Transfer Policy at NUFC

[Guest Brazilianbob]

Judging by the signings we have made, I do wonder what our transfer policy is given that we have signed Williamson a centre half who had never played for his club, which was on the brink of administration, hence a knockdown transfer fee.

 

Simpson, a right full back who was out of contract in the summer so again a knock down fee.

 

Fitz Hall on loan for 6 months because QPR wanted him off their wage bill.

 

Van Aaholt, a promising left back who has only signed for a month until Enrique is fit again, and Routledge who was again a burden to QPR in terms of wages.

 

Now we have Leon Best who is also out of contract in the summer.

 

On top of that we were after Beckford who is also out of contract in the summer, and Victor Moses whose club is in administration and so was being sold for a lot less than if the club was not in administration.  Even Harewood was out of contract in the summer, and is it a coincidence that Kishanishvili returned to Blackburn and then out on loan again to Reading because he is not out of contract in the summer.

 

It seems we have targeted players from clubs in danger of, or already in, administration, namely, Portsmouth, Palace (and possibly even QPR) as well as players who are out of contract in the summer.

 

Not exactly a Bank of England outlay is it?  It is likely our outlay is only about £3m on the likes of Simpson, Routledge and Williamson, which coincidently is exactly what the club will be saving in Geremies wages over 12 months (i.e. £58000pw X 52 =£3,016,000m).

 

It seems the overriding qualification for signing players is that if their clubs are in financial difficulty, then the players are deemed good enough for NUFC. 

 

 

[Skirge]

Cheap is best thats how it works.

[LesPaul]

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~sdb/Safari-2001/Images/457%20Vultures%20kill.jpg

[Elbel1]

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong about using other clubs misfortunes to our advantage?

[matta]

[Guest toonlass]

Judging by the signings we have made, I do wonder what our transfer policy is given that we have signed Williamson a centre half who had never played for his club, which was on the brink of administration, hence a knockdown transfer fee.

 

Simpson, a right full back who was out of contract in the summer so again a knock down fee.

 

Fitz Hall on loan for 6 months because QPR wanted him off their wage bill.

 

Van Aaholt, a promising left back who has only signed for a month until Enrique is fit again, and Routledge who was again a burden to QPR in terms of wages.

 

Now we have Leon Best who is also out of contract in the summer.

 

On top of that we were after Beckford who is also out of contract in the summer, and Victor Moses whose club is in administration and so was being sold for a lot less than if the club was not in administration.  Even Harewood was out of contract in the summer, and is it a coincidence that Kishanishvili returned to Blackburn and then out on loan again to Reading because he is not out of contract in the summer.

 

It seems we have targeted players from clubs in danger of, or already in, administration, namely, Portsmouth, Palace (and possibly even QPR) as well as players who are out of contract in the summer.

 

Not exactly a Bank of England outlay is it?  It is likely our outlay is only about £3m on the likes of Simpson, Routledge and Williamson, which coincidently is exactly what the club will be saving in Geremies wages over 12 months (i.e. £58000pw X 52 =£3,016,000m).

 

It seems the overriding qualification for signing players is that if their clubs are in financial difficulty, then the players are deemed good enough for NUFC. 

 

 

 

What would you prefer? That we spunked out millions on players such as Luque and Xisco and then never played them, and end up where Pompey are now? Bollocks man. One thing Mike Ashley can be given credit for is stopping our horrendous debt getting any bigger and hemoraging cash all over the place.

[Greg]

Better than spending nowt like we did in the summer.

[The Prophet]

Yet I'd say it has still been a decent transfer window for us.

[Guest Roger Kint]

Fitz Hall on loan for 6 months because QPR wanted him off their wage bill.

 

Van Aaholt, a promising left back who has only signed for a month until Enrique is fit again, and Routledge who was again a burden to QPR in terms of wages.

 

Not exactly a Bank of England outlay is it?  It is likely our outlay is only about £3m on the likes of Simpson, Routledge and Williamson, which coincidently is exactly what the club will be saving in Geremies wages over 12 months (i.e. £58000pw X 52 =£3,016,000m).

 

You actually think we signed Hall and Routledge as a financial favour to one of the worlds richest clubs?

 

I hate to break it to you but Geremi didnt have a year left so its a worthless point

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Obviously the policy is to spend within tight limits, what are debating?

 

Don't think Man Utd, Chelsea and QPR are in that much financial difficulty BTW.

[TRon]

Nothing wrong with getting players cheaper due to their contract situation but it flies in the face of the supposed Arsenal blueprint policy which was trumpeted so loudly. My understanding of that was we would buy the best young talent not the cheapest available. At the moment it feels like we can't get the players we really want so are buying up players that are easier to get for a nominal fee.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I wish people would stop bringing up this Arsenal blueprint thing FFS. It's just a phrase, it doesn't mean we suddenly are Arsenal.

[TRon]

I wish people would stop bringing up this Arsenal blueprint thing FFS. It's just a phrase, it doesn't mean we suddenly are Arsenal.

 

Well to be fair it's me who keeps bringing it up repeatedly, it must get tiresome but still 

[Guest Brazilianbob]

Fitz Hall on loan for 6 months because QPR wanted him off their wage bill.

 

Van Aaholt, a promising left back who has only signed for a month until Enrique is fit again, and Routledge who was again a burden to QPR in terms of wages.

 

Not exactly a Bank of England outlay is it?  It is likely our outlay is only about £3m on the likes of Simpson, Routledge and Williamson, which coincidently is exactly what the club will be saving in Geremies wages over 12 months (i.e. £58000pw X 52 =£3,016,000m).

 

You actually think we signed Hall and Routledge as a financial favour to one of the worlds richest clubs?

 

I hate to break it to you but Geremi didnt have a year left so its a worthless point

 

So if you cancel your sky subscription and pay the £50 a month for the next 12 months into your savings account, its a worthless point?

 

Get real, the club have had an outlay of £3m a year for Geremi, he has now gone so the wages released  will amount to £3m a year if they stick it in the bank.  In this case it has been used to fund the purchases of Routledge, Williamson and Simpson.

[Hughesy]

More a point for next season.... but, as a general rule (and yes, there are exceptions...), I've come to the conclusion that a club like us is far better off spending smaller amount of cash of foreign players than ever splashing out big money for more 'established' players.  My theory being that if we are paying big money for a player (ie 6 million plus), if he is any good, a far bigger club than us will have bought him already.

 

Possibly not a groundbreaking theory or one that will be met with universal appreciation, but as a general rule I think it works.

 

[leazes.ender]

I see nothing wrong in building a squad built up of players who in all reality will be worth the same or more based given we've signed them for less than market value due to freedom of contract etc. If we need to sell them on because they not make the grade with us if we get promted, then they'll drop to the level we bought them from, or we might get 2 years of football out of them and money well spent.

 

We, and a lot of other clubs, need to realise the days of daft money on big-name no-output players are over. What we seem to be doing is strengthening the team / squad without any financial risk.

[JH]

More a point for next season.... but, as a general rule (and yes, there are exceptions...), I've come to the conclusion that a club like us is far better off spending smaller amount of cash of foreign players than ever splashing out big money for more 'established' players.  My theory being that if we are paying big money for a player (ie 6 million plus), if he is any good, a far bigger club than us will have bought him already.

 

Possibly not a groundbreaking theory or one that will be met with universal appreciation, but as a general rule I think it works.

 

 

Thanks Mike

[jdckelly]

so we're not overspending and putting ourselves on the brink of doom like portsmouth but still getting players in cheap and people still complain?

[madras]

Fitz Hall on loan for 6 months because QPR wanted him off their wage bill.

 

Van Aaholt, a promising left back who has only signed for a month until Enrique is fit again, and Routledge who was again a burden to QPR in terms of wages.

 

Not exactly a Bank of England outlay is it?  It is likely our outlay is only about £3m on the likes of Simpson, Routledge and Williamson, which coincidently is exactly what the club will be saving in Geremies wages over 12 months (i.e. £58000pw X 52 =£3,016,000m).

 

You actually think we signed Hall and Routledge as a financial favour to one of the worlds richest clubs?

 

I hate to break it to you but Geremi didnt have a year left so its a worthless point

how are QPR one of the worlds richest clubs ?

 

surely you aren't getting mixed up with the personal wealth of the shareholders and QPR as a company ?

[Wullie]

Seems to me like some people support the balance sheet before the football team.  Pennypinching and selling good players for money while replacing them with cheap shit is why we watch Championship football.

[Teasy]

Fitz Hall on loan for 6 months because QPR wanted him off their wage bill.

 

Van Aaholt, a promising left back who has only signed for a month until Enrique is fit again, and Routledge who was again a burden to QPR in terms of wages.

 

Not exactly a Bank of England outlay is it?  It is likely our outlay is only about £3m on the likes of Simpson, Routledge and Williamson, which coincidently is exactly what the club will be saving in Geremies wages over 12 months (i.e. £58000pw X 52 =£3,016,000m).

 

You actually think we signed Hall and Routledge as a financial favour to one of the worlds richest clubs?

 

I hate to break it to you but Geremi didnt have a year left so its a worthless point

 

So if you cancel your sky subscription and pay the £50 a month for the next 12 months into your savings account, its a worthless point?

 

Get real, the club have had an outlay of £3m a year for Geremi, he has now gone so the wages released  will amount to £3m a year if they stick it in the bank.  In this case it has been used to fund the purchases of Routledge, Williamson and Simpson.

 

How can removing Geremi from the wage bill pay for the transfer fees for these players when their wages alone will take up more then what Geremi was on.  Wish people would think before they type sometimes.

[Guest Roger Kint]

So if you cancel your sky subscription and pay the £50 a month for the next 12 months into your savings account, its a worthless point?

 

Get real, the club have had an outlay of £3m a year for Geremi, he has now gone so the wages released  will amount to £3m a year if they stick it in the bank.  In this case it has been used to fund the purchases of Routledge, Williamson and Simpson.

 

What are you on about? Geremi has 6 months contract left, we wouldnt be paying him for a full year, where is the confusion?

[JH]

Seems to me like some people support the balance sheet before the football team.  Pennypinching and selling good players for money while replacing them with cheap s*** is why we watch Championship football.

 

ONE CASH-FLOW CHART, THERE'S ONLY ONE CASH-FLOW CHART 

[Guest Roger Kint]

how are QPR one of the worlds richest clubs ?

 

surely you aren't getting mixed up with the personal wealth of the shareholders and QPR as a company ?

 

So you think the owners dont subsidise it in the slightest? My point was they have no financial worries not that they would spend £100m on players. Do you treat Chelsea/Roman separately? After all one is worth £500bn or something and the others losing money every year

[steve_69]

I just wanted us to stop signing players who had had their best years at other clubs and had no potential resale value.

I don't care if they are free or cash signings. Signing players with hunger and a desire to make a reputation for themselves is absolutely the right thing to do.

We are undoubtedly operating on a shoestring transfer budget but at least we have a budget, it's more than most of us thought we would have. So far what we've done has been very impressive:

 

Simpson looks steady

Routledge looks decent

Williamson looks solid

Van Aarnolt looks class going forward

Fitz Hall is experienced at this level and adds well needed cover

 

The only possible negative could be Leon Best, particularly after the likes of Beckford and Moses being linked, but i'll reserve judgement until he's had a few games.

 

Hat's off to Hughton and, dare I say it, Ashley and Llambias as well.