• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

paulw66   
4 hours ago, didierforever said:

7m loan deal when we could have actually bought someone decent?

Also, If not for the board, we would have bought him outright for 30m because sarri wanted ONLY a washed out higuain. 

The dude was way over in his head and we were lucky to be rid off him when we did. Otherwise we would have had a team of jorginhos and higuains. 

Who can you buy that is "decent" for 7m?

So, if it wasn't for the people who do the buying and selling, we would have bought him. Makes sense. 

Lucky to be rid of him? His loan ended. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Who can you buy that is "decent" for 7m?

Alan Shearer Southampton to Blackburn 4.5m  :0)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, didierforever said:

7m loan deal when we could have actually bought someone decent?

Also, If not for the board, we would have bought him outright for 30m because sarri wanted ONLY a washed out higuain. 

The dude was way over in his head and we were lucky to be rid off him when we did. Otherwise we would have had a team of jorginhos and higuains. 

A 6 month loan deal and we finished 3rd with a trophy. Morata was absolutely shot mentally and we needed someone to come in and do a job. Doubt there were many complaints all round. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Who can you buy that is "decent" for 7m?

So, if it wasn't for the people who do the buying and selling, we would have bought him. Makes sense. 

Lucky to be rid of him? His loan ended. 

His amortized value for half a season was worth 7m + wages (which even if we take at a very minimalistic 100kpw would be equal to 2.5m for half a year). Basically we spent around 10m of wages + amortized value on higuain who was of no value to us. That 10m for half a season would have been 20m for the whole season next year which would mean 150kpw wages + 12m amortized value (60m transfer for 5 years). How much exactly did Halland go for? 

The board made it into a loan deal instead of buying him outright which is what sarri wanted. I thought that was pretty obvious from what I wrote or for anyone actually trying to understand the point I was trying to make.

"Lucky to be rid of him? His loan ended."  - That was for sarri, but sure whatever floats your boat, specially if you think that wasting half a season with a washed up no good higuain was worthwhile. Our memory and assessment of Higuain and that half a season seems to be light years apart so no point going back and forth. I dont think that we should have even indulged Sarri with Higuain and rather put the club's needs ahead (specially considering the BAN) and bought someone good (50/60m +150kpw wages given how much we spent on higuain). Would have been far better off.

Edited by didierforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Willian Dollar Baby said:

A 6 month loan deal and we finished 3rd with a trophy. Morata was absolutely shot mentally and we needed someone to come in and do a job. Doubt there were many complaints all round. 

It was one of the most pointless deals all around just to satisfy the whims and fantasies of a coach who was out of his depth. Like I said above, the financials were so high, that we would have been better going for a 50m striker which would even have helped us when the Ban actually hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Willian Dollar Baby said:

A 6 month loan deal and we finished 3rd with a trophy. Morata was absolutely shot mentally and we needed someone to come in and do a job. Doubt there were many complaints all round. 

Signed him when the club was 4th 4 pts off 3rd. Poch team imploded again and we got 3rd.

Higuan's first game against Bournemouth we got humped 4-0.

Higuan was a Sarri project that never flourished. Everyman and his dog knew the club were signing Mr Blobby on loan. The club were fortunate to have Hazard who was playing out of his skin

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, RobertoftheGiz said:

Signed him when the club was 4th 4 pts off 3rd. Poch team imploded again and we got 3rd.

Higuan's first game against Bournemouth we got humped 4-0.

Higuan was a Sarri project that never flourished. Everyman and his dog knew the club were signing Mr Blobby on loan. The club were fortunate to have Hazard who was playing out of his skin

Exactly this. 

can't believe people actually think Higuain's time at Chelsea was decent. I would put him right up there with Falcao and pato given how poor he looked, downright to his physical status which had to be "Unfit"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
1 minute ago, didierforever said:

 

can't believe people actually think Higuain's time at Chelsea was decent. 

Except nobody said this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, didierforever said:

His amortized value for half a season was worth 7m + wages (which even if we take at a very minimalistic 100kpw would be equal to 2.5m for half a year). Basically we spent around 10m of wages + amortized value on higuain who was of no value to us. That 10m for half a season would have been 20m for the whole season next year which would mean 150kpw wages + 12m amortized value (60m transfer for 5 years). 

This is football finance blog stuff gone mad. I don't know what the figures were (and neither do you), but we most likely paid some sort of fee to get him and some or all of his wages. Maybe just one of those, for all we know the fee is precisely for covering wages. And we paid it for the time he was here, not the season after as well.

That's what we laid out, not some crazed algebraic projection.

I wonder if, perhaps, a loan deal for Higuain was made because buying a better player outright wasn't doable? Rather than loaning Higuain got in the way of buying a better player? I know which of the two seems the more likely to me.

(Higuain was pretty crap overall)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
6 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

This is football finance blog stuff gone mad. I don't know what the figures were (and neither do you), but we most likely paid some sort of fee to get him and some or all of his wages. Maybe just one of those, for all we know the fee is precisely for covering wages. And we paid it for the time he was here, not the season after as well.

That's what we laid out, not some crazed algebraic projection.

I wonder if, perhaps, a loan deal for Higuain was made because buying a better player outright wasn't doable? Rather than loaning Higuain got in the way of buying a better player? I know which of the two seems the more likely to me.

(Higuain was pretty crap overall)

This. 

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now