Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Mass Debater

Last seasons Marquee signings

Recommended Posts

Rashica we were told was coveted by some of the top clubs in England the season before and like RvW before him we had stolen a march on the bigger clubs who wanted him. Tzolis was one of the most exciting young players in Europe, with the potential to be one of the top talents in the world.

Rashica made hardly any impact and has now been farmed out on loan (albeit to a bigger club). Tzolis also shipped out on loan as soon as possible after practically zero game time. 

£20m between them roughly, of our Premier League warchest - money that was supposed to make us competitve in the Premier League.

What are we to conclude that neither were felt to be necessary for even our championship campaign a year later at a level lower?

Edited by The Great Mass Debater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WD40 said:

That Webber can’t be trusted with the funds again for prem survival. 

Promoted. Take over. New sporting director.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Has Webber's "pissing money up the wall" comment ever bitten someone in the backside quite as hard?

This quote was about having lots of premier league money and never investing in the infrastructure behind the scenes, such as the training facilities. It's constantly taken out of context and used to bash Webbers transfers but isn't really relevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Has Webber's "pissing money up the wall" comment ever bitten someone in the backside quite as hard?

It was also in reference to handing four year contracts to 30 year olds, instead of signing young players with the potential to improve.

As we've seen with Sargent, all is not lost with these players. I'm hoping that Tzolis, in particular, will have a good season and come back to prove his worth.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Grant Holts Moustache said:

This quote was about having lots of premier league money and never investing in the infrastructure behind the scenes, such as the training facilities. It's constantly taken out of context and used to bash Webbers transfers but isn't really relevant.

So what did he mean by ' Pi$$ing £100million up the wall ' if it was not used on improvements at Colney and other infrastructure ? My money is on he was on about wasting it on desperate signings like Naismith etc.

Where do you think he meant it was spent if it wasn't on players and the wage bill with long contracts  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So what did he mean by ' Pi$$ing £100million up the wall ' if it was not used on improvements at Colney and other infrastructure ? My money is on he was on about wasting it on desperate signings like Naismith etc.

Where do you think he meant it was spent if it wasn't on players and the wage bill with long contracts  ?

I know that's where the money went and have not denied it. But the interview he did at the time referenced having all that money and never improving the club and thats where the quote came from. Yes Webber has had transfers that haven't worked, but as we can all see, under him there has been money spent on improving the infrastructure that was previously neglected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we spunked money up the wall on the likes of Naismeth, but people seem to defend Webber by saying at least he has spunked it on young players with potential to sell on, even if at a loss. However, what about the number of players we have had to pay off under the Webber regime, the likes of Drmic and Leitner to name a few. We've also spent more on loan signing fees while in the prem than we ever wasted on Naismeth. 

I hope we don't trust him with anymore premier league money. 

I will admit, I had thought Sargent was a huge waste of money, especially since its rumoured we were offered him at half the price we ended up paying just a couple of months earlier. However, he is starting to repay some of that this season. Although, that doesn't provide justification for it being a waste of premier league money and the opportunity cost of it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn’t part of the quote something about having a vast amount of number 10’s but no left back as well? Therefore referencing not spending transfer funds wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Has Webber's "pissing money up the wall" comment ever bitten someone in the backside quite as hard?

I think the key difference is before taking gambles on more expensive signings we spent significant money on infrastructure improvement.

Secondly, the next key difference is unlike a Naismith who we had to suffer huge wages post relegation and his age meaning we had no resale value,  Rashica and Tzolis could still end up positive signings from a 'business' point of view.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that if both loans work out and Tzlolis & Rash do well, we can see the postives from the business end, in that either they'll come back firing on all cylinders for us, else we'll recoup most of our outlay or make a profit.

 Tzolis is a strange one, and clearly struggled to settle, not getting much game time, despite others looking awful. Fresh start and a good season and he could play a big part for us. Rash i feel differently. I get the feeling he knows he was signed for the Prem, didn't play well, and just wasn't up for the hard graft of the EFL. 

Should/if etc we get promoted IMO I'm not sure I'd want Rash back to play for us. I wonder how the other players might react to him returning to, so if he has a good season I'd hope we recoup the money and re-invest in someone else   

As for Webber's Prem recruitment, it ain't good, but it seems Smith is having a bigger say in our transfers, and if Sara, Nunez & hayden come good, there's hope that our recruitment is on more solid ground

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yellow and Green said:

It was also in reference to handing four year contracts to 30 year olds, instead of signing young players with the potential to improve.

As we've seen with Sargent, all is not lost with these players. I'm hoping that Tzolis, in particular, will have a good season and come back to prove his worth.

 

I think Id rather have 30 year olds who were of the required standard to keep us up, than players who were woefully short of the standard we needed but might possibly be good enough one day. Any player coming to a club will want some form of security with at least 3 year contracts being standard

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Marquee’ when your budget per player is around the £10 million mark is not really a thing. We are still looking for risky bargains that may come good, the fact these risky bargains were chatted about a bit made them less of an actual ‘bargain’ but £10 million a pop other sides would barely blink at. It was definitely poor recruitment but Sargent may yet come good at a higher level, especially if played as a 9 imo. Could be worse overall I think. I wouldn’t say it’s money p***ed up the wall but maybe a dribble on the gravel 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

‘Marquee’ when your budget per player is around the £10 million mark is not really a thing. We are still looking for risky bargains that may come good, the fact these risky bargains were chatted about a bit made them less of an actual ‘bargain’ but £10 million a pop other sides would barely blink at. It was definitely poor recruitment but Sargent may yet come good at a higher level, especially if played as a 9 imo. Could be worse overall I think. I wouldn’t say it’s money p***ed up the wall but maybe a dribble on the gravel 

What a delightful image! 😊

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the OP talks about Rashica and Tzolis but not Sargent, who I believe cost something similar to them? Wasn’t he a marquee signing too, or does the fact that he’s showing some promise mean that he’s inconvenient to the point that’s being made?

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Not sure why the OP talks about Rashica and Tzolis but not Sargent, who I believe cost something similar to them? Wasn’t he a marquee signing too, or does the fact that he’s showing some promise mean that he’s inconvenient to the point that’s being made?

None were "marquee" signings. You can't really get a premier league marquee signing for the prices we were paying... not unless they are high wages and someone wants them off their wage bill. Occasionally you get the odd freebie. That said, we were after some other players who arguably did about as poorly despite being more experienced in the Premier League (eg Joshua King). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Rashica we were told was coveted by some of the top clubs in England the season before and like RvW before him we had stolen a march on the bigger clubs who wanted him. Tzolis was one of the most exciting young players in Europe, with the potential to be one of the top talents in the world.

Rashica made hardly any impact and has now been farmed out on loan (albeit to a bigger club). Tzolis also shipped out on loan as soon as possible after practically zero game time. 

£20m between them roughly, of our Premier League warchest - money that was supposed to make us competitve in the Premier League.

What are we to conclude that neither were felt to be necessary for even our championship campaign a year later at a level lower?

You have to include Sarg in this.  Sure, he’s finally found some form, but he was a complete and utter donkey in the Prem.  Not fit for purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

I think Id rather have 30 year olds who were of the required standard to keep us up, than players who were woefully short of the standard we needed but might possibly be good enough one day. Any player coming to a club will want some form of security with at least 3 year contracts being standard

100% this.  We tried to be clever and it backfired massively.  Instead of investing sensibly on experienced players with no resale value, we’ve invested badly (and lost significant sums) on young players with no resale value.

And before anyone jumps down my throat, Rashisca, Tzolis and Sargent would all have been sold had anyone been interested in buying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

None were "marquee" signings. You can't really get a premier league marquee signing for the prices we were paying... not unless they are high wages and someone wants them off their wage bill. Occasionally you get the odd freebie. That said, we were after some other players who arguably did about as poorly despite being more experienced in the Premier League (eg Joshua King). 

I think they were marquee for us which is fair enough. 10 mill in the Prem is a squad player for most other teams. But it’s done now and I’m not sure why we’re still analysing how poorly Tzolis etc performed for us last season, it’s over. Let’s concentrate on kicking on with this one! (That’s not aimed at you btw)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And before anyone jumps down my throat, Rashisca, Tzolis and Sargent would all have been sold had anyone been interested in buying. 

Impressive. What are the lottery numbers next weekend?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the individual players - it's how they fit together. And let's face it, they just didn't. And the loans can be included in that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember lots of excitement and positivity on here when those two were signed. It didn't work out but that's football, and of course the bloke sanctioning their recruitment has to take the flak, its the nature of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn't have any marquee signings and that's the point. Instead we chose to divi up available funds and get as many players in as possible. Unfortunately we went for quantity over quality.

£10m doesn't get you a marquee in the EPL.

Sargent is not on the list but could have been because in the context of what we needed for the EPL he wasn't as good as Rashica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Not sure why the OP talks about Rashica and Tzolis but not Sargent, who I believe cost something similar to them? Wasn’t he a marquee signing too, or does the fact that he’s showing some promise mean that he’s inconvenient to the point that’s being made?

Sargent hasnt been jettisoned this season, which is the major point - that we've shipped Tzolis and Rashica out for a campaign at a level lower than they were bought for. Do we conclude they are felt not to be even Championship level? Or is it more about getting them off the wagebill? Sarge appears to have found his level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sargent has transformed into a 1 goal per 106 minutes Championship striker. £10m seems like a bargain for that. 1 success in 3 signings isn't great, but it's much better than it previously looked. 

The worst thing about signing Rashica was the number of first team minutes he was afforded. I honestly think we would have been better off if he'd broken his leg in training before kicking a competitive ball for us.

On the whole, this year's midfield is so much better than what we had last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/09/2022 at 00:36, The Great Mass Debater said:

I think Id rather have 30 year olds who were of the required standard to keep us up, than players who were woefully short of the standard we needed but might possibly be good enough one day. Any player coming to a club will want some form of security with at least 3 year contracts being standard

I actually think that Smith will insist on a few experienced PL signings, like Hayden, if we go up again... and I largely I agree that we'd need a couple of experienced 28 year olds to solidify the spine of the team.

I also agree with Webber's approach. The signings of the like of Naismith and Jarvis almost put us into administration because they a massive burden on our wage bill that we couldn't sell. You may well say 'they weren't of the required standard', but people were delighted at the end of that January transfer window.

I'd also argue that we wouldn't be able to attract much better than the likes of Naismith and Jarvis. Last season we were linked with King and Cahill, which is an indicator of the level that we'd be looking at. 

A bunch of 30 year olds will be expensive and won't guarantee us with PL survival. It will only cause us problems further down the line.

  • Like 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...