dutchblade
Member
As long as we don t play PL we will be in this position. Looks like we have a Youth Academy for other clubs, not ourselves.
We ARE a selling club
- Thread starter shorehamview
- Start date
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
SouthEssexBlade
...for wit and sage wisdom
I have very good contacts with Spurs (brother-in-law has a box there and my better halfs known Defoe for years) and I'm hearing that they need to off-load before they acquire (Chimbonda to start with), but given that their manager is football's Arthur Daley (ask your Dad kids) I wouldn't rule out Spurs gazumping the Everton deal and securing the loan-back arrangement for Kyle2.
Watch out for the red-nosed knight waiting in the wings, though!
Watch out for the red-nosed knight waiting in the wings, though!
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
We're a feeder club!
dingledog
Well-Known Member
Beattie, CKR, Hulse (dependant on who you ask), Jags (admittdely out of our hands), Armstrong, Stead, Nade, A Quinn, Billy Sharp, Michael Brown,
- Admin
- #36
Beattie - We ended up getting nearly what we paid for him after clauses (ie - him scoring and stoke staying up), was this underselling given his age? He may well have been worth more than that to us in terms of goals (though we started playing better as a team without him), but realistically, would anyone have paid more than that for him?
CKR - We plucked him from the lower leagues and Brighton's reserves much to many peoples disgust. I actually think he's a very talented player, perhaps one of the most skillful (in terms of close ball control and trickery) we've had in years (he has the arrogance to pull it off too). I'd have kept him, only he'd just broke into the Turkey squad and there isn't a chance in hell we'd have stopped him moving to Fenerbache. In the end, the fee was probably about right in my opinion, considering his past and his short success with us. Once again he's fallen out of favour and his attitude has got the better of him. One of those that'll only shine under specific conditions?
Hulse - Big fee at the time, considering he'd yet to prove himself after a broken leg. Having said that, he's put it behind him to some extent and started scoring again. If you ask the Derby season ticket holder at my work, he'll tell you we saw them coming again (Davis, Morris etc), thinks he was a waste of money.
Jags - Hands firmly tied behind our backs on that one. Definately undersold, but not much we could do to change that. If we'd have stayed up, then yes... But once we invoked his clause, that was it.
Armstrong - I'm another that rates stretch and was sad to see him go. At the time, for whatever reason, he wasn't close to a regular first team place (partly down to injury, partly down to competition). Again was troubled by injury, which would effect any fee and we made a profit on his sale. I'd have held out for at least £750k, but I don't think anyone would have paid that at the time. He'd have been rotting in the reserves.
Stead - Stead has always been a difficult one, on his day, he is class. However, he seems to start well (or have great spells) before losing form and moving on. He's done it all his career (fair enough, he isn't exactly old). Being a striker, i'd have probably wanted another couple of hundred thousand, but I wouldn't say he was vastly undervalued.
Nade - I feel its slightly difficult to undersell a player who has never commanded a transfer fee in his career and who has struggled to maintain a basic level of fitness. He's definately got something about him (I thought he might be a BIG one for the future when I first saw him in friendlies/reserves), but he doesn't look to be someone who can live up to the potential in his raw talent/attributes. It'd have been pretty difficult for us to have got much of a fee for him.
A Quinn - Quinny, quinny, quinny.... If ever a player suffered from his complete lack of a willingness to track back and/or tackle on a regular basis. Sold when he was out of form and out of the team. Not been one to ever really command a fee throughout his career. I'd say he was worth more in terms of the signing of his family, than himself. Though sadly, Stephen and more-so Keith seem to have gone off the boil
Billy Sharp - At first glance, Billys outgoing transfer seemed pretty cheap for his phenominal record. I think the thing that added a little bit of value was the sell on clause. We did however pay far too much to get him back based on his form since returning. He can do it and we've seen albeit VERY SMALL glimmers of the old Billy Sharp, but what would people pay for him based on his form since returning? I'd have kept him out on loan for another year instead of selling him, but on current evidence, Uncle Neil could have been right to let him go?
Michael Brown - Due to the contract situation again, our hands were tied. He'd also been cack in the lead up to his move. He's gone on to get a bit of a reputation as a dirty spoiler, rather than the all action, goal scoring midfielder we all loved. Had we got anything like a bit of power over him (a contract that lasted at least 2 years for example), then the fee would have more closely reflected his worth.
So you're in agreeance then that we regurlaly undersell foxy?
I think with all of them (bar Hulse and Jags) we could have commanded higher fees.
RE Brown, we should have just kept him rather than accept the paltry 500k.
I think with all of them (bar Hulse and Jags) we could have commanded higher fees.
RE Brown, we should have just kept him rather than accept the paltry 500k.
- Admin
- #38
So you're in agreeance then that we regurlaly undersell foxy?
In overall terms, I don't think we actually do too badly. Of the ones you mentioned, we hardly lost much in terms of potential fees. In my opinion, few of them could have gone for more.
£500k was worth more to us than keeping an underperforming player who wanted away for a few months.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Perhaps its more of a contract management issue!
- Admin
- #40
In Brown's case yet. In Jags case, he'd have gone a lot earlier if it wasn't for that clause.
I have no issues with the clause.... but I feel it should have been set slightly higher... around £5.5 million
- Admin
- #42
The unfortunate major factor being, you aren't Phil Jagielka.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Not only was the contract management issue related to Jags.
It seems to be a consistent issue, from Brown, to Jags, to Hulse, to Beattie and now Kyle, Killa and Kyle.
Why aren't we managing these contracts better like reviewing valuation clauses, ensuring that players of major value aren't getting into the last year of their contracts.
The issue I have with the Naughton is that we've had all season to tie him into a long term contract, we need to do this now with Walker.
If we get the contracts right then we protect ourselves and we can reject offers.
Sensiblade
Well-Known Member
If a player says they want a clause in there contract for say £4million.
Then United say to them no we think it should be £6million
The likelyhood is that the player isn't going to sign the contract then leave us earlier and for less then the £4million they wanted put in in the first place.
So whats better putting in what the player wants or the player not signing the contract?
Then United say to them no we think it should be £6million
The likelyhood is that the player isn't going to sign the contract then leave us earlier and for less then the £4million they wanted put in in the first place.
So whats better putting in what the player wants or the player not signing the contract?
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Obviously we need the players on contracts and of course the contract needs to suit both parties. But why on earth players aren't on 4 or 5 year contracts is beyond me.
I've always been a believer in incentives and bonus' that come and go with promotion and relegation.
If we have players on long term contracts then surely its a case of transfer fee plus compo to buy them out?
If a player doesn't want to sign long term then perhaps he's not the player we're looking for, i'm not saying that all players should bleed red and white but if they're not committed to start with its a bad sign.
- Admin
- #47
surely giving them long contracts, assuming they'd sign them....
Is equally as much of a risk?
Say Beattie had been on a fresh 5 year contract? on the wages he's on with the usual yearly increment and bonuses.... Then he slowed and/or got injured/lost interest. We'd be paying stupid sums of money out with absolutely nothing in return. Our only option would be to offer to buy him out ourselves, very costly.
This sort of thing is a large contributor to the problems of some of our less well off neighbors
All that is forgetting the fact that a player who wants away is a bad thing, however long his contract is. How many have just sat it out in the past?
Is equally as much of a risk?
Say Beattie had been on a fresh 5 year contract? on the wages he's on with the usual yearly increment and bonuses.... Then he slowed and/or got injured/lost interest. We'd be paying stupid sums of money out with absolutely nothing in return. Our only option would be to offer to buy him out ourselves, very costly.
This sort of thing is a large contributor to the problems of some of our less well off neighbors
All that is forgetting the fact that a player who wants away is a bad thing, however long his contract is. How many have just sat it out in the past?
I don't know if this has already been covered (apologies if it has), but has anyone stopped to think that either of the Kyle's might actually be quite keen on leaving and not want to be tied down to a long term contract with us?
They're not daft. I'm sure they'll realise their own worth and might well be thinking they'd be pretty chuffed to be offered Premiership wages at such a young age?
As much as they've no doubt got Utd at heart, they'll not turn their noses up at the kind of pay increase that only an established Premiership team can offer and the chance of maybe even playing in Europe (and not just a tour of Malta!). If they do want to leave, then surely we're better off getting a good price for them now to help rebuild our squad than have them play half heartedly next year and then let them leave on a free?
They're not daft. I'm sure they'll realise their own worth and might well be thinking they'd be pretty chuffed to be offered Premiership wages at such a young age?
As much as they've no doubt got Utd at heart, they'll not turn their noses up at the kind of pay increase that only an established Premiership team can offer and the chance of maybe even playing in Europe (and not just a tour of Malta!). If they do want to leave, then surely we're better off getting a good price for them now to help rebuild our squad than have them play half heartedly next year and then let them leave on a free?
Kev Gee
Well-Known Member
surely giving them long contracts, assuming they'd sign them....
Is equally as much of a risk?
Say Beattie had been on a fresh 5 year contract? on the wages he's on with the usual yearly increment and bonuses.... Then he slowed and/or got injured/lost interest. We'd be paying stupid sums of money out with absolutely nothing in return. Our only option would be to offer to buy him out ourselves, very costly.
This sort of thing is a large contributor to the problems of some of our less well off neighbors
All that is forgetting the fact that a player who wants away is a bad thing, however long his contract is. How many have just sat it out in the past?
Ala Mr Horsfield.
happyhippy
Well-Known Member
Because they might not be that good, and because they might be too good.
Look, we're 23rd in one of the most competitive league structures in the world. Can I just remind you? Ranked, by performance, 23rd.
In one nation's league. Add that to others' leagues and we become .......
A long way down. Jags was on a long term contract, with a release clause. You should know by now that contracts are as useful as a handkerchief on a car aeriel.
The only reason why people squeal about money and contracts is because we're in the (currently) most exploited country as regards wages. You tell me how many people in Serie B, La Segunda Liga, etc, who would have commanded the wages which people expect to be paid at the Lane, or at other Division Two clubs.
In all my life, all I've wanted is a bit of husbandry at the Lane. It is happening. Remember the days when St David of Bassett had to use his own £££££ to get a player in? Remember when the players' and Club employees' wages cheques bounced?
Are those the days you want again?
The days of a benefactor to bankroll a club are long gone, unless you have a couple of billion to fritter. If you're more bothered about money, then fuck off to the stock exchange, and leave us who love football, and our team to it.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
surely giving them long contracts, assuming they'd sign them....
Is equally as much of a risk?
Say Beattie had been on a fresh 5 year contract? on the wages he's on with the usual yearly increment and bonuses.... Then he slowed and/or got injured/lost interest. We'd be paying stupid sums of money out with absolutely nothing in return. Our only option would be to offer to buy him out ourselves, very costly.
This sort of thing is a large contributor to the problems of some of our less well off neighbors
All that is forgetting the fact that a player who wants away is a bad thing, however long his contract is. How many have just sat it out in the past?
If you look back at my posts on the previous posts I tried to cover this...this is regarding our better players.
My point was about incentives in contracts, performance bonus' and the contract having the flexibility written in for promotion/ relegation.
BT is a poor example and showed the short term policy that Robbo had when he came in, for my mind the club gave him carte blanc. I think we're paying for it now.
Happy Hippy, i'm not sure how you got to the good old days of missmanagement of the club, all that myself and many others on here are talking about is securing (as much as reasonably possible) our young gifted players and not accepting the first offer when we are in a position to keep them.
The policy at the club now to get young, pacey, talented players with their careers in front of them is right and these players are the ones that we need to keep hold of. Of course we need the blend of experience too and there will always be one or two that don't make the grade we expect. This is what frustrates me about the possible sale of Kyle and Kyle. These players are a big part of what we should be building on.
malagablade
Member
FACT:while ever that fat lancashire twat robinson is dealing with transfers at the lane,and he still is,nothing will change!!his policy is as soon as theres a youngster comes through sell him and get the money!!that is from a long standing member of the managerial/coaching staff.i dont want to put his name on here ,but he believes that he´s the problem at bdbl.robinson was also responsible for bringing nobsor to the lane!
madeinsheffield
Well-Known Member
It would be good to get at least a full season out of the Special K's it's not like they are going to go down in value is it, try and look at getting promotion. how long have they both got on their contracts??
And if this season starts as poorly as the last with prized assets sold how long til the fickle crowd turn, weeks or months or is that a separate thread??
This is my major gripe; we seem to be cashing in at the earliest opportunity.
Cardiff have had a few season out of Joe Ledley and may yet hold on to him again as prem clubs throw millions at them for him.
Southampton kept Surman for a fair few years while prem clubs showed major interest.
Why can't we just say that they are not for sale and give them a full season here at least?
SouthEssexBlade
...for wit and sage wisdom
We've said 'No' previously and pretty often also said 'yes!'
Depends on the situation. If we take off the Blades goggles (hard I know cos mine seem to be welded on!), we have on the table an offer of £6m to £8m for a young player who has only made 50+ appearances, almost all of which were in the CCC. Substitute us for, say Ipswich and we'd all be saying that they'd done a good piece of business.
Depends on the situation. If we take off the Blades goggles (hard I know cos mine seem to be welded on!), we have on the table an offer of £6m to £8m for a young player who has only made 50+ appearances, almost all of which were in the CCC. Substitute us for, say Ipswich and we'd all be saying that they'd done a good piece of business.
madeinsheffield
Well-Known Member
I agree its good business but they still be worth that come the end of the season so wouldn't it be better to have a £5m rated defender in the side get some appearances out of them/him and then sell
SouthEssexBlade
...for wit and sage wisdom
Sounds fine in principle, but never works in practice. He might be a total flop in his second season (unlikely but he is still young). He might get a very bad injury and never play again. Surman and Ledley have been mentioned, but at the same stage in their careers they did not have the level of interest that KN has generated, in fact I recall no offers for either until very recently.
Like most fans reactions, it also takes in no thought of the player. Once interest like this has been stirred, will he still be the same player in the CCC knowing that he could've been playing PL and EL football? Everton and Spurs would also be offering him about £15k a week salary, we wouldn't match that so he's also thinking about what he could be earning.
SwissBlade
Well-Known Member
Ha ha seriously Jodman, did you not read Turry's comments, apparently "its great offer for the club and the player, we wouldn't have accepted it if it wasn't"
So if Turry says so why on earth would we want to keep such a player for a season when we're talking up our chances of promotion!
Similar threads
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?