CumbrianRam Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Every club bar maybe Chelsea, Man City, Man Yoo buy players with potentail re-sale value. If anyone else think otherwise they are greatly deluding themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roofio Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This confuses me. Am I missing something? If we sign a player who has not played in the NPC before but is young and obviously has talent then why are people reacting like it's a waste and a sellable profit only? Surely if any team buys a player who is good and proves this regardless of the price paid and wages, then other 'bigger' clubs will come in. Is this answer to sign average older players that will stay at the club because no other teams are interested? Bryson and Maguire could be fantastic assets and change the team right around, leaving other clubs interested in there services, or they could be absolute sh!te. But how do you know this before signing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 It baffles me too mate. So you get the point, it sounds easy doesn't it. Buy cheap, low paid players and sell them on for big profits. The questions though are: Will you be happy when we sell them? and How big a risk do you think we're taking and how easy do you think this is? Crewe do it very well, but they are a step below us and don't usually receive big fees. I can't think of many other clubs that have a good record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramjam Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 To be honest I'm just happy that Clough has the means to sign players, and personally I am happy signing players which have a resale value as opposed to ones like Clod, Albrechsen etc. If they play well for us, the club does well, then we sell them at a big profit I will only have issue if enough of this money isnt used to invest it sufficient replacements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 When Clough sits down to draw up his shortlist of players I highly doubt he's thinking, can I make a profit on this guy in a couple of seasons. I would also doubt that Glick would question Clough on this either. If you honestly think that then fair play, I just can't even begin to get my head around how you would come to that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So you get the point, it sounds easy doesn't it. Buy cheap, low paid players and sell them on for big profits. The questions though are: Will you be happy when we sell them? and How big a risk do you think we're taking and how easy do you think this is? Crewe do it very well, but they are a step below us and don't usually receive big fees. I can't think of many other clubs that have a good record. There's one thing you're missing, how many players have actually increased their worth while they've been with us? Green (before his injury)? Brayford? and? Out of around 100 signings since GSE took over it's not much of a percentage. I don't agree with you that we're looking at re-sale, I think we're buying cheap because they think they'll take us forward while they're here playing for us. The only problem is we don't have the coaching staff to develop players, whether for re-sale OR for taking us forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 This confuses me. Am I missing something? If we sign a player who has not played in the NPC before but is young and obviously has talent then why are people reacting like it's a waste and a sellable profit only? Surely if any team buys a player who is good and proves this regardless of the price paid and wages, then other 'bigger' clubs will come in. Is this answer to sign average older players that will stay at the club because no other teams are interested? Bryson and Maguire could be fantastic assets and change the team right around, leaving other clubs interested in there services, or they could be absolute sh!te. But how do you know this before signing them? It's the amount of gambles that worries me. 4 or 5, fine. We have about 17 in our squad. Like i said, i'm not worried about now. Everything is in place to get a ROI. you only get that by being a very good business. We are doing everything right to get to this stage. I'm not highlighting problems in the business model, there isn't any really. I'm highlighting problems with the investment that everyone raves about. There isn't any imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roofio Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It's the amount of gambles that worries me. 4 or 5, fine. We have about 17 in our squad. Like i said, i'm not worried about now. Everything is in place to get a ROI. you only get that by being a very good business. We are doing everything right to get to this stage. I'm not highlighting problems in the business model, there isn't any really. I'm highlighting problems with the investment that everyone raves about. There isn't any imo. Investment Schminvestment! If this group of players gel and get us cheering good times again then I don't really care much about the business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 There's one thing you're missing, how many players have actually increased their worth while they've been with us? Green (before his injury)? Brayford? and? Out of around 100 signings since GSE took over it's not much of a percentage. I don't agree with you that we're looking at re-sale, I think we're buying cheap because they think they'll take us forward while they're here playing for us. The only problem is we don't have the coaching staff to develop players, whether for re-sale OR for taking us forward. I said low risk eg Moxey...you can always get your money back. But i said the success percentage is low if you read my post again. Selling Brayford for 4 million, would have bought in the 9 players we have signed this summer. The success rate doesn't have to be that high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 Investment Schminvestment! If this group of players gel and get us cheering good times again then I don't really care much about the business model. You wil do next summer, that's my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 If we sold Brayford for £60m that would cover us and a GSE knees up in Skeggy for a few seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 I said low risk eg Moxey...you can always get your money back. But i said the success percentage is low if you read my post again. Selling Brayford for 4 million, would have bought in the 9 players we have signed this summer. The success rate doesn't have to be that high. I don't think they'd have got away with this summer's signings if they'd sold Brayford to cover them, which is why I think your logic's flawed. Hell, there might even be a murmur of discontent on here if that happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 When Clough sits down to draw up his shortlist of players I highly doubt he's thinking, can I make a profit on this guy in a couple of seasons. I would also doubt that Glick would question Clough on this either. If you honestly think that then fair play, I just can't even begin to get my head around how you would come to that conclusion. Why wouldn't he? If he knows (which he must) the tight budget he will be on for the forseeable future, selling someone like Brayford for 4 million will enable him to build the squad further. It's got to be in the head of every lower league manager on a tight budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 I don't think they'd have got away with this summer's signings if they'd sold Brayford to cover them, which is why I think your logic's flawed. Hell, there might even be a murmur of discontent on here if that happened. This summers signings have been financed by player sales (Hulse Varneyetc) and the huge drop in the wage bill by the end of the year. That's now gone back up due to signings. So next year, what are we going to do? No Varney to sell, no Savages wages making way for 3 or 4 players, ROI needed....i'd suggest player sales. That's what i'm worried about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Why wouldn't he? If he knows (which he must) the tight budget he will be on for the forseeable future, selling someone like Brayford for 4 million will enable him to build the squad further. It's got to be in the head of every lower league manager on a tight budget I would of thought that in every managers head is I've got to win as many games as I can next season otherwise I'll be jobless, I'm going to sign players that I think will do that for me. We're not exactly lower league and I haven't see anything to suggest we are on a "tight budget" either. Oh and £4m for Brayford? pfffft try £2m at the very most if he has another decent season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curb Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It's the amount of gambles that worries me. 4 or 5, fine. We have about 17 in our squad. I agree 100% with this though, I've been saying this for a year and half. We should have gone for one or maybe two more signings like Fielding and Shackell, with maybe one of the others as a 'potential'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 I would of thought that in every managers head is I've got to win as many games as I can next season otherwise I'll be jobless, I'm going to sign players that I think will do that for me. We're not exactly lower league and I haven't see anything to suggest we are on a "tight budget" either. This is ten year Nigel we're talking about. Not Sven or B.Davies 60% wages to turnover suggest a very tight budget. Forests is 108% for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roofio Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This summers signings have been financed by player sales (Hulse Varneyetc) and the huge drop in the wage bill by the end of the year. That's now gone back up due to signings. So next year, what are we going to do? No Varney to sell, no Savages wages making way for 3 or 4 players, ROI needed....i'd suggest player sales. That's what i'm worried about. OR Maguire, Bryson, Fielding, Legzdins, Brayford, Barker, Shackell, Tyson etc could play brilliantly and sell on for triple the signing fee? I would sooner not have to sell any players to fuel buying others! Why would we?! If we sold Brayford for £4m I guarantee you'd complain we're selling one of our best players! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 This is ten year Nigel we're talking about. Not Sven or B.Davies 60% wages to turnover suggest a very tight budget. Forests is 108% for example. Or spending 108% is very stupid and 60% is sensible with the financial fair play rules coming soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcfcdavecov Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 OR Maguire, Bryson, Fielding, Legzdins, Brayford, Barker, Shackell, Tyson etc could play brilliantly and sell on for triple the signing fee? I would sooner not have to sell any players to fuel buying others! Why would we?! If we sold Brayford for £4m I guarantee you'd complain we're selling one of our best players! That's the ****ing point. (the bit in bold) The top bit only highlights the number of saleable assets we have gone after. Low wages, cheap, potential. Nothing wrong with that. It's how ROI will work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.