Scoring the Webber Transfers

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

I'm bored. Let's score all of the Webber transfers in using a simple "No" or "Yes" system for all those that have actually played 1st team football to date. The main evaluative criterion is price v. performance ...

 

Vrančić: Yes

Watkins: No

Zimmermann: Yes

Husband: No

Franke: No

Trybull: Yes

Stiepermann: Yes

Raggett: No

Hanley: Yes

McLean: Yes

Hernández: Yes

Srbeny: Yes

Buendia: Yes

Leitner: Yes

Marshall: No

Pukki: Yes

Krul: Yes

Heise: No

Drmić: No

Byram: Yes

Rupp: No

 

I reckon that's a 62% (13 of 21) rate on getting something which is pretty great overall. It's is colored a bit by only hitting on 1 of 4 over the last 3 windows though. What say you?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

I'd put Srbeny down as a 'no'. Other than that, I agree with the ratings.

[king canary 7,578]

Weird to leave out loanees in my opinion. In that area I'd say Reed, Gunn and Rhodes were successes, Edwards, Duda, Amadou, Roberts, Passlack and Fahramnn would be no's. I may have missed someone though?

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

30 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I'd put Srbeny down as a 'no'. Other than that, I agree with the ratings.

 

Here's my reasoning: Signed for not much money to be 3rd choice, wasn't asked to contribute much, alway put himself about, scored a few, and then was sold at a profit. I feel like relative to what was expected he did okay and we made money on him so I'm giving that to Webber.

 

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

Loans in ...

 

Gunn: Yes

Reed: Yes

Edwards: No

Passlack: No

Rhodes: Yes

Roberts: No

Fährmann: No

Amadou: No

Duda: No

 

So I see 33% (3 of 9) as a success. Though we missed on all 4 last season.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

I think there is some blurring of lines here

Yes, Webber signed these guys but when we got the likes of Farhmann, Leitner, Amadou etc, I can't have been the only one excited at their arrival, thinking it was going to push us on as a team? Those guys didn't work out, for one reason or another, but that reason wasn't down to Webber. So, imo,  he should not carry the can for them. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

7 minutes ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

 

Here's my reasoning: Signed for not much money to be 3rd choice, wasn't asked to contribute much, alway put himself about, scored a few, and then was sold at a profit. I feel like relative to what was expected he did okay and we made money on him so I'm giving that to Webber.

 

He's on the borderline. I think he cost around €1m, and whilst he was only ever a cheapish punt on a backup player who could improve, I think he only scored three goals in two years- although admittedly he had very limited opportunities. Ultimately, we didn't lose any money on him and he did his job as a backup, but he never threatened to be a player capable starting games or being a first-team regular.

[king canary 7,578]

11 minutes ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

I think there is some blurring of lines here

Yes, Webber signed these guys but when we got the likes of Farhmann, Leitner, Amadou etc, I can't have been the only one excited at their arrival, thinking it was going to push us on as a team? Those guys didn't work out, for one reason or another, but that reason wasn't down to Webber. So, imo,  he should not carry the can for them. 

Whether we were excited is immaterial- we're not paid large sums of money to get this sort of stuff right. 

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

I'm bored. Let's score all of the Webber transfers in using a simple "No" or "Yes" system for all those that have actually played 1st team football to date. The main evaluative criterion is price v. performance ...

 

Vrančić: Yes

Watkins: No

Zimmermann: Yes

Husband: No

Franke: No

Trybull: Yes

Stiepermann: Yes

Raggett: No

Hanley: Yes

McLean: Yes

Hernández: Yes

Srbeny: Yes

Buendia: Yes

Leitner: Yes

Marshall: No

Pukki: Yes

Krul: Yes

Heise: No

Drmić: No

Byram: Yes

Rupp: No

 

I reckon that's a 62% (13 of 21) rate on getting something which is pretty great overall. It's is colored a bit by only hitting on 1 of 4 over the last 3 windows though. What say you?

Well, if he hits the same strike rate this season e.g. 6/7 yesses we should be home and hosed

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

There is also something in the scale of the 'yes' or 'no'.

Raggert didn't work out at Norwich but cost only a couple of hundred thousand - Buendia could make the club a £20m profit. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

39 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

He's on the borderline. I think he cost around €1m, and whilst he was only ever a cheapish punt on a backup player who could improve, I think he only scored three goals in two years- although admittedly he had very limited opportunities. Ultimately, we didn't lose any money on him and he did his job as a backup, but he never threatened to be a player capable starting games or being a first-team regular.

Srbeny basically suffered from not hitting the ground running like Pukki did in the lone striker formation. When Pukki did so, and just kept going, Srbeny's days were always numbered.

His subsequent goalscoring at a relegated Bundesliga side at Paderborn shows there definitely was some ability in there.

I'd argue that Fährmann's loan was a hit. Not because Fährmann did much, but because it clearly got Krul back to the top of his game or thereabouts.

[Bonzo 198]

The other measure that should be considered is cost related.

For example if Webber had unlimited budget he could bring in more or less sure fire winners.

Messi for example would probably make the grade. 

Being able to extract oneself from a situation that didn't work out is also a plus in my book.

So Heise is a case in point for this. Heise was no disaster for us financially. Because although he couldn't nail down a starting spot he's made a couple of loans and in the end the deal for Heise washes its own face for the club financially despite many having him down as a "no". We won't lose money on the Heise deal having paid a low fee for him initially and also having had a couple of loan deals. 

Without the cost measure applied Webber's results look good but not spectacular but with costs applied the true value of his work is obvious.  What would Pukki cost? He'd easily be worth more than £10m even at his age. Webber got him on a free. There are many other examples. 

The financial element also applies to sale values too- the fee negotiated for Madison for example literally saved the club and is a good fee for a player who is not a striker and didn't have Prem experience at the time- probably one of the highest paid for a player of this profile. 

In terms of P&L on player trading Webber and his team are a business in their own right. Fortunately a very profitable one. 

[hogesar 9,618]

Yes or no is a bit too simplistic but when you consider we haven't lost money on Raggett, sold Watkins for more than we paid (didnt we get him on a free?) and we still don't know re Rupp (his low cost means if he has a decent season now it's more than worthwhile) I think you can actually make a case for even more good decisions.

Which considering the financial level we're playing at is pretty incredibly levels of success really.

[HazzaJet 252]

1 hour ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

Loans in ...

 

Gunn: Yes

Reed: Yes

Edwards: No

Passlack: No

Rhodes: Yes

Roberts: No

Fährmann: No

Amadou: No

Duda: No

 

So I see 33% (3 of 9) as a success. Though we missed on all 4 last season.

Personally I would class Fahrmann as a yes. I know he got barely any game time, but this was all down to Krul retaining his no.1 spot at the start of last season. Fahrmann was very experienced and even had Champions/Europa league experience, and there was a big debate on here last summer over who should be the first choice keeper for the season. The good thing about signing him is that it got the best out of Krul

Edited September 9, 2020 by HazzaJet

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

42 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

There is also something in the scale of the 'yes' or 'no'.

Raggert didn't work out at Norwich but cost only a couple of hundred thousand - Buendia could make the club a £20m profit. 

 

Very true! As a data analyst/statistician by trade, I was painfully aware of the limitation of my simple dichotomous coding. It's an online forum though and not work so I just left it at that though! 😎

 

Something perhaps more nuanced/approaching linear would be along the lines of -3, -2, -2, 0, +1, +2, +3 ... but I've probably already given this too much time!

[NorthCarolinaYellow 197]

We could do something more rigorous, but I don't trust media reports or Transfermarkt listings of transfer fees one bit. We don't know the cost to use as a denominator to calculate some sort of high quality outcome criterion such as "first team minutes/£" or "goals scored/£."

[king canary 7,578]

14 minutes ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

 

Very true! As a data analyst/statistician by trade, I was painfully aware of the limitation of my simple dichotomous coding. It's an online forum though and not work so I just left it at that though! 😎

 

Something perhaps more nuanced/approaching linear would be along the lines of -3, -2, -2, 0, +1, +2, +3 ... but I've probably already given this too much time!

Yeah it was always a bit weird when people tried to just discuss hit rate after the Championship season or example. Sure, Heise and Marshall didn't do much but you can miss on 4 or 5 if you get a Pukki and a Buendia in there and it would till be a massive success.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

3 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I'd put Srbeny down as a 'no'. Other than that, I agree with the ratings.

😲😲

[Crabbycanary3 994]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

Whether we were excited is immaterial- we're not paid large sums of money to get this sort of stuff right. 

? With the pedigree these players arrived here with, it's not Webber's fault (no matter how much you want it to be), players get injured, players get a new shot of form (Krul)  etc. Webber can't kick the bloody ball for them.

Webber has got far more right than he has wrong. You are naively thinking every decision has to be inch perfect. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Crabbycanary3

[Badger 2,405]

4 hours ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

 

Here's my reasoning: Signed for not much money to be 3rd choice, wasn't asked to contribute much, alway put himself about, scored a few, and then was sold at a profit. I feel like relative to what was expected he did okay and we made money on him so I'm giving that to Webber.

 

I agree - but didn't Watkins get sold at a profit as well?

[Badger 2,405]

3 hours ago, HazzaJet said:

Personally I would class Fahrmann as a yes. I know he got barely any game time, but this was all down to Krul retaining his no.1 spot at the start of last season. Fahrmann was very experienced and even had Champions/Europa league experience, and there was a big debate on here last summer over who should be the first choice keeper for the season. The good thing about signing him is that it got the best out of Krul

Yes! Agree totally - we often only consider players for their contribution to the first team but often they have an impact on the squad. You can only play one Keeper or left back etc, but it doesn't mean that the cover was necessarily a failure - just that he wasn't good enough to take the place of top choice.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

52 minutes ago, Badger said:

Yes! Agree totally - we often only consider players for their contribution to the first team but often they have an impact on the squad. You can only play one Keeper or left back etc, but it doesn't mean that the cover was necessarily a failure - just that he wasn't good enough to take the place of top choice.

Oi! Badgero! Stop making sense! 

[king canary 7,578]

1 hour ago, Crabbycanary3 said:

? With the pedigree these players arrived here with, it's not Webber's fault (no matter how much you want it to be), players get injured, players get a new shot of form (Krul)  etc. Webber can't kick the bloody ball for them.

Webber has got far more right than he has wrong. You are naively thinking every decision has to be inch perfect. 

You're not likely to get a decent discussion if you just assume what people think. I like Webber. I generally think he's good at his job and deserves credit. I also think something went wrong with our scouting last summer which he is ultimately responsible for.

Yes Webber can't kick the ball for them. But if you sign 3 loanees that the head coach deems no better than what he already has despite 'pedigree' then it means something went wrong somewhere.

[Jersey Canary 143]

You need to look at the sales and rate them and also rate the players who re-signed on value for money as well. There is more to Webber’s job than just buying. 

[Crabbycanary3 994]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're not likely to get a decent discussion if you just assume what people think. I like Webber. I generally think he's good at his job and deserves credit. I also think something went wrong with our scouting last summer which he is ultimately responsible for.

Yes Webber can't kick the ball for them. But if you sign 3 loanees that the head coach deems no better than what he already has despite 'pedigree' then it means something went wrong somewhere.

I was responding to your comment about Webber getting paid lots of money to get these things right. That is a criticism and there was no support of Webber in that post.  I was just pointing out that Webber doesn't get everything right (who does, but you acknowledge that in this latest post) He certainly had got far more right than wrong. Webber 'signed' players but Farke ratifies it. Once they are signed, I cannot see why Webber cops flak for them not producing. 

I cannot recall anyone saying, at the time of signing, that certain players (Farhmann, Amadou, Leitner for example) should not have been signed, but am willing to stand corrected on that. At that time, the vast majority(?) thought they were excellent signings. After that, it was down to the players and Farke, not Webber. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 hours ago, NorthCarolinaYellow said:

Here's my reasoning: Signed for not much money to be 3rd choice, wasn't asked to contribute much, alway put himself about, scored a few, and then was sold at a profit. I feel like relative to what was expected he did okay and we made money on him so I'm giving that to Webber.

You sure about this bit in bold?

I suspect its completely unverifiable either way, as most fees are undisclosed.

But transfermarkt seem to think we made a considerable loss, £1.35m in then £180k out. 

I'd guess that we paid less than that, and received more than that, but I don't see any reason to suspect that we made a profit?

Could you be getting mixed up with Watkins who was £0 to buy and sold for £1m? 

I thought Srbeny was better than a few on here gave him credit for, he was such a bit part player that to pinch the few goals that he did was a decent effort, came in and got on with his job, put effort in when needed and bagged himself a few goals... no complaints. Bet he could have gone on to a Rotherham or Barnsley and done alright. 

Should imagine he was on a relatively humble salary and that we got decent value out of him. He was a bit part player but more than likely paid in line with that. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

You're not likely to get a decent discussion if you just assume what people think. I like Webber. I generally think he's good at his job and deserves credit. I also think something went wrong with our scouting last summer which he is ultimately responsible for.

Yes Webber can't kick the ball for them. But if you sign 3 loanees that the head coach deems no better than what he already has despite 'pedigree' then it means something went wrong somewhere.

I agree that we had an appalling year for transfers, add Duda to those three to make it four crap loans.

McCallum hopefully go on to prove himself to be the 2nd good signing of that season though, as Byram lonely in that club.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

The problem with including Raggett is that I'm sure he was bought with a view to flipping him for a profit, probably has to go down as a failure as he was released although we may have made a profit on loan fees? 

He didn't look like a player that suited our style of football at all, I find it difficult to believe that he was signed with a view to breaking into our side. 

The idea may have been for him to impress on loan and get sold for £1m or something, with his multiple injuries messing up that plan somewhat. Webber has talked about loan's being a new income stream in football, and that's why clubs now have 'loan managers'.

 

[Badger 2,405]

10 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I agree that we had an appalling year for transfers, add Duda to those three to make it four crap loans.

McCallum hopefully go on to prove himself to be the 2nd good signing of that season though, as Byram lonely in that club.

No doubt it was a bad year, but realistically this is part of the problem. It is far easier to identify a player for under £15 million who will thrive in the championship than it is to find the same for the premier league. Indeed it is easier to find a player for under £5 million who will thrive in the championship than it is to find a player under £15 million who will thrive in the EPL.

The big bonus from our transfer dealings last year is that they were loans and not purchases so we are not going to pay their wages for another 3 years.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

No doubt it was a bad year, but realistically this is part of the problem. It is far easier to identify a player for under £15 million who will thrive in the championship than it is to find the same for the premier league. Indeed it is easier to find a player for under £5 million who will thrive in the championship than it is to find a player under £15 million who will thrive in the EPL.

The big bonus from our transfer dealings last year is that they were loans and not purchases so we are not going to pay their wages for another 3 years.

I don't think Amadou was too bad, never got a run in his best position. People judge him by his inconsistent performances at centre back which is a bit unfair. 

I do wonder whether we'd have been better off with him over Trybull to be honest. He looked a bit limited technically but without a doubt would have been a better defensive screen and had the odd burst forward in him.