Buying to Sell

[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 ?

 

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

how much was it ? how much were they holding out for as the deal seemed on at one point and time pulled the plug ?

[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.

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 ?

 

All clubs have to be financially sensible and to an extent protect their assets. My point is that the club are recruiting players with the main criteria not being "how will this player fit into our side" but "how much potential profit can we make on this player". Its a good way to run a business, but not a successful football team. We are directly targetting players who are in the remaining months/year of their contract so we can pick them up on the cheap- Jonas, Gosling or have special circumsatnces that renders their price deflated- Ben Arfa, Ireland.

 

As for Carroll; the club made it clear to him that they wanted to cash in and stated they wouldnt give him an improved contract. To try and save face, they very likely forced Carroll into putting in a transfer request to make him look like the bad guy  in the whole saga.

[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.

 

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

 

No.

[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 ?

 

All clubs have to be financially sensible and to an extent protect their assets. My point is that the club are recruiting players with the main criteria not being "how will this player fit into our side" but "how much potential profit can we make on this player". Its a good way to run a business, but not a successful football team. We are directly targetting players who are in the remaining months/year of their contract so we can pick them up on the cheap- Jonas, Gosling or have special circumsatnces that renders their price deflated- Ben Arfa, Ireland.

 

As for Carroll; the club made it clear to him that they wanted to cash in and stated they wouldnt give him an improved contract. To try and save face, they very likely forced Carroll into putting in a transfer request to make him look like the bad guy  in the whole saga.

good grief man, they forced him into it costing him 3mill or so......give over. he had them over a barrel and wanted out cos they wouldn't give him a new contract 3 months after the last one. (which apparently would make him the clubs top earner...80k if the rumours are true)

 

 

which players have we bought in na position we didn't need purely to re-sell and make a profit ?

[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.

how much was it ? how much were they holding out for as the deal seemed on at one point and time pulled the plug ?

 

£8m or so wasn't it?

[Ketsbaia]

Spurs, Lyon and Sevilla have done alright with this policy. It can definitely be done successfully, although people are right to doubt whether we can do it well.

[Teasy]

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.

 

Our coffers didn't swell through Bassong, he was sold to minimise the losses we were going to take from relegation.  There's nothing to say we would have sold him had we stayed up.  People will talk about Carroll as evidence of that, but the fact is we received an absolutely insane offer for Carroll.  We're trying to buy players who we believe are great value for money, I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[Teasy]

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.

how much was it ? how much were they holding out for as the deal seemed on at one point and time pulled the plug ?

 

£8m or so wasn't it?

 

The revenue they made in 2009 isn't relevant though, there expected revenue in the Premiership this season will be at least £40m.

[Guest BooBoo]

Of course it's guess work but even if we'd stayed up that season, I can't envisage Ashley turning down a chance to make an £8million profit on Bassong.

[Teasy]

Of course it's guess work but even if we'd stayed up that season, I can't envisage Ashley turning down a chance to make an £8million profit on Bassong.

 

We might still have sold him or we might not, in a decent financial state £8m wouldn't have seemed so attractive.  If we had sold him we may then have been able to spend that money because it wouldn't have been needed to cover losses.  We really don't know what would have happened which makes it pretty hard to discuss properly.

 

Over the next few years, if we stay up every year, I think it'll then be much easier to see exactly what the clubs policy is.

[Zero]

Otter, the first thing we have to do in order to earn a profit is to make the players shine.  They have to be productive, contribute a lot to our success and let others know they may worth to make an insane bid.  If the offer is not insane, we can still have an option to keep the players. Thus the players must fit into our plan right in the beginning. Looking for players with resale value is not contradictory to looking for players that can improve our squad.  It just makes the job even harder for our scouts - but that's what they should do for a long long time.

 

Carroll is the best example of how the plan works. For the sum of 35m very few people will question Ashley why.  And to make things easier, Carroll has asked for a ridiculous contract / made a transfer request. We did not need to set-up Carroll in ALL our game play in our first half of the season.  Yes it works, but is it necessary to do so?  We don't know, but we performed "ok" after the sale of Carroll which makes me wonder what would happen if we play a more balanced system right in the beginning.  But if we didn't purposely make him shine, singing praise, new No.9, new Shearer, new England centre forward, Euro 2012 starter...etcetc...how on the earth would Liverpool make a 35m offer?

 

Another example for you, Julio Baptista.

 

I am not saying this plan will work for us because it hugely depends on whether the profit will be reinvested and whether our manager is good enough to handle the high turnover of key players.  But if we aren't getting an Abramovich, this is the only way we can financially recover and back to the business. 

[James]

At least with this policy players have to keep performing to move on. I think we've had a problem of players coming here, thinking they've reached the top and get complacent and this was certainly a factor in our decline and relegation.

 

It probably wont bring much success beyond the UEFA Cup but at least we'd be stable if we keep the cycle going.

[Matt]

This theory is all wonderful, but the test of the club's mettle is when we have a deficiency in the squad, but there is no obvious 'bargain' replacement- or we find ourselves in a position where we need that bit of experience. Do we simply limp along or actually act to improve the quality of the squad?

[Cronky]

It often seems to come down to whether you think that Ashley sees the club only as a business opportunity, or whether you think his motivation is more complex.

 

Just because the financial angle is important to him doesn't mean that it's his  only consideration.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Ashley has made no money from his association from NUFC, and most likely never will.

 

So any discussion of transfer policy can't be had based on whether it will benefit Mike Ashley financially, because it won't except possibly by reducing the amount he needs to subsidise us by. I think the "NUFC as a business opportunity" is a bit misleading in that respect. I still think Ashley bought NUFC just for something to do on a weekend.

 

I don't see how signing players with resale value can be anything other than positive. It's definitely preferable to signing players past their peak and who will only decline to worthlessness while collecting massive wages.

 

The real issue is whether we buy players solely because they have resale value or if it's just one criteria we use to select players for real needs that we've already identified.

 

I don't think buying players to sell for profit is one of our objectives, it's just that Ashley is treating NUFC more like a business in buying assets that have long-term value.

[Colocho]

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?

 

Or gives him more of a reason to stay.

 

Some really great discussion in this thread lads, what a read.

[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?

 

 

 

ashley moves on?

 

Or gives him more of a reason to stay.

 

Some really great discussion in this thread lads, what a read.

Of course he'll stay if he can continually turn investments of £0m to £5m into £8m to £10m profit he'll just produce a conveyor belt of players sold for profit. Trouble is that NUFC ssupporters will be paying £500+ every season to watch nothing more than a talent drain. We'll have no real opportunity to break the top 8 because it'll be those Clubs that are asset stripping our team.

[Colocho]

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?

 

Or gives him more of a reason to stay.

 

Some really great discussion in this thread lads, what a read.

Of course he'll stay if he can continually turn investments of £0m to £5m into £8m to £10m profit he'll just produce a conveyor belt of players sold for profit. Trouble is that NUFC ssupporters will be paying £500+ every season to watch nothing more than a talent drain. We'll have no real opportunity to break the top 8 because it'll be those Clubs that are asset stripping our team.

 

My concerns exactly. Call it pessimism, but in my opinion it's the reality we now face.

[BottledDog]

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?

 

Or gives him more of a reason to stay.

 

Some really great discussion in this thread lads, what a read.

Of course he'll stay if he can continually turn investments of £0m to £5m into £8m to £10m profit he'll just produce a conveyor belt of players sold for profit. Trouble is that NUFC ssupporters will be paying £500+ every season to watch nothing more than a talent drain. We'll have no real opportunity to break the top 8 because it'll be those Clubs that are asset stripping our team.

 

My concerns exactly. Call it pessimism, but in my opinion it's the reality we now face.

 

If we turn players who cost nothing into £8m to £10m profit continually, the club will be making some unbelievably impressive buys, be employing a mightily impressive coaching staff, and providing a great enviroment on the pich to allow talent to shine, while being successful enough to attract the next bunch of recruits.

 

Call me optimistic, but if that's the reality we now face, then I'm not concerned at all. I'd be delighted.

 

 

/My opinions on this though are more in line with IanW's a few posts back for the record. The asset stripping arguement is utterly unsustainable which conflicts directly with the policy Ashey is apparently trying to lay down for the club.

[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?

 

 

 

ashley moves on?

 

Or gives him more of a reason to stay.

 

Some really great discussion in this thread lads, what a read.

Of course he'll stay if he can continually turn investments of £0m to £5m into £8m to £10m profit he'll just produce a conveyor belt of players sold for profit. Trouble is that NUFC ssupporters will be paying £500+ every season to watch nothing more than a talent drain. We'll have no real opportunity to break the top 8 because it'll be those Clubs that are asset stripping our team.

 

My concerns exactly. Call it pessimism, but in my opinion it's the reality we now face.

 

If we turn players who cost nothing into £8m to £10m profit continually, the club will be making some unbelievably impressive buys, be employing a mightily impressive coaching staff, and providing a great enviroment on the pich to allow talent to shine, while being successful enough to attract the next bunch of recruits.

 

Call me optimistic, but if that's the reality we now face, then I'm not concerned at all. I'd be delighted.

 

 

/My opinions on this though are more in line with IanW's a few posts back for the record. The asset stripping arguement is utterly unsustainable which conflicts directly with the policy Ashey is apparently trying to lay down for the club.

Carroll, Milner and Bassong all realised an instant profit and where immediately sold. Tell me NUFC would not be a better Club with all three stil in B&W shirt. If it isn't the fact they were sold its the timing that is the killer as none have been replaced in the same window. Pity for those backing the Club that any player who prove his wrth will undoubtedly go on to realise his ambitions at ......not NUFC. Who's the losers?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Bassong we were relegated and Milner was an unbelievable sale for the money we got. He's average, not world class.

[Crumpy Gunt]

Bassong we were relegated and Milner was an unbelievable sale for the money we got. He's average, not world class.

 

Would we be a better team/squad with or without those players?

 

 

Where will HBA be playing season after next if he realises his potential and puts himself in the shop window?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Bassong we were relegated and Milner was an unbelievable sale for the money we got. He's average, not world class.

 

Would we be a better team/squad with or without those players?

 

Where will HBA be playing season after next if he realises his potential and puts himself in the shop window?

 

Well we would be better, but that's not really the point. Sometimes you either can't keep a player or at the time it seems like a good move to sell them.

[Stu]

Bassong we were relegated and Milner was an unbelievable sale for the money we got. He's average, not world class.

 

Would we be a better team/squad with or without those players?

 

 

Where will HBA be playing season after next if he realises his potential and puts himself in the shop window?

 

At the time he was sold, did we have a better squad with or without Andy Cole?

[BottledDog]

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?

 

Or gives him more of a reason to stay.

 

Some really great discussion in this thread lads, what a read.

Of course he'll stay if he can continually turn investments of £0m to £5m into £8m to £10m profit he'll just produce a conveyor belt of players sold for profit. Trouble is that NUFC ssupporters will be paying £500+ every season to watch nothing more than a talent drain. We'll have no real opportunity to break the top 8 because it'll be those Clubs that are asset stripping our team.

 

My concerns exactly. Call it pessimism, but in my opinion it's the reality we now face.

 

If we turn players who cost nothing into £8m to £10m profit continually, the club will be making some unbelievably impressive buys, be employing a mightily impressive coaching staff, and providing a great enviroment on the pich to allow talent to shine, while being successful enough to attract the next bunch of recruits.

 

Call me optimistic, but if that's the reality we now face, then I'm not concerned at all. I'd be delighted.

 

 

/My opinions on this though are more in line with IanW's a few posts back for the record. The asset stripping arguement is utterly unsustainable which conflicts directly with the policy Ashey is apparently trying to lay down for the club.

Carroll, Milner and Basong all realised an instant profit and where immediately sold. Tell me NUFC would not be a better Club with all three stil in B&W shirt. If it isn't the fact they were sold its the timing that is the killer as none have been replaced in the same window.

 

Not too bothered about the other two but still massively smarting over Carroll as he is a bit of a one off and it's likely whoever comes in won't make up for that for me sadly. I'm not going to argue that the club will cash in if big offers come in, that's the reality financially at the moment. But we're still not making money from the likes of Milner and Bassong, just stemming losses, and long term we'll never be able to keep producing wunderkids if we keep selling them off an continually flirt with relegation.

 

The club should have the nous to see that, and I'm willing to see how we do this summer in showing a willingness to keep hold of players and invest in the team if we stay up before getting edgy over a policy of buying players whoes values should increase enough to make a profit. It is a fundamentally welcome policy that all clubs surely aim for, especially if we get to a point like Tottenham where we can see that profit realised long term on the pitch rather that have to always sell to 'bigger' clubs.