Daniel Iversen

[FoxTimmy2]

Iversen now the 4th choice behind Danny Ward, not exactly the best selling point.

[Lichfieldfox.]

Surely a Turkish club would take both of these goalkeepers off our hands

[MPH]

Quite a spectacular fall from Grace for Iversen.. he’s gone from being Kaspers relzcement to 4th choice! 

[Tuna]

1 hour ago, Lichfieldfox. said:

Surely a Turkish club would take both of these goalkeepers off our hands

Assuming they want to go there, it's not like it's an hour down the M1.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

2 hours ago, Lichfieldfox. said:

Surely a Turkish club would take both of these goalkeepers off our hands

Certainly Ward is a Turkey anyway . . . . 

[Happy Fox]

Crystal Palace ‘offered considerable amount of millions’ to sign goalkeeper before Henderson arrival - Sport Witness

[Ric Flair]

4 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

Crystal Palace ‘offered considerable amount of millions’ to sign goalkeeper before Henderson arrival - Sport Witness

This surely cannot be true.

[Gamble92]

On 03/09/2023 at 07:36, FoxTimmy2 said:

Iversen now the 4th choice behind Danny Ward, not exactly the best selling point.

Purely because of the managers ideology though. I think clubs will be aware of that.

 

Soyuncu being 5th choice centre back in a relegated side didn't do him much harm getting into the Champions League this season.

[AKCJ]

35 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

Crystal Palace ‘offered considerable amount of millions’ to sign goalkeeper before Henderson arrival - Sport Witness

That's surely bollocks.

[ClaphamFox]

17 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

That's surely bollocks.

It's Sport Witness, so yes.

[CrazyKopCorner]

On 03/09/2023 at 07:36, FoxTimmy2 said:

Iversen now the 4th choice behind Danny Ward, not exactly the best selling point.

That does worry me that someone could assess and decide that Danny Ward is a better goalkeeper than Iversen 

Edited 4 September 2023 by CrazyKopCorner

[Sambiasso]

This is the problem when the buyer has one price in mind and the seller values them higher. 

 

Happened multiple times over last 24months, players wanting to go but the club holding onto them only to let them go for free Soyuncu, Soumare, Praet and others last season. Daka, Iversen etc this season.

 

Omnishambles.

[Dahnsouff]

15 minutes ago, Sambiasso said:

This is the problem when the buyer has one price in mind and the seller values them higher. 

 

Happened multiple times over last 24months, players wanting to go but the club holding onto them only to let them go for free Soyuncu, Soumare, Praet and others last season. Daka, Iversen etc this season.

 

Omnishambles.

This was my fear, but perhaps the more pertinent question is, have we learnt lessons? Guess that depends on the WHY we are operating in this manner as it has been demonstrated several times over the last 2-3 years that sticking to your guns just leaves you with deadwood, a larger wage bill and less manoeuvrability in the market.

[fairbanksh]

Our negotiating skills are shambolic. Rudkin is and always has been out of his depth. Nothing new there.

[Fox92]

3 hours ago, CrazyKopCorner said:

That does worry me that someone could assess and decide that Danny Ward is a better goalkeeper than Iversen 

I wouldn’t worry, neither of them are good enough.

[Tommy Fresh]

Just now, Fox92 said:

I wouldn’t worry, neither of them are good enough.

Iversen isn't for the way we want to play, but based on his time at this level he is actually more than good enough for a side that don't want to pass out from the back.

[Fox92]

Just now, Tommy Fresh said:

Iversen isn't for the way we want to play, but based on his time at this level he is actually more than good enough for a side that don't want to pass out from the back.

But we do pass it out from the back so for that reason alone he isn’t good enough. 

[Tommy Fresh]

Just now, Fox92 said:

But we do pass it out from the back so for that reason alone he isn’t good enough. 

Yeah if you didn't seem to have a weird dislike of him regardless 

[Gerard]

I just don't believe we would have turned down "considerable amounts of millions" for a GK who is now 4th choice and completely surplus to requirements. When you have something that is of no use to you then you have to accept market value whatever price you have in your head that you think is obtainable.

 

Iversen is after all considered not worthy of a place in the squad of a Championship club that has promoted a £6m buy and an academy product ahead of him.

[Ric Flair]

2 hours ago, Gerard said:

I just don't believe we would have turned down "considerable amounts of millions" for a GK who is now 4th choice and completely surplus to requirements. When you have something that is of no use to you then you have to accept market value whatever price you have in your head that you think is obtainable.

 

Iversen is after all considered not worthy of a place in the squad of a Championship club that has promoted a £6m buy and an academy product ahead of him.

You'd think not, but last summer we had absolutely nowhere to turn and there was a player Rodgers had barely used, had gone back to France for a period of the season before and we were offered nearly what we'd paid for him and yet we moved the goalposts and the deal fell through.

 

We leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of pigsearerie.

[Gerard]

28 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

You'd think not, but last summer we had absolutely nowhere to turn and there was a player Rodgers had barely used, had gone back to France for a period of the season before and we were offered nearly what we'd paid for him and yet we moved the goalposts and the deal fell through.

 

We leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of pigsearerie.

 

Slightly different circumstances although I broadly agree.

 

I always think it's good business if you can get 80% of your money back on a signing that hasn't worked out.

 

You could make a case for keeping Soumare albeit a very weak one, with Iversen he was completely deadwood for us. Dropped to 4th choice for a Championship club with virtually zero chance of ever getting another game here, any offer of several million would surely have been a no brainer and you couldn't get him through the door quick enough. We were in no position to bargain hard or refuse such offers. 

 

I'd be amazed if that story was true, the logic of refusing such an offer is unexplainable.

 

 

[CrazyKopCorner]

7 hours ago, Fox92 said:

I wouldn’t worry, neither of them are good enough.

Bigger picture is that who ever is assessing has a severe lack of knowledge and judgement

[Claudio Fannieri]

7 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

You'd think not, but last summer we had absolutely nowhere to turn and there was a player Rodgers had barely used, had gone back to France for a period of the season before and we were offered nearly what we'd paid for him and yet we moved the goalposts and the deal fell through.

 

We leave no stone unturned in our pursuit of pigsearerie.

In relation to the valuations we place on players and the stance we take as a club to hold out for said valuation, I wonder if that is a decision made as a collective leadership group or if Rudkin is given a budget and then it is in his domain to sell players for the valuation he deems acceptable, which could be used to increase the budget. 
 

However FFP has added a whole new complexity to transfers now which places further limitations on clubs when moving players on. 
 

For example we sign a player for £25m on a 5 year deal, under FFP we would amortise that fee at £5m per year, if that player flops after a season to sell them on we need to sell for an absolute minimum £20m + and the new club cover their wages etc. 

 

before FFP we could just sell for £12m and move on and use that money to fund another transfer. Not anymore, under FFP that would show as £8m loss and therefore if you start with a £50m budget, that would reduce to £42m, so by selling a player you effectively weaken your position. 
 

However the other side of the coin is players entering the last year of contracts or who have been here a long time or have come through academy will have very small book values or have zero book value therefore will show as nearly all profit or 100% profit, therefore players such as Iheanacho, Ndidi and Iversen could be moved on from an FFP perspective for say £25m for the 3 and it would show as pure profit, therefore in the example our budget would go from £50m to £75m but you then have to replace 2 1st teamers and it’s whether you can buy required quality. 
 

What is clear is FFP has added this additional dynamic and as a club we don’t seem to have got a strategy that takes the best advantage of this. We are either hanging onto to our better players/assets until the very last minute therefore losing them for vastly reduced fees or.in a lot of cases for nothing, or in cases where our recruitment has been poor, we are then hamstrung and unable or not prepared to take a loss to shift them. This is exactly what the big clubs wanted when it was introduced, as this does massively restricts small to medium sized clubs, as soon as you hold on to assets and take a gamble and not sell assets  or have a poor transfer window, your ability to continue to improve grinds to a halt and you disappear as quickly as you arrived. 
 

It will be interesting to see how Brighton move forward, if they keep to their plan and sell at the height of the market they will be able to stick around but if they get a sniff of top 4 and then hold onto players and then a couple of big signings don’t fire, they could quickly follow teams like us. 

[LCFCJohn]

On 04/09/2023 at 17:59, Fox92 said:

But we do pass it out from the back so for that reason alone he isn’t good enough. 

The words you are looking for are ‘not suited for us’. 
 

Hope that helps 👍

[TheStig]

On 04/09/2023 at 16:46, Sambiasso said:

This is the problem when the buyer has one price in mind and the seller values them higher. 

 

Happened multiple times over last 24months, players wanting to go but the club holding onto them only to let them go for free Soyuncu, Soumare, Praet and others last season. Daka, Iversen etc this season.

 

Omnishambles.

Rudkin?