Buying to Sell

[Cronky]

According to that, Spurs spent £30million more on players than Chelsea over the last five years. Is that actually, like, true?

[alpal78]

Think the title and some of the discussion is a  bit misleading... we're not necessarily talking about buying to sell, we're talking about buying players who might have some resale value.

 

It doesn't meant the resale is the reason for the signing, it just means we're reducing the risk of signing total duds we'll never be able to shift.

 

Revolutionary.

 

That is a huge differece, not that I'd expect you to see it. The title implies (and as Otter explained in his OP) that the only criteria we use when buying players is whether we can sell them for profit regardless of whether or not they strengthen the squad/first team. That I (and most others) would have a problem with. What Ian was saying is that the resale value is one of the factors that we consider (along with other factors including the team's needs), that is a sensible policy which should be supported.

 

Whilst it is easy to speculate that Gosling, HBA fit into the first model, I would argue that the likes of Colo and Tiote (to a lesser extent) proves that we are indeed looking at what is needed by the team as one factor (although I've gone on record saying that we did very poorly in January, not because we sold Carroll but because we didn't have a replacement lined up).

 

Frankly nobody knows the thinking behind our transfer policy, we are all speculating and whether we perceive it as good or bad depends largely on our pre conceive notion of Ashley and the board. A lot will be answered in this summer. If we don't strengthen the team sigificantly come end of the next transfer window, then I will hold my hands up and join the cynics bandwagon (except that by that time, it won't be cynical anymore, but a proven fact)

[Conjo]

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

 

Would you rather have had that money or stayed up with the extra point that I'm fairly sure a player of Milner's (and/or N'Zogbia's) productivity would have earned us over a season?

 

To those mentioning Spurs sell-to-buy policy, if you suggested to Harry Redknapp that they had one, I suspect he'd laugh in your face.

 

Point is, spurs have done it and found success, so now they don't have to sell to buy anymore. Please understand.

 

You're spreading a myth. Please understand.

 

Can we please stop with this annoying myth that Spurs progressed by selling their best players. They were undoubtedly set back in their progress by the sale of Carrick despite spending ALL of the money they received PLUS another 20-odd million.

 

http://i.imgur.com/89DFY.png

 

Maybe the figures aren't completely accurate, but according to that site over the last decade Spurs net spend has been:

 

01-02 £8m

02-03 £13m

03-04 £14.2

04-05 £5m

05-06 £17.8m

06-07 £23.8m

07-08 £34.0m

08-09 £19.5m

09-10 £0.5m

10-11 £17.5m

 

Total: £153.3m

 

 

The sale of Carrick in 2006 allowed them to buy Berbatov.

In summer 2008 they sold Keane & Berbatov for a combined £51m, and bought Modric, Pavlyuchenko, Bentley, Gio and Bostock for a combined £36m. They had a slow start that season which resulted in Redknapp being hired. Redknapp bought Keane, Defoe, Palacios, Bassong, Crouch and Kaboul of note (and sold Zokora & Bent) and got them CL the following season. When in the CL, they do not have to sell players. The sale of Keane and Berbatov allowed them to push on.

 

Looking past free transfers & loans & Woodgate, they havn't bought a single player that didn't have a good chance to have same/higher re sale value since 2006 at least.

[Punk77]

Important point Conjo: Spurs has bought the correct kind of players: either you sell  with profit or you regain what you paid. Another important aspect is Spurs'  strict salary policy which has been enforced for years. And that's where they've saved some significant money imo.  You could invest a great deal  of money in buying a player free from his current club as long  you're able to get him to  to sign a modest contract. After all, a contract that is modest in British standards could be seen as quite generous for newcomers to the league.

 

It's when you start to put multiple players on heavy long-term contracts that your expenses really take off. A contract worth £70 000 a week will over 5 yrs cost the club £18.2 mill.  If only 5 players are on such contracts, the club will fork out an astounding £100 mill over that period, just on salaries. And still you haven't paid the rest. Another consequence is that when a player sign such a contract, he's immediately made unattractive for other clubs if he doesn't deliver.  As a result the club is stuck with expensive non-performers who prefer to sit on the bench for the next four seasons instead of playing regular football for another club, but for £30 000 less per week. Alternatively, the club is forced to play with these non-performers since it cannot afford to replace them with better players. Spurs did not make this mistake. We on the other hand did, and it almost eliminated the club.

[Conjo]

Agreed. 100%.

[leffe186]

Important point Conjo: Spurs has bought the correct kind of players: either you sell  with profit or you regain what you paid. Another important aspect is Spurs'  strict salary policy which has been enforced for years. And that's where they've saved some significant money imo.  You could invest a great deal  of money in buying a player free from his current club as long  you're able to get him to  to sign a modest contract. After all, a contract that is modest in British standards could be seen as quite generous for newcomers to the league.

 

It's when you start to put multiple players on heavy long-term contracts that your expenses really take off. A contract worth £70 000 a week will over 5 yrs cost the club £18.2 mill.  If only 5 players are on such contracts, the club will fork out an astounding £100 mill over that period, just on salaries. And still you haven't paid the rest. Another consequence is that when a player sign such a contract, he's immediately made unattractive for other clubs if he doesn't deliver.  As a result the club is stuck with expensive non-performers who prefer to sit on the bench for the next four seasons instead of playing regular football for another club, but for £30 000 less per week. Alternatively, the club is forced to play with these non-performers since it cannot afford to replace them with better players. Spurs did not make this mistake. We on the other hand did, and it almost eliminated the club.

 

Agreed.

 

Conjo, saying that selling Carrick allowed us to buy Berba, then selling Berba allowed us to buy Modric etc is kind of true, but only after the fact. We didn't want to sell either Carrick or Berba. We didn't buy them to sell them, we bought them because they made us better, and we could afford them.

 

It's exactly as Ian W says, the prime motivation in buying them was to make the team better - but that doesn't exist in a vacuum. When getting Carrick we were rebuilding an entire squad, so despite spending a lot of money overall we couldn't spend a lot on an individual. When getting Berbatov we were only tweaking our squad, so we had more money available, but we weren't quite at the level to spend silly money. In both cases, we were constrained by our wage structure. We could only buy players who would accept good money, but not great money. That will naturally mean you are looking at younger players (Carrick, Lennon, Huddlestone) or players from low-paying leagues who are not yet proper stars (Berbatov, Modric). That in turn will generally mean that you are going to pay a bit less in transfer fees.

 

The OP specifically talks about Newcastle though, and does ask whether you genuinely have a buy-to-sell policy irrespective of a player's worth to the team. That was clearly never the case with Spurs. We bought to improve the team, only selling if (a) it seemed that we had to (Berba, Carrick, maybe Keane) (b) the player was considered to no longer serve his purpose (Bent, Malbranque, countless others). If you want to suggest that Newcastle have a buy-to-sell policy you have to have transfers that don't fit into either of the above. I'm not absolutely sure you do.

 

Bassong can be explained by relegation, Carroll by silly money. Buying at low prices is surely simply a factor of the amount of money you have available. I think Gosling can be justified because he's young, probably on reasonable wages and if fit will improve your squad. The real test will be the next window or two. If you were really buying-to-sell then a big offer for Tiote (say 15-20M) would mean him leaving, and the money generated would go into five or six players. You can talk about silly money for Carroll and the need to rebuild your squad but Tiote, Barton, Ben Arfa and just maybe Coloccini, are the remaining players to build your team around. Selling one of them for not-silly money would speak volumes.

[oldtype]

We don't have a buy-to-sell policy.

 

Nobody has a buy-to-sell policy. In fact, nobody has any sort of daft "policy" that acts as doctrine to dictate every single transfer.

 

All transfer decisions are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the ownership and the management's determination of whether it creates a net benefit for the club or not.

 

The end.

[Dr Venkman]

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.

 

and there you have it.

[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.

 

and there you have it.

 

Have what?

[Dr Venkman]

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.

 

and there you have it.

 

Have what?

 

if being a better team isnt the point? what is?

[Colocho]

We don't have a buy-to-sell policy.

 

Nobody has a buy-to-sell policy. In fact, nobody has any sort of daft "policy" that acts as doctrine to dictate every single transfer.

 

All transfer decisions are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the ownership and the management's determination of whether it creates a net benefit for the club or not.

 

The end.

 

[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.

 

and there you have it.

 

Have what?

 

if being a better team isnt the point? what is?

 

Sigh. If you really don't get what I'm saying, it's that 'being a better team' doesn't exist in a vacuum, and isn't the point of this conversation.

 

Obviously if we only signed world-class players and never sold anyone you would always progress. But football doesn't work like that, there are many other factors.

[TherealnorthernTOON]

We don't have a buy-to-sell policy.

 

Nobody has a buy-to-sell policy. In fact, nobody has any sort of daft "policy" that acts as doctrine to dictate every single transfer.

 

All transfer decisions are made on a case-by-case basis depending on the ownership and the management's determination of whether it creates a net benefit for the club or not.

 

The end.

 

I refuse to belive this, there must be a bigger plot behind the scenes then this case by case theory..

[Mr Logic]

 

Frankly nobody knows the thinking behind our transfer policy, we are all speculating and whether we perceive it as good or bad depends largely on our pre conceive notion of Ashley and the board. A lot will be answered in this summer. If we don't strengthen the team sigificantly come end of the next transfer window, then I will hold my hands up and join the cynics bandwagon (except that by that time, it won't be cynical anymore, but a proven fact)

 

[womblemaster]

i assume the figs in that table inc the carroll sale?  Makes em a bit warped tbh

[UV]

i assume the figs in that table inc the carroll sale?  Makes em a bit warped tbh

Even without the Carroll sale, only Arsenal & Portsmouth would have "done better" than us. 

 

That 5 year period also includes an £8m net spend pre-Ashley in 06-07, so it's more like a £56m net income from transfers under Ashley tbh (disclaimer: I haven't checked the figures are correct).

[Dan Gleebals]

Buying any asset that appreciates is good business.

 

In the past we bought players who had no appreciation value what so ever, where over priced and depreciated like a stone falling in water.

 

Whether or not you sell your assets is another argument all together.  A balance of building a team and balancing the books is ideal.

 

Can Dezzer and co achieve this, I think not, sadly.