Re: Why DRFC have gone to "Willy"

by donnyroversfc Mon 20 Feb - 23:15:09

If it weren't for him scoring the goals i doubt we'd have been in this league last season. So it wasn't bad business.

by **hoolahoop** Tue 21 Feb - 8:33:10

donnyroversfc wrote:If it weren't for him scoring the goals i doubt we'd have been in this league last season. So it wasn't bad business.

Those two sentences just about blow a gaping blow in IC's argument, how do you factor in the NPC money that we probably gained this year due to his efforts last year for instance or increased gates or at best sustained gates ? Forget shirt money here (the income being irrelevant to the overall argument).
Is Wayne Rooney for instance costing Man U a small fortune on his wages? scratch

by Irish Contingent Tue 21 Feb - 19:04:52

Well Hoola, the best way to determine this will be at season end, or next season when gates can be assessed without BS at both ends of his tenure, and during his tenure at DRFC.

The Wayne Rooney analogy is not relevent, Man U would have full house week in week out with or without him, so therefore if they had another guy doing his job on 50K a week, then he is costing a small fortune.

by **hoolahoop** Wed 22 Feb - 5:13:07

Irish Contingent wrote:Well Hoola, the best way to determine this will be at season end, or next season when gates can be assessed without BS at both ends of his tenure, and during his tenure at DRFC.

The Wayne Rooney analogy is not relevent, Man U would have full house week in week out with or without him, so therefore if they had another guy doing his job on 50K a week, then he is costing a small fortune.

You can rarely expect a 'return' on a player that exceeds both his purchase price, add ons and wages. It's a strange argument to pose and to suggest that BS was probably bad business can't hold water unless you have tangible evidence to that effect.
I admit the comparison with Rooney is a distant one but nevertheless if he was sold for say £20 million in 5 years would you call that bad business considering all that team has achieved whilst he has been part of the Man U team when you take into account both his purchase price and his wages irrespective of the crowd variance. 'Bad business' I think not anymore than Billy Sharp was 'bad business' for us!

by Irish Contingent Wed 22 Feb - 8:49:11

Hoola, get it right, i said if BS was sold for 1.8 ( or 2 million ), that was bad business. If however it was closer to the 3 million that "Originally" Southampton offered, then it was good.
Please bear in mind before replying, Sheff Utd reportedly got a chunk of whatever figure DRFC recieved, which i understand to be 20%.

by VixDRFC Wed 22 Feb - 9:25:39

The way I see it is this, its easy to completely work everything out on paper but last season we finished 21st and 6 points clear. Now (and I haven't checked) if Billy's goals gave us 2 wins that gave us those 6 points and kept us in the championship (with all the TV money etc that goes with us) then it wasn't bad business

Btw currently if you want name/number on a shirt at DRFC its £12 regardless of length of name. That used to include the sleeve patches but since Nike took over they charge an extra £6 for those

by **hoolahoop** Wed 22 Feb - 9:34:23

Irish Contingent wrote:Hoola, get it right, i said if BS was sold for 1.8 ( or 2 million ), that was bad business. If however it was closer to the 3 million that "Originally" Southampton offered, then it was good.
Please bear in mind before replying, Sheff Utd reportedly got a chunk of whatever figure DRFC recieved, which i understand to be 20%.

I've got it right Irish, even if we had sold him for £1million we would have had our moneysworth out of him. Anyone having an influence on the squad such as he has done and the way he secured our Npower share of the rights ......more than paid his way.
Now can we just agree to disagree and move on, neither of us can prove our points due to lack of data. Wink

by Sponsored content