Jordan Rhodes (suggestion)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Littlebogreek  05 Aug 14 1.59pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Jordan Rhodes (suggestion) ' by Moose Signed a 2 year extension to his contract a couple of weeks back so now on a five year contract there. I'd say we have 2 hopes and bob just left town.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
sydtheeagle  England 05 Aug 14 2.02pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Jordan Rhodes (suggestion) ' by Moose Quote Littlebogreek at 05 Aug 2014 1.59pm
Signed a 2 year extension to his contract a couple of weeks back so now on a five year contract there. I'd say we have 2 hopes and bob just left town. Bob Hope a). doesn't play for us, and b). left town some time ago. Try to be accurate :-) On a serious note, although the Rhodes horse has been well and truly flogged in transfer talk I do not think the suggestion is as outlandish as you make out (not in so far as our interest; at the likely price I wouldn't want him) but regarding his availability. While the player is clearly happy at Blackburn himself, the reason clubs get players on long deals is because it increases their transfer value and makes them easier to sell (the opposite of players with a year left on their contracts, whose value diminishes because they'll soon be able to leave on a free, anyway). And remember, only last week Blackburn had to ship Leon Best to Derby just to balance the books. The Venky's have clearly lost their appetite for red ink. The bottom line; I think there's zero chance Rhodes will become a Palace player. However if, say, we pitched up offering 10 million quid and Dwight Gayle on loan for a year then I'm pretty sure they'd at least answer the phone. Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Aug 2014 2.04pm)
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Littlebogreek 05 Aug 14 2.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
We did a similar thing I think with Wilf where we extended his contract and then sold him in the Jan (but had him loaned back), could be wrong? Either way I take your point re contracts being worth nothing except for transfer value however in this case he had 3 years left anyway and just extended by 2, doubt they would have done that if they had any plans to sell as it wouldn't change much in the big scheme of their value of him currently. I'm probably wrong, we'll probably sign him tomorrow now.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 05 Aug 14 6.30pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 05 Aug 2014 2.02pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Jordan Rhodes (suggestion) ' by Moose ...the reason clubs get players on long deals is because it increases their transfer value and makes them easier to sell (the opposite of players with a year left on their contracts, whose value diminishes because they'll soon be able to leave on a free, anyway). Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Aug 2014 2.04pm) Logic tells me the exact opposite would be the case.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Baz Eagle 05 Aug 14 6.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Can't see this happening somehow, too much of an expensive gamble rather see 8-10m finalising deals with Wilson, Nzoni and Zaha (loan)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 06 Aug 14 10.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote bexleydave at 05 Aug 2014 6.30pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 05 Aug 2014 2.02pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Jordan Rhodes (suggestion) ' by Moose ...the reason clubs get players on long deals is because it increases their transfer value and makes them easier to sell (the opposite of players with a year left on their contracts, whose value diminishes because they'll soon be able to leave on a free, anyway). Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Aug 2014 2.04pm) Logic tells me the exact opposite would be the case. No, logic tells you it would be the case. if you were going to spend a lot of money to buy a player, you'd hardly do that if he only had 12 or 18 months left on his contract as, no sooner had you paid the transfer fee than he could start thinking about walking away to a club of his choosing as a free agent. Conversely, if you were buying a player you knew was contractually locked up and therefore yours for the next seven years, you'd be willing to pay far more because the risk of losing that player would be minimised. Remember, it's NOT the player you buy; it's his contract. The longer the contract, the more security the buyer has when it comes to a return on his investment. If you want to sell a player, sign him to a long-term contract first and thereby ensure you get the best possible fee for him. That's the logic. That's why the extension he signed with Blackburn is meaningless in terms of his possible availability on the transfer market. It may simply have been a shrewd bit of safeguarding of the club's financial interests. Edited by sydtheeagle (06 Aug 2014 10.14am)
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SirPeanut Keston 06 Aug 14 10.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Aug 2014 10.13am
Quote bexleydave at 05 Aug 2014 6.30pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 05 Aug 2014 2.02pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Jordan Rhodes (suggestion) ' by Moose ...the reason clubs get players on long deals is because it increases their transfer value and makes them easier to sell (the opposite of players with a year left on their contracts, whose value diminishes because they'll soon be able to leave on a free, anyway). Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Aug 2014 2.04pm) Logic tells me the exact opposite would be the case. No, logic tells you it would be the case. if you were going to spend a lot of money to buy a player, you'd hardly do that if he only had 12 or 18 months left on his contract as, no sooner had you paid the transfer fee than he could start thinking about walking away to a club of his choosing as a free agent. Conversely, if you were buying a player you knew was contractually locked up and therefore yours for the next seven years, you'd be willing to pay far more because the risk of losing that player would be minimised. Remember, it's NOT the player you buy; it's his contract. The longer the contract, the more security the buyer has when it comes to a return on his investment. If you want to sell a player, sign him to a long-term contract first and thereby ensure you get the best possible fee for him. That's the logic. That's why the extension he signed with Blackburn is meaningless in terms of his possible availability on the transfer market. It may simply have been a shrewd bit of safeguarding of the club's financial interests. Edited by sydtheeagle (06 Aug 2014 10.14am)
I have no knowledge of this and so am coming at this from a position of ignorance.
There are two kinds of person in this world: |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
collier row eagle  romford essex via another galaxy 06 Aug 14 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Just saw someone being smuggled into the palace training ground, he was under a blanket but had the large JR on his track suit bottoms, I think we've got him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 06 Aug 14 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote SirPeanut at 06 Aug 2014 10.20am
Is that true? It seems very odd that if you sign a player they come to you with the legacy of the previous contract. It would make much more sense that the contract is nullified and they start at your club from year 1. I have no knowledge of this and so am coming at this from a position of ignorance.
Player 1 has 12 months left on his contract. His club want 2 million for him. An interested buyer says "we're not going to give you more than 1 million for a player we're only guaranteed to have for the next year because his contract is expiring." Selling club says "we'll give you permission to talk to the player about a new contract if you agree to pay more than 1 million if you reach a deal." Buying club talks to the player who says "I'd love to join you, and I'd be prepared to sign a new 3 year deal so you get value for money on the transfer fee you pay." Buying club is now prepared to pay more than 1 million because they've got the player locked up and have mitigated the risk of losing him for nothing in the near future. Selling club probably still won't get 2 million, but might get 1.5 million as a compromise has been reached. A contract is a contract. Just because a player moves from one employer to another simply means the new employer assumes the existing contract from the old one. As in the case above both parties can choose to extend it, or they may not. Free agency is when the existing contract ends and the player can choose his next team with no transfer fee involved because he is out of contract. This is why clubs sell players for relatively low sums as their contracts near conclusion (usually with one year to go, if they won't sign new ones); at least they get some fee rather than nothing. And why it is very much in the player's interest to let his contract expire if he thinks he is a hot property (example: Tom Ince). With no transfer fee involved, the player can then demand a huge signing bonus (which would otherwise have been the transfer fee) AND pick his next club himself...not just go to whom he's sold. This (the above) is the reality under which clubs operate and decisions are made. It pays to bear this in mind when you analyse the transfer market. Right now, we have a problem with Yala. He has only 12 months left on his contract. If he doesn't sign a new one, I'd say there's a very good chance we will try to cut our losses on him either towards the end of this window or in January. Of course, we all hope he does sign an extension, and soon but a sale would in no way reflect our opinion of the player; only his contract status which, at present, is working against us.
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bexleydave Barnehurst 06 Aug 14 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Aug 2014 10.13am
Quote bexleydave at 05 Aug 2014 6.30pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 05 Aug 2014 2.02pm
This post has been merged from a topic called 'Jordan Rhodes (suggestion) ' by Moose ...the reason clubs get players on long deals is because it increases their transfer value and makes them easier to sell (the opposite of players with a year left on their contracts, whose value diminishes because they'll soon be able to leave on a free, anyway). Edited by sydtheeagle (05 Aug 2014 2.04pm) Logic tells me the exact opposite would be the case. No, logic tells you it would be the case. if you were going to spend a lot of money to buy a player, you'd hardly do that if he only had 12 or 18 months left on his contract as, no sooner had you paid the transfer fee than he could start thinking about walking away to a club of his choosing as a free agent. Conversely, if you were buying a player you knew was contractually locked up and therefore yours for the next seven years, you'd be willing to pay far more because the risk of losing that player would be minimised. Remember, it's NOT the player you buy; it's his contract. The longer the contract, the more security the buyer has when it comes to a return on his investment. If you want to sell a player, sign him to a long-term contract first and thereby ensure you get the best possible fee for him. That's the logic. That's why the extension he signed with Blackburn is meaningless in terms of his possible availability on the transfer market. It may simply have been a shrewd bit of safeguarding of the club's financial interests. Edited by sydtheeagle (06 Aug 2014 10.14am) In professional football, a transfer is the action taken whenever a player under contract moves between clubs. It refers to the transferring of a player's registration from one association football club to another. In general, the players can only be transferred during a transfer window and according to the rules set by a governing body. Usually some sort of compensation is paid for the player's rights, which is known as a transfer fee. When a player moves from one club to another, his old contract is terminated and he negotiates a new one with the club he is moving to, unlike in American, Canadian and Australian sports, where teams essentially trade existing player contracts. However, in some cases, transfers can function in a similar manner to player trades, as teams can offer another player on their squad as part of the compensation. You will need to provide a credible link, that is contradictory to the above and supports your contention, if what you are saying is to be accepted.
Bexley Dave Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing! "The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DannyDyer 06 Aug 14 11.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote sydtheeagle at 06 Aug 2014 10.54am
Quote SirPeanut at 06 Aug 2014 10.20am
Is that true? It seems very odd that if you sign a player they come to you with the legacy of the previous contract. It would make much more sense that the contract is nullified and they start at your club from year 1. I have no knowledge of this and so am coming at this from a position of ignorance.
Player 1 has 12 months left on his contract. His club want 2 million for him. An interested buyer says "we're not going to give you more than 1 million for a player we're only guaranteed to have for the next year because his contract is expiring." Selling club says "we'll give you permission to talk to the player about a new contract if you agree to pay more than 1 million if you reach a deal." Buying club talks to the player who says "I'd love to join you, and I'd be prepared to sign a new 3 year deal so you get value for money on the transfer fee you pay." Buying club is now prepared to pay more than 1 million because they've got the player locked up and have mitigated the risk of losing him for nothing in the near future. Selling club probably still won't get 2 million, but might get 1.5 million as a compromise has been reached. A contract is a contract. Just because a player moves from one employer to another simply means the new employer assumes the existing contract from the old one. As in the case above both parties can choose to extend it, or they may not. Free agency is when the existing contract ends and the player can choose his next team with no transfer fee involved because he is out of contract. This is why clubs sell players for relatively low sums as their contracts near conclusion (usually with one year to go, if they won't sign new ones); at least they get some fee rather than nothing. And why it is very much in the player's interest to let his contract expire if he thinks he is a hot property (example: Tom Ince). With no transfer fee involved, the player can then demand a huge signing bonus (which would otherwise have been the transfer fee) AND pick his next club himself...not just go to whom he's sold. This (the above) is the reality under which clubs operate and decisions are made. It pays to bear this in mind when you analyse the transfer market. Right now, we have a problem with Yala. He has only 12 months left on his contract. If he doesn't sign a new one, I'd say there's a very good chance we will try to cut our losses on him either towards the end of this window or in January. Of course, we all hope he does sign an extension, and soon but a sale would in no way reflect our opinion of the player; only his contract status which, at present, is working against us.
When a player is signed, a new contract is drawn up for the new employer, like in the real world. The teams are buying the player. Why do you think that, for instance, when shaw joined united there was a big thing about him being on 90k a week and Mourinho said he didn't wanna be paying that? I know Southampton wouldn't have. A player on a short term contract will be cheaper as the club knows that the player could leave for free soon, as do the buying club, so his value is lowered. Meanwhile in a long term contract, a players value increases as the club has him tied up for that period.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sydtheeagle England 06 Aug 14 11.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote DannyDyer at 06 Aug 2014 11.08am
Sorry but you are really so wrong I can't believe you actually watch/listen/read about transfer news?!? You really have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm not going to get into an argument. I've explained as articulately as I can how it works. Let's leave it at that. Up to readers if they think you're a more credible source of information. Re: Shaw, when a club wants to buy a player they talk to him first (just like any job interview). If, in that conversation, the player makes it clear that when contract time comes around he'll be wanting a rise to 90K a week then the prospective new employer may well say "no thanks". Edited by sydtheeagle (06 Aug 2014 11.15am)
Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.