Jump to content
Bovril

Emi Buendia - Transfer details

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I predict that within 2 years Emi will be throwing his toys out of the pram at Villa and be looking for a move elsewhere. 

 

Unfair. He stayed with us for 3 years and showed loyalty and commitment all the way through. He never downed tools or threw his toys out. Possibly a bit unsettled at the start of last season, but Emi does not come across as mercenary. Quite the opposite IMO.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, king canary said:

That isn't 'for sure' it is your opinion.

It's not just his opinion - it's that of Webber and Farke too. Both have expressed it. Webber literally explained why and how it works when bringing perspective players in.

Agents aren't stupid. They know where the money is - it's with success that breeds exposure. How much money do the top players make for being household names and in Gillette/Cola/Pepsi adverts and the like?

Rather than just being an opinion, there is a lot of evidence to back it up.

20 hours ago, king canary said:

He's a great analogy- a player wanted by bigger teams who'd seemingly outgrown the club and tried to force a move through. The rest of your sentence is irrelevant to the larger point of 'does refusing to sell your top player puts off new signings. 

He handed in a transfer request- I think that suggests he really wanted a move.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/aug/07/crystal-palace-tell-everton-they-will-not-sell-wilfried-zaha-for-less-than-100m

He's not a great analogy because, as pointed out, he already got that great move and it didn't work out for him. The Palace won't accept less than £100m thing is a joke. It's undoubtedly not true. Equally, no club has offered what Palace see as a good valuation for him.

Also, further context helps:

Quote

That was immediately rejected by Palace, who are reluctant to sell with little more than 24 hours of the Premier League’s transfer window remaining and concerns about how they could replace such a crucial player before the start of the new season.

So essentially it was at the end of the transfer window and they held tight because the offer received would have given them no time to replace him. This was also two seasons ago, AND he does have a loyalty to them perhaps not seen in many other players. Either way, he is also part of an established Premier League club, on £130k pw and is unlikely to want to go anywhere for less in terms of wages.

Next summer he'll have a year left on his contract. If he wants to move, at 29, that'll be when he pushes and if he refuses to sign a contract, Palace will have a decision to make.

Seems foolish to me to try and compare the one case that is the exception to the rule which differs in a lot of ways, to the vast number of other cases that generally prove the rule that players can and will push through moves. We've seen it ourselves a bunch of times both in signing players and losing them.

Ings at Southampton for example - made it clear he didn't want to stay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Unfair. He stayed with us for 3 years and showed loyalty and commitment all the way through. He never downed tools or threw his toys out. Possibly a bit unsettled at the start of last season, but Emi does not come across as mercenary. Quite the opposite IMO.  

Agreed. Needed a sharp rebuke from Farke when unsettled (hence the comment about the kit-man), but was quickly focused and giving us his all again. Buendia just has his moments where his passion overrides his thinking and in those cases you've got to get him back on track quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding the cost of the deal. I thought it was a little low, but ultimately the market dictates. Only Arsenal and Villa were in for him, and of the two, I suspect Villa were far easier to deal with. 

It's interesting though, when you look at the bigger picture. We might have got another £5million for Emi and taken the deal to £40 million. However, it's not unrealistic to assume that would impact on the fees we'd have to pay for other players. Selling clubs know we have more money. So Rashica and Sargent might have cost a couple of million more, and therefore negating the extra £5 million received for Buendia.

In this scenario the fans are delighted, we sold emi for that magical £40 million figure - the club played the hard-line! We've also shown ambition by spending £12 million each on two players. In reality the club is no better off. 

I guess the point is, there's so many moving parts to the economics of a club in a transfer window. As fans, we shouldn't too hung up on  transfer fees - particularly in isolation. 

Edited by Creedence Clearwater Couto
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Unfair. He stayed with us for 3 years and showed loyalty and commitment all the way through. He never downed tools or threw his toys out. Possibly a bit unsettled at the start of last season, but Emi does not come across as mercenary. Quite the opposite IMO.  

He suffered from the same "lack of focus" as Cantwell. If coupled with Farke's comparison of Aarons, essentially they both lost focus after "interest", either real or media led rumours, from other clubs.

Make of that what you will - but if the Athletic information is accurate, then it would be fair to say that he very much did in some way, make noises about leaving.

Either way, for the most part he turned in good performances, less so in the premier league last time out, but especially so after around October/November last season when we saw a huge change in approach to games when he tracked back far more than before - made more notable through the lack of histrionics leaving him slapping the ground further up the pitch. This also led to him being better positioned when we won the ball back and more able to become part of forward moves including goals and assists.

I think the key is, we cannot expect these players to want to be loyal.

There is a sort of oddly contradicting message that is often seen on these threads:
1) He was sold too cheaply - is worth more money.
2) We should have forced him to stay and refused to sell him.

They contradict each other because they both suggest that we all accept, deep down, that he could play at a higher level than we can currently assure him. Once you accept that, you cannot ask loyalty of him really. You can't tell a player to stay and play for less money at a lower level than you know he is capable of. He will be thinking of his family, I suspect, given his social media presence and the way he talks, that he is relatively humble and grounded. He'll know that all footballers are one injury away from the end of their career. If he has moved to Villa and doubled his wages - which isn't that big a stretch, he's securing his family's future financially. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

Personally, whilst I rate him as a player in terms of his ability, like I thought of Lambert, I do wonder if whether Farke is squeezing the best out of some of these players and if that means some will perhaps not go on to be hugely bigger and better. Pilkington, Johnson, Morrison, Holt, Fox, E. Bennett etc, would they have played as high a level if not for Lambert (and Culverhouse of course)? None have been able to replicate the same levels after leaving.

Time will be the deciding factor in that. However, I think from the evidence we have at the moment, it certainly looks like his head was turned last summer and that he had a bit of a wobble in focus at least, as a result. I also feel that the price we got was decent. He's not as good as Grealish - there isn't really any debate there. He might become as good as Grealish - but that's another discussion. 

People seem to think that market value in a player is a predictable thing - it's not. You'll see some players go for what you will consider cheap, others for what you think are too expensive. There isn't really a solid determination on player value as there are a lot of factors involved. What level they are proven at, age, homegrown, international, injury history, wage demands and many, many more.

Above all else, once you have seen 30+ years of favourite players move to clubs pushing for bigger things, you sort of become acclimatised. The real evil here is what Sky etc has done to football in this country and how it has replaced fans in terms of importance. The fact that fans of even the most successful clubs recognise this despite the level at which they compete, says it all for me.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, chicken said:

He suffered from the same "lack of focus" as Cantwell. If coupled with Farke's comparison of Aarons, essentially they both lost focus after "interest", either real or media led rumours, from other clubs.

Make of that what you will - but if the Athletic information is accurate, then it would be fair to say that he very much did in some way, make noises about leaving.

Either way, for the most part he turned in good performances, less so in the premier league last time out, but especially so after around October/November last season when we saw a huge change in approach to games when he tracked back far more than before - made more notable through the lack of histrionics leaving him slapping the ground further up the pitch. This also led to him being better positioned when we won the ball back and more able to become part of forward moves including goals and assists.

I think the key is, we cannot expect these players to want to be loyal.

There is a sort of oddly contradicting message that is often seen on these threads:
1) He was sold too cheaply - is worth more money.
2) We should have forced him to stay and refused to sell him.

They contradict each other because they both suggest that we all accept, deep down, that he could play at a higher level than we can currently assure him. Once you accept that, you cannot ask loyalty of him really. You can't tell a player to stay and play for less money at a lower level than you know he is capable of. He will be thinking of his family, I suspect, given his social media presence and the way he talks, that he is relatively humble and grounded. He'll know that all footballers are one injury away from the end of their career. If he has moved to Villa and doubled his wages - which isn't that big a stretch, he's securing his family's future financially. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

Personally, whilst I rate him as a player in terms of his ability, like I thought of Lambert, I do wonder if whether Farke is squeezing the best out of some of these players and if that means some will perhaps not go on to be hugely bigger and better. Pilkington, Johnson, Morrison, Holt, Fox, E. Bennett etc, would they have played as high a level if not for Lambert (and Culverhouse of course)? None have been able to replicate the same levels after leaving.

Time will be the deciding factor in that. However, I think from the evidence we have at the moment, it certainly looks like his head was turned last summer and that he had a bit of a wobble in focus at least, as a result. I also feel that the price we got was decent. He's not as good as Grealish - there isn't really any debate there. He might become as good as Grealish - but that's another discussion. 

People seem to think that market value in a player is a predictable thing - it's not. You'll see some players go for what you will consider cheap, others for what you think are too expensive. There isn't really a solid determination on player value as there are a lot of factors involved. What level they are proven at, age, homegrown, international, injury history, wage demands and many, many more.

Above all else, once you have seen 30+ years of favourite players move to clubs pushing for bigger things, you sort of become acclimatised. The real evil here is what Sky etc has done to football in this country and how it has replaced fans in terms of importance. The fact that fans of even the most successful clubs recognise this despite the level at which they compete, says it all for me.

Excellent post. Agree with all that! Couldn't have put it better myself.

Out of likes. 

Edited by Greavsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

We've also shown ambition by spending £12 million each on two players. In reality the club is no better off. 

We haven't yet...

In up front fees - as in, not including add ons, I believe we have not breached more than £10m. Sargent was around £8m, Rashica was around the same fee and Tzolis was €11m+ add ons, so around £9m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Emi Buendia, irrespective of where he comes from, is middle aged in the life of a footballer, and at a few months off 25 he’s probably got a whopping 5 seasons left at the top until his career starts going the other way. That is not a lot of time to win things in, and he will be acutely aware of that. Any interviews he’s given exterior to club interviews will tell you exactly how ambitious he is - that is a fact and are all available to read online right now. If you’re one of the people that still really think we jettisoned him out of Carrow Rd kicking and screaming whilst he pleaded to stay, god help you! 

Share this post


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

If you’re one of the people that still really think we jettisoned him out of Carrow Rd kicking and screaming whilst he pleaded to stay, god help you! 

Did anyone ever say that?

The argument is quite simple. Let me try to break it down for you:

The board made very little attempt to keep our best player upon getting promoted to the premier league.

This wasn’t a case of the player forcing the move. The player wanted a move and the club facilitated it.

I’m baffled by this repeated line that “the player wanted a move, so we had to sell”. That is a massive over-simplification and implies the club did everything they could to persuade him to stay; something that clearly didn’t happen. By all accounts, there was very little negotiation to try to keep him.

So then, let’s treat this for what it is: a decision by the club to cash in on our best player before a ball is kicked in the new Premier League season. Time will tell whether the players brought in are worth even half of Emi. I hope this all ends up being amazing business, but right now it just looks like a massive gamble.
 

We should judge the club on the outcome of that decision and stop pretending it was out of their hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a player's value is at its potential highest, and when our model is built on identifying talent, refining it, and buying better established players / more promising talent, then the notion of persuading hard for a best player to stay is absurd.

The crux of a self-funded model is that you sell when the going is good. Of course, it does look like a gamble - by definition, selling your top player and buying three more with the aim to be more solid across the park (or in the hope that one of them turns out even better than the player you replaced) is always a gamble, but this is how the model is sustainable.

Complaining about the lack of effort to keep a star player there clearly shows an inability to comprehend said model. Considering the transfer business already down (Lewis out, Giannoulis in - Godfrey out, Gibson in - Leitner and Vrancic out, Lees-Melou and Dowell in inter alia) I find it bemusing that this still requires explanation.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

When a player's value is at its potential highest, and when our model is built on identifying talent, refining it, and buying better established players / more promising talent, then the notion of persuading hard for a best player to stay is absurd.

The crux of a self-funded model is that you sell when the going is good. Of course, it does look like a gamble - by definition, selling your top player and buying three more with the aim to be more solid across the park (or in the hope that one of them turns out even better than the player you replaced) is always a gamble, but this is how the model is sustainable.

Complaining about the lack of effort to keep a star player there clearly shows an inability to comprehend said model. Considering the transfer business already down (Lewis out, Giannoulis in - Godfrey out, Gibson in - Leitner and Vrancic out, Lees-Melou and Dowell in inter alia) I find it bemusing that this still requires explanation.

I've given up..

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Bunny said:

Did anyone ever say that?

The argument is quite simple. Let me try to break it down for you:

The board made very little attempt to keep our best player upon getting promoted to the premier league.

This wasn’t a case of the player forcing the move. The player wanted a move and the club facilitated it.

I’m baffled by this repeated line that “the player wanted a move, so we had to sell”. That is a massive over-simplification and implies the club did everything they could to persuade him to stay; something that clearly didn’t happen. By all accounts, there was very little negotiation to try to keep him.

So then, let’s treat this for what it is: a decision by the club to cash in on our best player before a ball is kicked in the new Premier League season. Time will tell whether the players brought in are worth even half of Emi. I hope this all ends up being amazing business, but right now it just looks like a massive gamble.
 

We should judge the club on the outcome of that decision and stop pretending it was out of their hands.

You don’t need to break it down for me my big eared friend, thank you though - like every other poster on this board I’ve seen every explanation, and yes there were folk that think he was more than happy to stay as he’d be getting Premier League football with us. Whether the club were compliant and can see benefits either way is actually neither here nor there. It comes down to people thinking it’s acceptable to stifle a players dreams after years of loyal service - it’s a matter of respect and not turning this into a situation that makes a player very unhappy in his life. It’s a matter of achieving the fairest outcome for both parties, and not any singular.

Players aren’t our playthings, they are human beings with the right to their own choices - I would be absolutely horrified if NCFC refused to allow people to move on in their chosen path just to selfishly satisfy a few people for 90 minutes on a Saturday - the same very people whom they themselves would happily break work contracts to gain better for their family elsewhere. Bit hypocritical to be honest. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, The Bunny said:

Did anyone ever say that?

The argument is quite simple. Let me try to break it down for you:

The board made very little attempt to keep our best player(1) upon getting promoted to the premier league.

This wasn’t a case of the player forcing the move. The player wanted a move and the club facilitated it.(2)

I’m baffled by this repeated line that “the player wanted a move, so we had to sell”. That is a massive over-simplification and implies the club did everything they could to persuade him to stay; something that clearly didn’t happen. By all accounts, there was very little negotiation to try to keep him.

So then, let’s treat this for what it is: a decision by the club to cash in on our best player before a ball is kicked in the new Premier League season. Time will tell whether the players brought in are worth even half of Emi. I hope this all ends up being amazing business, but right now it just looks like a massive gamble.(3)
 

We should judge the club on the outcome of that decision and stop pretending it was out of their hands.

Yes. People have suggested that it was the club that instigated the move/sale not the player.

1) Not the boards job, we have a sporting director for a reason, he leads negotiations and the decision making in regards to transfer strategy. The board will judge him on his results, as will we. The joint majority shareholders were probably kept in the loop in regards to the strategy but they were unlikely to have made the decision themselves.
2) No one has said that the player forced the move - just that the club respected his wishes though we do know he was interested in a move away hence his lack of focus at the start of last season. If he wasn't interested in a move or was more level headed about it he would have been praised like Max Aarons. Sort of suggests it was more than just a case of "oh wow, Arsenal want me".
3) Not really a massive gamble is it? Our best player but it is increasingly looking like we only saw his best and most committed performances for us after he was told he would be allowed to leave this summer (going on the Athletic article timeline). Every move is a gamble, Buendia didn't really deliver for us in the PL last time out. 7 assists of which about half we from the many corners he took.

Look, I rate him, I like him, I have no problem agreeing that last season and the first championship season he proved himself to be invaluable and our most creative forward thinking player. However, for the fee received we have signed four players - Rashica, Tzolis, Sargent and Lees-Melou.

I don't see that as a gamble as such. At least, not as much of a gamble as it was to sign Buendia for £1.5m when we signed him and to hope that he could become a £35m player.

There is one thing that is accurate though - if we had kept him, on his own he wouldn't have kept us up. The squad needed investment, and we had to sell a player to do that. Why would the club have said ok to him moving and not Cantwell or Aarons? Are they more model professionals? More likely to stay committed or just that we didn't have the offers coming in for them to the same level? Because that is the only argument left now - why did we sell Buendia to fund the squad investment and not Aarons or Cantwell?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always think I can put a good argument over, but chicken beats me hands down in this regard. Nice post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/08/2021 at 00:04, The Bunny said:

Rather confirms what was suggested on here originally, that Webber was actively trying to sell out best player from the get-go, with no intention of trying to persuade him to stay.   The “they’ll have to offer a record fee” statement was nothing but a “come and get him” (as many said at the time).

Let’s face it, we are a selling club. There is no intent to stay up. That is “the model”. That’s twice in a row now they’ve made no attempt to make a fist of staying up after getting promoted. Pocket the money, go down, spend nothing. Maybe even sell your best players if it helps the bank balance. It’s hardly subtle.

Is anyone surprised the players have given up on the pitch? The board had given up before a ball was even kicked.

Enjoy the rest of your League One campaign. You might even win a game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Enjoy the rest of your League One campaign. You might even win a game!

Ah, the old “if you don’t agree with every decision made by the club then you must be an Ipswich fan” argument. I’m afraid I can’t argue with such flawless logic. I bow down before your superior intellect, genius. 

Edited by The Bunny

Share this post


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

I always think I can put a good argument over, but chicken beats me hands down in this regard. Nice post.

Agreed, @chickenis on a roll today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Bunny said:

The argument is quite simple. Let me try to break it down for you:

 

Have you read the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chicken said:

We haven't yet...

In up front fees - as in, not including add ons, I believe we have not breached more than £10m. Sargent was around £8m, Rashica was around the same fee and Tzolis was €11m+ add ons, so around £9m.

You've missed my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Bunny said:

Ah, the old “if you don’t agree with every decision made by the club then you must be an Ipswich fan” argument. I’m afraid I can’t argue with such flawless logic. I bow down before your superior intellect, genius. 

No actual Norwich fan spouts rubbish about the board giving up when we've spent more than any other point in our history. They definitely don't spout the players have given up 2 games into a Premier League season.

So politely fck off back to TWTD

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, hogesar said:

No actual Norwich fan spouts rubbish about the board giving up when we've spent more than any other point in our history. They definitely don't spout the players have given up 2 games into a Premier League season.

 

 

Spot on.

People will never agree on the merits of selling our best player and it's to be expected. However, to suggest the players have given up after 2 games is utter nonsense. The odd observation either reached out of frustration that we can't compete with one of the richest, talented and best equipped teams in the league or an ippo fan.

Leicester, despite being a superb team did not look anywhere near the level of Man City and we will hopefully stand a better chance against them, come the weekend.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my, are these rules published anywhere? Seems it’s quite the minefield. 
I wish someone had sent me the rulebook when I attended my first game, 35 years ago. Could have avoided a lot of embarrassment. I’m glad you real fans were able to set me straight though. 

Let me try again…

In Webber We Trust. Decisions by Our Great Leader are not to be questioned. Multiple players jogging back and not bothering to defend against the “big two” is perfectly acceptable (they’re clearly saving their energy for the games that count)

Better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

You've missed my point. 

Your point was to suggest that we'd have to pay more for players if we raised £5m more on Buendia's sale... so we'd have bought two £12m players... 

£5m wouldn't have inflated prices really. £10m maybe... but in reality, we had several over the line or in the pipeline already.

Or... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Bunny said:

Oh my, are these rules published anywhere? Seems it’s quite the minefield. 
I wish someone had sent me the rulebook when I attended my first game, 35 years ago. Could have avoided a lot of embarrassment. I’m glad you real fans were able to set me straight though. 

Let me try again…

In Webber We Trust. Decisions by Our Great Leader are not to be questioned. Multiple players jogging back and not bothering to defend against the “big two” is perfectly acceptable (they’re clearly saving their energy for the games that count)

Better?

Crrrrrrrr.....etin!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Bunny said:

Ah, the old “if you don’t agree with every decision made by the club then you must be an Ipswich fan” argument. I’m afraid I can’t argue with such flawless logic. I bow down before your superior intellect, genius. 

It's a long shot and I hope I'm not being impersonal?.....But where you the bloke perchance with 'BUNNY' printed on the back of your Yellow Norwich City shirt.....that was sat a few rows in front of me last night in the South Stand?.....

Share this post


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

Crrrrrrrr.....etin!!!

Thanks for the insightful response. 
 

Quote

But where you the bloke perchance with 'BUNNY' printed on the back of your Yellow Norwich City shirt.....that was sat a few rows in front of me last night in the South Stand?.....

Nope, not me. But us rabbits do get around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Bunny said:

Thanks for the insightful response. 
 

Nope, not me. But us rabbits do get around.

And they breed fast. 

Share this post


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

Thanks for the insightful response. 
 

Nope, not me. But us rabbits do get around.

You're welcome,  not many are bestowed with that title, but boy oh boy  have you earned it.

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...