggles at a higher level, MM leaves with the team in trouble

Neither of which is applicable to us

Poll: If we could perm sign just one, which would it be?
Blog: Top Championship Teams?

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© TWTD 1995-2024