You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > New transfer policy post
May 28 2022 1.41am

New transfer policy post

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View EaglesEaglesEagles's Profile EaglesEaglesEagles Flag 08 Jan 22 11.07am Send a Private Message to EaglesEaglesEagles Add EaglesEaglesEagles as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

If you had read my magnificent guide to running a transfer system to a mid range club, Cahill would have qualified

Aha! Fair enough. Sorry about that. Have you sent it to Dougie?

 


I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 08 Jan 22 11.09am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

Yes, but 12 players for 130m with no return, is business suicide

Do your estimable calculations not factor in the rather important variable ie value WHILE playing?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Skinnii's Profile Skinnii Flag Sheffield 08 Jan 22 11.22am Send a Private Message to Skinnii Add Skinnii as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

As Wilfs post has been taken over a new thread is needed.
we have spent 130m on players who we will not get a penny back from over the last 5 years which is unbelievably bad practice.
Only this season we seem to be showing any sense in buying, our policy should be:
1, never buy any player over the age of 26 unless he is a free transfer
2. Never let anybody's contract run beyond the age of 29
3. anyone with 18 months left on the contract, who has value, signs an extension or is offloaded
Stick by these rules and we wont have to really on handouts to keep from not going into administration, again

IMHO this is a extremely simplistic post addressing a complicated issue. As a broad strategy to reduce the age of the squad and to invest in players that may (MAY not definitely) realise a profit when sold then what you suggest would I guess work.

But let me address some of the issues I have with what you suggest:

1. It's too simplistic to say never buy a player over 26 unless they are on a free transfer. With advances in sports science and nutrition players are remaining at their peak longer. Players are no longer burnt out by the age of 30 - look at Ronaldo and Tiago Silva as examples or McArthur who is playing the best football he has in the last 3 years at the age of 34. So a player aged 27 could have 5 to 6 years left at their peak.

Furthermore you have to ask why at the age of 27 or 28 would a player be available on a free transfer? Either they're not good enough, have a history of injuries (hence shortening their career) or are looking for a big pay out because they know they can negotiate a large signing bonus and salary. What we'd save on a transfer fee we'd lose on the bonus and salary not to mention what effect this huge salary would have on the wage structure and the rest of the players.

2. What is so magical about players aged 29? As I've already said players are playing at their peak much longer than they used to. And I assume you don't include goalkeepers in this because it is accepted they don't reach their peak until they are 28/29 and can play at the top level well into their 30s.

If we had this strategy when Wilf signed his last contract he'd be about to leave on a free transfer - I know you don't rate him but how pissed off would you, the rest of the fan base and the board be if he just left now for nothing?

Or as you suggest 18 months ago we'd have "offloaded" him for, what, 50m? Do you seriously think we'd be in the Premier League now if we had done that? And who would we have have replaced him with and could you guarantee this player would have been a success?

3. See my point above about Wilf and his contract. What you suggest is we never let anyone's contract run above 29 so when they are 27/28 - probably at their peak and performing for us, we offload them when they could still perform for us for the next 4-5 years. This is nonsense.

Last year it was estimated we made 116m in prize money and TV revenue from being in the Premier League, not counting commercial revenue and gate receipts (of which there were none). Would you seriously gamble 116m by selling our best player at the time because he was 27 and hoping to find a ready made replacement?

4. And here is the fundamental flaw with what you suggest. Your whole argument seems to be based upon the premise that we can find replacement younger players that will almost immediately perform at the level of the players they are replacing.

I know what you will say - look at Olise and Eze. On the face of it, and based on what we have seen so far, we have been INCREDIBLY lucky with Olise and Eze, but that's not always the case. Example: Max Meyer, who at the time we signed him was one of the brightest young talents in German football. He wasn't up to playing in the Premier League (although I would argue that might have been Hodgsons tactics, I do wonder whether Meyer would have played better under Vieira).

In summary our transfer strategy needs to consider the players we have now, the players available in the market and our academy that can fill that role in the system we are playing, the age of those players, their value to us and to the market, our transfer budget and the wage structure, not to mention the social dynamics of the dressing room (have you not played Football Manager?)

It's not simply a case of whether the player is an asset we can sell later for a profit.

 


"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make some other b*stard die for theirs" - General Patton

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lanzo-Ad's Profile Lanzo-Ad Flag Lanzarote 08 Jan 22 11.52am Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Skinnii

IMHO this is a extremely simplistic post addressing a complicated issue. As a broad strategy to reduce the age of the squad and to invest in players that may (MAY not definitely) realise a profit when sold then what you suggest would I guess work.

But let me address some of the issues I have with what you suggest:

1. It's too simplistic to say never buy a player over 26 unless they are on a free transfer. With advances in sports science and nutrition players are remaining at their peak longer. Players are no longer burnt out by the age of 30 - look at Ronaldo and Tiago Silva as examples or McArthur who is playing the best football he has in the last 3 years at the age of 34. So a player aged 27 could have 5 to 6 years left at their peak.

Furthermore you have to ask why at the age of 27 or 28 would a player be available on a free transfer? Either they're not good enough, have a history of injuries (hence shortening their career) or are looking for a big pay out because they know they can negotiate a large signing bonus and salary. What we'd save on a transfer fee we'd lose on the bonus and salary not to mention what effect this huge salary would have on the wage structure and the rest of the players.

2. What is so magical about players aged 29? As I've already said players are playing at their peak much longer than they used to. And I assume you don't include goalkeepers in this because it is accepted they don't reach their peak until they are 28/29 and can play at the top level well into their 30s.

If we had this strategy when Wilf signed his last contract he'd be about to leave on a free transfer - I know you don't rate him but how pissed off would you, the rest of the fan base and the board be if he just left now for nothing?

Or as you suggest 18 months ago we'd have "offloaded" him for, what, 50m? Do you seriously think we'd be in the Premier League now if we had done that? And who would we have have replaced him with and could you guarantee this player would have been a success?

3. See my point above about Wilf and his contract. What you suggest is we never let anyone's contract run above 29 so when they are 27/28 - probably at their peak and performing for us, we offload them when they could still perform for us for the next 4-5 years. This is nonsense.

Last year it was estimated we made 116m in prize money and TV revenue from being in the Premier League, not counting commercial revenue and gate receipts (of which there were none). Would you seriously gamble 116m by selling our best player at the time because he was 27 and hoping to find a ready made replacement?

4. And here is the fundamental flaw with what you suggest. Your whole argument seems to be based upon the premise that we can find replacement younger players that will almost immediately perform at the level of the players they are replacing.

I know what you will say - look at Olise and Eze. On the face of it, and based on what we have seen so far, we have been INCREDIBLY lucky with Olise and Eze, but that's not always the case. Example: Max Meyer, who at the time we signed him was one of the brightest young talents in German football. He wasn't up to playing in the Premier League (although I would argue that might have been Hodgsons tactics, I do wonder whether Meyer would have played better under Vieira).

In summary our transfer strategy needs to consider the players we have now, the players available in the market and our academy that can fill that role in the system we are playing, the age of those players, their value to us and to the market, our transfer budget and the wage structure, not to mention the social dynamics of the dressing room (have you not played Football Manager?)

It's not simply a case of whether the player is an asset we can sell later for a profit.

The bottom line is that John Textor saved the club from a shambolic situation of letting expensively bought players leave for nothing and having no money to replace anyone.

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, keep Chilled, Man

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag 08 Jan 22 3.40pm Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

We know that John Textor invested at the right time to fund the latest round of player recruitment ( which was obviously appreciated) but we dont know that if he hadnt invested that the club wouldnt have found the money from somewhere else (i.e the existing shareholders)

It was well documented that we had just about the oldest squad in the PL some months before the end of the season so for sure the existing shareholders would have known that if fresh investment hadnt materialised they would have to cough up additional funding or sit back & watch us circle the relegation plughole / watching their investments devalue at the same time.


Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

The bottom line is that John Textor saved the club from a shambolic situation of letting expensively bought players leave for nothing and having no money to replace anyone.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Painter's Profile Painter Flag Croydon 08 Jan 22 4.48pm Send a Private Message to Painter Add Painter as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

The bottom line is that John Textor saved the club from a shambolic situation of letting expensively bought players leave for nothing and having no money to replace anyone.

All Premier clubs pick up additional investors, West Ham have just got a Czech billionaire on their board.
Its nothing new, its shrewd business sense.

Our shambolic transfer policy as you put it, has reaped our longest stay in the top flight of English football of 9 years, our previous longest stay was 3 years. The board seem to be doing ok, without your pearls of wisdom.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag 08 Jan 22 5.01pm Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

I do remember watching something on TV about Chelsea (This was maybe 5 / 6 years ago & my memory isn't the best these days so if I am off the point with detail please feel free to correct me) but apparently one of their transfer rules ( or guidelines if you prefer) was that any player over 30 was only ever offered new contracts in one year increments - basically the idea was that each year they would re-sign the ones that they wanted & others would be free to leave -

Their rationale was that so much could go wrong in a season once a player got to 30 it was better to only contract them season by season & risk losing them (if they became unhappy) rather than contract them for several years at xxxxx salary if things turned sour.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View doombear's Profile doombear Flag Too far from Selhurst Park 08 Jan 22 5.12pm Send a Private Message to doombear Add doombear as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

The bottom line is that John Textor saved the club from a shambolic situation of letting expensively bought players leave for nothing and having no money to replace anyone.


Where's your evidence for this statement? Planned recruitment started many months before Textor came on board. How do you know the club didn't already have money to fund the acquisitions?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lanzo-Ad's Profile Lanzo-Ad Flag Lanzarote 08 Jan 22 5.15pm Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Painter

All Premier clubs pick up additional investors, West Ham have just got a Czech billionaire on their board.
Its nothing new, its shrewd business sense.

Our shambolic transfer policy as you put it, has reaped our longest stay in the top flight of English football of 9 years, our previous longest stay was 3 years. The board seem to be doing ok, without your pearls of wisdom.

Rubbish, -72 million on transfer deficit in 5 years is ridiculously poor account management.

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, keep Chilled, Man

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View YT's Profile YT Flag Oxford 08 Jan 22 5.34pm Send a Private Message to YT Add YT as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

No Textor, Means no transfers, Means Relegation, Means no sellable assets, high wages, means debt, means Administration, simples

Yes, but it was the word NOT that confused me.

 


Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Painter's Profile Painter Flag Croydon 08 Jan 22 5.54pm Send a Private Message to Painter Add Painter as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

Rubbish, -72 million on transfer deficit in 5 years is ridiculously poor account management.

That works out a deficit on transfers of 14.5m each year against Premier income of 120m a year.
If those transfers didnt happen, the chances that we would of been relegated was very high. Then our income would be greatly reduced and we would need a fire sale.
I presume you are not an expert on financial accounting.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Lanzo-Ad's Profile Lanzo-Ad Flag Lanzarote 08 Jan 22 8.49pm Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Painter

That works out a deficit on transfers of 14.5m each year against Premier income of 120m a year.
If those transfers didnt happen, the chances that we would of been relegated was very high. Then our income would be greatly reduced and we would need a fire sale.
I presume you are not an expert on financial accounting.

I think it is better to say we just disagree with this this one, i think it is mismanagement of the available funds and you think it is totally acceptable.

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, keep Chilled, Man

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > New transfer policy post