Hi there, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 37 Votes - 2.73 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Speculation thread
(06-06-2016, 09:35 PM)Ross shire buff Wrote: Global energy wrote debt of as parent company, !!  or do they own !! us  something to ponder,
I have and will be a Roy man ,but next meeting it would be nice to see a change --- like one or two directors without Roy, so that they can be asked the question Who owns Ross county .I woukd never see Roy leaving county in a mess, but nobody saw David Murray

As mentioned in the "Supporters Meeting" thread:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/bus...the-black/

"This coincided with Mr MacGregor’s firm, GEG Capital, advancing a loan of £469,996 which was converted into shares in the football club, making GEG the new owner of the club."

 
Reply
(06-07-2016, 09:51 AM)StuartTaylor Wrote: As mentioned in the "Supporters Meeting" thread:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/bus...the-black/

"This coincided with Mr MacGregor’s firm, GEG Capital, advancing a loan of £469,996 which was converted into shares in the football club, making GEG the new owner of the club."

Seeing as Roy owned County, now his company own us. This saves him a few quid in taxes so why wouldn't he do that.
Only the paper changes and the taxman gets less of Roy's dosh!!!!!
 
Reply
This post is way off track now.......... apologies for that.......... perhaps these comments should be on the jailend safe standing thread!!
 
Reply
(06-07-2016, 09:51 AM)StuartTaylor Wrote: As mentioned in the "Supporters Meeting" thread:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/bus...the-black/

"This coincided with Mr MacGregor’s firm, GEG Capital, advancing a loan of £469,996 which was converted into shares in the football club, making GEG the new owner of the club."

Thank you Stuart ,I'm happy with that, we are lucky we have Roy
 
Reply
(06-07-2016, 10:24 AM)jamiepscot Wrote: This post is way off track now.......... apologies for that.......... perhaps these comments should be on the jailend safe standing thread!!

I keep seeing new posts in this Speculation thread and get my hopes up that we're linked with a new flying winger or something along those lines.


It's a bit of a let down when it's further discussion about Jailend seating  Sad


After the flurry of signing we had last week, what areas do we need to strengthen in.  I can't help but think st.j's are going to be really strong next season after signing Alston and Paton, both i feel would have strengthened our squad too.

Do we still need a first choice winger?

Murdoch going doesn't bother me too much, he was useful but nowhere near a first pick, i'm sure he'll do well in the Championship for du, i wish him all the best.
 
Reply
Agree on SJ Frank, was just thinking that this morning.

Roy said at the meeting we have another midfielder, a wide player and a big striker to come in , so lets see. Maybe that was just his wishful thinking, and not actually Jim's thinking..

 
Reply
If we assume that:

* With the plethora of defenders we now have, Ricky Foster will primarily get used on the wing (or at wing back) next season.
* Stewart Murdoch is on the verge of joining Dundee Utd.

Then I think we still need to sign a winger to give us a winged complement of four - new guy, Gardyne, Franks and Foster.

I'm puzzled by Roy saying we're looking for another midfielder.  From what I've heard, Routis is being viewed as a defensive midfielder.  Signing someone else who can play in the middle would see us with five central midfielders - surely a sign that McIntyre is going to stick with 3-5-2.  Five is too many for a 4-4-2, as Rocco Quinn found out to his detriment.  Personally, I'd like us to stick with four in defence and switch between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1/4-3-3 as necessary.

But if we're looking to sign a winger, that implies a switch back to 4-4-2 because Cikos could play RWB in a 3-5-2, meaning in that scenario another winger wouldn't be necessary (Foster, Gardyne, Franks, Cikos).

Of course, it's entirely possible the club expect to lose one of Jackson or Martin Woods over the course of the summer so are already planning to replace them.

I think we only need a striker if Graham leaves or if there are major doubts over Curran's fitness (or heaven forbid, both).  I see no reason for us to release Graham, but it's possible that through the lack of game time and/or family reasons he wants to move on.

So from my point of view: sign a winger, keep the midfielders and strikers we have, and trim the defence (sorry, Boydy) and I'll be happy.  Dingwall to be punted also.

 
Reply
(06-07-2016, 04:48 PM)Forfinn Wrote: If we assume that:

* With the plethora of defenders we now have, Ricky Foster will primarily get used on the wing (or at wing back) next season.
* Stewart Murdoch is on the verge of joining Dundee Utd.

Then I think we still need to sign a winger to give us a winged complement of four - new guy, Gardyne, Franks and Foster.

I'm puzzled by Roy saying we're looking for another midfielder.  From what I've heard, Routis is being viewed as a defensive midfielder.  Signing someone else who can play in the middle would see us with five central midfielders - surely a sign that McIntyre is going to stick with 3-5-2.  Five is too many for a 4-4-2, as Rocco Quinn found out to his detriment.  Personally, I'd like us to stick with four in defence and switch between 4-4-2 and 4-5-1/4-3-3 as necessary.

But if we're looking to sign a winger, that implies a switch back to 4-4-2 because Cikos could play RWB in a 3-5-2, meaning in that scenario another winger wouldn't be necessary (Foster, Gardyne, Franks, Cikos).

Of course, it's entirely possible the club expect to lose one of Jackson or Martin Woods over the course of the summer so are already planning to replace them.

I think we only need a striker if Graham leaves or if there are major doubts over Curran's fitness (or heaven forbid, both).  I see no reason for us to release Graham, but it's possible that through the lack of game time and/or family reasons he wants to move on.

So from my point of view: sign a winger, keep the midfielders and strikers we have, and trim the defence (sorry, Boydy) and I'll be happy.  Dingwall to be punted also.

This.

FWLIW I hate 3-5-2.
 
Reply
If Graham wants to leave then I'd have no qualms with that. He is not first choice for good reasons. For a big striker he just does not command the ball in the air enough and has a poor first touch. The cup final was the exception to this. Frustrating!
 
Reply
(06-07-2016, 05:03 PM)Savage Henry Wrote: This.

FWLIW I hate 3-5-2.

Savage the end of the day the management team have to stand up and be counted ,we have now reached the stage whereby  jim  and Billy have changed the player ratio to their signings ,
I for one am looking at big improvement in entertaining the support, 
We in my opinion need a hard ball winner with good distribution !! On the deck!! Davis majestic in the air but not so hot on the deck so a ball winner would compliment him,  a striker  and a winger essential
 
Reply
Colleague of mine follows PNE and informs me that they're interested in Jackson. Their manager 'supposedly' enquired about Jackson at the end of the season. There's a fair bit of interest in Jackson and if he's to leave we should be making a fair amount of money. Perhaps some of the cash will head JMc's way for further strengthening of the squad? I'd be looking for £500k for Jackson.
 
Reply
(06-08-2016, 08:44 PM)Deke Slayton Wrote: Colleague of mine follows PNE and informs me that they're interested in Jackson. Their manager 'supposedly' enquired about Jackson at the end of the season. There's a fair bit of interest in Jackson and if he's to leave we should be making a fair amount of money. Perhaps some of the cash will head JMc's way for further strengthening of the squad? I'd be looking for £500k for Jackson.

Then you'd be selling him cheap. Australian international. IF we have to sell him we should be asking for double that and insisting on a sell on clause!!!
Like people have said on here, get him signed up and end this speculation!
 
Reply
With Jackson Irvine having played for Celtic from 16/17 year old would they not be entitled to a percentage if we sold him.
I would rather sign him for another year or two.
 
Reply
(06-08-2016, 08:44 PM)Deke Slayton Wrote: Colleague of mine follows PNE and informs me that they're interested in Jackson. Their manager 'supposedly' enquired about Jackson at the end of the season. There's a fair bit of interest in Jackson and if he's to leave we should be making a fair amount of money. Perhaps some of the cash will head JMc's way for further strengthening of the squad? I'd be looking for £500k for Jackson.

£500,000 seems about fair.  I'd take that.  Add on another £250,000 for Liam Boyce and we could be rolling around like Scrooge McDuck.  I'd like to think the club had a bit more ambition than that and wouldn't sell both players in the same summer, but I do think it's highly likely that neither are with County at Christmas.
 
Reply
(06-09-2016, 09:06 AM)Savage Henry Wrote: £500,000 seems about fair.  I'd take that.  Add on another £250,000 for Liam Boyce and we could be rolling around like Scrooge McDuck.  I'd like to think the club had a bit more ambition than that and wouldn't sell both players in the same summer, but I do think it's highly likely that neither are with County at Christmas.

Sorry to be the first to bite at what seems obvious fishing ? but I'd be very disappointed and critical if individually these players left for those misery sums.  Also if both were to leave for the amounts you quote I'd be very disappointed in the board of directors.
 
Reply
I'd be delighted if we got £1m for Jackson. I'd be even more happy if we got him signed up on a long term deal. I reckon £500k simply because in a matter of months Jackson will be in a position to sign a pre-contract and make himself a few bob.
 
Reply
(06-09-2016, 12:16 AM)County Lad Wrote: With Jackson Irvine having played for Celtic from 16/17 year old would they not be entitled to a percentage if we sold him.
I would rather sign him for another year or two.



Don't think it works quite like that but the deal we did with Celtic will almost certainly have included a sell on clause. 
A further 2 year contract would certainly be an indication of the Board's resolve to stay in the premier league.
 
Reply
(06-09-2016, 09:16 PM)Wicky Wrote: Don't think it works quite like that but the deal we did with Celtic will almost certainly have included a sell on clause. 
A further 2 year contract would certainly be an indication of the Board's resolve to stay in the premier league.

Actually I think County Lad might be dead on as Celtic would be due a fee based on the fact he is still under 24 and they'd be due a fee due to the fact they trained him from an early age
 
Reply
(06-09-2016, 09:31 PM)mike_lowrie Wrote: Actually  I think County Lad might be dead on as Celtic would be due a fee based on the fact he is still under 24 and they'd be due a fee due to the fact they trained him from an early age

That rule doesn't apply because we bought him, as opposed to signed him on a free. If there's any money due to Celtic in the event of us selling him, it would only be if they put a sell-on clause in (which I would expect they would have).
.: Ours, is the Fury :.

 
Reply
(06-09-2016, 09:36 PM)Spain Wrote: That rule doesn't apply because we bought him, as opposed to signed him on a free. If there's any money due to Celtic in the event of us selling him, it would only be if they put a sell-on clause in (which I would expect they would have).

We didn't buy him and instead got him under freedom of contract and also paid a fee to Celtic as they developed him, they offered him a new deal to ensure they got this fee. I was under the impression that due to him still being under 24 they'd still be due a fee if ww sold him on
 
Reply
  


Forum Jump:


Browsing: 9 Guest(s)