[Archived] Transfers Part 3

[RoverCanada]

36 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Transfermarkt says 1.13 mill Euros

https://www.transfermarkt.com/jason-steele/profil/spieler/73564

I do see £100k in wiki

Unless a transfer fee is publicly reported, I think Transfermarkt just guesses via a formula of age, time-left-on-contract, games played, etc.

[tomphil]

9 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

unfounded drivel.

Care to expand on that startling observation ?

[JacknOry]

1 million makes no sense for a number 3 GK and we would have heard about that before now. I recall 100k being bandied around at the time.

[Tom]

£1, £100, £100k or £1m it wasn't money well spent for me; he was a bad goalkeeper, having said that Jake Kean was far worse, should have stuck with Eastwood.

That polish lad looked the best keeper we had in a few years wonder what became of him?

 

edit - turns out he plays for Cracovia! Maybe he didn't quite reach his potential 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grzegorz_Sandomierski

[RV Blue]

24 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

I'm not sure it works like that

Why? If you sign a player for free on say £10k a week then next year you sell him for £100k it would be misleading to say you've made a profit on him.

[SoldierMo]

It just does not work like that

[SoldierMo]

If you take into account all the money put into developing phil jones then the profit margin would not be as high either

[RV Blue]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

To continue the debate and the conversation, why do you believe it will be different this time?

 

Strange comment seeing as I literally never said it would be different, I said if I was in charge (I'm not in charge) I would let him go for £1.5m because if I was in charge (I'm not) I reckon we could use the money to create a better all round team.

If we weren't allowed to discuss things because Venky's might do this, or Venky's might do that, it would be a boring message board.

[blueboy3333]

26 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

Why? If you sign a player for free on say £10k a week then next year you sell him for £100k it would be misleading to say you've made a profit on him.

The profit refers to the fee. Like in every other transfer in the world ever.

[Stuart]

6 hours ago, Tom said:

£1, £100, £100k or £1m it wasn't money well spent for me; he was a bad goalkeeper, having said that Jake Kean was far worse, should have stuck with Eastwood.

That polish lad looked the best keeper we had in a few years wonder what became of him?

 

edit - turns out he plays for Cracovia! Maybe he didn't quite reach his potential 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grzegorz_Sandomierski

 

[Pedro]

6 hours ago, SoldierMo said:

It just does not work like that

But it does when fans or the press talk about losses on players, like Leon Best. It's one of the things that annoys me when people say, "Where's all the money gone? We've received X amount in transfer fees". 

Frittered away on utter pap.

[47er]

13 hours ago, 47er said:

So you are assuming that further sales will lead to further transfers in? There is the alternative possibility that transfer sales will pay for players already signed with any surplus to Balaji's back pocket? 

I asked you this and you replied "yes" so you are not being honest at post above. Still that's me finished. You think things will be different this time, I fear they won't.

[lraC]

On ‎21‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 12:35, Bigdoggsteel said:

No, I don't know him personally. 

Although that isn't really your question, is it? You are implying why did I make a positive comment about him? The reason I did was because he did appoint Mowbray and it looks to have been a  good appointment. You and some others on here ,for some reason, seem incapable of giving people credit for things they do well, but are very quick to criticize when things go wrong. 

I apologise if that's what you think with the questions. For what its' worth, I quite liked him and I have no issue at all with you making a positive comment about him.

[RV Blue]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

I asked you this and you replied "yes" so you are not being honest at post above. Still that's me finished. You think things will be different this time, I fear they won't.

? you know exactly what I meant when I said 'yes', in my post I was obviously assuming that we would be able to spend some of the money, this doesn't mean I actually think we would get money to spend, just that in theory we could sell Mulgrew and improve the squad. Not sure why you're after an argument, what I said is hardly controversial. That's you going on ignore seeing as you bring absolutely zero to the message board.

[RV Blue]

8 hours ago, blueboy3333 said:

The profit refers to the fee. Like in every other transfer in the world ever.

It your mind it might but in the mind of anyone with a business brain it is clearly wrong.

"500k another Bowyer signing producing a profit."

Is factually incorrect. Gestede yes, King yes, Cairney yes, Duffy yes, etc., Steele no. If Steele is on £10k per week we have paid £1.6m in wages and transfer fees and recouped £500k, so we've spent £1.1m on having a poor goalkeeper for 3 years, some profit that is!

 

[blueboy3333]

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15428834._We_don___t_have_to_sell____Tony_Mowbray_says_Rovers_will_stand_strong_in_the_face_of_interest_in_their_key_players/?ref=mac

"Rovers aren’t encouraging any further bids for their under contract players"

 

[blueboy3333]

Just now, RV Blue said:

It your mind it might but in the mind of anyone with a business brain it is clearly wrong.

"500k another Bowyer signing producing a profit."

Is factually incorrect. Gestede yes, King yes, Cairney yes, Duffy yes, etc., Steele no. If Steele is on £10k per week we have paid £1.6m in wages and transfer fees and recouped £500k, so we've spent £1.1m on having a poor goalkeeper for 3 years, some profit that is!

 

Right you are Alan Sugar.

[RV Blue]

5 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

Right you are Alan Sugar.

[Pedro]

39 minutes ago, RV Blue said:

It your mind it might but in the mind of anyone with a business brain it is clearly wrong.

"500k another Bowyer signing producing a profit."

Is factually incorrect. Gestede yes, King yes, Cairney yes, Duffy yes, etc., Steele no. If Steele is on £10k per week we have paid £1.6m in wages and transfer fees and recouped £500k, so we've spent £1.1m on having a poor goalkeeper for 3 years, some profit that is!

 

That's how I see it. If it cost more having someone here then it's simply not a profit.

Flip side of it,  Friedel was free, paid 40k plus a week for 7 years but he was (In my eyes) an irreplaceable asset and I don't deem that we made a loss on him.

[Bigdoggsteel]

56 minutes ago, blueboy3333 said:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/rovers/news/15428834._We_don___t_have_to_sell____Tony_Mowbray_says_Rovers_will_stand_strong_in_the_face_of_interest_in_their_key_players/?ref=mac

"Rovers aren’t encouraging any further bids for their under contract players"

 

Well, no disputing that statement. Good news indeed 

[Dunnfc]

1 hour ago, RV Blue said:

It your mind it might but in the mind of anyone with a business brain it is clearly wrong.

"500k another Bowyer signing producing a profit."

Is factually incorrect. Gestede yes, King yes, Cairney yes, Duffy yes, etc., Steele no. If Steele is on £10k per week we have paid £1.6m in wages and transfer fees and recouped £500k, so we've spent £1.1m on having a poor goalkeeper for 3 years, some profit that is!

 

So what do you value the service given length at NIL? Can we have the wages paid back? Wages are a business "on cost" I.e a continuous fixed outgoing. Transfer fees are used to acquire the services.

Also do you realise fees are spread out mostly in football, they're amortised over the period of a contract length.

Anyone with a business brain may have already pointed that out

You may have a case in point if players were regarded as fixed assets but they're inter tangible to allow them to be amortised against generally this meaning squad values don't really hit the books or lie on balance sheets, just the costs of contracts.

[lraC]

4 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Well, no disputing that statement. Good news indeed 

I think we are all nervous of losing a player or two. Mulgrew has been mentioned in addition to Lenihan and I hope we can hold on to them both. Sounds like any fees brought in, if we do end up selling anyone, will be used, which at least be some small reward. As it stands at the minute, this squad will be in with a shout of the minimum requirement of promotion, lets hope we get there.

[K-Hod]

8 minutes ago, Bigdoggsteel said:

Well, no disputing that statement. Good news indeed 

Well yeah, but I imagine most people won't be able to rest easily until the transfer window closes and we've a full squad intact, as Venky's most definitely have form for letting us down.....

[J*B]

Theres 3 players I would be actively trying to sell:

1) Steele - if he's out of contract next year and someone is offering 500k we should bite their hands off. At this level we can get competition for Raya on either a free or a loan.

2) Mulgrew - obviously wants out, a great player at Championship level but very injury prone, on a big wage and getting on. Anything near 1.5m and he would be off.

3) Evans - probably on paper our best central midfielder but was missing in action most of last season when we really needed him, yet was fit enough to play for his country. Take the money and run. 

I'd look to replace them with Christian Burgess (Pompy), Gadzhev (free agent, former Coventry) and any goalkeeper.

[RoverCanada]

1 hour ago, RV Blue said:

It your mind it might but in the mind of anyone with a business brain it is clearly wrong.

"500k another Bowyer signing producing a profit."

Is factually incorrect. Gestede yes, King yes, Cairney yes, Duffy yes, etc., Steele no. If Steele is on £10k per week we have paid £1.6m in wages and transfer fees and recouped £500k, so we've spent £1.1m on having a poor goalkeeper for 3 years, some profit that is!

Steele's incurred wages would have to be compared to the wages of a replacement keeper, as his roster spot would have been filled one way or another. Ignoring his loan, he's been a full-time Rover for about 2.5 seasons now, so about £1.3M in wages spent. However, if we hadn't signed him, some other keeper presumably would've been signed and paid roughly a similar wage if he was also expected to be our no. 1. So the wages net out, and if we paid £100k for him and receive £500k for him now, there has been a £400k 'profit' (ignoring the actual accounting that dunnfc brings up). Steele may have also been a particularly cheap find by Bowyer as no. 1 keepers tend to go for more than £100k, so you also have to consider what the going transfer rate for a no. 1 keeper was at the time and net Steele's transfer fee against that... The 'value' Steele brought over and above a 'replacement' keeper when he played is a whole other argument itself (and I suspect many will argue he's had negative value in that regard!)

Now, the argument that could be made is whether Steele was needed at all and whether an Eastwood+Raya tandem would have been sufficient, with an Academy lad serving as the no. 3. Raya did spend some time on loan during that period, but in retrospect Eastwood probably deserved a better shot. Assuming Raya was unfit/out on loan, perhaps Eastwood + backup at £8k/week + Academy lad would have been more financially prudent than Steele + Eastwood + Raya. The competence of the backup in the former scenario is obviously vital though given the importance of keeper depth.

I admittedly thought Steele was quite good when he started here (I think some posters are a little too happy to forget some superb games he's had for us), but I'll also admit he was pretty dreadful for most of last year and I'd be happy to see him off for £500k if that report is true.

Having said all that, I absolutely agree that the wages incurred is too often ignored in football circles (I've harped about that before...)