Jump to content

Transfer rumours, targets & new signings


Recommended Posts


12 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Seems a lot of people are making the very easy and very popular point that we shouldn't overspend, which I fully agree with and have wanted for years. It's Carol's business and she should spend as she wants to, after what she has done for us. I don't want her going over the budget at all, and have never advocated as such.

My only point has been that, if we remain within the overall budget, I don't have an issue with us giving a player more than £1,850 a week if he's the right profile to get us promoted. There's price inflation in January and the players we need to get us up (in the Purse/Hughes type) may cost us more than that. I don't think it'll have the impact on 'squad morale' as some think, as these are grown men. The revenue from promotion, or even a playoff run, would offset these extra wages (providing they're in budget!).

It's very fun, easy, and goes down well to post 'impatient and bankrupting the club!', and whilst some on here have daftly made that point, my point is more to do with working within the existing wage budget but maybe offering a bit more to a key player at a crucial juncture in the season. Spend a tad more on a forward and less on a CB, maybe, idk. 

Not going to kick up a fuss when Flitcroft sticks to his guns - there's a business model and he's done enough to warrant time to see it through. Just don't lump me in with the clowns who just want unfettered spending, as that's nowhere near my point. 

Totally get that your point is different to the "Send spend send" point... and its one that is a good discussion to have and there are benefits to both sticking to our guns and splashing the AVAILABLE cash on a superstar.

I tend to fall on the side of sticking to our guns... as previously said, I have seen in my on work the disruptive behaviour of having one person paid more than others and the spiral of increased costs when people find out... which they will. 

Also as Flickers says, If we have a budget of (for simple maths) £100 left to spend our options are:

1. £25 on 4 players of a certain quality

2. £40 on one player and £20 on three players of a lesser quality

Problem with option 2 is that there is no guarantee that the £40 player will perform. There is no guarantee that they wont get injured.... and in either of those cases, the squad has lesser options to fall back on because the budget has been used on Mr £40.  

Also, I don't think its as easy as saying "I don't think it'll have the impact on 'squad morale' as some think"... Obviously that's an opinion, but DC, Flickers and all the coaching staff have been around football for a long time and have experience in that point... I will trust their view on that. 

We also dont know how the club has been sold to all the players... for all we know, this "We all earn similar and earn our bonuses on performance" could have been one of the main cultural selling points. Quickest way of losing a group of people is to go back on something like that. 

As I say, there are benefits of both approaches, but I can totally understand why Flickers has chosen to stick to his guns. 

  • Like 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, valiant_593 said:

Seen on Twitter an unnamed league 2 side have had a six figure bid accepted for Tahvon Campbell at Woking. Doubt it’s us, but he’s a winger scoring a fair few goals this season and only 25.

Rochdale apparently using the Beesley cash

  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe B said:

This is honestly crazy for me to read as I can assure you, after a couple of protest campaigns, most Vale fans are quite happy with the status quo. The biggest challenge wasn't finding moaners, but actually getting fans to start moaning. Even in the darkest days of Norman, most fans weren't too fussed. They just want to support the team, no further questions (and rightly so).

There's one or two dafties, as you will find from any sample size of 5,000 people, but 80-90% of Vale fans are very accepting and will get behind the club regardless. There seems to be more 'don't overspend! *7000 likes*' posts on here than people posting 'overspend and gamble the club!', which reflects how most fans want stability and not silly gambles.

Social media skews it, but if you surveyed every Vale fan on Saturday, most would be quite happy with the current set-up and budget.

Considering the wretched decades Vale fans have endured (more administrations than promotions and facing our longest stint in the bottom tier since WW2), I actually think the remaining 5,000 are amongst the most resilient and accepting fans in the country. Look at the numbers they travel in, the shirt sales, the unfailing optimism every single year. It's a borderline illness.

Compare to up the road - attendance decimated because they're only in the top half of the 2nd tier, which is better than the average position in their entire history, less than 5k turning up for a cup game as they can't be bothered. 

Very fair.... although you should tell that to the bloke behind me at Leyton Orient who berated Martin every touch of the ball despite him playing quite well 🙂


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Interesting case in point... Bradford have just signed Tom Elliot.

Put aside the fact that he likes scoring against us at Vale park.... he has scored 4 goals in 38 for Salford and would have cost a good wage I would imagine.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Walka003 said:

Replacing Elliot with Matt Smith could kick Salford right up the table, major upgrade in my eyes.

Hopefully another in a loooooooong list of signings that seem excellent but just fold into abject averageness at Salford.

With the money they have spent they should be in league 1.... a great example of how money doesnt guarantee sucess. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF

  • Create New...