Lets discuss Duda

[king canary 7,599]

34 minutes ago, Badger said:

Just shows the difficulty of identifying how players will perform. Buying players (and loaning them) is inherently risky - but loaning them contains a far lower risk financially. It's yet another reason why, abandoning financial discipline is such a bad idea.

Oh my lord, change the record.

Only you could take the fact that we've made three loan signings that failed to even complete their loan spells and make it into a positive for our lack of spending this season...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

He is basically a carbon copy of Steven Naismith, including the lack of desire.  

[kingsway 94]

7 hours ago, yellowrider120 said:

Duda had that really impressive first half v Bournemouth on his debut but has since totally disappeared. In that game he played the classic 'No 10' role sitting only a few yards off Pukki. I was at Newcastle and the longer the game went on the more anonymous he got and ended up playing a series of 'crab' like, slow, square passes just in front of our back line! No physical commitment at all (that was evident v Liverpool and Wolves yet still he plays). Similar to the vastly puffed up 'Mo' Leitner. They are both 'fancy dan' footballers who look good if the opposition just stand back and admire. Thing is football in the English game is not like that.

I would want a hell of a lot more than what I've seen so far for the much hyped '£25 Million' price tag that Herr Farke talked about! 

My sentiments 100%!

 

The main reason Leitners out of the picture is cause hes a Larry Lightweight being one paced, not very mobile and doesn't tackle which means he gets bypassed and puts the team under pressure.

 

Duda while maybe being more mobile is turning out the same and is totally unbalancing the team.

 

Norwich have to put more pressure on the oppositions penalty box and defence by having a presence in there. Drmic has to start up front with Pukki and the team have to put the ball in the box and shoot more!

[Badger 2,405]

5 hours ago, king canary said:

Oh my lord, change the record.

Only you could take the fact that we've made three loan signings that failed to even complete their loan spells and make it into a positive for our lack of spending this season...

😁

But it is true though - much of the spending that newly promoted clubs make is a total waste of money, and hampers them for years to come. Instead of spending tens of millions on players that we have to pay for (+ wages) for three years after relegation, we start with a clean slate and players who have benefited from much more football at a higher level. 

The best prospects don't want to come to a newly promoted club - you get the players that the other premier league teams don't want!

[king canary 7,599]

10 hours ago, Badger said:

😁

But it is true though - much of the spending that newly promoted clubs make is a total waste of money, and hampers them for years to come. Instead of spending tens of millions on players that we have to pay for (+ wages) for three years after relegation, we start with a clean slate and players who have benefited from much more football at a higher level. 

The best prospects don't want to come to a newly promoted club - you get the players that the other premier league teams don't want!

Or alternatively, when you shop in the loan market you're stuck with a limited amount of players that teams are willing to let leave without getting a decent fee for. You also have zero resale value and instead have just chucked a certain amount of money into a black hole.

Honestly, if you were in charge of our transfers we'd never sign anyone.

[king canary 7,599]

11 hours ago, Badger said:

much of the spending that newly promoted clubs make is a total waste of money, and hampers them for years to come.

Incidentally, I'd love to know how you justify this statement.

Even if you get relegated, well-spent money can give you players who can be key squad members going forward. 

Look at Fulham for example- the poster boys for wasted money. Yet they also signed Mitrovic (top scorer) Joe Bryan (first choice left back) Alfie Mawson (regular in central defence). Even their biggest money flops in Anguissa and Seri have been loaned out with options to buy so they'll likely recoup a solid chunk of the outlay and won't be paying their wages this season. 

If we go down, we'll be basically trying to go back up with the same squad + Byram, Rupp and Drmic, none of whom are a real improvement on what went before.

[BobLoz3 492]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Incidentally, I'd love to know how you justify this statement.

Even if you get relegated, well-spent money can give you players who can be key squad members going forward. 

Look at Fulham for example- the poster boys for wasted money. Yet they also signed Mitrovic (top scorer) Joe Bryan (first choice left back) Alfie Mawson (regular in central defence). Even their biggest money flops in Anguissa and Seri have been loaned out with options to buy so they'll likely recoup a solid chunk of the outlay and won't be paying their wages this season. 

If we go down, we'll be basically trying to go back up with the same squad + Byram, Rupp and Drmic, none of whom are a real improvement on what went before.

Already signed some players for next season haven't we? So that isn't a given! We will definitely sell players and buy new ones so I think the squad may look pretty different next season. If we're in the Championship some of those players you mention may catch fire, who knows??

As with everyone else, I don't know for sure but let's hope there are some shrewd buys in there for next season that turn out to be the next big thing for us.

Edited March 10, 2020 by BobLoz3

[king canary 7,599]

6 minutes ago, BobLoz3 said:

Already signed some players for next season haven't we? So that isn't a given! We will definitely sell players and buy new ones so I think the squad may look pretty different next season. If we're in the Championship some of those players you mention may catch fire, who knows??

As with everyone else, I don't know for sure but let's hope there are some shrewd buys in there for next season that turn out to be the next big thing for us.

Yep- totally forgot about them so fair point!

[BobLoz3 492]

12 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yep- totally forgot about them so fair point!

Haha! All good. Plus we'll have players coming back from loan, some of whom may well force their way into Farke's plans.

There's also the Sinani link. Now, can't tell much from YouTube flicks as we all know, but he could be an interesting signing (potentially!)

[ron obvious 1,502]

Disappointed with Duda. Classy & cultured player, but not up for a scrap, certainly not as a loan player.

Rupp doesn't have his ability but looks more up for the battle, so more use in our present situation.

 

 

[sgncfc 1,225]

Duda seems to be a bit of a "homer" - all his better displays have been at the Carra. But his impact is bigger than many on here recognise - he has made us tighter and covers a lot of ground closing down space and options (I believe his distances are up at the top every week). I agree though that his overall contribution is not what we hoped for and I suspect he will lose his place this weekend.

[Midlands Yellow 3,969]

Why does any club ever bother spending significant money if it’s so risky. Loans and freebies with a few nominal fee signings is the way ahead for all clubs. 

[ron obvious 1,502]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Why does any club ever bother spending significant money if it’s so risky. Loans and freebies with a few nominal fee signings is the way ahead for all clubs. 

If you're being backed by a multi-billionaire you can afford to take the risk. It's loose change to you. It's why people do the lottery.

We don't have the money. So we don't (& certainly shouldn't ) take the risk.

 

[Mason 47 1,376]

Duda is a player that is brilliant when you're playing on the front foot. He isn't the man to drag the team forward himself. Just my opinion, but we're seeing a lot more of our defenders giving pelters to our forward line RE: tracking back and stopping runners. I don't think they're shouting at Teemu.

[Badger 2,405]

7 hours ago, king canary said:

Or alternatively, when you shop in the loan market you're stuck with a limited amount of players that teams are willing to let leave without getting a decent fee for.

The market for players that are willing to go to a newly promoted premier league club is very limited. The best players will understandably want to go to more established clubs. Ironically, you are likely to be able to attract players on loan that you would not be able to afford to buy or who would not be willing to come if we tried to buy them. Duda would not have come to us on a permanent deal (even if we could have afforded him), nor would Fahrmann, and I suspect not Roberts either. 

You also have zero resale value and instead have just chucked a certain amount of money into a black hole.

You still labour under the misapprehension that dud players are assets: they are liabilities. You buy a player that  doesn't work and you are paying his wages and fees for years. The best you can hope for is to minimise the loss, like we did with Van Wolfswinkel and Naismith.

Honestly, if you were in charge of our transfers we'd never sign anyone.

No, but I would not borrow to buy expensive assets that carry a great deal of risk until we could comfortably afford to take that risk.

Reply above, inserted into the quote.

[Badger 2,405]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

Incidentally, I'd love to know how you justify this statement.

Even if you get relegated, well-spent money can give you players who can be key squad members going forward. 

Look at Fulham for example- the poster boys for wasted money. Yet they also signed Mitrovic (top scorer) Joe Bryan (first choice left back) Alfie Mawson (regular in central defence). Even their biggest money flops in Anguissa and Seri have been loaned out with options to buy so they'll likely recoup a solid chunk of the outlay and won't be paying their wages this season. 

If we go down, we'll be basically trying to go back up with the same squad + Byram, Rupp and Drmic, none of whom are a real improvement on what went before.

I'm surprised that you seem to think that Fulham benefited in any way from their spending spree. 

1. They were relegated.

2. The most likely chance for them to back in the Premier League is through the lottery playoffs.

3. There is no way that Fulham will recoup much of the money that they have spent on Anguissa and Seri: the likelyhood is that they will shelling out millions a year for them for the duration of their contracts.

• Seri is contracted to 2022 - he is currently loaned out to Galatasaray for one year: no doubt, Fulham continue to pay much of his wage. He has played three games this season - I doubt Galatasaray will take up their option to buy! 
• Marseille Fans couldn't believe their luck when they got £30 million for Anguissa - see article below

Marseille fans mock Fulham supporters over Andre-Franck Zambo Anguissa  -  https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2018/11/07/do-marseille-fans-mock-fulham-supporters-over-andre-franck-zambo/

He has played quite regularly for Villareall, so they may be able to reduce their losses if they can sell him, but it will continue to cost them big time in both wages and transfer fees I suspect.

4. Mitrovic was a decent purchase, but then he was on loan with them before - a system that you have previously criticised Norwich for!

5. Joe Bryan is a decent player and a relatively small financial risk - but I'm not sure that he is better than any of Aarons, Bryram or Lewis - the three of whom cost less than half (a quarter?) of what Fulham paid for Bryan.

I'm afraid this isn't a very convincing case when the facts are examined.

[Badger 2,405]

7 hours ago, king canary said:

19 hours ago, Badger said:

much of the spending that newly promoted clubs make is a total waste of money, and hampers them for years to come.

Incidentally, I'd love to know how you justify this statement.

When players are transferred the money is not all paid in one go. The actual cash flows will be different for each player and impossible to form a judgement but it is pretty clear in the Profit and Loss account.

Let's take Steven Naismith for example. He joined us for reportedly 9 million on a 3.5 year contract. This expenditure is amortised over the period of the transfer ( 9 divided by 3 and a half). This would be 2 and a half million a year before wages, NI, Pension, Medical and other costs. His wages were reportedly £40,000 a week (£2 million a year).

We recouped some of this through loan fees, but it won't have been much in Scottish football, so it is reasonable to conclude that he cost us £4+ million a year for the last three years of his contract. With Jarvis and Klose, I think that that transfer widow will have cost us nearly 10 million a year for the next 3 years - that is about one third of turnover on three players, only one of whom played regularly! That's how I justify my statement about it hampers them for years to come.

In Fulham's case, lets look at Anguissa. He joined for a reported £30 million, I presume on a 4 year contract. I imagine his wages on a contract that big would be at least £50,000 per week. That would be (30 divided by 4) £7.5 million a year on transfer fees and a further £2.5 on wages - 10 million a year. On loan they will recoup some of the costs but I'd be surprised if it was £2 million a year. So Fulham stand to pay at least 8 million a year for Anguissa until they get rid of him. Let's hope that this is before parachute payments run out as this would be over 1/3 of their non TV revenue on one player.

My guess is that they will sell him if they don't go up - this is likely to cost Fulham an ongoing wage subsidy or a reduced fee if not. They are likely to be paying millions for him long after he has gone - but they did get 22 games out of him last year! 

 

[Ward 3 372]

Neat and tidy player. But I'm glad we didnt buy him as a 25m player as Farke quoted him at 

[lake district canary 4,531]

5 hours ago, ron obvious said:

7 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Why does any club ever bother spending significant money if it’s so risky. Loans and freebies with a few nominal fee signings is the way ahead for all clubs. 

If you're being backed by a multi-billionaire you can afford to take the risk. It's loose change to you. It's why people do the lottery.

We don't have the money. So we don't (& certainly shouldn't ) take the risk.

Yes, it's something that to me and I think lots of people think is slightly seedy and not desireable.  Get in a multi-millionare who probably is not a long term fan of the club or who has much idea about the locality and whose only attraction is that he can splash some cash around in slightly obscene and ego based fashion. 

Not always like that, but it is most of the time - a johnny come lately with "loads a money" to "build" (I use the word loosely) a successful club. How many clubs can do that is limited - plenty of clubs with loads of money who cannot sustain their success and then run into trouble down the line.

Once you go down the route of spending "significant" money, you are forever going to be stuck in that loop of needing an owner with ever more cash to spend, which will escalate year after year until sooner or later the club inevitably struggles with the financial implications of that.  More, more, more, more, more money.....year after year....in an era where sustainability is becoming the way to do things in all walks of life. 

I'm super glad the club I support is doing it the way it is doing - yes, it's a shame we don't have a little more money right now, but if we go down and carry on building how we have been, selling our stars and bringing through new ones - the club - will gradually get more and more prosperous without needing a Mr or Mrs Loads a Money.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Yes, it's something that to me and I think lots of people think is slightly seedy and not desireable.  Get in a multi-millionare who probably is not a long term fan of the club or who has much idea about the locality and whose only attraction is that he can splash some cash around in slightly obscene and ego based fashion. 

Not always like that, but it is most of the time - a johnny come lately with "loads a money" to "build" (I use the word loosely) a successful club. How many clubs can do that is limited - plenty of clubs with loads of money who cannot sustain their success and then run into trouble down the line.

Once you go down the route of spending "significant" money, you are forever going to be stuck in that loop of needing an owner with ever more cash to spend, which will escalate year after year until sooner or later the club inevitably struggles with the financial implications of that.  More, more, more, more, more money.....year after year....in an era where sustainability is becoming the way to do things in all walks of life. 

I'm super glad the club I support is doing it the way it is doing - yes, it's a shame we don't have a little more money right now, but if we go down and carry on building how we have been, selling our stars and bringing through new ones - the club - will gradually get more and more prosperous without needing a Mr or Mrs Loads a Money.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, there's no guarantee of us getting gradually more and more prosperous. More than a couple of years outside the top flight and we could be living from hand to mouth again, having to use the academy players to balance the books rather than the excellent position we find ourselves in now. Just because it is the best model we could be following with our limited means, doesn't mean it's going to succeed in the longer term. I have every faith in the model, but it's not a fait accompli.

[Midlands Yellow 3,969]

51 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, there's no guarantee of us getting gradually more and more prosperous. More than a couple of years outside the top flight and we could be living from hand to mouth again, having to use the academy players to balance the books rather than the excellent position we find ourselves in now. Just because it is the best model we could be following with our limited means, doesn't mean it's going to succeed in the longer term. I have every faith in the model, but it's not a fait accompli.

We’re already doing what your predicting.

[Badger 2,405]

54 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the principle, there's no guarantee of us getting gradually more and more prosperous. More than a couple of years outside the top flight and we could be living from hand to mouth again, having to use the academy players to balance the books rather than the excellent position we find ourselves in now. Just because it is the best model we could be following with our limited means, doesn't mean it's going to succeed in the longer term. I have every faith in the model, but it's not a fait accompli.

I agree it's not a fait accompli, but a sensible financial strategy will enable us to maximise our other advantages over most Championship clubs. We have one of the highest non-TV turnovers in the Championship with a strong fan base and a well-developed commercial operation. We also have a Cat 1 academy, relatively little competition and, so long as we maintain our current course, will have no debt to finance.

Everybody's means are limited* (even Real Madrid) relative to what they might like to spend, but our financial capacity is very competitive for the Championship, where many clubs are without our advantages. Given this, we are always likely to be near the top of the Championship if we appoint well. The challenge is one of transition from a club that gets promoted and goes down again to one that gets promoted and stays up for several years. IMO, this is far more likely with a sensible budget.

The risk, to my mind, is to fall prey to the temptation to "go for it," fail and then transition into a club with debt that goes down and stays down. I want us to be measured in what we spend because I am ambitious for our club and would like to see regular premier league football with Cup success, rather than one that risks it all on a throw of a dice hoping to get a six - then stays in the Championship and below for many years, like we see so often with others.

* Very conscious of the apostrophe debate on another thread 😁

Edited March 10, 2020 by Badger
Added paragraph

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

19 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

We’re already doing what your predicting.

I'm not predicting anything. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

 

 

️

1

19 hours ago, Badger said:

I agree it's not a fait accompli, but a sensible financial strategy will enable us to maximise our other advantages over most Championship clubs. We have one of the highest non-TV turnovers in the Championship with a strong fan base and a well-developed commercial operation. We also have a Cat 1 academy, relatively little competition and, so long as we maintain our current course, will have no debt to finance.

Everybody's means are limited* (even Real Madrid) relative to what they might like to spend, but our financial capacity is very competitive for the Championship, where many clubs are without our advantages. Given this, we are always likely to be near the top of the Championship if we appoint well. The challenge is one of transition from a club that gets promoted and goes down again to one that gets promoted and stays up for several years. IMO, this is far more likely with a sensible budget.

The risk, to my mind, is to fall prey to the temptation to "go for it," fail and then transition into a club with debt that goes down and stays down. I want us to be measured in what we spend because I am ambitious for our club and would like to see regular premier league football with Cup success, rather than one that risks it all on a throw of a dice hoping to get a six - then stays in the Championship and below for many years, like we see so often with others.

* Very conscious of the apostrophe debate on another thread 😁

I quite agree with this statement, and with pretty much everything else you've written here. I was merely pointing out that our relative lack of financial clout does place us at a disadvantage; we are, however, going absolutely the best way about mitigating the effects of that disadvantage. I was just trying to articulate that applying the best strategy for success doesn't guarantee it, and we should guard against seeing it as a fait accompli as Lakey's original post implied. I'm sure nobody at the club thinks that way, but that 'on loan to the Endsleigh League' mentality that the fans employed in 1995 is neither realistic nor helpful.

[NCFCInnit 52]

Why is it so difficult to understand that getting promoted was an accident? 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

50 minutes ago, NCFCInnit said:

Why is it so difficult to understand that getting promoted was an accident? 

Not so much an  accident.More of an unexpected consequence of our somewhat accelerated development under Webber/Farke.

[Harry53 209]

On 09/03/2020 at 09:45, Yellowhammer said:

Both him and Rupp a waste of signings be just about ok in championship but not quality rush signings to satisfy the fans 

 And bringing these players in has kept out quality players like Mario. I can't believe he doesn't start more games. 

[Capt. Pants 4,219]

If the season is treated null and void and consequently we are not relegated it may present the opportunity to sign Duda on a season long loan. That will upset a few.