The fee paid for Andy Carroll nearly made me choke on my cornflakes the morning I heard it. I was gob smacked.
The owners panicked. There would have been uproar if our star striker walked out of the door without them reinvesting in a replacement. They would have been labelled as the new cowboy's, so it was a risk they felt they had to take, so I can understand it.
In hindsight it was a big mistake - but letting him walk out the door without a replacement could be an even bigger one in terms of how it affects the results on the pitch.
The Europa League I feel is going to affect the performances in the league. The way Gerrard and Suarez played after a two day rest against Arsenal it could be argued it already has done.
It should bother you guys that not one person was asking this.
================================================
At the time, AC had scored more goals than Torres, and more with his feet than with his head. He was 21, and had been capped for England. He's capable of changing and influencing games, as he showed against MUFC in the Cup, and in the FA semis against Everton, in the Final against Chelsea, and last week against Fulham.
Given that we didn't care what the price was, proviided
Chelsea paid it, I'm not sure what there was to question.
The downside, and I have to admit that I didn't consider it either, was that it wasn't in the interests of the media to put things into the context of the way the deal was constructed, so it was a PR disaster when he was slow to settle in.
But now we've compounded it.
If we contiunue to struggle to get goals, and AC, as I suspect, starts banging them in left, right and centre for West Ham, they are going to be dancing ion it, so that's a PR disaster as well.
This Dempsey complaint from Fulham is a PR ballsup. As were the club’s official statements during Suarezgate. From a group of people from the mediia business, I was expecting great PR., but maybe they need to get to know this country a bit better.
FSB - I wasn't being pedantic at all. You're looking at ev erything too simplistically. Players around 30 would generally be classed as old players with no resale value, obviously there are exceptions. Players under say 23 might be classed as young players. However there are ages in between, 24, 25, 26, 27 maybe 28, for example. These aren't really classed as young players but players in between who have resale value. So to say we have to rely on young players is wrong, it's not true and we haven't only signed young players. We signed Doni, Bellamy and Downing.
You have to bear in mind that when you have a long term plan and you aren't going for a quick fix, or adding to quality, you want to train players to work to a particular system, a philosophy, it works best to buy young. Patience is all that's needed, not knee-jerk reactions.
Patience is all that's needed, not knee-jerk reactions.
----------------
As Kemlyn has alluded to. The owners have been prone to a bit of knee-jerking themselves
It may be so but now, without a doubt they have laid the foundations for a long term plan and got rid of anything that was for the short-term.
However there are ages in between, 24, 25, 26, 27 maybe 28, for example. These aren't really classed as young players but players in between who have resale value.
--------------------------
TOOR, 24 and 25 can be considered young and may retain a decent resale value at the end of a 4 year contract. Doubt the same could be said for many 26 and 27 year olds though.
Yes, we have signed some older players but the transfer policy has been heavily skewed towards the younger end of the market, in terms of transfer fees paid since FSG took over.
TOOR, Berbatov was 27 when he went to United for 30Mill. Sold aged 31 for 5Mill. Minimal resale value after 4 years.
every top club has a couple of Robinho, Jo, Berbatov, Shevchenko, Veron, Carroll where 15-30 mil is summarily flushed.
Why should we be any different?
comment by FSB (U11355)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
TOOR, Berbatov was 27 when he went to United for 30Mill. Sold aged 31 for 5Mill. Minimal resale value after 4 years.
----------------------------------------
And? What's your point? We should be like United? Well we don't have an established squad which we can add £30m players to. We started from scratch after a few of our best players left and our best manager in years, in Rafa. So as I said, instead of throwing money at it, trying to buy any player who will come to a team not in the Champions League for over the odds they take the long but safer route, in that if players don't work out, they still have a resale value and we can reinvest.
not me - we negotiated an outcome, not a price. Unusua? yes. But the result was the same as us paying 20 for Carroll and getting 35 for Torres.
that's all that really matters to me.
-------
Absolutely
redconn > - once again I find myself agreeing with pretty much all your comments
TOOR, My point? You suggested that 26 and 27 year old players are not old and are therefore not subject to the general rule that they will have a low resale value.
Berbatov was bought aged 27 and his resale value at the end of his contract was relatively very small, which argues against the point you were making.
Can you name any players bought at 26 or 27 who were sold for a big profit when they were in their 30s?
in that if players don't work out, they still have a resale value and we can reinvest.
----------------------------------
Like AC and Henderson?
What the owners seem to be missing is that a £6m investment in an 'old' player could be the difference between CL and not, when they would recuperate far more than their £6m outlay. It's not so much about the individual concerned ie Dempsey in this case, but there's a vacant position in the team that needs filling. Speculate to accumulate comes to mind.
However, if you include wages it would ahve cost about £20m - £25m.
The point is if you're not willing to pay it get another target who you can afford and does fit the model that you're trying to implement.
People keep telling me that it does not matter if owners know about football. I completely disagree on this as how do you know that you're putting the right staff in the right positions?
You don't and that's why they sack everyone.
Robbing, according to the comments made by the Echo journo quoted on another thread FSG were willing to pay 15 mill for Sturridge instead of Dempsey. His wages might have been less but overall he would have been a more expensive option. The fact is that this is not simply a matter of whether they could afford Dempsey. The critical factor is that he didn't fit the FSG profile.
If FSG are going to impose a transfer policy based on their criteria then I would agree that its important that they know a bit about the game. They should also be held fully accountable when their policy is seen to lead to problems on the pitch.
Just saw the thread with the journo. I find it more bizarre that he said that BR thought Sturrdige was over-priced and as is pointed out if we were not going to pay it why did BR not know?
comment by FSB (U11355)
posted 8 hours ago
in that if players don't work out, they still have a resale value and we can reinvest.
----------------------------------
Like AC and Henderson?
-----------------------------------------
You seem to confuse resale value and profit.
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
What the owners seem to be missing is that a £6m investment in an 'old' player could be the difference between CL and not, when they would recuperate far more than their £6m outlay. It's not so much about the individual concerned ie Dempsey in this case, but there's a vacant position in the team that needs filling. Speculate to accumulate comes to mind.
--------------------------------------
It could but there were higher chances that it wouldn't and thus go against the plan. When you have a plan, you have to stick to it, no point changing it, especially for average players like Dempsey.
TOOR -- I'm not sure I know what the plan is. The plan with BR seems to be different to the one with Dalglish. I agree that we don't want average players but I think an average, old, striker is better than none at all. btw I didn't particularly want Dempsey.
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 28 seconds ago
TOOR -- I'm not sure I know what the plan is. The plan with BR seems to be different to the one with Dalglish. I agree that we don't want average players but I think an average, old, striker is better than none at all. btw I didn't particularly want Dempsey.
--------------------------------
but that's the whole point, he isn't better than none at all, as he costs money, money that can go towards a very good player, the following season to help the club grow for years to come. That's the plan.
Have a listen to this:-
http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/7/4/1/7411bc4c50347983/INTERVIEW_-_RODGERS_TALKS_TO_TAW.m4a?s=1346955541&e=1346957341&c_id=4915799&h=f4f9b3dd6467463437df6b0ce8d5d580
What the owners seem to be missing is that a £6m investment in an 'old' player could be the difference between CL and not, when they would recuperate far more than their £6m outlay. It's not so much about the individual concerned ie Dempsey in this case, but there's a vacant position in the team that needs filling. Speculate to accumulate comes to mind.
---------
Why be inflexible? If the right player comes along then buy him if you can. I can understand the strategy of buying young players to maximise resale vaue, but it doesn't have to be written in stone, especially when we have a gaping hole in the squad.
Look how Gary Mac made himself into an Anfield legend. FSG would have told Ged to get stuffed. This is what I mean about the owners not understanding football sometimes being a hindrance, or perhaps is their mysterious un-named advisers calling the shots.
Hopefully it won't happen again because potentially it could have a seriously damaging effect for the season.
Gary Mac lasted 2 years and was free. It's not comparable. It's not long term and at six million for an average player, plus wages, it would have been a silly signing in my opinion. It's a short term fix and completely against what the club are trying to do.
I realise Gary Mac was a freebie. I chose him as an example of an experienced pro who was able to help a group of young players. Dempsey may or not have been the answer, but it seems to be that the board stepped in to block the transfer which sets an unfortunate precedent, which hopefully won't be repeated.
We have Gerrard and Carragher as experienced players who can help the young group of players.
They didn't block Dalglish's transfers and in hindsight, many believe they should have. So hopefully it is repeated. The plan shouldn't be compromised, they have a long term plan and they're sticking to it. They are the one's who'll have to take the flack if it doesn't work out, just as they have had when Dalglish didn't work out.
Sign in if you want to comment
Spirit of Shankly - Overstepping... Again
Page 4 of 5
posted on 5/9/12
The fee paid for Andy Carroll nearly made me choke on my cornflakes the morning I heard it. I was gob smacked.
The owners panicked. There would have been uproar if our star striker walked out of the door without them reinvesting in a replacement. They would have been labelled as the new cowboy's, so it was a risk they felt they had to take, so I can understand it.
In hindsight it was a big mistake - but letting him walk out the door without a replacement could be an even bigger one in terms of how it affects the results on the pitch.
The Europa League I feel is going to affect the performances in the league. The way Gerrard and Suarez played after a two day rest against Arsenal it could be argued it already has done.
posted on 5/9/12
It should bother you guys that not one person was asking this.
================================================
At the time, AC had scored more goals than Torres, and more with his feet than with his head. He was 21, and had been capped for England. He's capable of changing and influencing games, as he showed against MUFC in the Cup, and in the FA semis against Everton, in the Final against Chelsea, and last week against Fulham.
Given that we didn't care what the price was, proviided
Chelsea paid it, I'm not sure what there was to question.
The downside, and I have to admit that I didn't consider it either, was that it wasn't in the interests of the media to put things into the context of the way the deal was constructed, so it was a PR disaster when he was slow to settle in.
But now we've compounded it.
If we contiunue to struggle to get goals, and AC, as I suspect, starts banging them in left, right and centre for West Ham, they are going to be dancing ion it, so that's a PR disaster as well.
This Dempsey complaint from Fulham is a PR ballsup. As were the club’s official statements during Suarezgate. From a group of people from the mediia business, I was expecting great PR., but maybe they need to get to know this country a bit better.
posted on 5/9/12
FSB - I wasn't being pedantic at all. You're looking at ev erything too simplistically. Players around 30 would generally be classed as old players with no resale value, obviously there are exceptions. Players under say 23 might be classed as young players. However there are ages in between, 24, 25, 26, 27 maybe 28, for example. These aren't really classed as young players but players in between who have resale value. So to say we have to rely on young players is wrong, it's not true and we haven't only signed young players. We signed Doni, Bellamy and Downing.
You have to bear in mind that when you have a long term plan and you aren't going for a quick fix, or adding to quality, you want to train players to work to a particular system, a philosophy, it works best to buy young. Patience is all that's needed, not knee-jerk reactions.
posted on 5/9/12
Patience is all that's needed, not knee-jerk reactions.
----------------
As Kemlyn has alluded to. The owners have been prone to a bit of knee-jerking themselves
posted on 5/9/12
It may be so but now, without a doubt they have laid the foundations for a long term plan and got rid of anything that was for the short-term.
posted on 5/9/12
However there are ages in between, 24, 25, 26, 27 maybe 28, for example. These aren't really classed as young players but players in between who have resale value.
--------------------------
TOOR, 24 and 25 can be considered young and may retain a decent resale value at the end of a 4 year contract. Doubt the same could be said for many 26 and 27 year olds though.
Yes, we have signed some older players but the transfer policy has been heavily skewed towards the younger end of the market, in terms of transfer fees paid since FSG took over.
posted on 5/9/12
TOOR, Berbatov was 27 when he went to United for 30Mill. Sold aged 31 for 5Mill. Minimal resale value after 4 years.
posted on 5/9/12
every top club has a couple of Robinho, Jo, Berbatov, Shevchenko, Veron, Carroll where 15-30 mil is summarily flushed.
Why should we be any different?
posted on 6/9/12
comment by FSB (U11355)
posted 1 hour, 34 minutes ago
TOOR, Berbatov was 27 when he went to United for 30Mill. Sold aged 31 for 5Mill. Minimal resale value after 4 years.
----------------------------------------
And? What's your point? We should be like United? Well we don't have an established squad which we can add £30m players to. We started from scratch after a few of our best players left and our best manager in years, in Rafa. So as I said, instead of throwing money at it, trying to buy any player who will come to a team not in the Champions League for over the odds they take the long but safer route, in that if players don't work out, they still have a resale value and we can reinvest.
posted on 6/9/12
not me - we negotiated an outcome, not a price. Unusua? yes. But the result was the same as us paying 20 for Carroll and getting 35 for Torres.
that's all that really matters to me.
-------
Absolutely
redconn > - once again I find myself agreeing with pretty much all your comments
posted on 6/9/12
TOOR, My point? You suggested that 26 and 27 year old players are not old and are therefore not subject to the general rule that they will have a low resale value.
Berbatov was bought aged 27 and his resale value at the end of his contract was relatively very small, which argues against the point you were making.
Can you name any players bought at 26 or 27 who were sold for a big profit when they were in their 30s?
posted on 6/9/12
in that if players don't work out, they still have a resale value and we can reinvest.
----------------------------------
Like AC and Henderson?
posted on 6/9/12
What the owners seem to be missing is that a £6m investment in an 'old' player could be the difference between CL and not, when they would recuperate far more than their £6m outlay. It's not so much about the individual concerned ie Dempsey in this case, but there's a vacant position in the team that needs filling. Speculate to accumulate comes to mind.
posted on 6/9/12
JB, spot on
posted on 6/9/12
However, if you include wages it would ahve cost about £20m - £25m.
The point is if you're not willing to pay it get another target who you can afford and does fit the model that you're trying to implement.
People keep telling me that it does not matter if owners know about football. I completely disagree on this as how do you know that you're putting the right staff in the right positions?
You don't and that's why they sack everyone.
posted on 6/9/12
Robbing, according to the comments made by the Echo journo quoted on another thread FSG were willing to pay 15 mill for Sturridge instead of Dempsey. His wages might have been less but overall he would have been a more expensive option. The fact is that this is not simply a matter of whether they could afford Dempsey. The critical factor is that he didn't fit the FSG profile.
If FSG are going to impose a transfer policy based on their criteria then I would agree that its important that they know a bit about the game. They should also be held fully accountable when their policy is seen to lead to problems on the pitch.
posted on 6/9/12
Just saw the thread with the journo. I find it more bizarre that he said that BR thought Sturrdige was over-priced and as is pointed out if we were not going to pay it why did BR not know?
posted on 6/9/12
comment by FSB (U11355)
posted 8 hours ago
in that if players don't work out, they still have a resale value and we can reinvest.
----------------------------------
Like AC and Henderson?
-----------------------------------------
You seem to confuse resale value and profit.
posted on 6/9/12
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 7 hours, 17 minutes ago
What the owners seem to be missing is that a £6m investment in an 'old' player could be the difference between CL and not, when they would recuperate far more than their £6m outlay. It's not so much about the individual concerned ie Dempsey in this case, but there's a vacant position in the team that needs filling. Speculate to accumulate comes to mind.
--------------------------------------
It could but there were higher chances that it wouldn't and thus go against the plan. When you have a plan, you have to stick to it, no point changing it, especially for average players like Dempsey.
posted on 6/9/12
TOOR -- I'm not sure I know what the plan is. The plan with BR seems to be different to the one with Dalglish. I agree that we don't want average players but I think an average, old, striker is better than none at all. btw I didn't particularly want Dempsey.
posted on 6/9/12
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 28 seconds ago
TOOR -- I'm not sure I know what the plan is. The plan with BR seems to be different to the one with Dalglish. I agree that we don't want average players but I think an average, old, striker is better than none at all. btw I didn't particularly want Dempsey.
--------------------------------
but that's the whole point, he isn't better than none at all, as he costs money, money that can go towards a very good player, the following season to help the club grow for years to come. That's the plan.
Have a listen to this:-
http://llnw.libsyn.com/p/7/4/1/7411bc4c50347983/INTERVIEW_-_RODGERS_TALKS_TO_TAW.m4a?s=1346955541&e=1346957341&c_id=4915799&h=f4f9b3dd6467463437df6b0ce8d5d580
posted on 6/9/12
What the owners seem to be missing is that a £6m investment in an 'old' player could be the difference between CL and not, when they would recuperate far more than their £6m outlay. It's not so much about the individual concerned ie Dempsey in this case, but there's a vacant position in the team that needs filling. Speculate to accumulate comes to mind.
---------
Why be inflexible? If the right player comes along then buy him if you can. I can understand the strategy of buying young players to maximise resale vaue, but it doesn't have to be written in stone, especially when we have a gaping hole in the squad.
Look how Gary Mac made himself into an Anfield legend. FSG would have told Ged to get stuffed. This is what I mean about the owners not understanding football sometimes being a hindrance, or perhaps is their mysterious un-named advisers calling the shots.
Hopefully it won't happen again because potentially it could have a seriously damaging effect for the season.
posted on 6/9/12
Gary Mac lasted 2 years and was free. It's not comparable. It's not long term and at six million for an average player, plus wages, it would have been a silly signing in my opinion. It's a short term fix and completely against what the club are trying to do.
posted on 6/9/12
I realise Gary Mac was a freebie. I chose him as an example of an experienced pro who was able to help a group of young players. Dempsey may or not have been the answer, but it seems to be that the board stepped in to block the transfer which sets an unfortunate precedent, which hopefully won't be repeated.
posted on 6/9/12
We have Gerrard and Carragher as experienced players who can help the young group of players.
They didn't block Dalglish's transfers and in hindsight, many believe they should have. So hopefully it is repeated. The plan shouldn't be compromised, they have a long term plan and they're sticking to it. They are the one's who'll have to take the flack if it doesn't work out, just as they have had when Dalglish didn't work out.
Page 4 of 5