Punts - what Evans and Leonard sales show us

[Ricky]

I think agreeing to sell Leonard at this stage is daft. But we've sold him, we're said to have doubled our money and now all the January signings have departed never to be seen again.

We also made a profit on Lee Evans, selling for over £1m.

Neither of these can be considered bad signings for me, but neither were really a success. Yet we've made a profit on both. Turning a combined £1.5m into at least £2.5m.

Both were effectively L1 players when they signed. Both were a good age - 23 and 25. Both had good fitness records. Both were performing consistently well. Both, certainly Leonard, seemed like the right types of characters.

I said at the time that signing both of them was a great combined punt, with one being insurance against the other.

8 months down the line, even though it's not worked out as well as hoped, we've got our money back and then some and have only benefited from taking this punt.

It shows that we should be confident to take this calculated, speculative approach to recruitment and play something of a numbers game.

It's about taking well researched gambles on players within a certain age and cost bracket. Some will work, some won't. Financially, the successful ones should more than pay for the unsuccessful ones. Certainly if 1 in 2 are successful - and I'd back us to have at least a 50% hit rate.

Players within a certain age and fee bracket can increase considerably in value in a very short space of time. Especially with the level of inflation at Championship level and above.

Moore, O'Connell, Baldock, Carruthers and Lundstram are others who could be put in the same category as Evans and Leonard. Look what we paid for them, and look what they're worth now. It backs up this point. You're looking at around £2.2m becoming something like £15m.

I think it's an excellent strategy. It's just important not to try and force it too much.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I agree, making money on players is good. Not reinvesting it is bad.

 

[Carlton Blade]

Creativity in recruitment is essential.

Just hope CW isn't tied to signing players he's either managed or managed against. Need to widen the net

 

[Rob86]

Don’t disagree, so why were we chasing ‘top end’ Championship strikers since May, a market which we were not realistically in.

 

[Fanny magnet]

Whatever happened to Jay o shea
Is he paying his way
Or waiting to play

Lets hope it's his day

 

[Deaneandagana]

Agree, however isn’t the point in buying new players & doing the scouting, due diligence etc is that they should have a lasting positive effect on the development & transition of the team?

What Wilder has seemingly done is buy players for the sake of buying, realised that they are sub standard & thus subsequently binned them.

Lots of wasted time & energy.

 

[zablade]

Hmmmm...

Think it shows that basing a full Transfer Window around Lower League signings doesn’t work. A punt on the odd lower league player with potential alongside genuine quality signings from this division should be the way to go.

I think Wilder agrees with that. Shame the owners don’t back it up.

 

[Ricky]

Agree, however isn’t the point in buying new players & doing the scouting, due diligence etc is that they should have a lasting positive effect on the development & transition of the team?

What Wilder has seemingly done is buy players for the sake of buying, realised that they are sub standard & thus subsequently binned them.

Lots of wasted time & energy.

Look at the others I've listed though, they've contributed well on the pitch - certainly Moore, O'Connell and Baldock. Free transfers like Fleck and Stevens probably shouldn't be discounted either, although obviously they're less of a risk.

It's clearly a sustainable strategy as long as you're careful. What it should do is give us the confidence to take more calculated gambles in order to get more players of the right quality, and confidence to apply it to players of higher value.

Long term, it should be successful.

 

[Deaneandagana]

Look at the others I've listed though, they've contributed well on the pitch - certainly Moore, O'Connell and Baldock. Free transfers like Fleck and Stevens probably shouldn't be discounted either, although obviously they're less of a risk.

It's clearly a sustainable strategy as long as you're careful. What it should do is give us the confidence to take more calculated gambles in order to get more players of the right quality, and confidence to apply it to players of higher value.

Long term, it should be successful.

Agree with your comments, it’s the signings made in the the last JTW that haven’t worked

 

[blades78]

Sales on Evans and Leonard have covered the outlay on Norwood. Norwood is a huge improvement on these two. We have to wheel n deal. Atm it's working quite well. We 'll only really lose money on Holmes and Carruthers out of players wilder has brought in.

 

[Ricky]

If we could widen our search abroad, that would help a lot, and accelerate the whole process of assembling players in this bracket.

I see Brentford (them again) have picked up another couple from France this summer and between them, I bet it'll work out well.

 

[Ricky]

Hmmmm...

Think it shows that basing a full Transfer Window around Lower League signings doesn’t work. A punt on the odd lower league player with potential alongside genuine quality signings from this division should be the way to go.

I think Wilder agrees with that. Shame the owners don’t back it up.

It's not the best way to go about short term success. Loans are probably a better bet in January.

Quality signings from this division are more of a risk. It's increasingly hard to get value, and you could end up losing a lot of money on some of these players. Just look at Waghorn. He might have done well but I wouldn't be comfortable spending £5m+ on a player like that. This type of player would be signed in isolation too, meaning there wouldn't be a similar signing or two to spread the risk.

 

[zablade]

It's not the best way to go about short term success. Loans are probably a better bet in January.

Quality signings from this division are more of a risk. It's increasingly hard to get value, and you could end up losing a lot of money on some of these players. Just look at Waghorn. He might have done well but I wouldn't be comfortable spending £5m+ on a player like that. This type of player would be signed in isolation too, meaning there wouldn't be a similar signing or two to spread the risk.

Norwood is Value I think. However I would agree it’s more difficult to get value in this division in forwards, it’s why we are fortunate to have Sharp. 90% of the clubs in this division would love to have him.

 

[Ricky]

Norwood is Value I think. However I would agree it’s more difficult to get value in this division in forwards, it’s why we are fortunate to have Sharp. 90% of the clubs in this division would love to have him.

Another big strategy should be (and is for us) to target players with expiring contracts, like Norwood. Also players with release clauses, like Lee Evans.

With the expiring contracts, it could be a good idea to pay more than you'd like to secure players in these positions. It might seem wasteful, but it's a good way to secure a player (more competition when on free) and ultimately they'll be worth more as soon as they're signed and under contract.

For example, if Luke Freeman was out of contract next summer I wouldn't hesitate to pay £3-4m in January.

 

[103SecondsOfMagic]

Creativity in recruitment is essential.

Just hope CW isn't tied to signing players he's either managed or managed against. Need to widen the net

Considering he’s managed at all FL levels plus several in non-league, that only leaves us Prem players to consider! ;-)
Plus Europe, but that isn’t the Blades way...

 

[Chali 2na]

Agree, however isn’t the point in buying new players & doing the scouting, due diligence etc is that they should have a lasting positive effect on the development & transition of the team?

What Wilder has seemingly done is buy players for the sake of buying, realised that they are sub standard & thus subsequently binned them.

Lots of wasted time & energy.

Agree with your comments, it’s the signings made in the the last JTW that haven’t worked

You're ignoring Ricky's point.

You're bemoaning the progress we made in last January's window, due to none of the players making a proper impact. The point is though that these signings follow a formula (as Ricky mentioned) and despite them not playing, they've still be decent signings, as we're left with more money than we started.

Transfers are a gamble, and even the best managers get them wrong. You said these transfers are "sub-standard" or "haven't worked" - the point is though, that thanks to the transfer policy, we bought players that were easy to sell on.

In short, it seems like you're making no comment on the policy at all, you're simply moaning that some transfers haven't come off, which is stupid, as failure in the transfer market is inevitable.

 

[Deaneandagana]

You're ignoring Ricky's point.

You're bemoaning the progress we made in last January's window, due to none of the players making a proper impact. The point is though that these signings follow a formula (as Ricky mentioned) and despite them not playing, they've still be decent signings, as we're left with more money than we started.

Transfers are a gamble, and even the best managers get them wrong. You said these transfers are "sub-standard" or "haven't worked" - the point is though, that thanks to the transfer policy, we bought players that were easy to sell on.

In short, it seems like you're making no comment on the policy at all, you're simply moaning that some transfers haven't come off, which is stupid, as failure in the transfer market is inevitable.

Disagree, what’s the point in signing players if after less than 6 months you have to repeat the whole process again, thus incurring more scouting, player due diligence, agents fees, management time & focus.

It becomes an iterative cycle which had the original procurement been effective would render this re-procurement process redundant.

The club is in the business of winning football matches not the continual buying & sellling of it’s assets.

 

[Bladezz]

Evans and Leonard were here to provide for Coutts and we were a player short in that area.

We sign Norwood and Coutts is close and we made over £1m is excellent business.

Now that £1m should go to another area wherever CW thinks necessary.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Evans and Leonard were here to provide for Coutts and we were a player short in that area.

We sign Norwood and Coutts is close and we made over £1m is excellent business.

Now that £1m should go to another area wherever CW thinks necessary.

Exactly. Or to look at it a different way, our spend in January is now nothing due to the profits made on Evans and Leonard.Our net spend last season is now positive. Our net spend this summer is hugely positive. With those figures we should be cast iron certainties for relegation.

 

[Chali 2na]

Disagree, what’s the point in signing players if after less than 6 months you have to repeat the whole process again, thus incurring more scouting, player due diligence, agents fees, management time & focus.

It becomes an iterative cycle which had the original procurement been effective would render this re-procurement process redundant.

The club is in the business of winning football matches not the continual buying & sellling of it’s assets.

You've missed the point... again.

Wilder didn't sign those players knowing he was going to sell them on in 6 months. He probably hoped they'd make an impact on the team, unfortunately, that wasn't the case, because not all transfers work out.

The point is: because of our policy of buying players at the right age, for a speculative price, we made money in January rather than losing it.

 

[Bladezz]

Exactly. Or to look at it a different way, our spend in January is now nothing due to the profits made on Evans and Leonard.Our net spend last season is now positive. Our net spend this summer is hugely positive. With those figures we should be cast iron certainties for relegation.

Wages been slashed / transfer net spend since he’s come in must be over £30m. Brooks / Adams / DCL / Walker / Maguire / Leonard / Evans.

 

[Nicolaus_Copernicus]

......that on your keyboard, the letters ‘P’ and ‘C’ are close together?

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Everyone agreed we were top heavy in midfield, particularly with Coutts coming back so basically we've swapped Evans and Leonard for Norwood and made some money in the process. Good business for me.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Wages been slashed / transfer net spend since he’s come in must be over £30m. Brooks / Adams / DCL / Walker / Maguire / Leonard / Evans.

Yes,plus the Maguire/Walker/Murphy add ons. The Prince is on record saying no money has been put into the club by the owners last summer. Only If we spend in January will that change. I doubt they'll be putting much, if anything, in this season. Unless we spend next January.

 

[Deaneandagana]

You've missed the point... again.

Wilder didn't sign those players knowing he was going to sell them on in 6 months. He probably hoped they'd make an impact on the team, unfortunately, that wasn't the case, because not all transfers work out.

The point is: because of our policy of buying players at the right age, for a speculative price, we made money in January rather than losing it.

I get the point, but sadly don’t agree with it, the concept is a flawed one.

Successful teams need consistency and a togetherness that can be built upon to win games of football, continual changes of personnel due to poor procurement process, players not being if the required standard etc won’t provide this winning ethos - note our performances Jan to May.

Further, turning the clock back to last Jan,, it’s fair to say we still had a reasonable chance of the playoffs, had we invested in players of a higher standard than those we did, well you never know - hindsight is of course etc etc

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I think agreeing to sell Leonard at this stage is daft. But we've sold him, we're said to have doubled our money and now all the January signings have departed never to be seen again.

We also made a profit on Lee Evans, selling for over £1m.

Neither of these can be considered bad signings for me, but neither were really a success. Yet we've made a profit on both. Turning a combined £1.5m into at least £2.5m.

Both were effectively L1 players when they signed. Both were a good age - 23 and 25. Both had good fitness records. Both were performing consistently well. Both, certainly Leonard, seemed like the right types of characters.

I said at the time that signing both of them was a great combined punt, with one being insurance against the other.

8 months down the line, even though it's not worked out as well as hoped, we've got our money back and then some and have only benefited from taking this punt.

It shows that we should be confident to take this calculated, speculative approach to recruitment and play something of a numbers game.

It's about taking well researched gambles on players within a certain age and cost bracket. Some will work, some won't. Financially, the successful ones should more than pay for the unsuccessful ones. Certainly if 1 in 2 are successful - and I'd back us to have at least a 50% hit rate.

Players within a certain age and fee bracket can increase considerably in value in a very short space of time. Especially with the level of inflation at Championship level and above.

Moore, O'Connell, Baldock, Carruthers and Lundstram are others who could be put in the same category as Evans and Leonard. Look what we paid for them, and look what they're worth now. It backs up this point. You're looking at around £2.2m becoming something like £15m.

I think it's an excellent strategy. It's just important not to try and force it too much.

I think you need to make your mind up. You start out saying that the sale of Leonard is daft - but then you conclude that it's part of an excellent strategy?

I just do not understand any fan who is lamenting the loss of Leonard. Let's be very, very clear about this...he did NOTHING. I've seen every game he played, from the first one, which was away at Norwich. On that day him and Lee Evans made their debuts. I was excited to see 2 new players making their debut. My conclusion on that day was that Evans looked a very neat and tidy player - but the other bloke, Leonard, was hardly in the game. He got subbed off if I recall correctly.

Since then he's rarely threatened to get into our first team, and that's despite us being without key midfield players like Coutts and Duffy on occasions. When he's come on he's looked very ordinary - and I mean, VERY ordinary. The best I've ever seen from him in all the time he was here, was the last home match v Norwich, when he replaced the startled rabbit in the headlights that is Ben Woodburn, and made an improvement to the stability of the midfield. Largely because Woodburn was panicking every time he got the ball and kept kicking it anywhere and giving it away.

If I can find something positive to say about Leonard in all the time he's been here it's that he can be a calming influence, with his fondness for a 5 yard sideways pass, to a jittery midfield. Big deal!

Of course, now he's been traded we have all the "he'll come good" brigade out in force. Well, he didn't and he's gone. So stop trying to tell us something good about a bloke that we all saw had nothing to contribute to this team. He wasn't good enough - full stop.

I don't think we bought him with a view to cultivating him like a greenhouse plant and then selling him on for a profit. I think we bought him because we believed he was going to make a major contribution to the team. The fact he didn't, and the fact we still made a profit on him, is a feather in the cap of Mr Wilder. And folks who are criticising the sale of Leonard are criticising the credentials of Wilder to make the right decisions for this club.

Apart from that - I totally agree with you!

 

[Ricky]

Disagree, what’s the point in signing players if after less than 6 months you have to repeat the whole process again, thus incurring more scouting, player due diligence, agents fees, management time & focus.

It becomes an iterative cycle which had the original procurement been effective would render this re-procurement process redundant.

The club is in the business of winning football matches not the continual buying & sellling of it’s assets.

The aim is never to sell them on so quickly. But there's no bullet proof recruitment strategy.

That we've sold two ultimately unsuccessful signings for a decent profit should give us encouragement to repeat the strategy for players who are more likely to be successful - maybe players in the £2-3m bracket.

If the owners become confident that money spent can always be recouped then they're far more likely give Wilder good financial backing.

 

[Chali 2na]

I get the point, but sadly don’t agree with it, the concept is a flawed one.

Successful teams need consistency and a togetherness that can be built upon to win games of football, continual changes of personnel due to poor procurement process, players not being if the required standard etc won’t provide this winning ethos - note our performances Jan to May.

Further, turning the clock back to last Jan,, it’s fair to say we still had a reasonable chance of the playoffs, had we invested in players of a higher standard than those we did, well you never know - hindsight is of course etc etc

Ok then, so your problem is buying players below a certain standard?

How do you ensure, going forward, that we never repeat this mistake, and only sign great players who will have an immediate impact?

Also, to invest in a "Higher standard" of players, won't we need a "Higher standard" of budget? Where's that coming from?

 

[Grizzly blade]

The signings of Leonard and Holmes occurred 5 months after Wilder had hoped. Both were summer targets, and at the time at our price point.
They were gambles who haven’t been able to displace others or make any impact. Holmes particularly looked way out of his depth so I’m kind of glad he missed out in the summer.
Evans came in when we were desperate due to Coutts injury, I always feel he was destined for a short stay as when Coutts returned he was always going to be back in the side. He also got worse, when he first came in I was impressed and thought he would kick on, but sadly went backwards far too often on the pitch and as a consequence in his development.
Wilson was a player with alleged pedigree...who was in his last chance saloon for me. Loans prior hadn’t worked and he looked out of his depth and unable to cope strength wise. Offered very little.

However...Wilder brought them in at a time when we needed bodies in, perhaps hoping more than expecting them to be consistent enough to be regulars and cement their place in a side looking to push for promotion places this season.
I suspect that as it became clear they weren’t going to be good enough, and with the better budget, we have looked to rectify them swiftly. The beauty of it all being that we have also made a decent profit on two of them that may well have covered the arrival of Norwood in bothbfee and wages!!
I believe Norwood would have come in regardless of Evans moving on as he was a bargain and too good a player to miss.

So for me, it’s a case of “oh well”...we are a stronger outfit with more strength in depth than last season, as well as some seriously good players being in there too.
Wilder had had some stick...but yet again I feel he has come up trumps.
No person can deny we aren’t a better squad than last season, and as it was the arrival of squad players into the first team that led to results falling away we surely have a good chance of top 6.

 

[Deaneandagana]

Ok then, so your problem is buying players below a certain standard?

How do you ensure, going forward, that we never repeat this mistake, and only sign great players who will have an immediate impact?

Also, to invest in a "Higher standard" of players, won't we need a "Higher standard" of budget? Where's that coming from?

In a nutshell yes. Buying players from L1 has proved through the events of the last JTW that this strategy is ineffective in the advancement of the team, I think most of us would agree this - we’ve had to repeat the whole exercise again.

Buying better quality reduces the risk, agree that it won’t eliminate it entirely - Norwood being a case in point.

In terms of the budget - fair point, my answer would be one that less is sometimes more, I.e. buy 2 players of quality rather than 4 players of L1 quality.