Harry Souttar

[LCFCJohn]

47 minutes ago, Bordersfox said:

It's quite difficult because here you get into more subjective arguments.  You could say we've lost our two best defenders in Chilwell and Maguire so spending the money we had for them was never likely to replace what we had lost.  

 

I'm not saying that is the case, as obviously recruitment has been poor, but it's more difficult to quantify what we have lost as against the money in and what we do with it.  That's why I think net spend is the most important metric as it does account for losing assets.  That's just my view.  

 

In terms of spending more than any other manager in our history I'm not convinced that's a useful comparator.  The PL has changed beyond recognition even in the last decade.  The money being thrown about is obscene.  I think that's why you really need to look at what other teams around us are doing now to judge how well Rodgers has been backed.  Whether we agree with it or not or think it's good for the game or not other teams are spending vastly more than us. Wolves, Everton even Southampton etc etc. None of that guarantees success, but that's a different discussion altogether.  

 

I maintain in this league and in comparison to other teams we consider ourselves to be competing against he hasn't been backed massively at all.  I just don't think of all the sticks that's one he can be beaten with.  

 

Should he have done/be doing better with what we have got?  Absolutely.  But compared with managers at most other comparative clubs I don't think we can say he's been given a huge transfer budget.  

 

 

I agree with this summary, and I guess I am saying the same about net spend as an indicator but from the perspective also that it includes players being sold or retained as an indication of being backed and the last two summers, in that sense, he has been backed.

 

Also when looking at other clubs such as Newcastle, Aston Villa, Brentford, Brighton etc and particularly the first two, looking at how much more they have spent, it’s important to note we were in a different world to them only a couple of years ago. They had so much catching up to do that you’d expect them to have spent so much more. The fact they are now in a different stratosphere to us, is a reflection on how we have operated included Rodgers and his crony that’s now f’d off to Atalanta!

[trooky]

10 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

If we are applying logic here. Signing a player for £10-£15m, we are hoping that player fetches us north of £25m in a few years. It’s always a risk but that is how we operate in the market. If the price is £20m it’s probably slighter higher than we want but if our recruitment team are saying he’s our CB for next 3 years (in the PL), we may have to stomach it given it’s the Jan window.

The market is inflated at the moment, we're desperate for players. We'll go down if we can't get a CB, GK LW, RW in this window. We need to stop wasting time and get the players in. 

[An Sionnach]

11 minutes ago, LCFCJohn said:

two best defenders in Chilwell

I wish I had a fiver for every time he got a kicking on here. Chilwell is a dangerous attacker but an extremely moderate defender.

[Bordersfox]

7 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

 Chilwell is a dangerous attacker

 

That really wasn't the point of my post, or even what I said in the entire sentence which is always the problem when cherry picking, as I have done with your post.  Alters the entire meaning.  The words 'you could say' beforehand and 'that's not what I'm saying' in the following paragraph being fairly key as I was emphasising I was using it purely to illustrate net spend rather than to make a point about Chilwell or Maguire.  

 

I was just making a point about the subjectivity involved in sale and replacement of assets with regards net spend.  However, you have actually proven the point for me, in that nobody will ever agree on anything about players, so I thank you! 

[Guest Manini]

Like the idea of this one. Seems like our type of signing. 

[LCFCJohn]

56 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

I wish I had a fiver for every time he got a kicking on here. Chilwell is a dangerous attacker but an extremely moderate defender.

Not sure how you have quoted me but with something that wasn’t what I posted 

[Guest glasgowfox]

Interesting to see if he is in the stoke squad today...May already have been mentioned but can't be bothered reading back all the posts 😀 

Edited 21 January 2023 by glasgowfox

[TrickyTrevLeftPeg]

34 minutes ago, Manini said:

Like the idea of this one. Seems like our type of signing. 

Absolutely. Potential resale value there. Wants to come. Big unit which will help in both boxes and stoke fans seem to think he can play at the highest level. Let's get him in and then focus on a RW and a potential GK

[Bordersfox]

1 hour ago, LCFCJohn said:

Not sure how you have quoted me but with something that wasn’t what I posted 

I replied as it was from my post god knows why it showed it as yours 🤭

[Big Dave]

Wonder if he will be in the Stoke squad today?  

[Guest StevieLynex]

At 1.98 metres (6 ft 6 in), Souttar is the second tallest player to have represented the full Australia national team, behind Zeljko Kalac at 2.02 metres (6 ft 8 in)

[TJQuik]

12 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

When was the last time we had a CB score a goal for us?

Soyuncu last season against Man Utd

[Swalshed]

58 minutes ago, StevieLynex said:

At 1.98 metres (6 ft 6 in), Souttar is the second tallest player to have represented the full Australia national team, behind Zeljko Kalac at 2.02 metres (6 ft 8 in)

That's a great stat. 

How proud we'll all be to have had the two tallest Aussies represent our club! 

😂👍

 

[FerrisBueller]

I can’t read his name without saying it in my head like a cockney gangster saying “Shooter”

[SecretPro]

12 minutes ago, FerrisBueller said:

I can’t read his name without saying it in my head like a cockney gangster saying “Shooter”

Bricktop. 

 

"Gimme the fackin Souttar"

[moore_94]

Not in Stoke’s match squad!

 

Although apparently injured… 

Edited 21 January 2023 by moore_94

[Safestandingfox]

2 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Not in Stoke’s match squad!

"Injured" 

[EnderbyFox]

 

 

ITS HAPPENING 

[KFS]

Victor was also ‘ill’

[FoxOnWheels]

Surely to much of a coincidence that he’s out due to a minor knock when were apparently increasing are bid

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

'Harry Souttar drops out of the starting XI after picking up a slight knock' 

 

On the door? 

[StanSP]

A slight knock. As if

 

He's on his way to Gent! 

[Sly]

Is that minor injury an ACL, if so, he’ll fit right in! 

[FoxyLeon]

7 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

I’m sorry but this is completely daft. When discussing how a manager has been backed financially, the only meaningful figure is net spend. If you’ve spent £100m gross but you had to sell your best player for £90m to afford that, you’ve still lost your best player so the overall impact on the quality of team will be significantly lower. I don’t understand why this is hard to grasp.

 

Again, this is just a further example of my point, you're simply looking at the surface level, with no idea what this actually means.

 

If we sell Maguire for £80 million then we sign 4 players, for a combined £60 million, then by your logic, "Net Spend" would be a negative. However, you've forgot about wages and bonuses, as this figure on this website does....

Let's actually use an example which happened, 21/22 and 22/23 transfers.

 

Incoming-

 

Daka, Soumare, Vestergaard, Bertrand, Lookman, Wout Faes, Victor Kristiansen, Dennis Praet (return from loan), Alex Smithies. + New contracts for Albrighton, Mendy, Vardy and KDH.

 

 

Outgoing-

 

Ghezzal, James, Fuchs, Morgan, Fofana, Schmeichel.

 

The Wage bill over this period, will have seen a significant rise. With Vestergaard and Bertrand alone rising it by over £150,000 a week. Praet's return means at least £50,000 I'd imagine, per week, with Daka + Soumare combining over £100,000 themselves. Combine that with investment into the training facilities, and you're looking at anywhere from £15-40+ million extra, per year, on top of your "Net Spend" table that was purely for transfer fees. 

 

See even our losses figure should have told you just how incorrect this table is and how daft the "Net Spend" metric is. In fact, it doesn't even account for "Net Spend" at all....It just accounts for transfer fees. By being 18th in that table of yours, but having the highest losses in the league, should tell you just how inaccurate your figure is. 

If you sign Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe and Neymar on free transfers, put them on a Million quid a week each and sold KDH for £2.50, your metric would claim we're someone spending less than before, which is absurd. 

[TrickyTrevLeftPeg]

Spend the extra few million and get him in. He's exactly what we need right now.