PDA

View Full Version : Now that the Stokes signing is confirmed........



Mikey
21-08-2009, 07:02 AM
...........will that be enough to make those holding off for an exciting signing buy a season ticket?

Or do you want more??

http://www.hibs.co.uk/news/more.php?id=3632_0_1_0_C

IWasThere2016
21-08-2009, 07:08 AM
I think it will influence folks and have a positive impact. Another - say a player known to the Hibs fans eg Boozy - will definitely increase ST sales IMHO.

We need a CH and RB also IMHO.

So that's a 'more' :greengrin

Beefster
21-08-2009, 07:29 AM
...........will that be enough to make those holding off for an exciting signing buy a season ticket?

Or do you want more??

If we've signed Stokes, we've more than likely just spent more on one player than any other club in the SPL, bar Celtic, have spent this summer.

I'm not sure what more folk can expect. A popular new manager is moulding a new team and being backed by the Board. If folk won't back the club now, when will they?

Dashing Bob S
21-08-2009, 07:33 AM
If we've signed Stokes, we've more than likely just spent more on one player than any other club in the SPL, bar Celtic, have spent this summer.

I'm not sure what more folk can expect. A popular new manager is moulding a new team and being backed by the Board. If folk won't back the club now, when will they?

Ah...but it's no as easy as that...you're forgettin...(cue negative whinge...)

smurf
21-08-2009, 07:34 AM
Not buying a season ticket decreases the chances of more signings. Therefore all who can should get in the camp....

Caversham Green
21-08-2009, 07:55 AM
If we've signed Stokes, we've more than likely just spent more on one player than any other club in the SPL, bar Celtic, have spent this summer.

I'm not sure what more folk can expect. A popular new manager is moulding a new team and being backed by the Board. If folk won't back the club now, when will they?

:agree: I think it's worth noting that we paid a fair whack for that manager as well, despite that Gammon bloke that sells dummies in the left field being free.

NORTHERNHIBBY
21-08-2009, 08:04 AM
i renewed as soon as Yogi got the job. My grumble last year was decent enough players, just really badly led. I think that if you are holding off until the team is full of class players all with adequate replacements, and the team is cemented in 3rd/2nd place, then maybe you are missing the point about why you should get a season ticket.

Gatecrasher
21-08-2009, 08:09 AM
Agreed, time for folk to put up or shut up the board have done everything within their means to get us buying ST's this summer

Bob Box Fish
21-08-2009, 08:12 AM
Depends on if we sell bamba as I would rather keep him than sign stokes tbh given our defensive options compared to our strikers. Also if 400k is accurate then we will only have invested 12% of what we have brought in from the sales of Fletch and Jones.

Caversham Green
21-08-2009, 08:19 AM
Depends on if we sell bamba as I would rather keep him than sign stokes tbh given our defensive options compared to our strikers. Also if 400k is accurate then we will only have invested 12% of what we have brought in from the sales of Fletch and Jones.

What if it's not accurate and we actually paid a million for him - would you be happier than?

matty_f
21-08-2009, 08:24 AM
If we've signed Stokes, we've more than likely just spent more on one player than any other club in the SPL, bar Celtic, have spent this summer.

I'm not sure what more folk can expect. A popular new manager is moulding a new team and being backed by the Board. If folk won't back the club now, when will they?


Not buying a season ticket decreases the chances of more signings. Therefore all who can should get in the camp....


:agree: I think it's worth noting that we paid a fair whack for that manager as well, despite that Gammon bloke that sells dummies in the left field being free.


Agreed, time for folk to put up or shut up the board have done everything within their means to get us buying ST's this summer

:top marks

Bob Box Fish
21-08-2009, 08:26 AM
What if it's not accurate and we actually paid a million for him - would you be happier than?

Missing my point.

If we reinvested say a million on maybe 3 players then that's still less than a third of the income this summer from sales.

Peevemor
21-08-2009, 08:26 AM
Depends on if we sell bamba as I would rather keep him than sign stokes tbh given our defensive options compared to our strikers. Also if 400k is accurate then we will only have invested 12% of what we have brought in from the sales of Fletch and Jones.

The rest of the money is probably already accounted for by the operating loss made last year - due largely to Mixu's increased player budget.

Caversham Green
21-08-2009, 08:56 AM
Missing my point.

If we reinvested say a million on maybe 3 players then that's still less than a third of the income this summer from sales.

Not really missing your point.

The emphasis always seems to be money spent as a percentage of fees received rather than the quality of player brought in. If we had applied that criteria this time last year we would not have bought Deek and Bamba, because we hadn't sold anyone.

This season we've brought in:

Stack - the goalkeeper many think we were crying out for;
Cregg and McBride - not big names, but have performed very well so far;
Galbraith - very promising by all accounts and definitely a step up from the man he replaces;
Stokes - reckoned to be real quality at SPL level;
Most importantly, Hughes.
We have also promoted youngsters from the u19s - which is how we acquired Fletcher, Brown, Thomson, Whittaker etc in the first place.

What is the relevance of the price we paid for them? Would we be in a better position if we had paid money for other players within our wages range?

Selling players is a fact of life for clubs like Hibs and we simply cannot bring in enough money to replace like with like.

Bob Box Fish
21-08-2009, 09:50 AM
I agree with the angle you are coming from but the names people are mentioning on here will cost a bit such as Barr, Stokes (now confirmed) and arfield. If say stokes was 400k then we would be looking at similar fees for the other two mentioned.

Ideally, as you say you can pick up cheaper players but they are few and far between for quality.


Not really missing your point.

The emphasis always seems to be money spent as a percentage of fees received rather than the quality of player brought in. If we had applied that criteria this time last year we would not have bought Deek and Bamba, because we hadn't sold anyone.

This season we've brought in:

Stack - the goalkeeper many think we were crying out for;
Cregg and McBride - not big names, but have performed very well so far;
Galbraith - very promising by all accounts and definitely a step up from the man he replaces;
Stokes - reckoned to be real quality at SPL level;
Most importantly, Hughes.
We have also promoted youngsters from the u19s - which is how we acquired Fletcher, Brown, Thomson, Whittaker etc in the first place.

What is the relevance of the price we paid for them? Would we be in a better position if we had paid money for other players within our wages range?

Selling players is a fact of life for clubs like Hibs and we simply cannot bring in enough money to replace like with like.

--------
21-08-2009, 10:06 AM
Transfer windows are a bit like poker games - the player who understands the percentages and holds his nerve takes the pot.

I expect at least one, possibly two new names next week, certainly signed for less money than if we'd closed the deal a fortnight ago.

We MAY lose someone too, but I'll be very surprised if we're not in a stronger position a week on Tuesday than we are right now.