Luuk de Jong signs for PSV

[Kanj]

Its the businessman in him, no flexiblity to adapt to a different market. Of course employing someone who knows the football business would solve this.......and this t*** picks JFK

 

dear god, the man is business savvy but by christ that was one mad decision.

 

Is the problem the Business Man in Ashley, or the Fan in us?  Paying whatever it takes to get a signing is Shepardesque or Sunderlandesque.  Getting held to ransom by other clubs simply raises the amount we pay, and decreases our ability to buy players with the ability we need.  Of course, there are exceptions to be made, but not every player is that exception.

 

Theres a 20 mile gap between those two scenarios, surely you can see it?

 

I do see it......but I also see it as a gray area (not black or white) and the question about where black turns to white is somewhere in the gray area.

 

What I hope is that the club do make some exceptions where they see true value.......and then hold firm on some of the others which are a bit more "Meh" such as perhaps Gomis.  I think this is happening (but we just don't see the wheels churning).

 

I do believe that we are more on the side of "opportunistic" and "value driven" than the "just pay a bit more to get the player signed".

 

We've been holding firm for a bit too long now. All of our transfers are "good deals" in terms of money spent to bring them in but we've no doubt missed on better talent b/c we've not wanted to pay the going-rate. Many transfer fees these days are relative to what you want to achieve IMO and then there are of course the ones that people will say are over priced....

[KaKa]

Think this will happen.

 

Wouldn't be surprised it was tied into Jonas going out on loan, in order to cover Luuk's salary, and loan fee.

 

Cheapskates!

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Is he any good?

[KaKa]

It doesn't matter how good he is.

 

The question is, whether Pardew will deem him worthy of his intricate genius defensive scheme.

[TRon]

Ashley is really going to town on the loan deals, it does smack of someone who is hoping to sell up sometime soon.

[tmonkey]

I realize our transfer policy is tremendously frustrating, and we've had some horrendous windows where serious gaps haven't been addressed leaving us seriously short in areas,, missed out on good players because of a million or two, etc etc, but I genuinely think our transfer policy is bang on for the current climate and for a club our size operating without CL funds (or owner backed transfer funds, aka "cheating"), and probably the only positive of Ashley's reign as owner. Value a player who is at the right age and stage in their career (i.e. looking to step up, not down), who wants reasonable wages, attempt to sign that player within our valuation, if the selling club then starts a bidding war or refuses to budge from their bloated valuation or starts moving the goalposts in an attempt to delay things, we move on to other targets. We can't attract those talented players who look certain to be superstars because the elites always get to them first, we don't want to go back down the Shepherd route of signing CL rejects for big fees and/or big wages, and we don't want to be drawn into bidding wars instigated by clubs who don't really want to sell their prized assets in the hope that a Man City or PSG decides to offer them a windfall for that player. The market we're in is very much attempting to find "hidden" talent that isn't obvious, players who've gone under the radar, but that inherently means we'll be looking at players where it's difficult to tell if they're actually worth their asking price - flawed talent if you will.

 

Whilst on the surface the "our valuation or no deal" policy may seem one that results in us eventually signing inferior players because we go from preferred option 1 on the list to alternative bargain basement options 3/4/5, I think the policy works because at its premise is one fundamental principle that has always been the case in this sport imo given how big and widespread it is - that is, that there's "plenty more fish in the sea". There are a shitload of talented players who we don't know much about out there, ones who've been overlooked by the elite clubs. If we can scout them well and know who those talented players are (as Mr Carr seems to be doing wonderfully) then this transfer policy is spot on because it's then becomes reasonable to have lists where anyone from option 1 to option 10 could turn out to be a gem signed for peanuts (as many of our signings have been). Sometimes it will work out, sometimes it won't. And going back to the pre-Ashley periods, where would Sir Bobby's team have been if we had signed Zenden and Jeffers (preferred options) instead of Robert and Bellamy (backup choices)? Or alternatively, who would we have signed if we had missed out on preferred option Jean Alain Boumsong? Distin?

 

Luuk de Jong has, by all accounts, been shit since his move to Germany. I've never seen him play, but he could very well be overrated because of how week the Dutch league is, which is where he's made his name, and looking at his stats he's only had one season where he's hit 20+ in Holland, though that might mean little depending on the type of player he is. But the point here is that if we think he's worth £6m and no more, and Borussia decide he's worth alot more than that, or start to try to squeeze more money out of us despite him being worthless to them at present, then yes, we should move on and see where our next option lies, even if that means waiting until the summer. Whilst that might mean missing out on de Jong who then goes on to be a world beater, the alternative options might be better, and that's the benefit of our transfer policy and setup.

 

The real issue for me is that we don't have the manager who can make best use of what we currently have, and is creating these issues where signing player X is of paramount importance purely because of his refusal (and inability) to use what we do have appropriately. Last summer this manager's complaint was that we didn't have enough 6 foot 3 players. Thank fuck we have the policy we have, otherwise it's anyone's guess as to how badly we'd be struggling right now if we had decided to match West Ham's offer of £15m for Andy Carroll (possibly meaning no room in the budget for Remy).

[Ikon]

Too much text..

[Ste]

He's out of favour there and he wants away, I think a loan deal is a good move for both parties as he may regain form here and we aren't quite willing to pay out the money upfront for a striker struggling in a new league.

 

I don't think he is suddenly half the player he was when they signed him, so £6m might be low for what they're after but he isn't playing. I think they have to be a bit realistic.

 

If we know him to be a good player then we should bend our transfer policy a little but we will undoubtably stick to our guns until the player forces it further.

[NewJerseyMag]

Ashley is really going to town on the loan deals, it does smack of someone who is hoping to sell up sometime soon.

 

I don't quite get it either, unless all the deals have a loan-to-buy clause. A few years back we were told loan deals were bad value.

 

In the case of Remy, I hope there is a buy clause.

[Skeletor]

Ashley is really going to town on the loan deals, it does smack of someone who is hoping to sell up sometime soon.

 

I don't quite get it either, unless all the deals have a loan-to-buy clause. A few years back we were told loan deals were bad value.

 

In the case of Remy, I hope there is a buy clause.

 

Llambias: 'No value in loans'

Kinnear: 'LOAN ALL THE SIGNINGS (ONE PER YEAR)'

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Hmmm maybe that thinking has been revised. Do we know what percentage of wages we are paying for loanees? May work out cheaper to pay loan fee and reduced wages.

[Unbelievable]

Ashley is really going to town on the loan deals, it does smack of someone who is hoping to sell up sometime soon.

 

I don't quite get it either, unless all the deals have a loan-to-buy clause. A few years back we were told loan deals were bad value.

 

In the case of Remy, I hope there is a buy clause.

 

Even if we have agreed a transfer fee during the loan period it doesn't mean we can sign the player if we want him, as we still need the player to actually want to sign for us. In that sence, if a player performs well during his loan period it may well decrease the chances of signing him permanently, as that player may come in higher demand and we certainly wouldn't be willing to offer competitive wages if that were to happen. In general, I am not a fan of loaning players, unless in specific situations like when you need an experienced back up player in the squad and you don't want to actually shell out a transfer fee with little possibility of ever recouping that investment.

[NewJerseyMag]

Hmmm maybe that thinking has been revised. Do we know what percentage of wages we are paying for loanees? May work out cheaper to pay loan fee and reduced wages.

 

Revised? Just a bit. Its seems mainly to be strikers (the most expensive) so it has to be down to $$$.

[Theregulars]

Is he any good?

 

I would submit, based on never having watched him, that he is an upgrade on Shola.

[NewJerseyMag]

Is he any good?

 

I would submit, based on never having watched him, that he is an upgrade on Shola.

 

Poor man's Jason Prior tbh.

[arnonel]

Graham Carr + Dortmund Scouts = Win

[Unbelievable]

Graham Carr + Dortmund Scouts + Mike Ashley as owner = Win f*** all investment

 

FYP

[Mattoon]

Not seen the guy to form an opinion, however as long as Carr is choosing the players I have absolute faith in them being able to cut it. What I don't have is the faith that form can be maintained by our current coaching setup!

[KaKa]

tmonkey ... wow. 

 

So much text!

[joeyt]

We've gone from a year ago Ashley not doing loan deals to only doing loan deals

[Mattoon]

Tmonkey (not quoting your essay) I completely agree with you, I don't trust Pardew to utilise the players at his disposal, there's fans without any coachin badges that can see the flaws in his tactics and team selection!

 

I also agree that our transfer policy, on paper, is ideal, however the major flaw is that more often than not once we've lost grip on that number 1 target and after all the transfer tennis we more often than not come away with nothing but a bloody nose. I'd rather us not be held to random, but I'd rather us also fill the gaping voids in our team required to make progress.

[Stuy_O]

I realize our transfer policy is tremendously frustrating, and we've had some horrendous windows where serious gaps haven't been addressed leaving us seriously short in areas,, missed out on good players because of a million or two, etc etc, but I genuinely think our transfer policy is bang on for the current climate and for a club our size operating without CL funds (or owner backed transfer funds, aka "cheating"), and probably the only positive of Ashley's reign as owner. Value a player who is at the right age and stage in their career (i.e. looking to step up, not down), who wants reasonable wages, attempt to sign that player within our valuation, if the selling club then starts a bidding war or refuses to budge from their bloated valuation or starts moving the goalposts in an attempt to delay things, we move on to other targets. We can't attract those talented players who look certain to be superstars because the elites always get to them first, we don't want to go back down the Shepherd route of signing CL rejects for big fees and/or big wages, and we don't want to be drawn into bidding wars instigated by clubs who don't really want to sell their prized assets in the hope that a Man City or PSG decides to offer them a windfall for that player. The market we're in is very much attempting to find "hidden" talent that isn't obvious, players who've gone under the radar, but that inherently means we'll be looking at players where it's difficult to tell if they're actually worth their asking price - flawed talent if you will.

 

Whilst on the surface the "our valuation or no deal" policy may seem one that results in us eventually signing inferior players because we go from preferred option 1 on the list to alternative bargain basement options 3/4/5, I think the policy works because at its premise is one fundamental principle that has always been the case in this sport imo given how big and widespread it is - that is, that there's "plenty more fish in the sea". There are a shitload of talented players who we don't know much about out there, ones who've been overlooked by the elite clubs. If we can scout them well and know who those talented players are (as Mr Carr seems to be doing wonderfully) then this transfer policy is spot on because it's then becomes reasonable to have lists where anyone from option 1 to option 10 could turn out to be a gem signed for peanuts (as many of our signings have been). Sometimes it will work out, sometimes it won't. And going back to the pre-Ashley periods, where would Sir Bobby's team have been if we had signed Zenden and Jeffers (preferred options) instead of Robert and Bellamy (backup choices)? Or alternatively, who would we have signed if we had missed out on preferred option Jean Alain Boumsong? Distin?

 

Luuk de Jong has, by all accounts, been s*** since his move to Germany. I've never seen him play, but he could very well be overrated because of how week the Dutch league is, which is where he's made his name, and looking at his stats he's only had one season where he's hit 20+ in Holland, though that might mean little depending on the type of player he is. But the point here is that if we think he's worth £6m and no more, and Borussia decide he's worth alot more than that, or start to try to squeeze more money out of us despite him being worthless to them at present, then yes, we should move on and see where our next option lies, even if that means waiting until the summer. Whilst that might mean missing out on de Jong who then goes on to be a world beater, the alternative options might be better, and that's the benefit of our transfer policy and setup.

 

The real issue for me is that we don't have the manager who can make best use of what we currently have, and is creating these issues where signing player X is of paramount importance purely because of his refusal (and inability) to use what we do have appropriately. Last summer this manager's complaint was that we didn't have enough 6 foot 3 players. Thank f*** we have the policy we have, otherwise it's anyone's guess as to how badly we'd be struggling right now if we had decided to match West Ham's offer of £15m for Andy Carroll (possibly meaning no room in the budget for Remy).

 

We dont have a policy. We just wont spend any money (unless it looks like we're going down)

[Unbelievable]

Our policy consists of getting (admittedly good) players under their perceived value regardless of the squad's needs. Shola in particular mustn't believe his luck he's still here in 2014 starting games through the stingyness of our esteemed owner and the fact strikers cost more than other players on average.

[Teasy]

We dont have a policy. We just wont spend any money (unless it looks like we're going down)

 

The players we signed in January were brought forward because we looked like going down, we still had them arranged to sign the following summer anyway.  We certainly did have a transfer policy, of course we're yet to see if its still functioning since Kinnear arrived

[Stuy_O]

We dont have a policy. We just wont spend any money (unless it looks like we're going down)

 

The players we signed in January were brought forward because we looked like going down, we still had them arranged to sign the following summer anyway.  We certainly did have a transfer policy, of course we're yet to see if its still functioning since Kinnear arrived

 

So Pardew, Llambias have told us but as we all know they're liars. Would not surprise me in the least if we hadn't have brought those in the summer if Ashley felt it wasn't required.

 

Our current way of thinking is do not sign anyone if they're valued at over 5mil, only look for players on the scrap heap, or loan deals. Less a policy imo more a cheap way of running a top flight club. You only need to see Joe Kinnears program notes to realise they're practically making it up as they go along.