Guest gggg Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 What about his woeful injury record? I won't spent another 9 mil for hhim there is no chance for that. Come on Mike, get your wallet out for once Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 His injury record is getting better his form is getting worse. wouldnt pay more than 3.5m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jungle Barry Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I'd be well pleased to see him back, would do wonders for Taylor. Obviously he's a risk but if nothing else it'll give big sams sports science department some work to do for their brass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I heard a rumour a while back that he may have crohns disease. My sisters got that and it causes arthritis. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. I don't understand why people get so het up about fees for players (especially speculated ones.) It's not like it's our money Keegan is spending. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. I don't understand why people get so het up about fees for players (especially speculated ones.) It's not like it's our money Keegan is spending. I can understand people not being happy when we're on a tight budget but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. I don't understand why people get so het up about fees for players (especially speculated ones.) It's not like it's our money Keegan is spending. I can understand people not being happy when we're on a tight budget but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Exactly my point. If Keegan has identified Woodgate or whoever as his first-choice target, then surely he has to pay what it takes to get them here (within certain reason, of course). If we can do it with no risk to our future, then it's surely the way to go? For the record, I'd be surprised if the deal was actually for £9M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 We'd be utterly crazy to spend £9 million on him given his injury record. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. I don't understand why people get so het up about fees for players (especially speculated ones.) It's not like it's our money Keegan is spending. It could be better spent elsewhere and it's an over-valuation, especially now that his form's thrown into question aswell as his fitness issues. That's my gripe, anyway. It is tempting though, i loved Woodgate. If there's a part exchange deal in there somewhere, then it'd be good business. £5m and Shola, or something, and i'd be happy. It looks like Keegan likes Shola though, which is a pity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Don't know about anyone else, but he's easily the best defender I've ever seen in black and white. While I wouldn't break the bank for him, £5m or so seems reasonable to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Don't know about anyone else, but he's easily the best defender I've ever seen in black and white. While I wouldn't break the bank for him, £5m or so seems reasonable to me. Agree on all accounts. £9m is what we paid for him five years/ten major injuries ago. I know that inflation is rife nowadays but let's not get taken for mugs now; that's always the fear in January. I think i'd rather pursue the Campbell thing than pay that for Woodgate. EDIT: That's if we actually want a centre-back, which i honestly don't think is really necassary at the moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Don't know about anyone else, but he's easily the best defender I've ever seen in black and white. While I wouldn't break the bank for him, £5m or so seems reasonable to me. I agree he was fantastic, but that was 4 years and significantly fewer injuries ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. I don't understand why people get so het up about fees for players (especially speculated ones.) It's not like it's our money Keegan is spending. It could be better spent elsewhere and it's an over-valuation, especially now that his form's thrown into question aswell as his fitness issues. That's my gripe, anyway. It is tempting though, i loved Woodgate. If there's a part exchange deal in there somewhere, then it'd be good business. £5m and Shola, or something, and i'd be happy. It looks like Keegan likes Shola though, which is a pity. What if there is no transfer budget, per se? And it's not taking money away from other players? What if Woodgate is the only defender available, who Keegan wants? What if he's Keegan's first-choice out of everyone else he could get? Like I've said, £9M is probably an over-estimation anyway, and the story itself could be bollocks, but I love how almost everyone on this forum seems to know what a footballer is worth. I always believe that a player is worth what he goes for, and then the proof will be in the pudding after his time at the club. As for your latest post, when we signed Woodgate £9M was considered a fantastic deal, because Leeds were in deep, deep trouble financially and were getting bent over and rammed off anyone and everyone. Valuation isn't simply a number, there is no set variable that allows you to calculate a player's value, there is loads that goes into it (timing/form/injuries/availability/the needs of the buying club/selling club, etc. etc. etc.) Hyopthetically, 'Boro being a rival club could put the price up, they might not necessarily want him to leave anyway, he's still got a fair bit of time on his contract, they don't have any dire need to sale, etc. Stuff like this affects values. You can only really judge a player's worth with hindsight, if you ask me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I heard a rumour a while back that he may have crohns disease. My sisters got that and it causes arthritis. I heard similar and that he needed a complete rest from football for his body to recover, at least 2 years, guess what, he got it and was back on form. Now he's struggling, i wonder why? Burnout? Any club buying Woodgate is taking a huge risk, but i think he's just about worth £5m risk especially if we do not have to rely on him. £9m? No fuking way. Go get Naldo, that bloke from Benfica, some brick shithouse from Europe, Woody's going to want a good pay day as well as that fee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 £9m. I don't understand why people get so het up about fees for players (especially speculated ones.) It's not like it's our money Keegan is spending. It could be better spent elsewhere and it's an over-valuation, especially now that his form's thrown into question aswell as his fitness issues. That's my gripe, anyway. It is tempting though, i loved Woodgate. If there's a part exchange deal in there somewhere, then it'd be good business. £5m and Shola, or something, and i'd be happy. It looks like Keegan likes Shola though, which is a pity. What if there is no transfer budget, per se? And it's not taking money away from other players? What if Woodgate is the only defender available, who Keegan wants? What if he's Keegan's first-choice out of everyone else he could get? That's essentially the perfect situation. If we really don't have a transfer budget at all (and it wouldn't effect the imports of other players) i wouldn't have too much of a gripe. Long-term effects could be detrimental however, if clubs know that we can easily be taken for mugs. If we want a highly rated player, those clubs could potentially squeeze as much cash out of us as possible. We could lose a lot of million in future years if we bend over backwards at all costs. Obviously, i'm being a bit extreme and i'm just talking about worst case scenario. But this sort of thing can happen; financial problems stem from things like this. *Note, i'm talking about the bigger picture, not this individual transfer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Basically, my moral of the story is, we still need to be careful even if we do have a colossal pit of money. Things can go up the shit creek quite quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Basically, my moral of the story is, we still need to be careful even if we do have a colossal pit of money. Things can go up the shit creek quite quickly. Agree. I still don't want us to waste money, no matter how rich the owner is. Not saying Woodgate is a waste of money btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 You're not wrong there Yorkie, good argument Although I do think that sort of thing is inevitable anyway, especially in the modern market. As long as the performances on the pitch improve and the club is financially stable, then like you say this approach is fine. It's when there's the potential to be the next Leeds when you have to start worrying. I do think we're going to get ripped off anyway, most of the time, but it won't be anything new to us - and this time we've got more of a safety net than we did under Shepherd (if Ashley invests/sticks around). The likes of Man Utd and Chelsea probably pay what people would consider "over-inflated" fees regularly because teams know they can afford it and milk them dry as much as possible, but I don't think that would stop them spending like they do if they really wanted a certain player. That's why they pay record fees for players. If the people running the club are smart enough and we get a slice of luck along the way, then we should be alright taking a high-risk approach to transfers. I can't see any other way of getting in amongst the top-four, personally, we're going to have to break a few egg shells to make an omelette. I still believe that people go for what they're worth, though. You can only judge the value of a signing after that player leaves the club, usually. If we spent £9M on Woodgate and he played every game, was made captain and helped us back into Europe with some solid performances then I think people would probably say he's worth the money. It's a big prediction to say "that's a bargain", or "that's too much", nothing more, because none of us know what the future holds. That's why I tend to just "let it be" when fees are mentioned these days. I'm reckless with my own money, mind, so this is just my personal take on things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Mint. I got an 'agree', off Dave n'all. I'm writing that one down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Basically, my moral of the story is, we still need to be careful even if we do have a colossal pit of money. Things can go up the shit creek quite quickly. Agree. I still don't want us to waste money, no matter how rich the owner is. Not saying Woodgate is a waste of money btw. Argh, this is my exact point though, how can we say we've "wasted money" until after the event? None of us are intelligent enough/know enough to accurately call every transfer, unfortunately. Add: If we did pay £9M for Woodgate, then it would mean that the club (Keegan, chairman, etc.) thought he was worth it, and those are the blokes that matter and those are the blokes you'd expect to know best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Basically, my moral of the story is, we still need to be careful even if we do have a colossal pit of money. Things can go up the shit creek quite quickly. Agree. I still don't want us to waste money, no matter how rich the owner is. Not saying Woodgate is a waste of money btw. Argh, this is my exact point though, how can we say we've "wasted money" until after the event? None of us are intelligent enough/know enough to accurately call every transfer, unfortunately. Add: If we did pay £9M for Woodgate, then it would mean that the club (Keegan, chairman, etc.) thought he was worth it, and those are the blokes that matter and those are the blokes you'd expect to know best. Guess I'm referring to the Owen transfer. That was pretty fucking obviously a silly move. Everyone likes to debate transfers and fees, I just wouldn't want us to spend so much on a player that has such a history of injury problems. Same with Barton and his disciplinary issues. If we'd paid £8m or whatever for him I'd have been gutted, even if it's pocket change to Ashley. Speculate to accumulate by all means, but don't go daft just because you can. Guess I'm just used to seeing things fail for us, that's all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Has anything developed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 One word on this: NO No no no no no no no no no no no no no no Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Has anything developed? I have a bit of an errection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now