Is Blissett Off...?

PLenty to suggest this is going to be announced soon.
I would imagine not what KN would have wanted but probabably not in a position to stop/prevent it as Blisset deserves a crack at a higher level for sure and may well have been a condition when he signed in the summer. I dont think its all about money fromm any fee - it will I guess, be small though beneficial to the club right now.
It will difficult to replace him I hope KN has something lined up not sure Williams could fill the role but who knows it may just be what he needs to start his season.
Whatever it will need some imaaginitive thinking because we have been on our best run of the seaon of late and need to maintain that momentum this event could easily put an end to that.
Same old story the better players will leave and that little bit of quality is lost you begin to wonder how this club can ever progress.

'Rumours' that GG and McGinty are also being tracked...

 Blissett was at the game today and came over to applaud the away support at the end, waving good bye at the same time.  


 With regards to his replacement, one can only hope he was in the home team dressing room packing his bags. 

Good luck to Nathan and thanks for his efforts. Very concerned that we will not see too much incoming talent. More worried that we could end up with some real numpties given the likelihood that GI will not invest a great deal of cash! No doubt we will soon find out!

Once again it seems that, owing to its parlous financial situation, the club has been lured into a kind of half now, half later transfer fee payment, depending on appearances made, promotion gained and sell-on clauses. A lot of money appears to have already been lost following these terms being applied to the transfers of Eunan O'Kane and Angus MacDonald, and it is quite probable that the same will happen in Blissett's case.

If I buy, for example, a new set of furniture, then either I am obliged to pay the full cost of it at the time of purchase, or a contract is drawn up to ensure that future instalments are paid in full, failing which legal enforcement can be applied. However cash-strapped selling clubs may be, the full amount of the transfer fee should be paid at the outset, so that there is no opportunity to reduce it by spurious means. If the buying club cannot afford it, then no deal, and the FA or FL, whichever is responsible for regulating these fees, should ensure that a rule is in place to guarantee this arrangement. An idealistic and naive view, maybe, but there is far too much of this going on at present whereby the richer clubs are fleecing the poorer ones.

Another question has occurred to me. If GI are not yet officially in control of the club, but may well be in control of its finances, and the outgoing board members, save one or two, have all departed the scene, who will be dealing with incoming or outgoing transfer fees, and what guarantee is there that Blissett's fee will be available for the purpose of signing new players ?

(Apologies that the final paragraph is all one sentence, but I couldn't see a way of splitting it !!)

Like Stewart, I much preferred the days when a straight fee, more often that not paid there and then, had to be agreed upon. It did make things much more straightforward as far as calculating whether the buyer or seller had struck the better deal. Seeing Manchester United shell out a big fee on a subsequently goal shy Ted MacDougall or Garry Birtles was quite satisfying. Of course deals such as those involving Blissett minimise the risk of either party miscalculating, and in this particular instance, even among our own fans there's a substantial number who think Blissett will struggle to make an impact at the higher level, and those who see him fitting in well with the aid of more talented teammates.

A few clauses help everyone save face, and I'm sure that sort of arrangement is here to stay. Given the stick a modern day Manager gets for making a poor decision in buying or selling, the alternative would probably be an even greater insistence that fees be 'undisclosed'.

We came off badly from the Eunan deal that Bournemouth and Leeds cobbled together, there's no doubt about that. Although from the day he left us almost up to the day he went to Elland Road, it looked as though we were ensured a decent reward. It now seems as if we'll be playing in our 20,000 capacity G.I Arena before any eventual transfer money ever trickles through from that deal, as Leeds won't be going up for a few years yet, will they ?

Slightly different from Stewart's point, but I'm reasonably happy with the money we've received for Angus and will receive for Nathan Blissett.  The Angus cash was a 'Great Escape' bonus. It's a £100,000 we got just for Cap'n Angus signing a piece of paper while sitting in the sun enjoying a beer with King Kev last July. There can be no serious doubt that Cap'n Angus wouldn't have been straight out the door, and not given 5 seconds thought to signing up for National League South football IF we'd been relegated. Getting that signature off him in the Summer brought in the best part of 100K that we otherwise wouldn't have seen. And we agreed the fee with Barnsley before Angus had even put in an expenses claim with us for a new pair of boots for 2016/17. 

Anyone who witnessed Nathan Blissett's debut for us (I think Brucie did) when he came on as a second half substitute at a muddy Plainmoor with fellow Gulls debutant Shaun Harrod, will struggle to recall seeing a more disinterested, demotivated individual, making an appearance for us...yes Blissett was that bad on the night.

The fact that King Kev has, in a relatively short time, turned him into a player who could eventually swell our bank balance by a figure in excess of 30K, despite there being only a matter of months on his contract, is a credit to the Manager as well as to the player. Of course Nathan Smith will also readily tell you he wouldn't be the player he is, with the valuation that Port Vale can put on him, unless he'd come under King Kev's tutelage. The Cap'n Angus of before King Kev's managerial appointment, and the Cap'n Angus we could later sell to Barnsley were also different beasts, and would have commanded widely differing valuations in the transfer market. Dan Butler, despite his season in our struggling side, made considerable strides in his development thanks to King Kev's expert knowledge of the requirements for an effective left back. Those improvements were enough to gain Dan a move back to the Football League, although, sadly, we can only guess how Dan's game has deteriorated under Graham Westley, and how he must wish he could benefit from the advice of a defensive legend once again.


Yes, a bigger deal and a better deal is what we'd always prefer to see when we're selling, but without holding on to our top class Manager who we've seen can improve existing players, and will improve future players and make them capable of attracting transfer fees, our opportunity to discuss 'fees received' and the attendant convoluted clauses involved, may no longer be an issue we'll have chance to discuss.