You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > New transfer policy post
January 25 2022 10.47am

New transfer policy post

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View jhillman's Profile jhillman Flag USA 08 Jan 22 9.06pm Send a Private Message to jhillman Add jhillman 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.

Excellent argument, stated very articulately.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Badger11's Profile Badger11 Flag Beckenham 08 Jan 22 9.09pm Send a Private Message to Badger11 Add Badger11 as a friend

We went up via the play offs some managers have complained that this route impacts their transfer strategy as they are starting later than the other promoted clubs.

We didn't spend wisely that first season. All newly promoted clubs face the hurdle that the selling club know there is a bit of desperation to get players in. The promoted club also has to persuade the incoming players that they are not going straight back down.

It has taken us quite a few years and yes we have made mistakes in the transfer market but when you compare our spend and our mistakes to say Brighton it's not that bad.

We are now dare I say it in a good position where we have a big name manager a fairly young squad and we seem to be heading for mid table mediocrity.

So hopefully this means that we have moved on from the Ian Holloway (any player with a pulse will do) to only signing players that we think will fit and we can afford.

All in all not too shabby.

 


One more point

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Bearcage's Profile Bearcage Flag Welling 09 Jan 22 1.05am Send a Private Message to Bearcage Add Bearcage as a friend

The club needs to have a flexible approach to recruitment, always looking to strengthen the squad (whilst complying with FFP), and we should look to reap the value of investments in players on the pitch not on transfer profits.
If we look to making a profit on transfers, we become a selling club. We identify talent and invest, then we develop them and increase their value, then sell at a profit. However we then reap the value of the investment financially, instead of on the pitch. But do we make more of a profit from transfers than we can from playing better players (instead of selling) and finishing higher up the league than we would have without selling. To mitigate these you should only sell when the replacements available improve the team (and are cheaper, so you can keep from making a loss in transfers), otherwise , you weaken the team and decline.
Therefore you look to reaping the value of your investment in talent on the pitch, so keeping players beyond their maximum selling price (even to the point of contracts running out), only selling / letting go when you have or can buy a better player as replacement, so always strengthening the squad.
This is still overly simplistic, the transfer fee for a player is to compensate the club that hold the players contract for the unexpired portion of the contract. Therefore the longer time remaining on a contract, the greater transfer fee the owning club can demand. The cost of any player includes their wages and bonuses as well as their transfer fee (in fact, typically, the wage costs are significantly greater than transfer fees) so these have to also be taken into account.
In addition, whether you buy, sell or keep a player also needs cooperation / willingness from other clubs and the player. Keeping a proven player is less of a gamble than investing in an unproven player.
Finally this is all carried out in competition with other teams, trying to persuade players to go to them instead of you, and even if youíre successful in improving your team, you also need to improve greater than those teams around you (or you decline with a better team).
- If your club doesnít decline (e.g. move down the league and get relegated) the talent policy is not bad.
- If you improve the talent policy is good.
Therefore for a number of years (since Parish took over), weíve had a good strategy (we got promoted, then have established ourselves in the premier league). Hopefully the recent changes are an even better strategy, leading to increased success, signs are they are, but itís early days yet. If in three or four seasons time weíre competing for silverware (cups) regularly, and finishing in the top 1/2 of the table and pushing for Europe it is. We should also by them be reaping benefits from our academy (a different way of investing in talent).


Edited by Bearcage (09 Jan 2022 1.09am)

 

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 09 Jan 22 8.14am Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

We went up via the play offs some managers have complained that this route impacts their transfer strategy as they are starting later than the other promoted clubs.

We didn't spend wisely that first season. All newly promoted clubs face the hurdle that the selling club know there is a bit of desperation to get players in. The promoted club also has to persuade the incoming players that they are not going straight back down.

It has taken us quite a few years and yes we have made mistakes in the transfer market but when you compare our spend and our mistakes to say Brighton it's not that bad.

We are now dare I say it in a good position where we have a big name manager a fairly young squad and we seem to be heading for mid table mediocrity.

So hopefully this means that we have moved on from the Ian Holloway (any player with a pulse will do) to only signing players that we think will fit and we can afford.

All in all not too shabby.

Yes, i think for the first time we can look forward with a certain amount of confidence, excellent signings, superb academy work, but i disagree with your Brighton statement, them and Southampton similar clubs have + figures for their last five years not -72m, if we could get some money in for Wilf, Benteke and Luka before their contracts expire it would be better

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, If People Don't Like it F**k Em

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Bearcage's Profile Bearcage Flag Welling 09 Jan 22 8.54am Send a Private Message to Bearcage Add Bearcage as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

Yes, i think for the first time we can look forward with a certain amount of confidence, excellent signings, superb academy work, but i disagree with your Brighton statement, them and Southampton similar clubs have + figures for their last five years not -72m, if we could get some money in for Wilf, Benteke and Luka before their contracts expire it would be better

If we sold these players would we get enough money for each to replace them with players of equal or better quality? If not we weaken our squad, whilst strengthening the squad of one of our opponents (assuming thatís where they go).

The question is always what does losing this player do to our squad, and does the income gained (transfer funds and reduction of wage bill) allow us to compensate for that loss (but replacements. Unless just selling to raise funds (net transfer budget) and not worried about improving, but if thatís the case we should sell our younger players, we would get more money for them?).

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Omph's Profile Omph Flag Liverpool 09 Jan 22 8.57am Send a Private Message to Omph Add Omph as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

Yes, i think for the first time we can look forward with a certain amount of confidence, excellent signings, superb academy work, but i disagree with your Brighton statement, them and Southampton similar clubs have + figures for their last five years not -72m, if we could get some money in for Wilf, Benteke and Luka before their contracts expire it would be better

Brighton transfers over past 5 seasons.

2021 = plus 6
2010 = minus 7
2019 = minus 60
2018 = minus 66
2017 = minus 59

Where are you getting your figures from? Their transfer policy has produced only two sales in the last 5 seasons of any note (White very similar to AWB windfall and Knockaert).

You seem to be mysteriously ill-informed. Just look at these types who all went on frees last season and then look up what they cost and how much value Brighton got from them.

Propper
Izquierdo
Jahanbaksh
Locadia
Ryan

In case you're too lazy to look this up - these players cost I believe 60 million and put in 240 outfield appearances. Look at the players released by Palace last time out Dann Townsend Cahill Hennessey McCarthy PvA Sakho Wickham and the figures are around 67 mill spent for 660 appearances. Fair investment imo - not least as Sakho skews the spend by being by some distance the most expensive - being with Tekkers the exception to the frugal spend policy on established pros.


Brighton has been a small scale sugar daddy club for quite a while. Under Potter though their method of business has evolved somewhat. Expenditure is mostly down and fringe players have been allowed to move on - either on frees or for minimal transfers. They are on a different trajectory to us though as they are only now beginning to ramp up their salaries outlay - something that generally hits promoted sides 4/5 years into their PL stay.

Edited by Omph (09 Jan 2022 9.17am)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Dubai Eagle's Profile Dubai Eagle Flag 09 Jan 22 10.25am Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

Nicely put - Bear Cage -
Although in recent years with the difference in funding between say the top 6 & everyone else we are all "to some degree" selling clubs, its the degree & circumstances at the time that probably define the difference - if we were in the fortunate position of being able to do 3 AWB type deals every year then we would be a selling club all day long & the off field management would be loving it, at least until we had enough money in the bank from TV & transfers to be in a position to be able to say no -

I will be interested to see how long we can hold on to Olise, Eze, Mitchell & Guehi - especially if someone comes knocking offering silly money.

Originally posted by Bearcage

The club needs to have a flexible approach to recruitment, always looking to strengthen the squad (whilst complying with FFP), and we should look to reap the value of investments in players on the pitch not on transfer profits.
If we look to making a profit on transfers, we become a selling club. We identify talent and invest, then we develop them and increase their value, then sell at a profit. However we then reap the value of the investment financially, instead of on the pitch. But do we make more of a profit from transfers than we can from playing better players (instead of selling) and finishing higher up the league than we would have without selling. To mitigate these you should only sell when the replacements available improve the team (and are cheaper, so you can keep from making a loss in transfers), otherwise , you weaken the team and decline.
Therefore you look to reaping the value of your investment in talent on the pitch, so keeping players beyond their maximum selling price (even to the point of contracts running out), only selling / letting go when you have or can buy a better player as replacement, so always strengthening the squad.
This is still overly simplistic, the transfer fee for a player is to compensate the club that hold the players contract for the unexpired portion of the contract. Therefore the longer time remaining on a contract, the greater transfer fee the owning club can demand. The cost of any player includes their wages and bonuses as well as their transfer fee (in fact, typically, the wage costs are significantly greater than transfer fees) so these have to also be taken into account.
In addition, whether you buy, sell or keep a player also needs cooperation / willingness from other clubs and the player. Keeping a proven player is less of a gamble than investing in an unproven player.
Finally this is all carried out in competition with other teams, trying to persuade players to go to them instead of you, and even if youíre successful in improving your team, you also need to improve greater than those teams around you (or you decline with a better team).
- If your club doesnít decline (e.g. move down the league and get relegated) the talent policy is not bad.
- If you improve the talent policy is good.
Therefore for a number of years (since Parish took over), weíve had a good strategy (we got promoted, then have established ourselves in the premier league). Hopefully the recent changes are an even better strategy, leading to increased success, signs are they are, but itís early days yet. If in three or four seasons time weíre competing for silverware (cups) regularly, and finishing in the top 1/2 of the table and pushing for Europe it is. We should also by them be reaping benefits from our academy (a different way of investing in talent).


Edited by Bearcage (09 Jan 2022 1.09am)

 

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 09 Jan 22 10.57am Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Bearcage

If we sold these players would we get enough money for each to replace them with players of equal or better quality? If not we weaken our squad, whilst strengthening the squad of one of our opponents (assuming thatís where they go).

The question is always what does losing this player do to our squad, and does the income gained (transfer funds and reduction of wage bill) allow us to compensate for that loss (but replacements. Unless just selling to raise funds (net transfer budget) and not worried about improving, but if thatís the case we should sell our younger players, we would get more money for them?).

i dont think them three replacements would be missed much anyway, so 25m for the lot would be more useful.

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, If People Don't Like it F**k Em

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Canterbury Palace's Profile Canterbury Palace Flag Whitstable 09 Jan 22 10.58am Send a Private Message to Canterbury Palace Add Canterbury Palace as a friend

I've said it for years in terms of us potentially selling Zaha but I really feel like following the Leicester model of flogging one key players per season for loads of money and trying to reinvest it in several youngsters with potential is our only sustainable way forward as a club.

The big two concerns were whether we'd cope without Wilf and whether we had the transfer nous to invest the funds wisely but I think our summer transfer window, surely the best in the history of the club, has rested my mind on both doubts.

On current form I'm not 100% sure Zaha is even in our best XI but even if that's nonsense, we certainly have the players to cope without him now.

In terms of our summer business, Guehi (£21m), Andersen (£16m), Edouard (£15m), Olise (£8m) and Hughes (£6m) have all proven to be bargains since joining and I can't imagine one hasn't increased in value. You get the impression that Guehi and and Olise, in particular, could eventually depart for a massive profit.

With this transfer model and the integration of youngsters that our new academy will hopefully allow us in seasons to come, the future could be very bright.

 


We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold...

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 09 Jan 22 11.02am Send a Private Message to Lanzo-Ad Add Lanzo-Ad as a friend

Originally posted by Omph

Brighton transfers over past 5 seasons.

2021 = plus 6
2010 = minus 7
2019 = minus 60
2018 = minus 66
2017 = minus 59

Where are you getting your figures from? Their transfer policy has produced only two sales in the last 5 seasons of any note (White very similar to AWB windfall and Knockaert).

You seem to be mysteriously ill-informed. Just look at these types who all went on frees last season and then look up what they cost and how much value Brighton got from them.

Propper
Izquierdo
Jahanbaksh
Locadia
Ryan

In case you're too lazy to look this up - these players cost I believe 60 million and put in 240 outfield appearances. Look at the players released by Palace last time out Dann Townsend Cahill Hennessey McCarthy PvA Sakho Wickham and the figures are around 67 mill spent for 660 appearances. Fair investment imo - not least as Sakho skews the spend by being by some distance the most expensive - being with Tekkers the exception to the frugal spend policy on established pros.


Brighton has been a small scale sugar daddy club for quite a while. Under Potter though their method of business has evolved somewhat. Expenditure is mostly down and fringe players have been allowed to move on - either on frees or for minimal transfers. They are on a different trajectory to us though as they are only now beginning to ramp up their salaries outlay - something that generally hits promoted sides 4/5 years into their PL stay.

Edited by Omph (09 Jan 2022 9.17am)

Before the recent transfers Brighton and Southamptons squad value were about 150m more than us, we had the lowest in the league 78m, source comes from Transfermkt

 


Never be Two Faced, Always Say What You Think, If People Don't Like it F**k Em

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View NEILLO's Profile NEILLO Flag Shoreham-by-Sea 09 Jan 22 11.06am Send a Private Message to NEILLO Add NEILLO as a friend

Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad

i dont think them three replacements would be missed much anyway, so 25m for the lot would be more useful.

Your main problem is having an agenda against certain players that then inform most of your posts.

 


Old, Ungifted and White

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Omph's Profile Omph Flag Liverpool 09 Jan 22 11.12am Send a Private Message to Omph Add Omph as a friend

Originally posted by Dubai Eagle

Nicely put - Bear Cage -
Although in recent years with the difference in funding between say the top 6 & everyone else we are all "to some degree" selling clubs, its the degree & circumstances at the time that probably define the difference - if we were in the fortunate position of being able to do 3 AWB type deals every year then we would be a selling club all day long & the off field management would be loving it, at least until we had enough money in the bank from TV & transfers to be in a position to be able to say no -

I will be interested to see how long we can hold on to Olise, Eze, Mitchell & Guehi - especially if someone comes knocking offering silly money.

Interesting point on degree and circs. You're quite right that we will always be a selling club - even Leicester are after all. Serendipity perhaps but we appear to have timed our buying spree ideally this season with the market in the doldrums with COVID finances - it was a great time to be buying and quite the wrong time to be selling unless you had Ben White and a manic Arsenal board after your prime asset.

Arguably we have lost out on a Zaha windfall with his market value nothing where it was previously but as you point out Olise Eze Guehi are all very marketable "commodities" potentially. I rather fancy that the 4th name on the list is not Mitchell but Edouard should he continue on his current trajectory.

One point I'd add is that we are now perhaps edging closer to territory where sales become a greater threat. Part of this is driven by buying "higher risk higher reward" players such as those named as they are much more likely to attract big 6 suitors than the more journeymen types we have previously bought where the pool of suitors was much smaller. The other part is that all these players are on significantly lower salaries. Players move from ambition but also - quite naturally given the brevity of their career - for pay packets.

 

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

 

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

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