who do you like, from the current crop of youngsters?

[Royal Lady]

And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

[Ian Royal]

And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

Remind me how many seasons we had Kitson, Doyle, Shorey, Sidwell, Hahnemann etc etc? Oh yes, that's right, quite a few each, and all of them proved themselves capable of playing in the Premier League, whilst with us.

Who have we seen who has quality that we've sold on before getting several seasons out of them? Er... Ashdown... er.... Cox... Tyson? Henderson? Had better options than both of those last two at the time and the first two would have been hard pushed to feature regularly for us at the time they went.

The list is pretty short over the last 6 or 7 years.

All teams sell a lot of their best assets after relegation. It doesn't mean we'll immediately sell any of the good young players we have. In fact, that is pretty unlikely.

[Royalee]

And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

Because we think we can improve the team more by freeing up the money from them and getting better value elsewhere, I would have thought that to be obvious.

[Royal Lady]

Ian -We kept those mentioned because we were firstly pushing for a Prem place and secondly, spent two years there - once we knew we'd been relegated we let some go, asked some to stay a year and then let them go.

[Royalee]

Ian -We kept those mentioned because we were firstly pushing for a Prem place and secondly, spent two years there - once we knew we'd been relegated we let some go, asked some to stay a year and then let them go.

If we were a selling club would we not have sold Doyle and Hunt last year when their value would have been higher?

[Royal Lady]

What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

Because we think we can improve the team more by freeing up the money from them and getting better value elsewhere, I would have thought that to be obvious.

Oh yeah - we've replaced all our big money transfers out quite adequately haven't we.

[Royal Lady]

Ian -We kept those mentioned because we were firstly pushing for a Prem place and secondly, spent two years there - once we knew we'd been relegated we let some go, asked some to stay a year and then let them go.

If we were a selling club would we not have sold Doyle and Hunt last year when their value would have been higher?

Who came in for Hunt last year at a higher price than he went for? What was Doyle's "value" last year then?

[chandog]

I like jem, pearce, sigurdsson.

not sure about the likes of hamer, henry, Robson-Kanu and church. hopefully they will all have a chance to show us what they can do at some point this season.

[Ian Royal]

Ian -We kept those mentioned because we were firstly pushing for a Prem place and secondly, spent two years there - once we knew we'd been relegated we let some go, asked some to stay a year and then let them go.

Pushing for a promotion spot is not the reason they were not sold. Sidwell was getting rave reviews for several seasons before we went up. Didn't sell him though did we. Same with Shorey.

We will not just flog our young players the second a Prem club comes sniffing around, because they've had a good half / full season with us.

You seem to be basing your opinion on pretty much no examples of us doing what your saying we will. We have no reason to sell assets we don't need to. We've always been pretty stable financially, and following the sales of the big earners, we are now looking pretty healthy again.

[Schards#2]

And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

Remind me how many seasons we had Kitson, Doyle, Shorey, Sidwell, Hahnemann etc etc? Oh yes, that's right, quite a few each, and all of them proved themselves capable of playing in the Premier League, whilst with us.

Who have we seen who has quality that we've sold on before getting several seasons out of them? Er... Ashdown... er.... Cox... Tyson? Henderson? Had better options than both of those last two at the time and the first two would have been hard pushed to feature regularly for us at the time they went.

The list is pretty short over the last 6 or 7 years.

All teams sell a lot of their best assets after relegation. It doesn't mean we'll immediately sell any of the good young players we have. In fact, that is pretty unlikely.

We kept them until someone else wanted them.

[Son of Len]

Royal Lady: And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

Royalee: What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Royal Lady: Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

Royalee: Because we think we can improve the team more by freeing up the money from them and getting better value elsewhere, I would have thought that to be obvious.

Must agree with Royalee here. I haven't seen us sell anyone "as soon as [they are] a little handy." In fact, when they become handy, we keep them for as long as we can. But we don't want to be known for quashing a player's career, do we? When a player WANTS to move to a more competitive arena, we can't stop them. Otherwise, nobody will come here.

We got tremendous value out of all the players we have sold the past two to four years. Very few would have been handy to keep.

By the way, if one buys before one sells, one ends up with a lot of crap one cannot get rid of. If you have any doubts about that, check my attic.

[Schards#2]

Royal Lady: And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

Royalee: What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Royal Lady: Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

Royalee: Because we think we can improve the team more by freeing up the money from them and getting better value elsewhere, I would have thought that to be obvious.

Must agree with Royalee here. I haven't seen us sell anyone "as soon as [they are] a little handy." In fact, when they become handy, we keep them for as long as we can. But we don't want to be known for quashing a player's career, do we? When a player WANTS to move to a more competitive arena, we can't stop them. Otherwise, nobody will come here.

We got tremendous value out of all the players we have sold the past two to four years. Very few would have been handy to keep.

By the way, if one buys before one sells, one ends up with a lot of crap one cannot get rid of. If you have any doubts about that, check my attic.

Cox?

[wolsey]

Royal Lady: And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

Royalee: What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Royal Lady: Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

Royalee: Because we think we can improve the team more by freeing up the money from them and getting better value elsewhere, I would have thought that to be obvious.

Must agree with Royalee here. I haven't seen us sell anyone "as soon as [they are] a little handy." In fact, when they become handy, we keep them for as long as we can. But we don't want to be known for quashing a player's career, do we? When a player WANTS to move to a more competitive arena, we can't stop them. Otherwise, nobody will come here.

We got tremendous value out of all the players we have sold the past two to four years. Very few would have been handy to keep.

By the way, if one buys before one sells, one ends up with a lot of crap one cannot get rid of. If you have any doubts about that, check my attic.

Cox?

I think you need it in the singular if you are talking about Royalee (Son of Len seems ok to me)

[Son of Len]

Royal Lady: And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.

Royalee: What a load of rubbish - we kept Doyle for a year when we went down and chose to sell the rest. We don't HAVE to sell anyone.

Royal Lady: Well, firstly, yes we do - Rodgers was told we had to sell before he could buy and secondly, even if that WERE true, why DO we sell on if we don't HAVE to??

Royalee: Because we think we can improve the team more by freeing up the money from them and getting better value elsewhere, I would have thought that to be obvious.

Must agree with Royalee here. I haven't seen us sell anyone "as soon as [they are] a little handy." In fact, when they become handy, we keep them for as long as we can. But we don't want to be known for quashing a player's career, do we? When a player WANTS to move to a more competitive arena, we can't stop them. Otherwise, nobody will come here.

We got tremendous value out of all the players we have sold the past two to four years. Very few would have been handy to keep.

By the way, if one buys before one sells, one ends up with a lot of crap one cannot get rid of. If you have any doubts about that, check my attic.

Cox?

Cox was quite a bit out of the first team and wanted first team football higher than we were loaning him out. There was, at the time, no way he was getting in for another 2-3 years and he wasn't going to wait. That's an example of us not standing in anyone's way.

Fifteen years or so ago, my director at work pointed out a position for me that was an increase in wages. I was quite valuable where I was (if I say so myself), but she helped to look out for my career. When I returned from 6+ years of paternity leave, she requested that I return to her area. I agreed. Doubt I would have if she'd have tried to shut me in her little department.

[Ian Royal]

So Schards has conclusive evidence that no other team was interested in any of those players prior to them being sold, and that we had no enquiries and none of them were scouted.

Well that's that solved then.

Oh, and Cox is hardly the same situation, he had to drop to levels to go anywhere, and was let go, rightly or wrongly, because he wasn't considered ready to be playing regularly at the level we were at. Given more than a season and a half later, he's still playing at a lower level, that seems a reasonable assumption.

And even if he was a good example, which he's not. That's one player. Hardly conclusive evidence we'll immediately sell any of our younger players that impress this season.

[Son of Len]

Must agree with Royalee here. I haven't seen us sell anyone "as soon as [they are] a little handy." In fact, when they become handy, we keep them for as long as we can. But we don't want to be known for quashing a player's career, do we? When a player WANTS to move to a more competitive arena, we can't stop them. Otherwise, nobody will come here.

We got tremendous value out of all the players we have sold the past two to four years. Very few would have been handy to keep.

By the way, if one buys before one sells, one ends up with a lot of crap one cannot get rid of. If you have any doubts about that, check my attic.

Cox?

I think you need it in the singular if you are talking about Royalee (Son of Len seems ok to me)

Gee, thanks wolsey.

But what is this seems business. Should that be is?

[Schards#2]

So Schards has conclusive evidence that no other team was interested in any of those players prior to them being sold, and that we had no enquiries and none of them were scouted.

Well that's that solved then.

Oh, and Cox is hardly the same situation, he had to drop to levels to go anywhere, and was let go, rightly or wrongly, because he wasn't considered ready to be playing regularly at the level we were at. Given more than a season and a half later, he's still playing at a lower level, that seems a reasonable assumption.

And even if he was a good example, which he's not. That's one player. Hardly conclusive evidence we'll immediately sell any of our younger players that impress this season.

And breatheeeeeeeeee........

You really need to lighten up. I can visualise the blood pressure with every post of yours I bother reading.

We've flogged an entire team to be replaced with vastly cheaper and inferior alternatives and STILL we are told we have to cut our cloth. If you don't think we had to, why on earth would we voluntarily opt for a lower championship side rather than a premiership quality side?

[londinium]

So Schards has conclusive evidence that no other team was interested in any of those players prior to them being sold, and that we had no enquiries and none of them were scouted.

Well that's that solved then.

Oh, and Cox is hardly the same situation, he had to drop to levels to go anywhere, and was let go, rightly or wrongly, because he wasn't considered ready to be playing regularly at the level we were at. Given more than a season and a half later, he's still playing at a lower level, that seems a reasonable assumption.

And even if he was a good example, which he's not. That's one player. Hardly conclusive evidence we'll immediately sell any of our younger players that impress this season.

And breatheeeeeeeeee........

You really need to lighten up. I can visualise the blood pressure with every post of yours I bother reading.

We've flogged an entire team to be replaced with vastly cheaper and inferior alternatives and STILL we are told we have to cut our cloth. If you don't think we had to, why on earth would we voluntarily opt for a lower championship side rather than a premiership quality side?

It is not often i defend Ian Royal but the original statement that started this arguement was -

'And that, in a nutshell, is our problem - as soon as we get a player who's a little bit handy, we sell them on for big bucks.'


The 'entire team' that we sold and replaced for lwer quality was in the majority sold this year and not 'as soon as they were a little bit handy'.

Your defence of LR is all very admirable but totally misplaced.

[Ian Royal]

I'm not in the least bit riled by you Schards, and so you don't need to worry your pretty little head about it, my blood pressure is actually more towards the low side thanks.

None of what you say in that post has anything to do with what is being discussed here. As pointed out to RL previously. There is a vast difference between selling players after a relegation. Especially as all of those players had several good seasons with us and were not sold as soon as they got good.

Respond to the post, not the poster.

[Royalee]

So Schards has conclusive evidence that no other team was interested in any of those players prior to them being sold, and that we had no enquiries and none of them were scouted.

Well that's that solved then.

Oh, and Cox is hardly the same situation, he had to drop to levels to go anywhere, and was let go, rightly or wrongly, because he wasn't considered ready to be playing regularly at the level we were at. Given more than a season and a half later, he's still playing at a lower level, that seems a reasonable assumption.

And even if he was a good example, which he's not. That's one player. Hardly conclusive evidence we'll immediately sell any of our younger players that impress this season.

And breatheeeeeeeeee........

You really need to lighten up. I can visualise the blood pressure with every post of yours I bother reading.

We've flogged an entire team to be replaced with vastly cheaper and inferior alternatives and STILL we are told we have to cut our cloth. If you don't think we had to, why on earth would we voluntarily opt for a lower championship side rather than a premiership quality side?

Mills cost more than Bikey and is a better prospect, McAnuff's younger than Hunt, cost more than he was signed for and has more talent and Rasiak has a better record than Lita at this level so no, not really. We're also still looking to bring players in and we've had 5 games so I don't know how you can see we've opted for a lower Championship side, but then again you never talk much sense - judge us at the end of the season.