Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

Seems we have phoned José and asked if we can sign skipp

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wcorkcanary said:

Please dont bring Bilious into  this otherwise  harmonious thread Gunno.😇

I thought I was nicely incriminating myself there, haha! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Who else would be  so daft? 😇

Nothing daft about that suggestion!

Skip + £10m for Aarons would be a superb deal given a straight-swap would satisfy fans like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Norfolk Mustard said:

Nothing daft about that suggestion!

Skip + £10m for Aarons would be a superb deal given a straight-swap would satisfy fans like me.

There's more chance of Boris Johnson being caught across the tabloids eating out Meghan Markle than there is of that bid becoming reality. No way Levy accepts that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

There's more chance of Boris Johnson being caught across the tabloids eating out Meghan Markle than there is of that bid becoming reality. No way Levy accepts that!

How much £ more do you figure Levy values Skip above Max then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Norfolk Mustard said:

Nothing daft about that suggestion!

Skip + £10m for Aarons would be a superb deal given a straight-swap would satisfy fans like me.

That's my point  ,  might as well pull any  figure out of our arrises and ask for that.  If we'd  be happy  with a straight swap what makes anyone  think Spurs would pay more.  Doesnt make sense, therefore  its daft.  I'm sure we'd  like more, doubt we'd  get it though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Norfolk Mustard said:

How much £ more do you figure Levy values Skip above Max then?

You won't get £40m for Aarons and especially after this pandemic. As others have said, the problem is the value given to him. I'd say Skipp could be quite close to £40m, but Aarons will be nearer £20-25m if you ask me to guess.

I think the £40m for Aarons is due to Wan-Bissaka's move to Manchester United, but that's a club which has a bit of a dysfunctional transfer policy to put it mildly, not to mention that Wan-Bissaka had been at Palace and the top flight longer than Aarons has. There will always be a premium paid for young English talent between English clubs with our home-grown rules but I think it's inflated a bit here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

You won't get £40m for Aarons and especially after this pandemic. As others have said, the problem is the value given to him. I'd say Skipp could be quite close to £40m, but Aarons will be nearer £20-25m if you ask me to guess.

I think the £40m for Aarons is due to Wan-Bissaka's move to Manchester United, but that's a club which has a bit of a dysfunctional transfer policy to put it mildly, not to mention that Wan-Bissaka had been at Palace and the top flight longer than Aarons has. There will always be a premium paid for young English talent between English clubs with our home-grown rules but I think it's inflated a bit here.

 

I think you are completely wrong.

You can't get £40m for Aarons, but you can for Skipp?  What is your justification that one can reach that value (the one who hasn't even completed a full season as a professional yet but just happens to play for Spurs), but the other can't (the one who has barely missed a game in three years)?

I love Skipp, but if we're talking about experience as a value setter then I'm sorry but 35 games in the Championship does not equate a £40m player.

Wan-Bissaka had played one full season for Palace, with a handful of appearances before that, when he moved to United.  If Aarons pitches up for us at all next season he will by definition be more experienced in the PL than Wan-Bissaka was when he moved for £40m.  I don't discount that United's transfer policy is bizarre, but experience is not a reason for Aarons to suddenly be worth HALF the Wan-Bissaka fee.

Aarons is being looked at by Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Spurs et. al. for good reason, he is going to be a world class right back.  I don't think we'll get £40m for him, but I would be shocked if he wasn't our largest sale in history.  £30m+ (especially if/when we are promoted), I think that could even be under par for a young homegrown player moving between Premier League clubs if he decided to stay in England. 

Skipp may well become a £40m+ player, but he can not be priced in the same bracket as Aarons currently - if we have him on loan next season and he excels again then it's a different story, especially if Spurs then bring him into their starting XI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I think you are completely wrong.

You can't get £40m for Aarons, but you can for Skipp?  What is your justification that one can reach that value (the one who hasn't even completed a full season as a professional yet but just happens to play for Spurs), but the other can't (the one who has barely missed a game in three years)?

I love Skipp, but if we're talking about experience as a value setter then I'm sorry but 35 games in the Championship does not equate a £40m player.

Wan-Bissaka had played one full season for Palace, with a handful of appearances before that, when he moved to United.  If Aarons pitches up for us at all next season he will by definition be more experienced in the PL than Wan-Bissaka was when he moved for £40m.  I don't discount that United's transfer policy is bizarre, but experience is not a reason for Aarons to suddenly be worth HALF the Wan-Bissaka fee.

Aarons is being looked at by Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Spurs et. al. for good reason, he is going to be a world class right back.  I don't think we'll get £40m for him, but I would be shocked if he wasn't our largest sale in history.  £30m+ (especially if/when we are promoted), I think that could even be under par for a young homegrown player moving between Premier League clubs if he decided to stay in England. 

Skipp may well become a £40m+ player, but he can not be priced in the same bracket as Aarons currently - if we have him on loan next season and he excels again then it's a different story, especially if Spurs then bring him into their starting XI.

One's a midfielder. The other is a defender with the corresponding differences in prices that brings (usually defenders - tend - to be cheaper than midfielders, who tend to be cheaper than attackers). Secondly, Wan-Bissaka was Player of the Season at Palace before moving on to United, so not just anyone in their ranks but a proven top player. Aarons is close to that here, but Buendia's our jewel.

Experience is not the only value-setter here. You're right in that potential plays a part, but ultimately comparing the prices of midfielders and defenders is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

I think you are completely wrong.

You can't get £40m for Aarons, but you can for Skipp?  What is your justification that one can reach that value (the one who hasn't even completed a full season as a professional yet but just happens to play for Spurs), but the other can't (the one who has barely missed a game in three years)?

I love Skipp, but if we're talking about experience as a value setter then I'm sorry but 35 games in the Championship does not equate a £40m player.

Wan-Bissaka had played one full season for Palace, with a handful of appearances before that, when he moved to United.  If Aarons pitches up for us at all next season he will by definition be more experienced in the PL than Wan-Bissaka was when he moved for £40m.  I don't discount that United's transfer policy is bizarre, but experience is not a reason for Aarons to suddenly be worth HALF the Wan-Bissaka fee.

Aarons is being looked at by Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Spurs et. al. for good reason, he is going to be a world class right back.  I don't think we'll get £40m for him, but I would be shocked if he wasn't our largest sale in history.  £30m+ (especially if/when we are promoted), I think that could even be under par for a young homegrown player moving between Premier League clubs if he decided to stay in England. 

Skipp may well become a £40m+ player, but he can not be priced in the same bracket as Aarons currently - if we have him on loan next season and he excels again then it's a different story, especially if Spurs then bring him into their starting XI.

The point is that Skipp is highly unlikely to move from Spurs at the moment and it would take an astronomical bid to change that. He's their future midfield linchpin. Why on earth would they sell him for a middling fee when they can just hang on to him and see how good he actually becomes?

It's not a game of Football Manager. We are bound by the reality of the actual world we live in. Home grown players are now more valuable than ever since Brexit. Just because Max happens to play for us right now doesn't mean we could possibly compete to sign for players of a similar calibre. There's a world of difference between what we could afford to turn down and what Spurs would hold out for. £30M to us might keep us afloat for another season or two.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

One's a midfielder. The other is a defender with the corresponding differences in prices that brings (usually defenders - tend - to be cheaper than midfielders, who tend to be cheaper than attackers). Secondly, Wan-Bissaka was Player of the Season at Palace before moving on to United, so not just anyone in their ranks but a proven top player. Aarons is close to that here, but Buendia's our jewel.

Experience is not the only value-setter here. You're right in that potential plays a part, but ultimately comparing the prices of midfielders and defenders is absurd.

I agree that there are price differentials between defenders and midfielders, but we're not talking about two players who are at the same stage of their development so that clearly impacts their value and comparing the price between two players we currently watch week in week out isn't absurd, regardless of what position they play in. 

If Skipp had played a season at PL level already I'd sway more to your valuation of him, but currently he hasn't and if he wasn't a Spurs loanee talk of £40m fees wouldn't be being mooted at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Petriix said:

The point is that Skipp is highly unlikely to move from Spurs at the moment and it would take an astronomical bid to change that. He's their future midfield linchpin. Why on earth would they sell him for a middling fee when they can just hang on to him and see how good he actually becomes?

It's not a game of Football Manager. We are bound by the reality of the actual world we live in. Home grown players are now more valuable than ever since Brexit. Just because Max happens to play for us right now doesn't mean we could possibly compete to sign for players of a similar calibre. There's a world of difference between what we could afford to turn down and what Spurs would hold out for. £30M to us might keep us afloat for another season or two.

I don't think I've suggested we'd be competing for players of a similar calibre.  That was my point entirely in regards to these two.   We simply do not know if Skipp is up to it at PL level, all of the signs suggest he probably will be but he hasn't been tested there yet.  Barcelona were interested in Aarons because they saw he could do it in the PL, they didn't come knocking after the 18/19 season.

I don't disagree that Spurs are likely to hold on to Skipp, and I would be flabbergasted if we actually signed him permanently.  My point was that as it currently stands, taking their parent clubs out of the equation, Skipp is not more valuable than Aarons.

I also didn't say we would turn down £30m, my point was that £20-25m definitely under values Aarons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ncfcstar said:

I agree that there are price differentials between defenders and midfielders, but we're not talking about two players who are at the same stage of their development so that clearly impacts their value and comparing the price between two players we currently watch week in week out isn't absurd, regardless of what position they play in. 

If Skipp had played a season at PL level already I'd sway more to your valuation of him, but currently he hasn't and if he wasn't a Spurs loanee talk of £40m fees wouldn't be being mooted at all.

Then look at @Petriix's comment too. Skipp is not just any youngster to them. He's their likely future midfield linchpin and his performances with us this season appear to have very much hardened those opinions with regard to his potential in some quarters. On top of that, we seem to pretty much accept that Aarons will go to the top at some point, either with or without us. Delia's even said as such.

I'll agree with you regarding stages of development, but would say Skipp may well have taken things to a level in the Championship - in as far as it is possible to compare between positions - a little beyond what Aarons has. I'd also point out that I merely said Skipp would be nearer £40m, not actually at it - largely due to the price differential between defenders and midfielders we've agreed on.

The real question here is, does Jose Mourinho share the same opinions as many of his fans? If not, and he thinks Skipp is more disposable, then we may have a chance. But he'll alienate his fanbase unless he really nails the resulting recruitment decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Petriix said:

£15-20M is a world apart from £35-50M which is what I would guess Skipp might be 'worth' (however you're supposed to quantify that as it's really uncharted territory in terms of top, young, English CDMs). We might well push the boat out on a few signings over the £10M mark, especially if we sell any of our big assets.

The real issue we have, though, is not really one of transfer fees but of wages. We have a very harmonious squad right now as the result of some incredible work with moving on (or excluding) the overpaid and lower 'value' players. The club was in disarray with the onerous contracts given to players like Naismith and it has taken years of careful rebuilding to get us out of that hole. The problem is twofold:

  1. We can't afford to offer the sort of wages required to attract any of the kind of players who are already operating at a level which would genuinely improve the first team from day one.
  2. We can't sign someone and pay them significantly more than the fantastic players who've worked so hard to get us to this position; it would destroy the squad harmony.

We are always going to have to buy smart by buying young and/or unknown players and developing them. We're already seeing incredible success from this approach if you look at our player sales over recent seasons. This will always be hit and miss with a number of players going out on loan and many never featuring for the first team, but as long as one or two make it through each season then we're doing fine.

The problem with this approach is that it's impossible to fill the entire squad this way. So we have to scratch around the odd bargain bins to find a few misfits and (what some might call) journeymen. The idea is that we identify players that have solid, if unspectacular, core attributes who we then coach to fit our system while demanding a high workrate and extreme discipline. Sometimes they work out great. Sometimes it takes a while before the quality comes through. Sometimes the high workloads lead to injuries. Sometimes the attitude drops off and they find themselves out on a limb.

The point is that it's a delicate balance, and throwing £millions at it can't compensate for the complexity of managing the transition from a top Championship to an average Premier League squad. It needs careful management and it might genuinely not be possible to actually improve the team very much within a budget that won't expose the club to far more problems down the road. Rest assured that we won't be spending £100M on transfers as a gamble to retain our Premier League status.

Cheers Petriix - some good points made there. 

Agreed Skipp is definitely out of reach on a permanent. £30m sounds about right. 

The wage demands of such players is certainly another stumbling block which will likely prevent us from shedding out huge amounts for any one player. However there is a middle ground which we saw with the bid on the French winger (assuming we bid knowing we could afford his wages!) - and I do certainly expect us to cross into this area a bit more willingly now we are in a significantly better position. 

In an ideal world, we retain Aarons, Buendia, Cantwell, and Skipp on loan and then we look at a couple of additions likely in the region of £8-£12 mil region, plus another loan or two, and a smattering of smaller low-risk signings as is normal. This would be mostly in keeping with the model so far, but showing a bit more financial clout (almost like another natural step up like we saw in our spending last summer). 

However, assuming we do lose some key players - then this opens up a world of opportunity - and under these circumstances the model would simply have to change. Surely we have to show a willingness to use the additional resources and buy players who are more likely to hit the ground running. Our circumstances have changed, so the model should also change proportionally to accommodate this. Hasn't Webber already said things will be different this time round? 

Otherwise what is the point in the model! Wasn't the approach to 19/20 that if we were to be relegated we would be in a position to come back stronger with an improved foundation of a team to potentially create more-lasting success? Isn't this where we are now going to be? 

As you say I don't expect us to spend £100m, but if we lose all of our key players and get around £90 mil in transfer fees, we should surely be looking at reinvesting £50 mil of that, plus whatever else was already in the kitty to be spent? 

What are we hoping for if we just buy a few say £5-6 mil players to replace the key players we lose; that we get a 'free hit' in the prem (again), that we can consolidate (again), and then bounce straight back (again)? By which point our new crop of key players will be at the same point of Buendia / Aarons / Cantwell are now and may feel like they've served their time here and want to move on?

If we go down this same road again, I will seriously seriously question why we never spent a bit more prior to the 19/20 season when we were actually able to retain the services of all our key players. 

And I do not think such acquisitions would necessarily disharmonise the squad, indeed if we were to lose multiple players then the squad would frankly need it! 

I have loved our model for getting us this far, but we are at risk of creating a real circular issue here. If we aren't willing to adjust our ethos when our circumstances change and the opportunity presents itself to us then we will never break out of it and establish ourselves in the prem. 

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Cheers Petriix - some good points made there. 

Agreed Skipp is definitely out of reach on a permanent. £30m sounds about right. 

The wage demands of such players is certainly another stumbling block which will likely prevent us from shedding out huge amounts for any one player. However there is a middle ground which we saw with the bid on the French winger (assuming we bid knowing we could afford his wages!) - and I do certainly expect us to cross into this area a bit more willingly now we are in a significantly better position. 

In an ideal world, we retain Aarons, Buendia, Cantwell, and Skipp on loan and then we look at a couple of additions likely in the region of £8-£12 mil region, plus another loan or two, and a smattering of smaller low-risk signings as is normal. This would be mostly in keeping with the model so far, but showing a bit more financial clout (almost like another natural step up like we saw in our spending last summer). 

However, assuming we do lose some key players - then this opens up a world of opportunity - and under these circumstances the model would simply have to change. Surely we have to show a willingness to use the additional resources and buy players who are more likely to hit the ground running. Our circumstances have changed, so the model should also change proportionally to accommodate this. Hasn't Webber already said things will be different this time round? 

Otherwise what is the point in the model! Wasn't the approach to 19/20 that if we were to be relegated we would be in a position to come back stronger with an improved foundation of a team to potentially create more-lasting success? Isn't this where we are now going to be? 

As you say I don't expect us to spend £100m, but if we lose all of our key players and get around £90 mil in transfer fees, we should surely be looking at reinvesting £50 mil of that, plus whatever else was already in the kitty to be spent? 

What are we hoping for if we just buy a few say £5-6 mil players to replace the key players we lose; that we get a 'free hit' in the prem (again), that we can consolidate (again), and then bounce straight back (again)? By which point our new crop of key players will be at the same point of Buendia / Aarons / Cantwell are now and may feel like they've served their time here and want to move on?

If we go down this same road again, I will seriously seriously question why we never spent a bit more prior to the 19/20 season when we were actually able to retain the services of all our key players. 

And I do not think such acquisitions would necessarily disharmonise the squad, indeed if we were to lose multiple players then the squad would frankly need it! 

I have loved our model for getting us this far, but we are at risk of creating a real circular issue here. If we aren't willing to adjust our ethos when our circumstances change and the opportunity presents itself to us then we will never break out of it and establish ourselves in the prem. 

I would argue that we've actually spent every penny available. We're certainly not sitting on 10s of £millions in the bank. You might have missed the global pandemic which has hit our revenue by something in the region of a Ben Godfrey. The rest has gone towards paying off past and future liabilities. Promotion bonuses don't come cheap and, at Championship level, the club is not sustainable, even at our relatively low (by Premier League standards) wage bill.

So, promotion this time is worth another guaranteed £180 million over three seasons. That just about pays the current wage bill for those three years. Then you've got to pay for our additional costs arising from promotion (contract clauses, bonuses, obligation to purchase certain players etc.). Anything that we spend over our transfer income would be a gamble.

I don't doubt that we *will* gamble... a bit. We'll spend £25-40M if we can get the targets we're after. Hopefully a good chunk of that will be on future prospects so that, if we do go down again and end up selling our best players, we'll have the best chance of repeating our previous success.

Whether we are actually able to attract the players we want remains to be seen. I suspect we would have spent more last time had we not been seen as both certain for relegation and not willing to match the expectation of players and their agents in terms of wages. The 'system' has its limits and we simply cannot commit to the sort of ongoing spending that normal Premier League wages amount to: every £10k per week = £1.5M over a 3 year contract. 5 new players on £50k per week = £39M over 3 years. That's not the business we're in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I would argue that we've actually spent every penny available. We're certainly not sitting on 10s of £millions in the bank. You might have missed the global pandemic which has hit our revenue by something in the region of a Ben Godfrey. The rest has gone towards paying off past and future liabilities. Promotion bonuses don't come cheap and, at Championship level, the club is not sustainable, even at our relatively low (by Premier League standards) wage bill.

So, promotion this time is worth another guaranteed £180 million over three seasons. That just about pays the current wage bill for those three years. Then you've got to pay for our additional costs arising from promotion (contract clauses, bonuses, obligation to purchase certain players etc.). Anything that we spend over our transfer income would be a gamble.

I don't doubt that we *will* gamble... a bit. We'll spend £25-40M if we can get the targets we're after. Hopefully a good chunk of that will be on future prospects so that, if we do go down again and end up selling our best players, we'll have the best chance of repeating our previous success.

Whether we are actually able to attract the players we want remains to be seen. I suspect we would have spent more last time had we not been seen as both certain for relegation and not willing to match the expectation of players and their agents in terms of wages. The 'system' has its limits and we simply cannot commit to the sort of ongoing spending that normal Premier League wages amount to: every £10k per week = £1.5M over a 3 year contract. 5 new players on £50k per week = £39M over 3 years. That's not the business we're in.

I think we are mostly in agreement here.

But where have I said that I think we have underspent in the past? My comment was purely conditional; that is if we lose our best players now and don't substantially reinvest with a view towards staying up, I will question what the point was of our 'free hit' season last time in the PL. As surely we'd have been better placed to spend a bit more money then when we knew we could retain the services of our best players? And yes, more money was clearly available because we bid £16-17m on a player which was never spent elsewhere! We obviously didn't find it necessary to spend that money elsewhere in the end, and that's fine, provided we make a better go of it now.  

Of course COVID was a massive impact last summer, yet relatively speaking we still managed to find a lot more than we did in the prior prem season where our actual transfer outlay was £750k (with the focus on maintaining our players and clearing debts). So with premier league money guaranteed again, plus potentially huge transfer fees coming in, I would expect us to make another natural step up in terms of our financial competitiveness - obviously with some impact from COVID still hampering us.

Again I don't expect to see 5 players on £50k, but if we sell up I expect to see every player sold to be replaced with a quality acquisition in a similar wage band, plus improvements elsewhere in the squad. You said £25m - £40m spend but I think it would need to be in the upper reaches of this and beyond - say £40m-£60m (on the basis we get say £90m transfer revenue).

If we don't sell up, then I would expect to see 2-3 additions who will be up there with the highest earners with the club I could still see us spending £20 mil (or committing to £20 mil of future transfers with loans-to-buy etc).

Anything less would be a bit disappointing! 

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I think we are mostly in agreement here.

But where have I said that I think we have underspent in the past? My comment was purely conditional; that is if we lose our best players now and don't substantially reinvest with a view towards staying up, I will question what the point was of our 'free hit' season last time in the PL. As surely we'd have been better placed to spend a bit more money then when we knew we could retain the services of our best players? And yes, more money was clearly available because we bid £16-17m on a player which was never spent elsewhere! We obviously didn't find it necessary to spend that money elsewhere in the end, and that's fine, provided we make a better go of it now.  

Of course COVID was a massive impact last summer, yet relatively speaking we still managed to find a lot more than we did in the prior prem season where our actual transfer outlay was £750k (with the focus on maintaining our players and clearing debts). So with premier league money guaranteed again, plus potentially huge transfer fees coming in, I would expect us to make another natural step up in terms of our financial competitiveness - obviously with some impact from COVID still hampering us.

Again I don't expect to see 5 players on £50k, but if we sell up I expect to see every player sold to be replaced with a quality acquisition in a similar wage band, plus improvements elsewhere in the squad. You said £25m - £40m spend but I think it would need to be in the upper reaches of this and beyond - say £40m-£60m (on the basis we get say £90m transfer revenue).

If we don't sell up, then I would expect to see 2-3 additions who will be up there with the highest earners with the club I could still see us spending £20 mil (or committing to £20 mil of future transfers with loans-to-buy etc).

Anything less would be a bit disappointing! 

I also think we're broadly in agreement; sorry, I'm out of 'likes', which seem to be even more limited than our transfer budget. Where we differ, I feel, is that you are making the assumption (or just hoping, maybe) that we will be in a better position this time around. I, on the other hand, think that Covid may have left us in more of a similar (if not worse) position to the previous promotion; only this time our players are older with shorter contracts remaining.

Sometimes you have to stand still to move forwards. What we're likely to find is that the Championship clubs which miss out on promotion and the Premier League clubs which are relegated this season will all be in massive trouble. Our sensible business model makes us far more resilient to the impacts of Covid and relegation alike. Relegation for a second time in three years would be far from disaster, as long as we haven't gambled too much.

Of course, the real hope is that we can keep our current team together, add in a couple of shrewd signings, get a bit luckier with injuries and stay up on merit. I agree that we could push the boat out a little by reinvesting money if we do sell one of the big guns, but I wouldn't want to see another RVW or Naismith type signing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

Where we differ, I feel, is that you are making the assumption (or just hoping, maybe) that we will be in a better position this time around. I, on the other hand, think that Covid may have left us in more of a similar (if not worse) position to the previous promotion; only this time our players are older with shorter contracts remaining.

You could be right there. I suppose it depends on how much of the Godfrey / Lewis sales went towards our most recent transfers versus how much covered our COVID shortfall plus future anticipated COVID losses. 

I'm sure Webber would've planned this current season on the basis that we were likely to spend at least the first half season (?) behind closed doors. With this in mind I am hopeful the impact won't be quite the shock you fear it might me, although I respect there will likely still be some issues as the situation has proven far more dire than the predictions of last summer. 

The upside of this will be that other clubs will also have restricted transfer budgets - potentially more so than us - and other clubs will also be pretty desperate to sell. All of which will drive the price of players down. So if we only have 75% of our transfer budget, we may be able to acquire the same players also for 75% of the price! 

I too don't want to see any RvWs or Naismiths! But that's easier said than done unfortunately, and despite having better resources available (probably) we still won't be able to bring in proven prem talent except maybe on loan. So overseas players will be our go to - which brings additional risk. Of course we will look to younger players as you would expect some potential value will be retained regardless of their success - but that doesn't quite protect us in the event they tank completely like RvW did.

However I certainly trust Webber to use our money more wisely than we've managed in the past!

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

One's a midfielder. The other is a defender with the corresponding differences in prices that brings (usually defenders - tend - to be cheaper than midfielders, who tend to be cheaper than attackers). Secondly, Wan-Bissaka was Player of the Season at Palace before moving on to United, so not just anyone in their ranks but a proven top player. Aarons is close to that here, but Buendia's our jewel.

Experience is not the only value-setter here. You're right in that potential plays a part, but ultimately comparing the prices of midfielders and defenders is absurd.

Fullbacks move for bigger fees with slightly more regularity than DMs.

I suspect that DM is the least valuable position aside from GKs

Edited by kirku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kirku said:

It's actually the other way round. Fullbacks move for bigger fees with more regularity than DMs.

I suspect that DM is the least valuable position aside from GKs

I suppose the question is less 'how much is Skipp worth right now' and more 'how much would Spurs accept'? For the reasons shown by TGS and Petriix above I seriously cannot see them being willing to accept much less than £30 mil.

I mentioned £25 mil plus add-ons as the absolute minimum on the prior page, but even that may have been a bit hopeful - I certainly don't see many Spurs fans being at all happy if that was agreed!

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I suppose the question is less 'how much is Skipp worth right now' and more 'how much would Spurs accept'? For the reasons shown by TGS and Petriix above I seriously cannot see them being willing to accept much less than £30 mil.

I mentioned £25 mil plus add-ons as the absolute minimum on the prior page, but even that may have been a bit hopeful - I certainly don't see many Spurs fans being at all happy if that was agreed!

For reference, a £30m fee for Skipp would make him the 15th most expensive DM in history.

People talking of valuations "significantly above £30m" would put him at Fabinho and Matic money. There was even a range that hit £50m, only 2 DMs have ever moved for over £45m; Jorginho to Chelsea and Rodri to Man City.

Webber's been very good at knowing the market value of players, and you may well be right that Spurs would demand a fee beyond the reasonable expectations of the market, but there are a lot of factors that might impact this.

They've just built a huge new stadium, part of the rationale behind that would've been the huge increase in matchday income, which will have entirely disappeared for this season. It's possible that Mourinho doesn't rate Skipp quite as highly as his comments in the media, and would rather use the money elsewhere.

That's before looking at the hugely depressed market as a whole, and how there are lots of huge clubs unlikely to spark the number of transfer chains you'd usually expect. All uncharted territory.

But, if something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay...

Edited by kirku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kirku said:

For reference, a £30m fee for Skipp would make him the 15th most expensive DM in history.

Webber's been very good at knowing the market value of players, and you may well be right that Spurs would demand a fee beyond the reasonable expectations of the market, but there are a lot of factors that might impact this.

They've just built a huge new stadium, part of the rationale behind that would've been the huge increase in matchday income, which will have entirely disappeared for this season. It's possible that Mourinho doesn't rate Skipp quite as highly as his comments in the media, and would rather use the money elsewhere.

That's before looking at the hugely depressed market as a whole, and how there are lots of huge clubs unlikely to spark the number of transfer chains you'd usually expect. All uncharted territory.

But, if something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay...

Some good points, I would like this to all be proven true and then we could get him on a permanent for a modest fee, but sadly I fear not!

15th most expensive DM in history does sound rather excessive - but this is the premier league we are talking about, and unfortunately being young and English will always count the other way. I am not familiar with these record transfer lists but I would wager there is already a decent number of English players up there who definitely haven't warranted the fees brandished.

We also haven't seen much in the way of young English DMs in recent years coming through. But for reference see how much is being touted for Declan Rice, with West Ham valuing him at over £100 mil! Not saying Skipp is close to that level yet but certainly he could be someone of similar potential IMO in a season or two. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Some good points, I would like this to all be proven true and then we could get him on a permanent for a modest fee, but sadly I fear not!

15th most expensive DM in history does sound rather excessive - but this is the premier league we are talking about, and unfortunately being young and English will always count the other way. I am not familiar with these record transfer lists but I would wager there is already a decent number of English players up there who definitely haven't warranted the fees brandished.

We also haven't seen much in the way of young English DMs in recent years coming through. But for reference see how much is being touted for Declan Rice, with West Ham valuing him at over £100 mil! Not saying Skipp is close to that level yet but certainly he could be someone of similar potential IMO in a season or two. 

Well, £30m would make Skipp the most expensive English DM in history. The 2nd being Michael Carrick for £25m. It would also make him the 14th most expensive Englishman of any position. 

West Ham almost certainly don't value Rice at over £100m. That'd be the 9th largest transfer ever and more than United paid for Pogba.

Jude Bellingham moved for £21m last summer..

Edited by kirku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if Skipp walks into the Spurs first team next season ahead of the likes of Hojberg, Sissoko and Winks on the back of one (albeit excellent) season in the Championship. If he returns to Spurs next season it'll likely be as backup with the odd start in the cups.

Another season on loan might suit both him and Spurs - he will get to start every week in the Premier League and Spurs will get to see if he can cut it at the higher level. He's still only 20 so there's no need for them to rush him back and with Mourinho under increasing pressure to win a trophy I can't see him taking a risk with Skipp over more experienced options.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kirku said:

Well, £30m would make Skipp the most expensive English DM in history. The 2nd being Michael Carrick for £25m. It would also make him the 14th most expensive Englishman of any position. 

West Ham almost certainly don't value Rice at over £100m. That'd be the 9th largest transfer ever and more than United paid for Pogba.

Jude Bellingham moved for £21m last summer..

14th most expensive Englishman at £30 mil? That is fairly mad, I do think it kind of illustrates just how unlikely a transfer is to happen though, because I really don’t see Spurs accepting much less if at all. How much lower do you think Spurs would consider letting him go for? Even if they wanted to sell I can’t see him being less than £25 mil.

On Declan Rice from 2 days ago;

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.football.london/west-ham-united-fc/west-ham-declan-rice-transfer-19986312.amp

I don’t disagree though that this is surely just setting the tone for negotiations and they’d surely accept less than £100 mil, it’d seem crazy if a £60+ mil was bid and not accepted.

Also I think Birmingham letting Bellingham go on to a bigger club is very different to Spurs - already a top side - letting go probably their best young prospect on a permanent to a lower league club, for a variety of reasons. Very rarely do we see this happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep pondering over this but from a Spurs perspective I would be surprised to see Skipp loaned to the same team two seasons in a row.

Whilst there are huge advantages from having regular first team football, I just think they will want to vary his development with another club. I'd be amazed if he is here next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Also I think Birmingham letting Bellingham go on to a bigger club is very different to Spurs - already a top side - letting go probably their best young prospect on a permanent to a lower league club, for a variety of reasons. Very rarely do we see this happen!

There is obviously that dynamic in the Bellingham transfer but

1) I'm not sure Skipp is their best young prospect (not sure, as in genuinely don't know)

2) Bellingham was regarded as one of, if not the, best player in his position of his age in the world. I'm not sure the same can be said of Skipp.

Personally, I think something around £20m is about right but it's all complete guess work obviously

Edited by kirku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/03/2021 at 16:35, kirku said:

Surely a DM with one Champs season under his belt isn't worth £30m, especially not in the current market?

Villa paid £26m for a centre back who'd only played 17 top level games didn't they, so stranger things have happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Villa paid £26m for a centre back who'd only played 17 top level games didn't they, so stranger things have happened. 

66th most expensive CB according to Transfermarkt and in the pre-COVID market. CBs tend to be more expensive than DMs, it seems.

I would suggest a better comparison is Douglas Luiz, who plays in the same position, moved from a big club, and was £15m.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Villa paid £26m for a centre back who'd only played 17 top level games didn't they, so stranger things have happened. 

66th most expensive CB according to Transfermarkt and in the pre-COVID market. CBs tend to be more expensive than DMs, it seems.

I would suggest a better comparison is Douglas Luiz, who plays in the same position, moved from a big club, and was £15m.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kirku said:

66th most expensive CB according to Transfermarkt and in the pre-COVID market. CBs tend to be more expensive than DMs, it seems.

I would suggest a better comparison is Douglas Luiz, who plays in the same position, moved from a big club, and was £15m.

That £15m fee allegedly has a £25m buy back clause, and the tabloids seem to think Man City will activate it, if they do it essentially a reverse loan fee isn't it.... Man City paying Villa £10m to borrow their player! 

To be honest I'd take that all day long though, £15m for Skipp and Spurs can have him back for £25m! 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...