shen Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 5 minutes ago, Gerard said: I cheer for both the business and the team as the two are linked. One thing is for sure if you keep making bad value signings it will catch up with you in the end. All signings need to be value economically and not just improve the team whatever the cost. Sigurdsson is almost certain to be bad value. Give me an Iheanacho type signing any day of the week who probably adds similar value to the team but will almost certainly be a great signing economically as we probably make a profit on him as well. The money secured by staying in the Premier League will hike prices. It's clear someone like Sigurdsson would add quality to the squad and virtually guarantee goals/assists, which we might otherwise lose with the sale of Mahrez. Are we about making a profit or investing as much as our budget allows into the team to match ambitions? I agree that £50m is expensive for Sigurdsson. £40m is probably closer to his real PL value, but he has outstanding qualities that would hopefully offset most of the sporting loss of Mahrez and/or Drinkwater leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox 4 Life Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 9 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said: So we're going to have a wage bill bigger than 1 of Utd, City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Spurs, Everton... by taking away Drinkwaters and adding Siggys? Some other clubs hanging around mid-table also have ridiculously high wage bills too. Exactly, we could add 5 Siggy's and still be nowhere near the top 6 wage bills. These teams are paying multiple players over £200k a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluetintedspecs Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 I am convinced we are not in for him and I massively hope that is the case as personally I feel it would be a ridiculous amount to spaff on a good ageing player who takes decent free kicks. I'm glad quite a few on here are not looking after the club's purse strings as we'd be fecked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannythefox Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 Don't get the fans worrying about the wages etc the gaffers of the club will run the club in the best way possible. Most of the time you have to spend heavily to climb the table it's that simple. Don't spend, don't progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 36 minutes ago, Gerard said: Which is ridiculous as we can't afford 5*£50m players. Our net spend is the 5th highest in the league over the last five seasons. Only the Manchester clubs, Arsenal and Chelsea have spent more. It's the road to financial suicide for us to buy a 28 year old that we'll never get a return on and in all likelihood will prove to be a terrible value signing. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premier-league-last-five-seasons/transfer-league-tables/premier-league-table-last-five-seasons If we want to be Top 4 regularly then that's what it will take, ridiculous or not. Not sure why you think 'in all likelihood'? We'd score more goals from corners and free kicks which at the moment we may as well not be awarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 1 minute ago, hackneyfox said: If we want to be Top 4 regularly then that's what it will take, ridiculous or not. Not sure why you think 'in all likelihood'? We'd score more goals from corners and free kicks which at the moment we may as well not be awarded. I'm not disputing he would improve us and we'd probably score more from set pieces but at what cost? He won't improve us enough to justify it costing us £90m over five seasons. The people who think we should buy Sigurdsson for £50m will be the first ones moaning when the likes of Burnley are spending more money than us in a couple of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 17 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said: I am convinced we are not in for him and I massively hope that is the case as personally I feel it would be a ridiculous amount to spaff on a good ageing player who takes decent free kicks. I'm glad quite a few on here are not looking after the club's purse strings as we'd be fecked If I could like that post more than once I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 15 minutes ago, Bluetintedspecs said: I am convinced we are not in for him and I massively hope that is the case as personally I feel it would be a ridiculous amount to spaff on a good ageing player who takes decent free kicks. I'm glad quite a few on here are not looking after the club's purse strings as we'd be fecked He's more than a 'good player that takes decent free kicks'. But what do you think he's worth in today's market? How is anyone to say who is worth what these days. Drinkwater rumoured to Chelsea for £37m is just as ridiculous. Seriously...Spending £17m on a defender who played the majority of games for a relegated team seems like questionable value. He'll likely never achieve the success Huth and Morgan (who cost less than £5m combined) have here. Few defenders ever will... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 Just now, shen said: He's more than a 'good player that takes decent free kicks'. But what do you think he's worth in today's market? How is anyone to say who is worth what these days. Drinkwater rumoured to Chelsea for £37m is just as ridiculous. Seriously...Spending £17m on a defender who played the majority of games for a relegated team seems like questionable value. He'll likely never achieve the success Huth and Morgan (who cost less than £5m combined) have here. Few defenders ever will... Maguire is 24 years old and one of Hull's stand out players and very close to an England call up. There is every chance that he will prove to be a good buy. Sigurdsson is 28 next month and none of the big clubs are interested in him. Anyone who spends £50m on him has to be prepared to write that off. If the top clubs don't want him at 28 they probably won't want him at 30. If Everton buy him for £50m they'll almost certainly never sell him and he will have cost them up to £90m for his five years service. At £37m I'd sell Drinkwater as well as he's another one whose value has almost certainly peaked at that price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueBrett Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 Even taking the ridiculous price-tag out of it he just wouldn't fit into our team...Like not at all. The ONLY way we could accommodate him would be if Mahrez left but holy shit that would be an ultra depressing downgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 12 minutes ago, Gerard said: Maguire is 24 years old and one of Hull's stand out players and very close to an England call up. There is every chance that he will prove to be a good buy. Sigurdsson is 28 next month and none of the big clubs are interested in him. Anyone who spends £50m on him has to be prepared to write that off. If the top clubs don't want him at 28 they probably won't want him at 30. If Everton buy him for £50m they'll almost certainly never sell him and he will have cost them up to £90m for his five years service. At £37m I'd sell Drinkwater as well as he's another one whose value has almost certainly peaked at that price. I'm not saying Maguire won't prove to be good value. He might. People did balk at the Musa £16m price last year though, even though his credentials were quite good and he was just 23 at the time. And why are we obsessed with resale value? Let's pretend Sigurdsson costs £50m and gets sold two years later for £30m, would that be so far fetched? Arsenal were prepared to pay a similar amount for Vardy at that age last year and with prices evolving as they are, I don't think that is beyond the realm of possibility. You make a loss as you would any time you buy a contracted player in his prime, but such a loss wouldn't cripple the club's economy a great deal. We have rarely been in a position to do buy a top player in his prime before and it would be a bit weird for a club which supposedly is among the 20-30 richest ones to only buy young players or players past their peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 9 minutes ago, BlueBrett said: Even taking the ridiculous price-tag out of it he just wouldn't fit into our team...Like not at all. The ONLY way we could accommodate him would be if Mahrez left but holy shit that would be an ultra depressing downgrade. What makes you say that? I happen to think he'd fit in just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BlueBrett Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 6 minutes ago, shen said: What makes you say that? I happen to think he'd fit in just fine. In what position and in place of who? He's not fit to lace Mahrez's boots and Albrighton offers far more to the team overall than he would imo. We've got Kelechi to play as second striker/No.10 and you wouldn't put him in centre mid in place of Ndidi/James/Iborra/Drinkwater. Even if you could somehow crowbar him onto the pitch we also already have enough guys who can take a decent set-piece so I can't see what he could possibly have to offer us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 Just now, BlueBrett said: In what position and in place of who? He's not fit to lace Mahrez's boots and Albrighton offers far more to them team overall than he would imo. We've got Kelechi to play as second striker/No.10 and you wouldn't put him in centre mid in place of Ndidi/James/Iborra/Drinkwater. Even if you could somehow crowbar him onto the pitch we also already have enough guys who can take a decent set-piece already so I can't see what he could possibly have to offer us. Probably would be best behind a single striker, i.e. Okazaki's place. Should Iheanacho and Vardy play as a pair up front, he would still be solid next to Ndidi. I even see him doing well in a 3-5-2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 9 minutes ago, shen said: I'm not saying Maguire won't prove to be good value. He might. People did balk at the Musa £16m price last year though, even though his credentials were quite good and he was just 23 at the time. And why are we obsessed with resale value? Let's pretend Sigurdsson costs £50m and gets sold two years later for £30m, would that be so far fetched? Arsenal were prepared to pay a similar amount for Vardy at that age last year and with prices evolving as they are, I don't think that is beyond the realm of possibility. You make a loss as you would any time you buy a contracted player in his prime, but such a loss wouldn't cripple the club's economy a great deal. We have rarely been in a position to do buy a top player in his prime before and it would be a bit weird for a club which supposedly is among the 20-30 richest ones to only buy young players or players past their peak. I've already posted that we're the 5th highest net spenders in the league over the last five years. I also think your dreaming if you think we can sell a 30 year old Sigurdsson for £30m in two years time. To who? Who wants to buy a 30 year old for £30m from us that they have to write off? You're comparing our spend to clubs like Arsenal who have about four times the income we do. Even clubs who are our financial superiors like Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham and Chelsea have never exceeded £50m on a player, It's ludicrous that people think we should slap £50m down on a player with little resale value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 1 hour ago, hackneyfox said: So which player for sub £50m will take us to the top 4? They don't exist so to be top 4 we have to accept that we probably need to buy 5 players at £50m a pop. Kind of my point. We're not going to buy 5 at £50m a pop so why buy 1 if ultimately, we're not actually going to get the value out of it? For instance (these are just example names so dont get hung up on them and miss the main point), if we bought Deeney for £25m and paid him £50k a week and Ben Arta for the same money, our spend would be the same as if we bought Siggy for £50m and paid him £100k a week. The main difference is we'd have stronger depth in two areas rather than 1 and would most likely have the same effect on our league position. Dont get me wrong, Sig is a good player but he isnt £50m good (even in todays market) and he's already showed when he takes a step up (Spurs) he shrinks away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Posted 10 August 2017 Author Share Posted 10 August 2017 It's a rip off. 50 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 15 minutes ago, Gerard said: I've already posted that we're the 5th highest net spenders in the league over the last five years. I also think your dreaming if you think we can sell a 30 year old Sigurdsson for £30m in two years time. To who? Who wants to buy a 30 year old for £30m from us that they have to write off? You're comparing our spend to clubs like Arsenal who have about four times the income we do. Even clubs who are our financial superiors like Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham and Chelsea have never exceeded £50m on a player, It's ludicrous that people think we should slap £50m down on a player with little resale value. But the Vardy example shows just how clubs would be willing to pay those amounts, even for older players. That was my point! Midtable clubs would fork out for a marquee signing like Sigurdsson, especially if they've survived in the league for the next two seasons. I don't know if you have noticed, but players that would've cost £30m just a coupe of seasons ago now cost £60m. I have no idea how people know what represents a good deal and what doesn't. The vast majority of players bought by PL clubs are overpriced, and in particular those coming from other English clubs. I'm not necessarily comparing our spend to those clubs, but I think we should be compared to the West Hams and Evertons if our ambitions as a club are to be believed. On a side note, I'm pretty sure Arsenal and Chelsea have both paid £50m+ for Lacazette and Morata respectively this summer and Liverpool and Man Utd have all broken their transfer records. It's a growing trend, like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnup Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 Why the piss this thread is still open I don't know. We don't need him. We don't want him. He doesn't want to come here. We've not been linked with him for ages. Things so quiet we're basically a generic transfer forum now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 27 minutes ago, shen said: But the Vardy example shows just how clubs would be willing to pay those amounts, even for older players. That was my point! Midtable clubs would fork out for a marquee signing like Sigurdsson, especially if they've survived in the league for the next two seasons. I don't know if you have noticed, but players that would've cost £30m just a coupe of seasons ago now cost £60m. I have no idea how people know what represents a good deal and what doesn't. The vast majority of players bought by PL clubs are overpriced, and in particular those coming from other English clubs. I'm not necessarily comparing our spend to those clubs, but I think we should be compared to the West Hams and Evertons if our ambitions as a club are to be believed. On a side note, I'm pretty sure Arsenal and Chelsea have both paid £50m+ for Lacazette and Morata respectively this summer and Liverpool and Man Utd have all broken their transfer records. It's a growing trend, like it or not. Morata 24 years old 63 games for Real Madrid 63 games for Juventus 20 games for Spain Sigurdsson is 28 and plays for Swansea after being sold by Tottenham because he wasn't good enough. I certainly wouldn't object to us buying a player of Morata's age and pedigree for £50m especially if we somehow managed to get him even although Chelsea were interested. Buying a player of Sigurdsson age and pedigree and making him in the top 25 transfers paid of all time is beyond ridiculous and further highlighted by the fact that none of the big clubs are remotely interested. I'd be interested to hear what you think the price you would be prepared to pay on Sigurdsson, £60m, £70m or even £100m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 29 minutes ago, Tuna said: It's a rip off. 50 million. Yep agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARM1968 Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 There is no value in buying Siggy. None at all. Gibson on the other hand provides value and a potential profit. You dont one have to be financially suicidal to do well, ask Levy. You just have to be a massive cockwomble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicesterlad1989 Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 46 minutes ago, shen said: But the Vardy example shows just how clubs would be willing to pay those amounts, even for older players. That was my point! Midtable clubs would fork out for a marquee signing like Sigurdsson, especially if they've survived in the league for the next two seasons. I don't know if you have noticed, but players that would've cost £30m just a coupe of seasons ago now cost £60m. I have no idea how people know what represents a good deal and what doesn't. The vast majority of players bought by PL clubs are overpriced, and in particular those coming from other English clubs. I'm not necessarily comparing our spend to those clubs, but I think we should be compared to the West Hams and Evertons if our ambitions as a club are to be believed. On a side note, I'm pretty sure Arsenal and Chelsea have both paid £50m+ for Lacazette and Morata respectively this summer and Liverpool and Man Utd have all broken their transfer records. It's a growing trend, like it or not. Vardy was part of a title winning side when Arsenal showed interest. You could understand why they would look at him. Sigurdsson has been the big fish in a small pond at Swansea and relatively speaking a flop at Spurs. Just out of interest what players would you say were worth £30M but would now cost £60M? I'd happily fork out £50+ million on Lacazette or Morata. No way in a million years is Sigurdsson worth £50M, even in todays market. Don't get me wrong, he could be a good fit with us (unsure where he would fit in) but not for that price. You are correct, it's a growing trend and fee's are getting higher, which it's important for a club our size to spend it wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawko Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 I thought the idea was to buy the best players we can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 10 August 2017 Share Posted 10 August 2017 19 minutes ago, Dawko said: I thought the idea was to buy the best players we can afford. They have to want to come though, even on some level just for the money 135 pages on a player who doesn't want to come & won't join... This deal was dead the second we submitted a £40m offer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.