• Current Donation Goals

Harvz

Transfer Talk Topic

Recommended Posts

Jay Seal   

On players - I still think players are a part of the production process of the football team, they are not works of art.

Their may contribute well or badly, but if picked they perform a role. If not in the squad their playing contribution is zero.

Aesthetically Piazon may be worth more than SWP. But for the production foreman (manager) he aint worth a cent.

If you follow a production accounting approach to football, you have to divide the value added to the club by the cost to get any proper concept of "expensive or cheap".

The only way to get your way of thinking into any accounting system is to give negative production values to player you don't like. I'm not having that - if a manager picks a player he adds value - full stop.

The overall point might be valid but as far as the analogy goes you're cherry picking. Essentially you're noting that until a player has any time with the first team they do not produce any value in which case in 'production accounting' you wouldn't be crystalising any of those costs until such time they do or the 'stock' is written off. So nil value, nil expense until playing time or sale/release.

For SWP/Torres to be worse and to find his value, you wouldn't divide by the cost you'd subtract it surely, he needs to have less value than the expense. Torres, at least, achieves this with bells on.

Seems to be a confusion between value and and income, do people value unfinished goods at zero just because they're not at the final production process? If so, let's get a van and pick up a load of gear from every warehouse in London!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For SWP/Torres to be worse and to find his value, you wouldn't divide by the cost you'd subtract it surely, he needs to have less value than the expense. Torres, at least, achieves this with bells on.

Oh my - I was always dreadful at Maths - think I'll come back when we're about to sign someone!!

Edited by Grimsby Blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay Seal   

For SWP/Torres to be worse and to find his value, you wouldn't divide by the cost you'd subtract it surely, he needs to have less value than the expense. Torres, at least, achieves this with bells on.

Oh my - I was always dreadful at Maths - think I'll come back when we're about to sign someone!!

Err, sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched Arnhem a number times this season and, had the season ended at Christmas, Piazon would, wrongly in my opinion, have won Vitesse's player of the year.

The force was with Lucas through the first half of 2013/2014 so the goals, assists and accolades flowed. Players have these moments from time-to-time but, even during this purple patch, Atsu always looked the more likely prospect to me. His touch, surety of possession, speed of thought, acceleration and passing always looked just that half a beat sharper. Half a beat which seemed to me to suggest that, of the two, Christian is the better player.

This isn't hindsight talking, I posted this point of view several times over the course of the season, including before Christmas.

You did indeed, and I agreed that Atsu looked the better prospect. I am a little concerned some are promoting the idea we bring Piazon back next season and (along with Costa up top and a new left back) all will be sorted for the season. Piazon is a long way from being good enough to be a squad player, let alone a starter. Indeed, I would wager that he will never play a meaningful role at Chelsea and will be sold on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The overall point might be valid but as far as the analogy goes you're cherry picking. Essentially you're noting that until a player has any time with the first team they do not produce any value in which case in 'production accounting' you wouldn't be crystalising any of those costs until such time they do or the 'stock' is written off. So nil value, nil expense until playing time or sale/release.

For SWP/Torres to be worse and to find his value, you wouldn't divide by the cost you'd subtract it surely, he needs to have less value than the expense. Torres, at least, achieves this with bells on.

Seems to be a confusion between value and and income, do people value unfinished goods at zero just because they're not at the final production process? If so, let's get a van and pick up a load of gear from every warehouse in London!

You are right that I am assuming Piazon gets sold for a loss soonish rather than turns up next season and goes on to play 100 games for us.

At some point companies do have to revalue their existing assets.

For SWP/Torres to be worse and to find his value, you wouldn't divide by the cost you'd subtract it surely, he needs to have less value than the expense. Torres, at least, achieves this with bells on.

No. Divide it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right that I am assuming Piazon gets sold for a loss soonish rather than turns up next season and goes on to play 100 games for us.

At some point companies do have to revalue their existing assets.

For SWP/Torres to be worse and to find his value, you wouldn't divide by the cost you'd subtract it surely, he needs to have less value than the expense. Torres, at least, achieves this with bells on.

No. Divide it.

Maybe we should stop viewing players as assets. If anything, they're perishables. Fuel to keep the Chelsea train running.

But from an accounting point of view, it's probably better to look at players as what they are. Artists and entertainers with a very specific skillset. Employees, who will take as much of your money as they can, while being willing and prepared to give you as little in return as possible.

So, while Torres may have played a lot of matches, we bought him in to lead the attack, but he's done a horrible job and completely messed up his department. And we can't just let him go, because we starfazedly gave him a ridiculous contract. SWP was a terribly overpaid, hardly did any work, and when he did, it wasn't great. So again, not a particularly good case of recruiting.

Piazon, or any other loanee, is (in this scenario), a trainee or apprentice. Lots of them are bang average, another good part just completely wrong for the job. But every now and again, one comes along, where you think he might have the stuff to go all the way.

Thing is, any given apprentice is on comparatively low wages, can't do any harm, because they're in no position to do any and, if you deem them unworthy, can be moved on in a heartbeat. And all of them together usually still only cost a fraction of what you pay one of your CEOs. (But, as we're talking football, the "trainees" cost a few first team members worth of wages etc., on the other hand, they do usually have a much better resale value)

Low risk, comparatively low costs, potential high rewards. They may not contribute, but at least they can't harm us, either. As the market value of a player, even if he doesn't play for our club, tends to rise of the course of his loans (because they do usually improve or at least prove themselves), we can always try to recoup some of our expenses on the player.

Any player we get for the first team is automatically a loss: If he works out, he'll drain us of wages and amortisation for the amount of time he plays for us.

If he flops, it's (obviously) even worse, as we usually take a hit when we sell at a loss a year or two later (as his entire remaining book value is then substracted from what we recoup from the sale), having wasted the (relatively high) wages on a player for the duration that he didn't do anything.

I'd rather have another 15 Piazons on the books, than being forced to pay and play Torres for another two seasons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather have another 15 Piazons on the books, than being forced to pay and play Torres for another two seasons...

So how much do you think Piazons cost then?

And if you weren't aware of it, we do have 15 Piazons (or rather about 30 on half his wages).

And more seriously - no one is forcing us to play Torres ahead of Ba. We can start Ba and leave Torres on the bench for the same cost. This idea of Torres being a negative over and above his price is a rhetorical device, not a business measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how much do you think Piazons cost then?

And if you weren't aware of it, we do have 15 Piazons (or rather about 30 on half his wages).

And more seriously - no one is forcing us to play Torres ahead of Ba. We can start Ba and leave Torres on the bench for the same cost. This idea of Torres being a negative over and above his price is a rhetorical device, not a business measure.

According to the place I always look: 6,6m transfer (rising to 10, if he turns good), 15k a week. (https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=f28c844afe417c7e&id=documents&resid=F28C844AFE417C7E%21116&app=Excel&authkey=!AEuB1zQ-DsxCyUk&)

Admittedly, lots of money. But I also think he should fetch a few million in a year or two, should he not reach the heights he was obviously thought to reach. And he's obviously one of our more risky pieces of business.

That much is true, no one is forcing us to play Torres. On the other hand, he ties up 10 (to be precise, 9-odd) times as much of our money, without a quick and painless way out, as Piazon does. Who you could always sell for a six figure sum, dust yourself off and say "never again".

And Piazon does play, just not for us. Which is the beauty of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the place I always look: 6,6m transfer (rising to 10, if he turns good), 15k a week. (https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=f28c844afe417c7e&id=documents&resid=F28C844AFE417C7E%21116&app=Excel&authkey=!AEuB1zQ-DsxCyUk&)

Admittedly, lots of money. But I also think he should fetch a few million in a year or two, should he not reach the heights he was obviously thought to reach. And he's obviously one of our more risky pieces of business.

That much is true, no one is forcing us to play Torres. On the other hand, he ties up 10 (to be precise, 9-odd) times as much of our money, without a quick and painless way out, as Piazon does. Who you could always sell for a six figure sum, dust yourself off and say "never again".

And Piazon does play, just not for us. Which is the beauty of the situation.

But Piazon joined us 6 months after Edit us Torres and is contracted with us till 2017. It seems pretty certain he be a drain on our resources for longer than Torres.

And who the F cares if Piazon plays or not? Torres is an upgrade on Ba and so has value. Piazon is not even in the country, let alone the squad.

Torres would be bloody fantastic playing for Vittesse but why would anyone care?

There is only one Torres in the first team squad. There are 30 Piazons. I'd argue that it is precisely the Piazons that are preventing us upgrading on Torres, not Torres's fee.

Edited by Droy was my hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One. But Piazon joined us 6 months after us and is contracted with us till 2017. It seems pretty certain he be a drain on our resources for longer than Torres.

Two. And who the F cares if Piazon plays or not? Torres is an upgrade on Ba and so has value. Piazon is not even in the country, let alone the squad.

Torres would be bloody fantastic playing for Vittesse but why would anyone care?

Three. There is only one Torres in the first team squad. There are 30 Piazons. I'd argue that it is precisely the Piazons that are preventing us upgrading on Torres, not Torres's fee.

1. I don't think that's the issue here.

2. No one is questioning whether Torres has value. Just how much we're paying over the top for it. I'd also argue that while Torres was bought for banging in the goals for our first team, Piazon was not. Piazon has potential and someone decided to invest in that. I concede that it's unlikely by now, but Piazon could still turn out to be a decent piece of business. Torres has already F'd us in more ways I thought possible.

3. We obviously have the money to have 30 Piazons and still have a Torres (and Hazard, Willian and some Diego Costa type in the summer). While, yes, the 30 players would probably translate into another player (maybe even two) of Torres' magnitude, he's also the prime example of why that approach is much more high-risk. Take another Torres or two and you're risking getting stuck in a situation like some American franchises, that are stuck with ageing superstars on MASSIVE contracts, unable to make a move. If they let you down, you're done.

Edit: Example is a bit extreme, but works for "no youth" approach, too. Risk diversification makes sense in every walk of life. And we're not in danger of doing an Arsenal here, where our first team is laughable, because it's all invested in youth. Balance is the key, but I wouldn't want to go to either extreme.

Edited by Chelsea'Til_IDie

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