Fabricio Coloccini signed from Deportivo La Coruña on 5 year deal

[ChezGiven]

Missing the point entirely there.

 

 

So we knew Owen would twist his knee at the world cup?

 

We knew Duff would break his foot or that he wasnt going to settle?

 

They were not signings of players 'over the hill' or past their best when we signed them. Emre never took to the premiership and Duff's form has been woeful but in neither case can that be attributed to age.

[PRL]

I think with any transfer policy, there'll be permissible exceptions, on top of us possibly misunderstanding the new policies in the first place.

 

For example, when Keegan was referring to South Americans and the associated culture shock they have when moving to here, I interpreted that as him referring to South Americans based in South America, as opposed to those playing in Europe - which to me makes more sense, because e.g. on paper there should be little difference in terms of "culture shock" between signing a Russia/Germany/France and signing a South American playing in Russia/Germany/France for the past 5 years.

 

Also, I would've thought the "signing young players with a resale value" referred to big money (transfer fee or wages) transfers, i.e. not signing those relatively expensive big names who've had their best years behind them - Duff, Emre, Owen as examples, not because theyve turned out to be poor value for money overall, just that they were better years before we signed them and therefore the current policy might have ruled them out as possible signings. Why would Ashley be concerned about the resale value of someone who isnt going to cost much (fee + wages) in the first place?

 

Owen was 25, Emre was 24 & only £3.8m, and Duff was 27 and only £5m.

 

Don't let that get in the way of your argument though.

They have all had their best years behind them though and considering what they've done here they have been "relatively expensive".

 

What he said.

 

In all three cases, these players had been at a considerably higher level at least two yeras prior to us signing them. In all three cases, the players had a long list of prior injury problems/recurrances, with one of them being badly off the boil for at least 1.5 years prior to joining us.

 

In Duff and Emre's case, we offered higher wages than the competiiton just to land them or attract them in the first place. According to reports, they would have signed for Spurs and Everton respectively had we not jumped in (can add Parker to that list too, again if reports are to be believed). In Owen's case, we reportedly offered double the transfer fee and considerably higher wages just to freeze Liverpool out of the equation and force Owen's hand.

 

I dont think theres anything particularly wrong with either scenario on their own - signing a player who has gone off the boil for some time or had injury problems, or overpaying in wages to beat off competition/attract someone. Its when we combine both that the alarm bells should be ringing and we should be open to the possibility of shooting ourselves in the foot if we do sign that type of player using those means.

 

Which one had been off the boil for 1.5yrs prior to joining us?? Also, think it's pretty harsh to judge on hindsight - saying their best years were behind them is all well and good now, but when we signed them i'd say most were pretty confident we could still see some pretty amazing players.

[tmonkey]

I think with any transfer policy, there'll be permissible exceptions, on top of us possibly misunderstanding the new policies in the first place.

 

For example, when Keegan was referring to South Americans and the associated culture shock they have when moving to here, I interpreted that as him referring to South Americans based in South America, as opposed to those playing in Europe - which to me makes more sense, because e.g. on paper there should be little difference in terms of "culture shock" between signing a Russia/Germany/France and signing a South American playing in Russia/Germany/France for the past 5 years.

 

Also, I would've thought the "signing young players with a resale value" referred to big money (transfer fee or wages) transfers, i.e. not signing those relatively expensive big names who've had their best years behind them - Duff, Emre, Owen as examples, not because theyve turned out to be poor value for money overall, just that they were better years before we signed them and therefore the current policy might have ruled them out as possible signings. Why would Ashley be concerned about the resale value of someone who isnt going to cost much (fee + wages) in the first place?

 

Owen was 25, Emre was 24 & only £3.8m, and Duff was 27 and only £5m.

 

Don't let that get in the way of your argument though.

They have all had their best years behind them though and considering what they've done here they have been "relatively expensive".

 

What he said.

 

In all three cases, these players had been at a considerably higher level at least two yeras prior to us signing them. In all three cases, the players had a long list of prior injury problems/recurrances, with one of them being badly off the boil for at least 1.5 years prior to joining us.

 

In Duff and Emre's case, we offered higher wages than the competiiton just to land them or attract them in the first place. According to reports, they would have signed for Spurs and Everton respectively had we not jumped in (can add Parker to that list too, again if reports are to be believed). In Owen's case, we reportedly offered double the transfer fee and considerably higher wages just to freeze Liverpool out of the equation and force Owen's hand.

 

I dont think theres anything particularly wrong with either scenario on their own - signing a player who has gone off the boil for some time or had injury problems, or overpaying in wages to beat off competition/attract someone. Its when we combine both that the alarm bells should be ringing and we should be open to the possibility of shooting ourselves in the foot if we do sign that type of player using those means.

 

Which one had been off the boil for 1.5yrs prior to joining us?? Also, think it's pretty harsh to judge on hindsight - saying their best years were behind them is all well and good now, but when we signed them i'd say most were pretty confident we could still see some pretty amazing players.

 

Duff.

 

As for their best years behind them, yes thats a view made in hindsight, but thats not really my point - im more referring to the fact that by the time we signed them they had shown themselves to be nowhere near the player they a few seasons before.

 

As an example, SWP is 26 and has been "off the boil" compared to his City form for nearly 3 years now. If we were to offer Chelsea 20mill for him, or conversely £5m but 100k per week in wages, would you be happy? And if not, and three years later it turned out he was an average signing at best, would it be fair for someone else to state that your displeasure at the signing overall is purely in hindsight?

 

There are some players who show a very clear dip in form, and that that dip is permanent. Its usually down to injuries or not playing for a long time, and therefore its fair to say that theyve peaked earlier, even if theyre still in their mid 20's. Obviously its also fair to have a belief or faith that this player's dip in form is not permanent and they can get back to a previous level with a run of games/increased confidence/etc, but the point being made is that we should be wary when it comes to signing someone like this and paying over the odds in either fee or wages in order to get them.

 

Hence why this transfer policy of not overpaying for players with a considerably bigger reputation than performances in recent years seems sound, if it does exist. Maybe it doesnt as Dave is suggesting.

[PRL]

I think with any transfer policy, there'll be permissible exceptions, on top of us possibly misunderstanding the new policies in the first place.

 

For example, when Keegan was referring to South Americans and the associated culture shock they have when moving to here, I interpreted that as him referring to South Americans based in South America, as opposed to those playing in Europe - which to me makes more sense, because e.g. on paper there should be little difference in terms of "culture shock" between signing a Russia/Germany/France and signing a South American playing in Russia/Germany/France for the past 5 years.

 

Also, I would've thought the "signing young players with a resale value" referred to big money (transfer fee or wages) transfers, i.e. not signing those relatively expensive big names who've had their best years behind them - Duff, Emre, Owen as examples, not because theyve turned out to be poor value for money overall, just that they were better years before we signed them and therefore the current policy might have ruled them out as possible signings. Why would Ashley be concerned about the resale value of someone who isnt going to cost much (fee + wages) in the first place?

 

Owen was 25, Emre was 24 & only £3.8m, and Duff was 27 and only £5m.

 

Don't let that get in the way of your argument though.

They have all had their best years behind them though and considering what they've done here they have been "relatively expensive".

 

What he said.

 

In all three cases, these players had been at a considerably higher level at least two yeras prior to us signing them. In all three cases, the players had a long list of prior injury problems/recurrances, with one of them being badly off the boil for at least 1.5 years prior to joining us.

 

In Duff and Emre's case, we offered higher wages than the competiiton just to land them or attract them in the first place. According to reports, they would have signed for Spurs and Everton respectively had we not jumped in (can add Parker to that list too, again if reports are to be believed). In Owen's case, we reportedly offered double the transfer fee and considerably higher wages just to freeze Liverpool out of the equation and force Owen's hand.

 

I dont think theres anything particularly wrong with either scenario on their own - signing a player who has gone off the boil for some time or had injury problems, or overpaying in wages to beat off competition/attract someone. Its when we combine both that the alarm bells should be ringing and we should be open to the possibility of shooting ourselves in the foot if we do sign that type of player using those means.

 

Which one had been off the boil for 1.5yrs prior to joining us?? Also, think it's pretty harsh to judge on hindsight - saying their best years were behind them is all well and good now, but when we signed them i'd say most were pretty confident we could still see some pretty amazing players.

 

Duff.

 

As for their best years behind them, yes thats a view made in hindsight, but thats not really my point - im more referring to the fact that by the time we signed them they had shown themselves to be nowhere near the player they a few seasons before.

 

As an example, SWP is 26 and has been "off the boil" compared to his City form for nearly 3 years now. If we were to offer Chelsea 20mill for him, or conversely £5m but 100k per week in wages, would you be happy? And if not, and three years later it turned out he was an average signing at best, would it be fair for someone else to state that your displeasure at the signing overall is purely in hindsight?

 

There are some players who show a very clear dip in form, and that that dip is permanent. Its usually down to injuries or not playing for a long time, and therefore its fair to say that theyve peaked earlier, even if theyre still in their mid 20's. Obviously its also fair to have a belief or faith that this player's dip in form is not permanent and they can get back to a previous level with a run of games/increased confidence/etc, but the point being made is that we should be wary when it comes to signing someone like this and paying over the odds in either fee or wages in order to get them.

 

Hence why this transfer policy of not overpaying for players with a considerably bigger reputation than performances in recent years seems sound, if it does exist. Maybe it doesnt as Dave is suggesting.

 

I just think that it's a bit harsh to say they had all "shown themselves to be nowhere near the player they a few seasons before". Owen was treated badly at Madrid, scored more goals than he got starts and was really unfortunate. Certainly didn't look to be off the boil at all. Duff had a disappointing season the one before joining us but the year prior was quality. Admittedly Emre seemed a gamble but £3.8m was not exactly a huge gamble. Now, i'm not trying to say i agree with transfer policy past / current, i am saying though that I think the example used, especially Duff / Owen, is a bad one - we all wanted these players when they signed, it can't now be used as a stick to beat the previous regime with, especially when there are other far better examples!

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Can we keep this to a thread on Coloccini

 

Start a new thread ' Buying players at their peak. What is it?' - or something like that

[Pilko]

Can we keep this to a thread on Coloccini.

 

You heard the man, another 50 pages of horseshit COMING UP!

[PRL]

Can we keep this to a thread on Coloccini

 

Start a new thread ' Buying players at their peak. What is it?' - or something like that

 

Fair shout, i've been the first to bitch about an OBNB debate kicking off in every thread... Apologies

[Guest sicko2ndbest]

Can we keep this to a thread on Coloccini.

 

You heard the man, another 50 pages of horseshit COMING UP!

 

Lock the fuker. Any proper news comes up there will be a plethora of simultanious new threads

[Slugsy]

Can we keep this to a thread on Coloccini.

 

You heard the man, another 50 pages of horseshit COMING UP!

 

[Teasy]

Missing the point entirely there.

 

 

So we knew Owen would twist his knee at the world cup?

 

We knew Duff would break his foot or that he wasnt going to settle?

 

They were not signings of players 'over the hill' or past their best when we signed them. Emre never took to the premiership and Duff's form has been woeful but in neither case can that be attributed to age.

 

Owen's injury at the world cup has nothing what so ever to do with it, neither does Duff's injury, age doesn't either.  Actually that's the very reason why he missed the point so badley.  See nobody mentioned age as the reason why any of these players were past there best.  Owen had already has bad injuries before signing for us and had lost a decent amount of pace well before we signed him.  Duff had hit terrible form at Chelsea and was basically shit for a full season before we signed him.

[buzza]

Nothing new in the Spanish sports rags, same old quotes and an apt title in marca saying the deal is like a car left in nuetral, standing still, neither forward or backward...

They also said our alternative was Burdisso from Milan for 6 million.

[Guest taps01]

I reckon it will go quite for a couple of days now maybe until next week and then out of nowhere the signing will be announced.

[Ronaldo]

Nothing new in the Spanish sports rags, same old quotes and an apt title in marca saying the deal is like a car left in nuetral, standing still, neither forward or backward...

They also said our alternative was Burdisso from Milan for 6 million.

 

Inter, not to be petty

[Guest ObaStar]

Missing the point entirely there.

 

 

So we knew Owen would twist his knee at the world cup?

 

We knew Duff would break his foot or that he wasnt going to settle?

 

They were not signings of players 'over the hill' or past their best when we signed them. Emre never took to the premiership and Duff's form has been woeful but in neither case can that be attributed to age.

 

Owen's injury at the world cup has nothing what so ever to do with it, neither does Duff's injury, age doesn't either.  Actually that's the very reason why he missed the point so badley.  See nobody mentioned age as the reason why any of these players were past there best.  Owen had already has bad injuries before signing for us and had lost a decent amount of pace well before we signed him.  Duff had hit terrible form at Chelsea and was basically s*** for a full season before we signed him.

I think everyone at the time thought that Duff for 5 million was a bargain, Its tough to judge players form at a club like Chelsea where there are so many amazing players it difficult just to get into the starting team on a weekly basis. Take Malouda, in France he was the best player in the league, comes to Chelsea starts once every 3 weeks and is considered a flop. Are his best years behind him? or is he just in a rough patch because he doesn't play enough. I think if he had gone to a team like Fulham or Bolton ( Anelka) where the whole team was structured around him he would have been a great success.

[Skirge]

Has this fker got the same agent as Arshavin ?

[Tooj]

Has this fker got the same agent as Arshavin ?

 

Why can't you swear properly man?

[Skirge]

Has this fker got the same agent as Arshavin ?

 

Why can't you swear properly man?

 

Coz its just for cunts!!

[Alberto2005]

Has this fker got the same agent as Arshavin ?

 

Why can't you swear properly man?

I love it Fkin hell.. little fkers!!!!!!

[Tooj]

[Guest Magpie007]

agent has told newcastle to forget it and look elsewhere 

[SUPERTOON]

nt has told newcastle to forget it and look elsewhere 

 

who is nt?

 

If you are on about his agent then we already know

[thomas]

he means it was foretold in the new testament.

[Skeletor]

he means it was foretold in the new testament.

 

Never would have happened in the old testament.

[Tooj]

he means it was foretold in the new testament.

 

Never would have happened in the old testament.

 

Canny.

[Dave]

he means it was foretold in the new testament.

 

Never would have happened in the old testament.

 

Very good.