Pissing money up a wall

[priceyrice 124]

So I'm sure we are all aware of Webber's comments regarding past regimes pissing money up the wall but I doubt we are all fully aware of Webbers record in this regard. 

I will share the info I have as I think those at the top need to be held to account:

5m on Kabak plus wages - this one I know for a fact 

Farhman - 3.5m loan fee - this one is heresay from people within the club, I don't know for a fact but  i do have a reliable source for this

Sargent - offered to us for around 5m at the start of the window, ended up spending close to 10m on him - source nick ma****or and talk norwich city 

Norman- I don't have any info

Gilmour - minimal cost and I understand the fee is not based on games played, just sharing this as there has been a lot of rumours on here that we pay based on appearance which I understand is not the case. In slightly other news, I spoke to Kieran Tierney today at the Emirates and he stated that Gilmour is a fantastic prospect for Scotland...shame he doesn't suit a club fighting relegation 

Agent fees - 8.5m last summer, again this is from a very good source but I don't know whether some of the loan fees mentioned above are included here. 

I don't have any other info on signings over the last few seasons, but from the info I do have it is clear that Webber has been splunking money at levels far beyond any previous regime and I haven't even considered the awful signings. 

[AJ 1,238]

Liverpool only paid £1m for Kabak, so in what imaginary world of yours would we pay 5?! 🤣

Again, Fahrmamn was probably a million or so, still cheaper than buying one at the time when we needed immediate experienced cover. Nobody expected Krul to hold that position at the time but he did the job.

Your sauce is dodgy

[cambridgeshire canary 6,901]

Best part about Sargent is that according to quite a few insiders we were warned by many to not buy him but Webber ignored it and did so anyways 

[priceyrice 124]

The Kabak fee is 100% correct. It's between 4 and 5m so can't guarantee the the exact amount but the source for this couldn't be wrong...

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

Just now, priceyrice said:

The Kabak fee is 100% correct. It's between 4 and 5m so can't guarantee the the exact amount but the source for this couldn't be wrong...

In 15 minutes you have gone from 5m fact to well I can't guarantee it!!! 

[AJ 1,238]

2 minutes ago, priceyrice said:

The Kabak fee is 100% correct. It's between 4 and 5m so can't guarantee the the exact amount but the source for this couldn't be wrong...

If it's 100% correct, then prove it because I'm getting a significant whiff of bull. Widely reported Liverpool paid around 1m. We would absolutely not have paid more than that.

Edited April 23, 2022 by AJ

[priceyrice 124]

Just now, Grant Holts Moustache said:

In 15 minutes you have gone from 5m fact to well I can't guarantee it!!! 

Huh? I don't know the exact figure but it's between 4 and 5m. I'm sure you can guess the source from my replies...I won't say anymore 

[priceyrice 124]

3 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Best part about Sargent is that according to quite a few insiders we were warned by many to not buy him but Webber ignored it and did so anyways 

Suspect it was a desperation signing after others failed. Would explain the price situation as well 

[Ken Hairy 3,813]

Rashica seems about the right money, so Webber only pissed about 90% of our money up the wall....... 😏

[Thirsty Lizard 3,187]

So just like every other club we've had some transfers which have worked out and some that haven't.

In spite of your 'those at the top must be held to account' strictures Webber is still massively in credit on his overall transfer dealings.

Signing Pukki on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Krul on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Buendia for a total fee of £5 million was absolute genius.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the lynch mob's agenda on an evening where we've lost, but it's true anyway. 

[priceyrice 124]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

So just like every other club we've had some transfers which have worked out and some that haven't.

In spite of your 'those at the top must be held to account' strictures Webber is still massively in credit on his overall transfer dealings.

Signing Pukki on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Krul on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Buendia for a total fee of £5 million was absolute genius.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the lynch mob's agenda on an evening where we've lost, but it's true anyway. 

The Buendia, Pukki and Krul signings were all fantastic, fully agree. However, McNally signed Maddison and many of the youngsters Webber has sold for good money, so my point re previous comments still stands IMO

Edited April 23, 2022 by priceyrice

[priceyrice 124]

2 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Rashica seems about the right money, so Webber only pissed about 90% of our money up the wall....... 😏

Agree. I still think he has a lot more to show to fully justify the price but he is the is the only one from the summer I suspect we will ever sell for more than we purchased him for. 

[Ken Hairy 3,813]

5 minutes ago, priceyrice said:

The Buendia, Pukki and Krul signings were all fantastic, fully agree. However, Webber signed Maddison and many of the youngsters Webber has sold for good money, so my point re previous comments still stands IMO

Did you mean Webber didn't sign Maddison or the youngsters? 

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

I think the Webber regime has been too concerned with buying players with potential resell value rather than experienced players who might have given us a better chance of actually staying in the Premier League. A limitation of the model maybe. I know 10 million isn’t a lot these days, but are there seriously no players we could have got from the EFL , for a fraction of the price, that would’ve been equal to, or better than Sargent? 

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,459]

21 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Rashica seems about the right money, so Webber only pissed about 90% of our money up the wall....... 😏

That's about right... He's used to 90% anyway 

[priceyrice 124]

1 hour ago, Ken Hairy said:

Did you mean Webber didn't sign Maddison or the youngsters? 

Indeed, I meant McNally signed...edited post cheers 

[Move Klose 303]

2 hours ago, AJ said:

Liverpool only paid £1m for Kabak, so in what imaginary world of yours would we pay 5?! 🤣

Again, Fahrmamn was probably a million or so, still cheaper than buying one at the time when we needed immediate experienced cover. Nobody expected Krul to hold that position at the time but he did the job.

Your sauce is dodgy

Loan fee was probably 2m, probably on 40k a week. 

It was widely reported that Fahrmann loan cost us £2.5m in fees and wages. 

[Commonsense 681]

16 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

So just like every other club we've had some transfers which have worked out and some that haven't.

In spite of your 'those at the top must be held to account' strictures Webber is still massively in credit on his overall transfer dealings.

Signing Pukki on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Krul on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Buendia for a total fee of £5 million was absolute genius.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the lynch mob's agenda on an evening where we've lost, but it's true anyway. 

This is true. Sadly all 3 were signed a long time ago. The problem is that a large number of the more recent signings have been poor As is stated here Rashica is the only one who has shown anything close to the amount we paid. I realise that we have invested well in the training facilities and youth set up but when you have spent large amounts of money on the likes of  Sargent and Tzolis questions are bound to be asked.

[Mr Angry 1,576]

According to Transfermarkt, Kabak cost Liverpool £990k and he cost us £3.6m.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,187]

16 hours ago, (Hoola)Han Solo said:

I think the Webber regime has been too concerned with buying players with potential resell value rather than experienced players who might have given us a better chance of actually staying in the Premier League. A limitation of the model maybe. I know 10 million isn’t a lot these days, but are there seriously no players we could have got from the EFL , for a fraction of the price, that would’ve been equal to, or better than Sargent? 

Well lets think. Southampton are a well run club right?

They signed Adam Armstrong from Blackburn at the beginning of this season for a reported fee of £15 million. He scored 28 goals for Blackburn in the Championship last season.

So far this season he's made a total of 26 appearances for Saints (21 in the Premier League) and scored a grand total of 2 goals. 

Meanwhile Sargent (who cost 6 million less than Armstrong) has made a total of 28 appearances for us (25 in the Premier League) and scored a total of 4 goals. 

Armstrong is playing for a better team than Sargent, and one that could be expected to create more chances. So looking at actual real world evidence so far the only logical conclusion to draw is that signing Sargent was a better option than going for a proven Championship goal scorer like Armstrong. 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,751]

12 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

This is true. Sadly all 3 were signed a long time ago. The problem is that a large number of the more recent signings have been poor As is stated here Rashica is the only one who has shown anything close to the amount we paid. I realise that we have invested well in the training facilities and youth set up but when you have spent large amounts of money on the likes of  Sargent and Tzolis questions are bound to be asked.

It is definitely the case that signings for our PL forays ultimately haven’t been good enough to make a discernible difference - two seasons ago it was mostly down to money, but this season we spent a lot more (for us) for little gain.  It also seemed muddled: we were told the mantra for the season was ‘quality over quantity’ and then brought in 9 players (including some odd ones, £11m on Tzolis as a player for the future was odd when we had a PL campaign to go for).

It’s also interesting that we haven’t heard much about that state-of-the-art computerised system we bought (soccerbot?), there’s been no signs yet that it works! 

[Midlands Yellow 4,127]

22 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Well lets think. Southampton are a well run club right?

They signed Adam Armstrong from Blackburn at the beginning of this season for a reported fee of £15 million. He scored 28 goals for Blackburn in the Championship last season.

So far this season he's made a total of 26 appearances for Saints (21 in the Premier League) and scored a grand total of 2 goals. 

Meanwhile Sargent (who cost 6 million less than Armstrong) has made a total of 28 appearances for us (25 in the Premier League) and scored a total of 4 goals. 

Armstrong is playing for a better team than Sargent, and one that could be expected to create more chances. So looking at actual real world evidence so far the only logical conclusion to draw is that signing Sargent was a better option than going for a proven Championship goal scorer like Armstrong. 

 

Either way, they are stopping up and we’re not. 

[OnDaBall 137]

17 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

So just like every other club we've had some transfers which have worked out and some that haven't.

In spite of your 'those at the top must be held to account' strictures Webber is still massively in credit on his overall transfer dealings.

Signing Pukki on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Krul on a free was absolute genius.

Signing Buendia for a total fee of £5 million was absolute genius.

I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with the lynch mob's agenda on an evening where we've lost, but it's true anyway. 

Pukki, Krul and Buendia were obviously masterstrokes, all from  2018, any glimpses of genius since then?

Apart from Williams who is a slight improvement of what we had, in a position which i'd say was a low priority, were any of our signings this season what you'd call an improvement from last season?

I'm not saying Webber hasn't worked wonders overall while he's been here, two promotions is quite an achievement, but how long can he dine out on three signings from four years ago?

[Thirsty Lizard 3,187]

7 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Either way, they are stopping up and we’re not. 

And today's prize for the most irrelevant response goes to.................

Why not engage with the actual point under discussion just for once. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,127]

9 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

And today's prize for the most irrelevant response goes to.................

Why not engage with the actual point under discussion just for once. 

Can’t be arsed. 

[A Load of Squit 5,255]

18 hours ago, priceyrice said:

So I'm sure we are all aware of Webber's comments regarding past regimes pissing money up the wall but I doubt we are all fully aware of Webbers record in this regard. 

I will share the info I have as I think those at the top need to be held to account:

5m on Kabak plus wages - this one I know for a fact 

Farhman - 3.5m loan fee - this one is heresay from people within the club, I don't know for a fact but  i do have a reliable source for this

Sargent - offered to us for around 5m at the start of the window, ended up spending close to 10m on him - source nick ma****or and talk norwich city 

Norman- I don't have any info

Gilmour - minimal cost and I understand the fee is not based on games played, just sharing this as there has been a lot of rumours on here that we pay based on appearance which I understand is not the case. In slightly other news, I spoke to Kieran Tierney today at the Emirates and he stated that Gilmour is a fantastic prospect for Scotland...shame he doesn't suit a club fighting relegation 

Agent fees - 8.5m last summer, again this is from a very good source but I don't know whether some of the loan fees mentioned above are included here. 

I don't have any other info on signings over the last few seasons, but from the info I do have it is clear that Webber has been splunking money at levels far beyond any previous regime and I haven't even considered the awful signings. 

These comments were made in relation to how bad the infrastructure was, the facilities at the training ground etc. and that the money that had come in was paying an unsustainable wage bill.

These mistakes have not been repeated.

 

 

[Bradwell canary 110]

This whole topic just makes me wonder if a head coach has any saying in who the club signs these days.

now we have moved to the present set up, with a sporting director it seems very little at all.

I remember many years ago when George Graham was Arsenals manager, on a weds match he would be sitting in the directors box. A few weeks later he signed Andy Linigan , (sorry not sure of the spelling) 

so I would assume when by his own admission Webber sent DF to battle without a gun, well this time he sent him to battle with a gun, but the bullets were blanks. How many of these awful signings were made by observing these players? By the looks of the quality of most of them, probably recruited from videos sent in by players agents. As far as Sergeant Bilko is concerned, you did not have to see him at all, just a look at his scoring record would have been enough. 

so he pointed the finger at DF and fired him, just to save himself. 
Fat chance of him moving on now his wife is now on the board.

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

3 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Well lets think. Southampton are a well run club right?

They signed Adam Armstrong from Blackburn at the beginning of this season for a reported fee of £15 million. He scored 28 goals for Blackburn in the Championship last season.

So far this season he's made a total of 26 appearances for Saints (21 in the Premier League) and scored a grand total of 2 goals. 

Meanwhile Sargent (who cost 6 million less than Armstrong) has made a total of 28 appearances for us (25 in the Premier League) and scored a total of 4 goals. 

Armstrong is playing for a better team than Sargent, and one that could be expected to create more chances. So looking at actual real world evidence so far the only logical conclusion to draw is that signing Sargent was a better option than going for a proven Championship goal scorer like Armstrong. 

 

That argument is completely flawed because it suggests Armstrong is the only decent Championship striker.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,187]

4 minutes ago, (Hoola)Han Solo said:

That argument is completely flawed because it suggests Armstrong is the only decent Championship striker.

Well he was the 3rd highest scorer in the Championship last season so he was the best and most relevant example to pick.

That's because the two Championship forwards who scored more than him last season (Ivan Toney and Teemu Pukki) are both playing in the Premier League this season anyway. 

I'm sorry if my real world relevant example doesn't fit with your agenda, but facts are facts I'm afraid.

You are of course free to point out the Championship striker from last season who we should have signed who would have been a better option than Sargent. 

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

4 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Well he was the 3rd highest scorer in the Championship last season so he was the best and most relevant example to pick.

That's because the two Championship forwards who scored more than him last season (Ivan Toney and Teemu Pukki) are both playing in the Premier League this season anyway. 

I'm sorry if my real world relevant example doesn't fit with your agenda, but facts are facts I'm afraid.

You are of course free to point out the Championship striker from last season who we should have signed who would have been a better option than Sargent. 

Sargent has scored TWO Premier League goals this season. If you don’t think another player could have beaten that at a snippet of the price then I completely disagree. Even someone like Lewis Grabban would have been more of a threat, and at a lower cost. Southampton paid that for Armstrong because they thought he would score the goals. It hasn’t worked. I think there are players in that league that are better than some of ours that wouldn’t have cost the earth.