Offer

They had budgets, more or less of at least £8M

Why anyone would think that we can compete with clubs that have spend most of their last 11 years in The Championship, when we've spend most of it in L2, I never understand

But your post sums up the problem. We simply have ideas way above reality and then moan when the owners won't play ball

However, we can still compete as thankfully very few have budgets like the above and then it comes down to how effective the manager is

 

Your assessment sums it up for me. 120k wasted on Poleon and to make it worse we paid 200k for someone who can't even get in ahead of him. Reeves hasn't disgraced his fee but there are players who are just as good available for free. Then you've got to factor in that we also paid fees for Bruenker and Hanson. Wyke has been a success but overall our spending strategy has been abysmal. As for your Agard example, I don't know why you need to justify our poor spending by going from one extreme to another. I.e wasting money on transfer fees to wasting money on wages. A middle ground does exist and we need to find it if we want to succeed.

 

I used to be of your thinking i.e. we shouldn't be competing with teams coming down from the championship etc.

But then it dawned on me. If we can't compete with those sides in league 1, what chance have we got if we got promoted, where they all (except 4 or 5) have budgets of 10M+

 

I don't see these transfers been significantly more unsuccessful, as a proportion, than any other club. One success, two 'juries out' and one failure - isn't great, but neither is it far from the norm.

Wyke was great and Poleon - well that was indeed a disaster

I doubt you'll get the equivalent of Reeves on a free or a player that might eventually have a better sell on value

Be interesting to see what the situation will be for Guy. I'd be surprised if he doesn't command a fee

McCartan will probably eventually have to move on and hence would be a failure

If I'm scoring them for marks out of 10 - where 10 is 'success' then Wyke is 9, Reeves, 6, McCartan 3 and Poleon 1

 

Yes but @Dennis said he would have anticipated this scenario, and protected himself from being plunged into a weak position. Not sure how, but he is not daft!

 

I haven't said we can't compete. Shrewsbury have shown what can be done, but ultimately if you're competing with £10K per week salaries, we can't compete with that so have to show another way

I actually think we were very competitive up to the end of November but fell down with lack of strength in depth and didn't have enough financial clout to do something about it in January. But that's the tale for usually 22 of the 24 clubs in this division

Remember, I'm quite optimistic about the future as I think all the new signings apart from Poleon can get better next season and yes there are some gems around. But this is why you need someone some wise like Grayson to find these

 

Your summary only works if you count McCarten as a "jury's out" however by anybody's standards £200k on a 3/10 player is a failure.

You've therefore got 1 success, 2 failures and one middle of the road. For £600k that's not exactly an endorsement.

 

There's bad signings then there paying ridiculous sums for poor signings. We've done the latter.

Of course you can. There are plenty of excellent players who are available for free every season. If you couldn't get better on a free than why was no one willing to pay for than a measly 150k for him and why were Wimbledon willing to get rid of him for such a low price?

 

Ah, but some clubs have to spend 600k or more just to get one success. We've got two failures and a middle of the road thrown in for that amount as well so don't try to tell me we don't get value for money!

 

Julian and Mark had voting shares.

Prof Rhodes didn’t

 

Rupp isn’t a stautory director of any of the three BC related businesses so it suggests Rahic is his man representing his interests.

The Football Club and holding company are registered in England and Wales so German rules wouldn’t apply. Assuming there are no agreements that one party won’t seek to sell without the agreement of the other, or without giving the other party the opportunity of first refusal, then Rupp could in theory sell leaving Rahic in place. New owners with a majority on the board could in theory tell Rahic to jog on and keep his nose out. If BC Bantams are owned by a German company in which they both have equal voting rights then it might be different. I can’t see it happening personally, unless they want to, one goes they both go.

 

All three had full voting rights

 

Thing is though, is there any point in buying out Rahic and Rupp if those who are coming in aren't going to invest any more than R&R are now?

I'm no fan of theirs but if this is the case, I'd rather they stayed and if maybe, just maybe they were willing to listen to those who actually know football, we could turn this around.

However, if those interested (allegedly) want to invest more than R&R then I'm all for it.

 

Don't think they did otherwise the two Rhodes' could simply have done whatever they wanted.

 

I agree, pretty sure Dr Rhodes didn't have a vote, I could be wrong though.

 

Clearly the 2015 annual return saying they each had an equal quantity of ordinary shares with full voting rights is incorrect then. Whether they had an agreement, formal or otherwise that the Prof would not exercise his right to vote is a different matter.

 

No. It's not incorrect. It quite clearly said that they owned a third of the club each which is what was originally stated.

Julian and Lawn as joint chairmen had a 50/50 split on the decision making though with Rhodes Snr not being involved in that side.

 

30k for Jacob Hanson is hardly a success either. Surely having spent money, you'd want him knocking on the door of the first team, after working with him for 18 months.