Jump to content

Dundee United 2015/16 Season


Recommended Posts

There wasn't. GMS u could argue should have been kept till the summer, but given how poor he had been up to that point it made sense to cash in. Nobody in England wanted Armstrong that was clear at the time. Chances are his value would have plummeted due to having less time on contract. Correct financial decision was made but that doesn't suit some peoples agenda.

McKay Stevens was a wage thief in those months of the 2014/15 season he was with us. Only interested in turning in a performance in high profile games and/or when he was trying to put himself in the window for a mid-season transfer. What was so frustrating was when he did turn it on he showed just how good a player he was. The rest of the time he couldn't give a f**k.

There was a lot of speculation that as a former fans favourite he was upset when his status was overshadowed by the high profile transfers of Andy Robertson and Ryan Gauld. Whether or not there was truth in this it was right to get rid of him when we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 12.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Surely given where United were in the league / cups selling GMS and Armstrong on the last day of the transfer window was a huge mistake. Many people said so at the time, so it is not a case of being wise after the fact. What is often overlooked in such situations is the effect good players leaving a club have on the players that remain at the club. Correct me if I'm wrong but Armstrong in particular was an intelligent player on and off the park - exactly the type of player you need going into major cup and league matches and exactly the type of player you need to bring the best out of younger players.

Regarding Thompson being too loyal to McNamara is not possible that Thompson was simply hanging on as long as he could hoping that things would turn around and therefore avoid an expensive pay off? The longer they held off sacking him, the cheaper the pay off.

Regarding Mixu if I recall correctly Thompson was quoted as saying he was the board's first choice. First choice based on what criteria? If it was based on footballing criteria who, even at the time of the appointment, thought Mixu was more suited to the situation United were in than, say, John Huhges or Tommy Wright? Both Wright and Huhges would have involved compensation being paid of course.

Genuine question: how much have United paid in transfer fees since selling GMS and Armstrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely given where United were in the league / cups selling GMS and Armstrong on the last day of the transfer window was a huge mistake. Many people said so at the time, so it is not a case of being wise after the fact. What is often overlooked in such situations is the effect good players leaving a club have on the players that remain at the club. Correct me if I'm wrong but Armstrong in particular was an intelligent player on and off the park - exactly the type of player you need going into major cup and league matches and exactly the type of player you need to bring the best out of younger players.

Regarding Thompson being too loyal to McNamara is not possible that Thompson was simply hanging on as long as he could hoping that things would turn around and therefore avoid an expensive pay off? The longer they held off sacking him, the cheaper the pay off.

Regarding Mixu if I recall correctly Thompson was quoted as saying he was the board's first choice. First choice based on what criteria? If it was based on footballing criteria who, even at the time of the appointment, thought Mixu was more suited to the situation United were in than, say, John Huhges or Tommy Wright? Both Wright and Huhges would have involved compensation being paid of course.

Genuine question: how much have United paid in transfer fees since selling GMS and Armstrong?

 

Circa 500k in actual fees (and countless more in wages, especially recently).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the figure Simon Murray told Dundee he was offered at Utd is correct, he would have been the 7th highest earner at Dens had we matched it.

That is how Utd were running their business.

We offered him a wage befitting his status as a part time player getting his chance in full time football and he (understandably) knocked us back, his boyhood club, due to the (relatively) incredible money he was offered at Tannadice.

Hartley told him he was making a mistake...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the figure Simon Murray told Dundee he was offered at Utd is correct, he would have been the 7th highest earner at Dens had we matched it.

That is how Utd were running their business.

We offered him a wage befitting his status as a part time player getting his chance in full time football and he (understandably) knocked us back, his boyhood club, due to the (relatively) incredible money he was offered at Tannadice.

Hartley told him he was making a mistake...

You know this how, precisely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know this how, precisely?

Simon told me.

Edit : the full story goes

God : Here's about what you'll get at Dens.

SM : I'd make more staying part time and being a plumber.

God : that may be so, but you've served your time as a plumber. You've still to show what you can do at this level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you'd rather you kept a player who wasn't starting and had been poor, up until the summer when he walks away for nothing - on the off chance the players who were starting and were performing got a better league position?

I think the correct decision was made however was explaining the two choices the board had. Some fans felt we should have kept him with the hope his form improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circa 500k in actual fees (and countless more in wages, especially recently).

Considering the money United took in for GMS, Armstrong, Cifti and McGowan ( not to mention those who went before them) can the defenders of Thomson really suggest that the board have invested heavily in the club?

Sounds to me that the money brought in from the sale of genuine talent is significatnyl higher than that being spent on genuine free / near to being free transfers.

Not always the case but it tends to be that players are available on a free transfer for a good reason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the money United took in for GMS, Armstrong, Cifti and McGowan ( not to mention those who went before them) can the defenders of Thomson really suggest that the board have invested heavily in the club?

Sounds to me that the money brought in from the sale of genuine talent is significatnyl higher than that being spent on genuine free / near to being free transfers.

Not always the case but it tends to be that players are available on a free transfer for a good reason!

 

'Investment' means many things though. Cutting debt, more money in the youth system, money being spent on the facilities, ticket prices being reduced etc is all 'investment' and although some of what I have listed doesn't really apply in this case it is true that Thompson has invested money back in to the club from those transfers (how much, who he's made etc is open to debate however) in more ways than just buying players.

 

Interestingly, all of the players you listed there came form pretty much no transfer outlay whatsoever (and you could include Gauld, Robertson, Goodwillie and Russell in that too). United have done incredibly well in either developing talent or picking up talent for very little and then selling them on. That time seems to be over for the time being though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who knows the history of Dundee Football Club will appreciate the irony of their fans giving lectures on financial mismanagement and player wage excesses

Are those who have gone through difficult period/s / episode/s and came through them so much stronger not exactly the sort of people you should listen to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Investment' means many things though. Cutting debt, more money in the youth system, money being spent on the facilities, ticket prices being reduced etc is all 'investment' and although some of what I have listed doesn't really apply in this case it is true that Thompson has invested money back in to the club from those transfers (how much, who he's made etc is open to debate however) in more ways than just buying players.

 

Interestingly, all of the players you listed there came form pretty much no transfer outlay whatsoever (and you could include Gauld, Robertson, Goodwillie and Russell in that too). United have done incredibly well in either developing talent or picking up talent for very little and then selling them on. That time seems to be over for the time being though.

Well reasoned reply stimigo. I think the problem United have is that they simply sold too many players over too short a period. I understand that Thompson wanted his money back but like any buisiness you cannot sell good quality assists, replace them with cheaper assets and expect things to continue as normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...