PDA

View Full Version : Any one else heard Ambrose may go out on loan??


m_reid
08-02-2010, 11:50 PM
My girlfriend is adament that apparently ambrose will be out on loan by tomorow, after a family friend whos a big palace fan told them it was going to happen, i really cant see this happening just before the cup game, but i just wonderd if anyone else had heard anything along those lines

eddieskyclad
08-02-2010, 11:51 PM
will may?

Spikemeister
08-02-2010, 11:57 PM
Not much logic in a loan before the Cup game. Ambrose playing on sunday increases the chance of a win. Winning that game might lead to another bumper pay day, circa 500k, so why risk that in order to save under 10k per week salary right now ?
Not out of the question, but unlikely.

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
09-02-2010, 12:05 AM
Don't think FIFA rules would allow him to go out on loan because if he did it would make me very unhappy...


I think that's a rule anyway....

orp pisshead1
09-02-2010, 04:23 AM
Not much logic in a loan before the Cup game. Ambrose playing on sunday increases the chance of a win. Winning that game might lead to another bumper pay day, circa 500k, so why risk that in order to save under 10k per week salary right now ?
Not out of the question, but unlikely.
Agree but watching ssn earlier which I assume is from mon day time NW indicated we might lose 1 or 2 and I got impression hes resigned to losing them:( hopefully wrong though. As you say why get rid of potential (sp)match winners ahead of vital cup game.

DaveP
09-02-2010, 07:28 AM
Even though it can only be loans now at this stage of the season this would be the time where any potential new owner would step in and advise the administrator not let players leaves and from what i understand this is something that potential new owner Steve Parish has already advised. Yes we may lose 1 or 2 players out on loan but i would be amazed if they were crucial players in our first team.

917L
09-02-2010, 07:37 AM
Also, lets remember players do not have to agreee to going on loan.....

TC EAGLE
09-02-2010, 07:59 AM
If anyone will go out on loan it will be players like Stern John, Comley, Cadogan. Ambrose is the clubs leading goalscorer and a major factor to what division we end up in come may.

Shipp Ahoy!
09-02-2010, 08:04 AM
If we let crucial players go before Sunday I will be absolutely furious/gutted, not sure which one to be honest :eek:

Agree above though why let a key player go before a key match, let us play this one first.

Sandowneagle
09-02-2010, 08:23 AM
administrator said to NW day after previous round that players will need to go out on loan.

Ardent Eagle Forever
09-02-2010, 08:25 AM
What are the administrators going to gain by lending players out when the team is in such good form.

Yes they'll save on players wages, but with the revenue from the villa game, surely that counts a lot in respect of increased earnings? If we do it right and play for a replay, more money!!!

Also, I believe that we are still in with a shout on the play offs. Break the team up and that won't happen. If we maintain our push for the play-offs surely that is more attractive to a potential investor than struggling to stay in the division???

philsick
09-02-2010, 08:34 AM
Short sighted if true.We are a far more sellable,if we are not in danger of relegation and climbing up the league,or heading for the latter stages of the cup.

stinky
09-02-2010, 08:44 AM
Don't think FIFA rules would allow him to go out on loan because if he did it would make me very unhappy...


I think that's a rule anyway....

Not to mention the fact that Brenda the Administrator would get a fine for being a very naughty boy

cockles
09-02-2010, 08:47 AM
This feels like we're in one of the American Baseball movies where the corrupt owners are trying to sabotage the team in order to facilitate a profitable Stadium sale by moving the franchise elsewhere....
This, as in the films, may end up intensifying the siege mentality in the team yet further.

Ambrose would fairly likely not agree to anything sub Premiership - and I even then, I think he'd be careful who he'd move to.

I know our top earner is on 11k/week - and it has been said Darren is on just under 10k. I suspect the 11k-er is Alan Lee - and I can't see him agreeing a move either given how he is performing - and no chance will he go to the Prem.

Guilfoyle will be restricted to moves where the player is willing. Of the higher earners - only Nick Carle springs to mind. Other than the, maybe Sean Scannell would benefit from a couple of months away to get match fitness. I presume he or on 3k/week or less.

Jay_Palace
09-02-2010, 08:48 AM
Short sighted if true.We are a far more sellable,if we are not in danger of relegation and climbing up the league,or heading for the latter stages of the cup.

Yup.

Saving a few thousand per week in global terms won't make any difference to our finances but could have disastrous implications for the team's competitiveness.

stinky
09-02-2010, 08:50 AM
As long as we keep the likes of Ambrose and Danns in the club, and not send them out on loan, I don't mind who else goes. Well, Speroni too obviously, but I can't see that happening given our only other goalie is about 17.

Ambrose, and Danns especially, are the heartbeat of our team. Lose them, and we lose any slim hope we have of making the play offs.

Wouldn't mind seeing any one of/a combination of Scanners, N'Diaye, Stern, Cadogan, Pinney, Comley etc etc go out, although I doubt we'd get much back in wages from them

pete eagle
09-02-2010, 08:53 AM
I'm not sure at this point how saving a few thousand pounds per week will help us, it's a little like someone pissing on the great fire of london at it's peak. Brendan will be much better served in talking to potential investors. If we're going to send players out on loan, as mentioned before by others - Stern John would be the first as he clearly isn't part of the plans and maybe a few younger players.

The other issue is who is going to pay for all of the wages, only the top two or three in the Championship and QPR maybe as well as Prem clubs would be willing to pay all the wages so how much would we really save? Maybe 3-4k per week. It's not going to make a difference now, either we find or an investor or we don't and if we can't at the moment, we're much better served trying to maximise revenue by winning each game which we need our best players for.

DaveP
09-02-2010, 08:56 AM
administrator said to NW day after previous round that players will need to go out on loan.

Do you believe Sandown that these are likely to be players that are crucial to our first team, i.e Ambrose, Danns etc or likely to be players like John, Scannell, Cadogan, and so on?

Baldy
09-02-2010, 08:58 AM
My girlfriend is adament that apparently ambrose will be out on loan by tomorow, after a family friend whos a big palace fan told them it was going to happen

:S: :S: :S: :S: :S:

My uncle's next door neighbour's cat said this was a load of old b0llocks

swissroll
09-02-2010, 09:03 AM
Yup.

Saving a few thousand per week in global terms won't make any difference to our finances but could have disastrous implications for the team's competitiveness.

If theres not enough money to pay all the players then some have to go. Simple as that. Unless someone gives the Administrator money, he has no choice.

Owngoal
09-02-2010, 09:04 AM
Stern John yes, plus one or two youngsters - win our next 2 games and its another ballgame!

pedro
09-02-2010, 09:31 AM
It really only makes sense to loan out the players on bigger salaries, letting kids go who earn peanuts is not going to make that much difference. I would have thought Stern John is an obvious candidate but after that who knows who else, Matt Lawrence would also be in with a shout but with the lack of centre backs he may well be needed. Another possibility could be Clint Hill, if he is looking to move back up north at the end of the season the club may decide to let him head to his prefered destination now on loan with him signing permanently when the season is over.

cpfc4evandeva
09-02-2010, 09:37 AM
:S: :S: :S: :S: :S:

My uncle's next door neighbour's cat said this was a load of old b0llocks

Purrfect :)

grovesy
09-02-2010, 09:49 AM
Such a move would fly in the face of everything the administrator as said to date.

If we loan out Ambrose (or Danns, Speroni, Derry, Hill) we will 1. find it almost impossible to win on Sunday which would be far more lucrative than a loan move and 2. would make our chances of survival very difficult.

Sounds like you should get your gilfriend to go and see a relationship counsellor if she keeps on lying to you!!

pete eagle
09-02-2010, 09:54 AM
If theres not enough money to pay all the players then some have to go. Simple as that. Unless someone gives the Administrator money, he has no choice.

Catch 22 scenario.

Do you

A) Asset strip to save a little bit
B) Hold on and hope that you earn the prize money.

Nth Kent Eagle
09-02-2010, 10:26 AM
We might even get a draw on Sunday and get a televised replay (another 500k from TV and gate money). So please no loans of top players before then.

Gooders
09-02-2010, 10:41 AM
We're still in the FA Cup and we need 6 wins to ensure survival in this league.

In the grand scheme of things, loaning out Danns and Ambrose to save what, 80,000 per month, would be a stupid move.

But the world contains many stupid people.

TC EAGLE
09-02-2010, 10:43 AM
There a chance he may change his mind about loan deals what with the finance made from the wolves and villa cup games plus gate receipts from Peterbro, swansea tonite and the reading and coventry games.

Boyandy
09-02-2010, 11:00 AM
I'm fairly sure our top earner is Carle. Hence why we've been trying to get him out on loan all season.

He's actually been pretty decent since he's come back into the side, but our midfield is probably our strongest asset at the moment.

pete eagle
09-02-2010, 11:07 AM
We're still in the FA Cup and we need 6 wins to ensure survival in this league.

In the grand scheme of things, loaning out Danns and Ambrose to save what, 80,000 per month, would be a stupid move.

But the world contains many stupid people.

And in all likelihood, we would never find a club willing to pay 100% of their wages.

We won't save much but we have a lot to gain from them being in the side still.

chelmsfordeagle
09-02-2010, 11:27 AM
Short sighted if true.We are a far more sellable,if we are not in danger of relegation and climbing up the league,or heading for the latter stages of the cup.

yes it's short sighted but we are in administration, that is itself a shortterm solution. Their main objective is to save the club by any means.

We don't only save wages from loaning players out, we will also recieve a fee, especially for the better players.

m_reid
09-02-2010, 11:33 AM
:S: :S: :S: :S: :S:

My uncle's next door neighbour's cat said this was a load of old b0llocks

not saying i believe it just wonderd if anyone else had heard anything similar because it sounded strange to me.

Biggineagle
09-02-2010, 11:35 AM
not saying i believe it just wonderd if anyone else had heard anything similar because it sounded strange to me.

Mart dont waste your time, too many experts on here waiting to take the piss and shoot you down:p

Clapham Grand
09-02-2010, 01:18 PM
:S: :S: :S: :S: :S:

My uncle's next door neighbour's cat said this was a load of old b0llocks


cats can't talk

HTH

:)

JamTheEagle
09-02-2010, 01:21 PM
What are the administrators going to gain by lending players out when the team is in such good form.

Yes they'll save on players wages, but with the revenue from the villa game, surely that counts a lot in respect of increased earnings? If we do it right and play for a replay, more money!!!

Also, I believe that we are still in with a shout on the play offs. Break the team up and that won't happen. If we maintain our push for the play-offs surely that is more attractive to a potential investor than struggling to stay in the division???

Exactly :p.

E_girl
09-02-2010, 01:25 PM
Ambrose is one of our top earners - so could happen for that reason, I guess :(

Jason
09-02-2010, 01:39 PM
We're still in the FA Cup and we need 6 wins to ensure survival in this league.

In the grand scheme of things, loaning out Danns and Ambrose to save what, 80,000 per month, would be a stupid move.

But the world contains many stupid people.

True, but it sounds like we are also close to 1m short of being able to even finish the season (4m quoted, -2.5m for Moses, - just over 500k unexpected cup cash).

The sad reality is that we probably have to raise that money by any means needed. I would be disgusted if anyone went before Sunday, simply as that game represents an opportunity to raise some of that money. If we don't get a good result. Beyond that though, we probably need to put the finances first, and hope that whatever is left afterwards is enough to get the six wins we need (five after we beat Swanseas tonight :p )

Glazier69
09-02-2010, 01:41 PM
Do you

A) Asset strip to save a little bit
B) Hold on and hope that you earn the prize money.

Administrators & creditors don't gamble. If cash is needed, assets will be stripped. I have feared all along that after Moses going, the 5 or 6 highest wages (Danns, Ambrose, Speroni, Carle, Lee ?) may be loaned out to reduce the wage bill. Unless Mr Buyer truns up a bit sharpish.

It happened last time with Jamie Smith & Andy Lineghan and one or two others. :(

kabbott
09-02-2010, 02:54 PM
:S: :S: :S: :S: :S:

My uncle's next door neighbour's cat said this was a load of old b0llocks

Not cat-astrophic then? ;)

Sussex Eagle
09-02-2010, 02:57 PM
Administrators & creditors don't gamble. If cash is needed, assets will be stripped. I have feared all along that after Moses going, the 5 or 6 highest wages (Danns, Ambrose, Speroni, Carle, Lee ?) may be loaned out to reduce the wage bill. Unless Mr Buyer truns up a bit sharpish.

It happened last time with Jamie Smith & Andy Lineghan and one or two others. :(
You can no more force a player to agree to a loan deal than to a transfer though. I'm sure they're touting players about, but I don't see a mass exodus coming.

Gooders
09-02-2010, 03:09 PM
True, but it sounds like we are also close to 1m short of being able to even finish the season (4m quoted, -2.5m for Moses, - just over 500k unexpected cup cash).



Yes, but in all the assessments I've read on here that people have made as to how far short of the income neccessary to get us through to the end of the season we may be, not one of them - not one - has made the point that there will be other sources of income between now and May, not the least of which is the income from the 10 remaining home league games.

Now I don't suppose we take a huge amount on the day what with all the long-term season ticket holders we have, but it's sure as hell greater than 0.

jhc
09-02-2010, 03:16 PM
Of course we all know now, that taking a loan player doesn't always mean just paying his wages. There can be quite a sizable inducement involved in doing this.

Not only would a club have to pay his wages, but they might have to pay Palace thousands up front, for the privilege of having him for the rest of the season. That may be something the Administrator couldn't/wouldn't turn down.

Jason
09-02-2010, 03:32 PM
Yes, but in all the assessments I've read on here that people have made as to how far short of the income neccessary to get us through to the end of the season we may be, not one of them - not one - has made the point that there will be other sources of income between now and May, not the least of which is the income from the 10 remaining home league games.

Now I don't suppose we take a huge amount on the day what with all the long-term season ticket holders we have, but it's sure as hell greater than 0.

You may well be right on this. My assumption has always been that the administrators have factored this income into their calculation already, meaning that the shortfall is calculated based on what is needed "after" all of the "regular" income has been taken into account.

If I'm right, then we still need an extra 1m either through money in or cost lewer costs just to complete our fixtures. However, if I'm wrong, then yes there is the additional income you mention to help us towards our target

pete eagle
09-02-2010, 03:37 PM
I still don't see a huge amount of suitors for our players.

Maybe Danns and maybe Ambrose but if I was a manager of a team, would these players really want to play for my club? The likely answer is no so that would weigh against any move. If the player wants it then that's different, but in my mind, there is a very small number of clubs who would be willing, could afford the wages and who would attract the player.

NZsparky
09-02-2010, 08:41 PM
I'm fairly sure our top earner is Carle. Hence why we've been trying to get him out on loan all season.

He's actually been pretty decent since he's come back into the side, but our midfield is probably our strongest asset at the moment.
I think you are right, and I wondered whether the reason he has not been near the first team until we are desperate is similar to the Paul Bodin thing for SC back in the day.

DaveTuttles
09-02-2010, 09:29 PM
No, close thread. What do women know about football ffs?

zonin2000
10-02-2010, 11:37 AM
I think you are right, and I wondered whether the reason he has not been near the first team until we are desperate is similar to the Paul Bodin thing for SC back in the day.
What was the Paul Bodin thing?

chatham_lad
10-02-2010, 12:03 PM
No, close thread. What do women know about football ffs?

Let's ask Hope Powell...

spike
10-02-2010, 12:30 PM
What was the Paul Bodin thing?

I think his transfer had an additional payment due once he had played X games.

He wasn't played to prevent that level being reached and the payment becoming due.

Can't remember the numbers involved, or if he ever triggered the additional payment.

NZsparky
10-02-2010, 07:55 PM
I think his transfer had an additional payment due once he had played X games.

He wasn't played to prevent that level being reached and the payment becoming due.

Can't remember the numbers involved, or if he ever triggered the additional payment.
Thats right, he was in the end loaned back to swindon wasn't he. The additional payment was never triggered.
I also wonder if the reason john is left on the bench is because of some pay as you play bonus and the administrator won't let him play unless there is no alternative. But then that is wildly speculative