Buying to Sell

[Guest BooBoo]

This gets a mention in the Pardew thread but I think its a big enough issue to warrant its own thread.

 

The club seem focussed on buying in players who have a re-sale value, ie players we can make a profit on. I would guess the ideal model would be Bassong, bought for peanuts on small wages and contributed well, over a single season and then sold for a massive profit. The club's coffers swell but as soon as he's moved on, we're back to the start by chancing on a new cheapish player who we hope will have the same impact. Not only does that essentially give the club a treadmill existence where we're moving players in and out frequently, in order to keep the cash coming in but there's also knock on effects.

 

For us fans, its the twisted hope that our players do well but not too well as they'll almost certainly be moved on if they show quality. I really hope we see the best of Ben Arfa next year but lets be honest, if he excells he will be solid for a profit asap and we'll end up looking for another available gem. Thats not a downcast attitude, it's imply very very likely.

 

For transfer recruitment, we end up not buying players who we actually need or can fit in the team, but players who are available and can potentially yield a handsome profit. The classic example is Dan Gosling. Nobody can convince me we bought him as we needed him and envisaged him in the first XI. He was bought as he was of decent reputation (young England under 21 with a handful of decent showings in a good Everton side) and through a quirk of his contract was available for free. To an extent Ben Arfa was similar. We bought a highly talented player on the cheap(ish) as he was seriously injured and his price will never be lower. On this basis, I fully expect us to sign Ireland in the summer as due to two seasons of poor form, iffy temperement and injuries he'll be available on a low fee BUT has shown in the past that he has the talent to prove himslef capable of generating a signifcant profit if he captures his previous form of 2008/09.

 

In essence, no matter what else Ashley does and who is in the managers office, the club will continue to tread water as long as we remain focussed on the buy to sell mentality. Little attention is shown to really building the team and every attention is paid to generating more and more income. A depressing reality but its a situation that will make any sort of progress very very difficult no matter if its Keegan, Hughton or Pardew in the dugout.

 

[Mick]

I'm sure that Pardew has just said in his interview that he had final say on transfers.  I can't quote exact words but that's what he seemed to be getting at.

[Wullie]

Good post.

 

How can any manager build a team in the image he wants when the most important factor in whether we buy him or not is his contractual status? And they compare it to Arsenal? There's not a team or club in the world more structured round the manager's own ideas.

 

Gutierrez rang alarm bells at the time, another one signed because we could.

[Crumpy Gunt]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

[Guest BooBoo]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

 

Nobodys getting on a high horse, just a discussion. Can you see any long term benefits in employing this approach?

[cp40]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

 

Nobodys getting on a high horse, just a discussion. Can you see any long term benefits in employing this approach?

 

 

 

ashley moves on?

[Crumpy Gunt]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

 

Nobodys getting on a high horse, just a discussion. Can you see any long term benefits in employing this approach?

 

None whatsoever. Thats why I don't understand folk signing up to ten years of NUFC feeding the clubs we should be challenging our talent.

[henke]

I don't think its such a bad policy. For as long as anyone can remember we've thrown money at retards, and it didn't work. I'm happy to follow the "wigan" business model as long as we move on from it at the right time. We are a bigger club than wigan, our revenue and potential is such that once we learn to walk then we can have a go at running. Then the current bassongs won't be sold. I'm ok with that, even if it takes a while.

[Tooj]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

 

Nobodys getting on a high horse, just a discussion. Can you see any long term benefits in employing this approach?

 

Not really, but then again it depends if we use it as a springboard to greater success.

 

Like Spurs have done.

[Dinho lad]

Good post.

 

How can any manager build a team in the image he wants when the most important factor in whether we buy him or not is his contractual status? And they compare it to Arsenal? There's not a team or club in the world more structured round the manager's own ideas.

 

Gutierrez rang alarm bells at the time, another one signed because we could.

 

Eh? As far as I remember, most of us were just happy that we managed to do business signing a player out of the blue without the media knowing about it, for a change.

[SEMTEX]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

 

Nobodys getting on a high horse, just a discussion. Can you see any long term benefits in employing this approach?

 

Not really, but then again it depends if we use it as a springboard to greater success.

 

Like Spurs have done.

 

Aye, it's the property ladder man. You buy a fixer upper, they bang in a few goals, then you sell em on and buy a bigger fixer upper. Rinse & Repeat.

 

I don't see a problem with the theory at all. The problem is how the theory will be applied by the fat CUNT in charge.

[Matt]

Spurs cashed in on Berbatov & Carrick then invested the funds in improving the squad.

 

I can't see that happening here.

[madras]

don't most clubs do this ?

 

how often does someone pay over 10mill for a 30yr old ?

 

gosling's a poor example mind as he is the sort of player we should be in for, young, seemingly decent player, in a position we need, adaptable, potential. even when he signed i don't think he was ever seen as someone who'd go straight into the starting XI but good potential with minimal financial risk.

[midds]

I don't understand why folk are all of a sudden getting on their high horse about Ashleys buy cheap, sell expensive plan. Its been crystal clear what his intentions are for a long while now.

 

Nobodys getting on a high horse, just a discussion. Can you see any long term benefits in employing this approach?

 

Not really, but then again it depends if we use it as a springboard to greater success.

 

Like Spurs have done.

 

Yep.

 

All depends what percentage of the 'profits' we make on these players is pumped back into the team. If Ashley wants to make a success of NUFC then consistent investment in the playing side of things is essential.

[Guest BooBoo]

don't most clubs do this ?

 

how often does someone pay over 10mill for a 30yr old ?

 

gosling's a poor example mind as he is the sort of player we should be in for, young, seemingly decent player, in a position we need, adaptable, potential. even when he signed i don't think he was ever seen as someone who'd go straight into the starting XI but good potential with minimal financial risk.

 

Virtually all clubs eventually have to sell on some of their star players, but very few, if any (certainly not at the top level) base their entire transfer policy on who has good re-sale potential. Most transfer policies are guided towards which players can improve the first team and squad. Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on. The NUFC policy seems clearly that as soon as a player can possibly yield a profit they are "available". As a contrast, see how we laid down and let Liverpool take our version of Fabregas (ie the talisman who the team should be moulded around).

[Guest BooBoo]

Good post.

 

How can any manager build a team in the image he wants when the most important factor in whether we buy him or not is his contractual status? And they compare it to Arsenal? There's not a team or club in the world more structured round the manager's own ideas.

 

Gutierrez rang alarm bells at the time, another one signed because we could.

 

Eh? As far as I remember, most of us were just happy that we managed to do business signing a player out of the blue without the media knowing about it, for a change.

 

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

[BlueStar]

Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on.

 

Also see Adam, Charlie.

[madras]

don't most clubs do this ?

 

how often does someone pay over 10mill for a 30yr old ?

 

gosling's a poor example mind as he is the sort of player we should be in for, young, seemingly decent player, in a position we need, adaptable, potential. even when he signed i don't think he was ever seen as someone who'd go straight into the starting XI but good potential with minimal financial risk.

 

Virtually all clubs eventually have to sell on some of their star players, but very few, if any (certainly not at the top level) base their entire transfer policy on who has good re-sale potential. Most transfer policies are guided towards which players can improve the first team and squad. Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on. The NUFC policy seems clearly that as soon as a player can possibly yield a profit they are "available". As a contrast, see how we laid down and let Liverpool take our version of Fabregas (ie the talisman who the team should be moulded around).

i'm not so sure that is the policy and i'm not so sure the "majority" of clubs would've resisted the bid for carroll. witness darren bent getting away from the mackems.

 

 

cam you explain how it's "clear"that that is the policy ?

[Guest BooBoo]

Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on.

 

Also see Adam, Charlie.

 

Good example. N'Zogbia at Wigan is another one. Clubs with little financial muscle yet reisting bids for their star man as they realised the player was more important than the profit.

[madras]

Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on.

 

Also see Adam, Charlie.

 

Good example. N'Zogbia at Wigan is another one. Clubs with little financial muscle yet reisting bids for their star man as they realised the player was more important than the profit.

they're prioces obviously werent reached. had blackpool been offered 20mill for adam would they have knocked it back ?

[Guest BooBoo]

don't most clubs do this ?

 

how often does someone pay over 10mill for a 30yr old ?

 

gosling's a poor example mind as he is the sort of player we should be in for, young, seemingly decent player, in a position we need, adaptable, potential. even when he signed i don't think he was ever seen as someone who'd go straight into the starting XI but good potential with minimal financial risk.

 

Virtually all clubs eventually have to sell on some of their star players, but very few, if any (certainly not at the top level) base their entire transfer policy on who has good re-sale potential. Most transfer policies are guided towards which players can improve the first team and squad. Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on. The NUFC policy seems clearly that as soon as a player can possibly yield a profit they are "available". As a contrast, see how we laid down and let Liverpool take our version of Fabregas (ie the talisman who the team should be moulded around).

i'm not so sure that is the policy and i'm not so sure the "majority" of clubs would've resisted the bid for carroll. witness darren bent getting away from the mackems.

 

 

cam you explain how it's "clear"that that is the policy ?

 

 

Bent wanted to leave Sunderland though. It wasnt a case of Sunderland touting him round to rake in the cash.

 

Pardew tonight in an interview has talked about buying players with good re-sale value. Llambias has mentioned it a few times as well, including in the aftermath of Keegan resigning. The club have made no secret that this is the transfer policy.

[Guest BooBoo]

Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on.

 

Also see Adam, Charlie.

 

Good example. N'Zogbia at Wigan is another one. Clubs with little financial muscle yet reisting bids for their star man as they realised the player was more important than the profit.

they're prioces obviously werent reached. had blackpool been offered 20mill for adam would they have knocked it back ?

 

Whatever the price, a huge figure was offered for Adam which would have been a goldmine to a club like Blackpool. They turned it down, much to their credit as they realised the player was key to their survival hopes. If they sell him, it will be on terms that are suitable to the team- ie in the summer when there is ample opportunity to recruit a replacement.

[madras]

don't most clubs do this ?

 

how often does someone pay over 10mill for a 30yr old ?

 

gosling's a poor example mind as he is the sort of player we should be in for, young, seemingly decent player, in a position we need, adaptable, potential. even when he signed i don't think he was ever seen as someone who'd go straight into the starting XI but good potential with minimal financial risk.

 

Virtually all clubs eventually have to sell on some of their star players, but very few, if any (certainly not at the top level) base their entire transfer policy on who has good re-sale potential. Most transfer policies are guided towards which players can improve the first team and squad. Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on. The NUFC policy seems clearly that as soon as a player can possibly yield a profit they are "available". As a contrast, see how we laid down and let Liverpool take our version of Fabregas (ie the talisman who the team should be moulded around).

i'm not so sure that is the policy and i'm not so sure the "majority" of clubs would've resisted the bid for carroll. witness darren bent getting away from the mackems.

 

 

cam you explain how it's "clear"that that is the policy ?

 

 

Bent wanted to leave Sunderland though. It wasnt a case of Sunderland touting him round to rake in the cash.

 

Pardew tonight in an interview has talked about buying players with good re-sale value. Llambias has mentioned it a few times as well, including in the aftermath of Keegan resigning. The club have made no secret that this is the transfer policy.

how many other clubs buy players with no eye on their re-sale.....like i've said how many 30yr olds go for their playing value as opposed to a lower fee due to the resale value being low to none ?

 

 

why did andy carroll hand in a written transfer request ?

[madras]

Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on.

 

Also see Adam, Charlie.

 

Good example. N'Zogbia at Wigan is another one. Clubs with little financial muscle yet reisting bids for their star man as they realised the player was more important than the profit.

they're prioces obviously werent reached. had blackpool been offered 20mill for adam would they have knocked it back ?

 

Whatever the price, a huge figure was offered for Adam which would have been a goldmine to a club like Blackpool. They turned it down, much to their credit as they realised the player was key to their survival hopes. If they sell him, it will be on terms that are suitable to the team- ie in the summer when there is ample opportunity to recruit a replacement.

no, they just thought they could get more.....even keegan said at 35mill we had to sell and every non nufc fan i've spoke to has said their club would've done the same.

[Disco]

Even then, the majority of clubs will resist bids when they realise it will be hugely detrimental to the club- witness Arsenal's determination to hang on to Fabregas despite Barcelona's interest, willingness to pay a huge fee and the players desire to move on.

 

Also see Adam, Charlie.

 

Good example. N'Zogbia at Wigan is another one. Clubs with little financial muscle yet reisting bids for their star man as they realised the player was more important than the profit.

they're prioces obviously werent reached. had blackpool been offered 20mill for adam would they have knocked it back ?

 

To turn down what they did was pretty much the same as the total revenue they made in 2009. Arguably more impressive.