• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

Stim   

Do it then. It doesn't take much time if you just check the current squad. I think the statistic supports GURJ SS's opinion.

Yeah checked now. It does. Real Madrids are harder to wade through but based on their buying policy is probably far less than barcelonas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Nobody actually can find a definition of what a loan fee is,l so be careful making assumptions about it. It is not clear even when a loan fee is claimed, that the fee is additional to the player wages.

My feeling is that the term is used, in a vernacular way, to mean over and above. From time to time we hear, or read, comments referring to loan players wages and fees and the use does not seem to me to be interchangeable. No knowing for sure but the real issue is that we're never likely to get the figures and, even if we did, we're seldom going to have any clue whether that represents a profit or a loss for the parent club.

Lukaku and Courtois aside, I doubt that we cover our wage costs on any of our players. Certainly not Marin or Moses or Romeu - who are only on loan because they were flops.

My own guess is that Liverpool are, at the very least, covering Victor's wages in full. Subsidising a young player at Vitesse is one thing, subsidising an established one at a major club is quite another. Just on principle, I would never do that and I hope it is more than mere wishful thinking on my part to believe that the club wouldn't either.

2. De Bruyne is said to have gone for£18m to Wolfsburg. The same club that sold Mandzukic for EUR13m 18 months earlier. believe that and you'll believe any numbers.

To disbelieve it would be to call Jose a liar. He may have been caught out telling fibs in the past ("I have never met Ashley Cole") but I see no reason to think he was not being truthful when he confirmed the KDB transfer fee, along with Juan Mata's, in a press conference.

4. FFP has been counting finances from 2010. The exemption for Academy spending is unclear - but certainly does no include wages for players 18+, (which is the major expense) or transfer fees for players 18+. Whether it excludes agents fees, signing on fees or transfer fees for U18s is debatable.

At long last I've actually read the regulations and, contrary to a widely held misconception of which I was guilty myself, transfer fees for under 18s are not exempt from FFP calculations. Neither are agents fees nor scouting costs.

In other word the loading up on assets theory is bollocks.

Well you may say that, and let's face it you would :), but I'd say that the club must therefore be justifying this expenditure in a different way. Possibly some combination of; "you have to buy a ticket if you want to win the lottery", "we've too often shown ourselves to be bad at buying established players lets experiment with doing things another way for a while", and, "Some of the cost of this experiment will be recouped from loan/transfer fees."

An important silver lining here is that a lot of this spending must therefore already have featured in our accounts and we still passed the FFP test. Operation buy young, buy often may not be profitable, in a financial sense, but it looks like the club has proved it can afford to do this if it wants to. If you run an experiment it is wise to give it enough time to get a proper assessment of the results, although, of course, you do eventually have to be honest with yourself about the implications of your findings.

I know your assessment is that the experiment has run its course and that we'd be better off focusing our transfer spending on players from the group where you say the risk is 50/50 but I disagree: -

  • We continue to be among the biggest spenders on 50/50 players anyway and, given squad size restrictions, there is a limit to how many such players we can buy each season.
  • If the rules prevent you trying to buy a gem from the 50/50 group then, if you can afford it, why not cast the net a bit further?
  • Just because a player gets first team games does not mean he represents value for money. We have to pick eleven players for every match so some very expensive flops are nevertheless going to rack up first team appearances. Comparing SWPs number of starts vs Lucas Piazon's and deciding it suggests Sweep was the better signing is just completely wrong in my opinion.
  • Frankly we have not been good enough at identifying players of the right calibre from either group. Indeed, given your claim that buying from the 50/50s is a one-in-two shot, our achievement in getting it so wrong, so often, from that group, is quite remarkable.
  • Had Real Madrid or Barcelona wanted Eden Hazard we would not have gotten him. We would not have been able to sign Gareth Bale once he turned into a player the world had heard of, nor a Messi, nor a Ronaldo. If we want the highly sought after talents, and I hope we do, then getting lucky and getting them young is by far our best chance. Maybe even our only chance.
Edited by Bridgejunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at it from our point of view, a B team is a good thing. I know that it would make it difficult for the lower league teams but it would give the bigger teams a better footing in terms of quality coming through the ranks. It would benefit talent and give them the same chance as foreign talent.

I'm not even sure it does suit us.

A B team league is supposed to offer a competitive enough standard for young players to develop and flourish, better preparing them for the leap to elite Premier League football.

Look at our players out on loan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_Chelsea_F.C._season#Loan_out

30 loan deals. At most 5 (Pirez, Davila, Delac x 2 and possibly Clifford) are to clubs playing at a level comparable to the Conference. All others have gone to superior standards. What does that mean for our U21 players not out on loan?

It's an utterly awful idea, that has the problem wrong in the first place and will do a whole lot of damage to English football from top to bottom.

Edited by thevelourfog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you may say that, and let's face it you would :), but I'd say that the club must therefore be justifying this expenditure in a different way. Possibly some combination of; "you have to buy a ticket if you want to win the lottery", "we've too often shown ourselves to be bad at buying established players lets experiment with doing things another way for a while", and, "Some of the cost of this experiment will be recouped from loan/transfer fees."

An important silver lining here is that a lot of this spending must therefore already have featured in our accounts and we still passedthe FFP test. Operation buy young, buy often may not be profitable, in a financial sense, but it looks like the club has proved it can afford to do this if it wants to. If you run an experiment it is wise to give it enough time to get a proper assessment of the results, although, of course, you do eventually have to be honest with yourself about the implications of your findings.

I know your assessment is that the experiment has run its course and that we'd be better off focusing our transfer spending on players from the group where you say the risk is 50/50 but I disagree:

  • We continue to be among the biggest spenders on 50/50 players anyway and, given squad size restrictions, there is a limit to how many such players we can buy each season.
  • If the rules prevent you trying to buy a gem from the 50/50 group then, if you can afford it, why not cast the net a bit further?
  • Just because a player gets first team games does not mean he represents value for money. We have to pick eleven players for every match so some very expensive flops are nevertheless going to rack up first team appearances. Comparing SWPs number of starts vs Lucas Piazon's and deciding it suggests Sweep was the better signing is just completely wrong in my opinion.
  • Frankly we have not been good enough at identifying players of the right calibre from either group. Indeed, given your claim that buying from the 50/50s is a one-in-two shot, our achievement in getting it so wrong, so often, from that group, is quite remarkable.
  • Had Real Madrid or Barcelona wanted Eden Hazard we would not have gotten him. We would not have been able to sign Gareth Bale once he turned into a player the world had heard of, nor a Messi, nor a Ronaldo. If we want the highly sought after talents, and I hope we do, then getting lucky and getting them young is by far our best chance.Maybe even our only chance.

Completely agree with this Stan - especially the bit about value and playing minutes.

Look at Torres. We spent £50m plus another £175.000/week for roughly 3.5 years... That's a total bill of nearly £82m. That he has played games for us is not something that makes me feel better - it makes me feel worse! Retaining that sorry excuse of a striker (I know you don't like us to critisice Nando, but I can't resist) has made us worse not only from a financial standpoint.

We alienated Anelka. We were happy to let Drogba leave. We sold Danny Sturridge for peanuts to Liverpool all so that Nando would be our undisputed number one.

His ambling about for the last three years have cost us a bomb in results and as an extention price money.

The problem with Droy's views regarding this is that he views having a large squad as a pro so that you can (in theory at least) rotate a lot and keep everyone fresh. But football is not only about having the freshest players - it's about being the best unit both in defense and attack. That's hard to achieve when you use 30+ player every season fairly evenly. If it was so easy, then everyone would have massive squads. As it stands, not many teams have the squad Droy talks about.

If this is how you think it works, then I can see why playing time would represent a form for ROI. But for me, the only ROI that's worth talking about is the players quality and his performances for us. Anything else is a nonsense imo.

Edited by Sleeping Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B teams are a terrible idea in this country. I read a piece that Gabrielle Marcotti wrote on the matter recently and It quoted such things as our lower leagues have far better attendences than lower leagues across Europe.

I think one example he used was that Real's B team had an average attendance last year of 5000 and play in the Spanish second tier. I'm no expert but I think most league 1 clubs in this country get more than that.

The whole "English youth problem" in my eyes is down to the sheer lack of quality in this country. Why would you buy Player A who is English for stupid amounts of money when you can get Player B, who's foreign, for a quarter of the price.

Half the problem in this country is as soon as someone half decent who's English does anything of note, we place them on a pedestal as "the saviour of English football".

The whole B team ideal has been pushed to the forefront most recently by Barça recently becoming so successful using this (Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, et al) and people think this is the best way forward. If this was the case how did the class of 92 come through at Man U? They certainly didn't have a B team. Granted they all played together at youth level, but this didn't stop the majority of them becoming world class players in their own right.

Well rant over, have we signed Costa yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^What a fine response.

My feeling is that the term is used, in a vernacular way, to mean over and above. From time to time we hear, or read, comments referring to loan players wages and fees and the use does not seem to me to be interchangeable. No knowing for sure but the real issue is that we're never likely to get the figures and, even if we did, we're seldom going to have any clue whether that represents a profit or a loss for the parent club.

Can't agree. No one has ever clarified their own meaning. We are told that say, Wenger thought the loan fee for XXX was too high, but we are never told if that meant his share of the wages were too high or that a premium above the wages was too much.

What you are suggesting is that every mention of a loan fee means there was a premium. I disagree, and I suspect even the words "loan fee" are just hacks wanting to sound cool. They are told off the record that XXX was too expensive and write loan fee.

My own guess is that Liverpool are, at the very least, covering Victor's wages in full. Subsidising a young player at Vitesse is one thing, subsidising an established one at a major club is quite another. Just on principle, I would never do that and I hope it is more than mere wishful thinking on my part to believe that the club wouldn't either.

Moses perhaps. But I doubt there is a significant profit.

And my point was really a response to the idea that Marin or Romeu would get their wages fully paid. TEams that finish 35 and 50 points behind La Liga's winners spend £30-£40k a week on their star performers only, not flops or injury recoverers who are unlikely to start regulalry.

To disbelieve it would be to call Jose a liar. He may have been caught out telling fibs in the past ("I have never met Ashley Cole") but I see no reason to think he was not being truthful when he confirmed the KDB transfer fee, along with Juan Mata's, in a press conference.

Fair enough. But tell me, as a huge fan of De Bruyne's potential, do you think Wolfsburg paid £18m for him?

At long last I've actually read the regulations and, contrary to a widely held misconception of which I was guilty myself, transfer fees for under 18s are not exempt from FFP calculations. Neither are agents fees nor scouting costs.

This is interesting, Thanks. But still the main cost in taking on U18s is their wages as an 88, 19, 20 & 21 year old, before they start contributing.

"you have to buy a ticket if you want to win the lottery",

Nice response :)

"we've too often shown ourselves to be bad at buying established players lets experiment with doing things another way for a while"

"Some of the cost of this experiment will be recouped from loan/transfer fees."

Both common myths, both obviously very wrong.

We have been excellent at buying established players. (As I hinted before, being able to outbid competitors in a rising or stable market is probably an advantage on trades with a high probability of success, and a huge disadvantage on low probability trades).

That some of the cost can be offset is meaningless (some of the cost of buying a new car and insuring it and servicing it and garaging it can be off set in the second hand market). That half or more could be set off is a dream (except for those operating on a completely smaller scale).

Rock of Gibraltar is my explanation (Just as the old Man U owners bought SAF a race-horse to get him on baord, and RA gives out trips on his yachts and match tickets to keep his army of helpers in Moscow on baord, an interest in young players is being taken on behalf of key personnel/contacts in Russia to keep them tied in to RA).

It is only speculation - but certainly "entertainment" rather than making money seems to be the one thing that makes sense of a) 4 massive yachts, b) cfc, c) all these expensive kids.

  • Just because a player gets first team games does not mean he represents value for money. We have to pick eleven players for every match so some very expensive flops are nevertheless going to rack up first team appearances. Comparing SWPs number of starts vs Lucas Piazon's and deciding it suggests Sweep was the better signing is just completely wrong in my opinion.

Tell that to the manager. And it is a weird argument. Torres is not worth his wages or his purchase fee, but he gets picked ahead of Ba regularly so he is presumably worth at least as much as Ba's fee and Ba's wages, while Ba in turn at least occupies the bench as a capable replacement if needed. SWP the same. Piazon has done no of these things and looks very unlikely to do so. He is the unused Ford Escort in the garage while I use my overpriced jag to drive to work. One might be a cheap car, one might be expensive, but only the jag provides anything to me.*

*My real car is a 14 year old Skoda :)

  • Frankly we have not been good enough at identifying players of the right calibre from either group. Indeed, given your claim that buying from the 50/50s is a one-in-two shot, our achievement in getting it so wrong, so often, from that group, is quite remarkable.

This is seriously wrong. Our track record in buying established players with 40+ first team starts behind them is excellent.

Hazard, mata, Oscar, Ramires, Cahill, the list is endless.

Look at loan players - the ones with established value - Lukaku, Courtois, Moses (de Bruyne), all had 40+ games behind them.

I think only Marin has been a failure.

Where we get it wrong is paying serious money for players who have not performed at first team level.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatika   

^ You do realise that article suggested that Cole, Hazard and Luiz would also go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ You do realise that article suggested that Cole, Hazard and Luiz would also go.

I assume you're referring to the 'Top 10 players who could leave the Premier League this season' section? That has nothing to do with the rest of the article, and these are direct quotes from the Inter Milan director. The story has appeared in other (albeit weak) sources such as ESPN: http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/306301.html.

And Cole, Hazard and Luiz could end up leaving.

Edited by Sideshow Luiz

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