Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Very interesting read indeed. Still hate the idea of 'every player being for sale'. Think we should keep together the squad this summer, go for one or two new players and try to improve next season again. I think it's more a case of "every player has a price" rather than actively being for sale. If someone comes in with £20m for Tiote for example, that would be hard for any club in the world to reject, nevermind Newcastle. I doubt he'd be allowed to go for what would be considered "market value". http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n203/Chriswok/MikeDibiAshley.png Mike DibiAshley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveItIfWeBeatU Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Still hate the idea of 'every player being for sale'. Think we should keep together the squad this summer, go for one or two new players and try to improve next season again. I'm sure keeping the squad together and adding a couple of new players is the plan. Having said that, every player has a price even if they aren't officially for sale. Man U sold Ronaldo for example. I'm sure if Barcelona received a truely insane offer for Messi they'd sell him. At least with Mike Ashley telling Pardew he is a "difficult seller" we know if we do sell a team member we'll be getting over the odds for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 There's a lot of emotion involved when it comes to valuing players, and it sounds like the system they have is designed to minimise that. Players can become crowd favourites or people panic at the thought of making a change, and then decent players become elevated to the rank of irreplaceable. There can't be anything wrong with the principle of selling an over-priced player and replacing him with someone cheaper and better (or at least equal) Naturally there's an element of risk but you have to see these decisions as opportunities to progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Best read about the non-football side in a long time. I especially like the carbon emissions bit. I wonder if we do have the replacements replacement for every position though and how much weaker some would be with that replacement in place. I know that year on year we can make money and potentiall go forward that way but there will be definitely come a time when a player doesn't work for whatever reason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Very interesting read indeed. Still hate the idea of 'every player being for sale'. Think we should keep together the squad this summer, go for one or two new players and try to improve next season again. I think it's more a case of "every player has a price" rather than actively being for sale. If someone comes in with £20m for Tiote for example, that would be hard for any club in the world to reject, nevermind Newcastle. I doubt he'd be allowed to go for what would be considered "market value". Dead right. My house isn't for sale but if someone wants to offer me wacky money for it and finance a suitable replacement, it's theirs. The article does to some extent sum up Ashley's way of working. He is a chancer, but a chancer with an excellent track record due to the calculating manner in which he operates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 There's a lot of emotion involved when it comes to valuing players, and it sounds like the system they have is designed to minimise that. Players can become crowd favourites or people panic at the thought of making a change, and then decent players become elevated to the rank of irreplaceable. There can't be anything wrong with the principle of selling an over-priced player and replacing him with someone cheaper and better (or at least equal) Naturally there's an element of risk but you have to see these decisions as opportunities to progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huss9 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 its how spurs got to where they are Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 With the exception of the team bonuses agreed with the squad at the start of the season, Llambias rarely commits to incentives in individual players' contracts. The strikeforce do not have a bonus for scoring or assisting in goals This bit I find hard to believe, especially concerning Demba Ba's contract, which is rumoured to be heavily incentivised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 its how spurs got to where they are Really? Spurs have sold for good prices (Carrick, Berbatov), but they are also near the top of the net transfer investment charts. For more info: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 its how spurs got to where they are Really? Spurs have sold for good prices (Carrick, Berbatov), but they are also near the top of the net transfer investment charts. For more info: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ I think you're missing the point, Spurs only spend what they can afford. That they have done very well in the last 10-years in maximising their off-field revenue which allows them to afford to 'invest' in the relatively high player turnover that they've had in the past 5 years, going from a mid-table 'cup team' to a Champs League challenger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 With the exception of the team bonuses agreed with the squad at the start of the season, Llambias rarely commits to incentives in individual players' contracts. The strikeforce do not have a bonus for scoring or assisting in goals This bit I find hard to believe, especially concerning Demba Ba's contract, which is rumoured to be heavily incentivised. Appearances, I would have thought, given his injury scares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pi_D Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 There's a lot of emotion involved when it comes to valuing players, and it sounds like the system they have is designed to minimise that. Players can become crowd favourites or people panic at the thought of making a change, and then decent players become elevated to the rank of irreplaceable. There can't be anything wrong with the principle of selling an over-priced player and replacing him with someone cheaper and better (or at least equal) Naturally there's an element of risk but you have to see these decisions as opportunities to progress. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 its how spurs got to where they are Really? Spurs have sold for good prices (Carrick, Berbatov), but they are also near the top of the net transfer investment charts. For more info: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ I think you're missing the point, Spurs only spend what they can afford. That they have done very well in the last 10-years in maximising their off-field revenue which allows them to afford to 'invest' in the relatively high player turnover that they've had in the past 5 years, going from a mid-table 'cup team' to a Champs League challenger. So why am I missing the point? The suggestion was Spurs got to where they are by buying low and selling high, whilst gradually trying to improve the squad (like we are trying to do now). This is not the case, as that link suggests: Spurs have a net transfer spend of over 110 million in the last 8 years, which puts them fourth only behind Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool. I don't know if they are spending beyond their means or not: their turnover is certainly much higher than ours (almost double), so they must be doing something right, especially in the commercial revenue area. Anyway, to suggest Spurs got to where they are (regular CL contenders) by developing the squad through not spending more on incoming players than they got in from transfer fees for outgoing players and simply selling high and buying low is a myth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Best read about the non-football side in a long time. I especially like the carbon emissions bit. I wonder if we do have the replacements replacement for every position though and how much weaker some would be with that replacement in place. I know that year on year we can make money and potentiall go forward that way but there will be definitely come a time when a player doesn't work for whatever reason Undoubtedly true. But there are also players that cost millions who also don't work for whatever reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'd like to see us repeat this season's progression next year (and no, before anyone attributes the deluded/unrealistic tag that doesn't mean I 'expect' us to challenge for Champions League spots) before attributing it all to the club's current policies. We need to be competing for European spots again, and we now have the basis to do so, on and off the pitch. Things are looking very promising, but I'm still concerned that it's only good fortune that has seen us able to cope all season with very little cover in several positions, and pretty much every signing being a runaway success almost from day one. If key players are sold in the summer, that only creates more pressure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 PS: that certainly doesn't mean I think all parties shouldn't be praised to the hilt for this season. It's been brilliant, and apart from the stadium naming saga (which I feel strongly about) I can't think of many complaints I'd have. I'm just wary of declaring the philosophies and club structure a fantastic blueprint without a little more evidence that it can provide results in the long term. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'm not sure I'd agree with the assessment that new players have settled in quickly. They have settled in to a level that makes them better players than most, but I don't think any of them have peaked yet, and one player having a bad game is often covered by a team mate having a good game. Cabaye has been hot and cold all season. Santon hasn't really established himself. Marveaux hasn't had much to show for himself. Ba and Cisse have been fantastic, but I reckon both are still improving, particularly with their all round game. Also you may as well consider Ben Arfa who is only just showing his best. So we have six players who are only going to improve next year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 its how spurs got to where they are Really? Spurs have sold for good prices (Carrick, Berbatov), but they are also near the top of the net transfer investment charts. For more info: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/ I think you're missing the point, Spurs only spend what they can afford. That they have done very well in the last 10-years in maximising their off-field revenue which allows them to afford to 'invest' in the relatively high player turnover that they've had in the past 5 years, going from a mid-table 'cup team' to a Champs League challenger. So why am I missing the point? The suggestion was Spurs got to where they are by buying low and selling high, whilst gradually trying to improve the squad (like we are trying to do now). This is not the case, as that link suggests: Spurs have a net transfer spend of over 110 million in the last 8 years, which puts them fourth only behind Chelsea, Man City and Liverpool. I don't know if they are spending beyond their means or not: their turnover is certainly much higher than ours (almost double), so they must be doing something right, especially in the commercial revenue area. Anyway, to suggest Spurs got to where they are (regular CL contenders) by developing the squad through not spending more on incoming players than they got in from transfer fees for outgoing players and simply selling high and buying low is a myth. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FOIrYyQawGI/TC0thVs0DoI/AAAAAAAAC3w/AfRWy2zTqPo/s1600/StrawMan.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 If we can finish around 7th next season with a good run in Europe then that would be a big indication that we're back for a while yet. Only issue we'll have, is that if Chelsea and Liverpool do get their acts together, will the likes of Cabaye and Ben Arfa be satisfied with that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'd like to see us repeat this season's progression next year (and no, before anyone attributes the deluded/unrealistic tag that doesn't mean I 'expect' us to challenge for Champions League spots) before attributing it all to the club's current policies. We need to be competing for European spots again, and we now have the basis to do so, on and off the pitch. Things are looking very promising, but I'm still concerned that it's only good fortune that has seen us able to cope all season with very little cover in several positions, and pretty much every signing being a runaway success almost from day one. If key players are sold in the summer, that only creates more pressure. Marveuax Obertan Santon vs Ba Cisse Cabaye (who I think has a lot more to offer) It's more down to Pardew getting the most out of past signings - Taylor (both), Perch, Guthrie - than the new signings being instant hits. Regardless, it's promising Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 If we can finish around 7th next season with a good run in Europe then that would be a big indication that we're back for a while yet. Only issue we'll have, is that if Chelsea and Liverpool do get their acts together, will the likes of Cabaye and Ben Arfa be satisfied with that? Can they afford to? I know LFC have signed some impressive commercial deals but they've also spent heavily on a squad that hasn't worked all that well (or at least not provided value for money to date). Chelsea will put-put along with the 'older group' of players, but how do they afford their replacements without Abramovich's money and CL revenue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'd like to see us repeat this season's progression next year (and no, before anyone attributes the deluded/unrealistic tag that doesn't mean I 'expect' us to challenge for Champions League spots) before attributing it all to the club's current policies. We need to be competing for European spots again, and we now have the basis to do so, on and off the pitch. Things are looking very promising, but I'm still concerned that it's only good fortune that has seen us able to cope all season with very little cover in several positions, and pretty much every signing being a runaway success almost from day one. If key players are sold in the summer, that only creates more pressure. It's already more than one season, though. Tiote, Perch, Williamson, Best and Ben Arfa (on loan) had all arrived before the start of last season as a result of our current policies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 That's true, but we finished 12th last year and replaced the manager nearly halfway through. This season we've exceeded all expectations to be in pole position to finish 6th so near to the end of the season. Can it be repeated? Can we expect it to be repeated even if replacements for Tiote and Ba are required? If these policies are as good as we all hope and the club clearly like to make out in pieces such as the one today, then the answer is yes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 That's true, but we finished 12th last year and replaced the manager nearly halfway through. This season we've exceeded all expectations to be in pole position to finish 6th so near to the end of the season. Can it be repeated? Can we expect it to be repeated if replacements for Tiote and Ba are required? If these policies are as good as we all hope and the club clearly like to make out in pieces such as the one today, then the answer is yes. I suppose we'll find out. I reckon that our business plan does involve moving some players on at the peak of their value, and then putting some of that money back into wages etc -- the long-term deals for Colo, Krul and, er, whoever the third one was, seem to have been financed by the Carroll sale. I'm encouraged, though, by reports that we make a policy of identifying replacements for everyone, just in case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts