Super Joshy Sargent

[king canary 7,607]

3 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Okay, it's your opinion, but VanWolfswinkel and Naismith were far, far, far worse in terms of how much money they cost us overall. 

I actually don't think RVW was that bad for us financially- yes he cost a lot but post relegation we were able to loan him out, get his wages off the book and then get a small fee when we sold him permanently.

The worst signings are the ones that hang around for years on wages we can't shift- so Naismith but also Jarvis. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

Just now, king canary said:

I actually don't think RVW was that bad for us financially- yes he cost a lot but post relegation we were able to loan him out, get his wages off the book and then get a small fee when we sold him permanently.

The worst signings are the ones that hang around for years on wages we can't shift- so Naismith but also Jarvis. 

We paid over £8 million for him and during the 3 and a half seasons that he was officially our player he scored precisely 1 league goal for us. We signed him on Premier League wages and only some of those wages were covered during his loan spells away from us. The transfer fee we received for him when he left was very small. 

 

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 minute ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

We paid over £8 million for him and during the 3 and a half seasons that he was officially our player he scored precisely 1 league goal for us. We signed him on Premier League wages and only some of those wages were covered during his loan spells away from us. The transfer fee we received for him when he left was very small. 

But we made an accounting profit on him when we sold him! 🙂😉 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

But we made an accounting profit on him when we sold him! 🙂😉 

I've got no idea what you're on about. 

Unless, maybe you're implying that by the time we sold him for a tiny fee we'd already amortised the whole £8.5 million that we paid for him in previous year's accounts?

Edited January 22 by Thirsty Lizard

[shefcanary 2,409]

Just now, Thirsty Lizard said:

I've got no idea what you're on about. 

An FPA in joke; technically when he was sold the cost of him was fully written down, so if we received any fee, it was a profit in the accounts. Apologies. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

An FPA in joke; technically when he was sold the cost of him was fully written down, so if we received any fee, it was a profit in the accounts. Apologies. 

Was editing my original post when you were typing this. Glad that I managed to work it out. (You don't work for Chelsea in your spare time do you?)

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 minute ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

(You don't work for Chelsea in your spare time do you?)

Ha, I've been asked by other clubs but no way would I work for a football club. It would spoil my enjoyment of the beautiful game! I have friends who were in the accounts teams at Sheff Utd and Man Utd; being fans of theirs they realised it was a big mistake as they found it impossible to enjoy a match while they did.  Got out as quickly as they could.

[canarydan23 4,060]

10 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

This isn't the end of his journey though, he's doing well in the Championship and would likely be top scorer if it weren't for a freak injury.  He's still got 4 years on his contract here, we're still seeing what we will get for that £10m outlay.

If he scores in a playoff final that sends us up, would you think it's worthy of praise then?

Certainly, but it still wouldn't alter the fact that he's fulfilling his backup, worst case scenario objectives. He was signed by a team with the aim of keeping us in the EPL and was woefully ill-equipped to achieve that aim. Ok, the price we paid for him does not make that a given, but the fact that we paid a similar amount for another flop so could have pooled the cash and bought someone much more likely to do something at that level makes any praise for the recruitment team that season very misplaced.

The only signing they did do well with, as mentioned, was Gunn. And that was because he was almost certainly signed with an eye on the future and not to achieve that elusive aim of Premier League survival.

[canarydan23 4,060]

32 minutes ago, Worthy Nigelton said:

RvW was also rubbish in the Championship and that was getting on for 10 years ago that we spent 8 million on him (or whatever it was). Ditto Hooper. Naismith went on to do completely average for Hearts, which is arguably a lower level than the Championship. 

I agree you'd expect a player of that value to do well in the Chumps but there's plenty who wouldn't/haven't over the years.

Eh? RvW never played in the Championship. Ditto Hooper?! He averaged better than 1 in 3 for both us and Sheffield Wednesday in the Championship and at S****horpe managed 19 goals in 35 appearances. He was absolutely not rubbish at this level.

Naismith certainly crashed and burned whilst he was with us, but again, the idea he was "completely average for Hearts" is another nonsense. He was their top scorer and player of the season in his first full season there and following on from that went on to become the captain and whilst he was involved in a relegation, stuck around to help get them back to the Scottish Premier. I've no idea where the idea that he was "completely average for Hearts" comes from, but it's not from any Hearts fans.

[Robert N. LiM 4,363]

20 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

RvW never played in the Championship

can't get more rubbish than that

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

5 hours ago, canarybubbles said:

He's a lesson in not judging players too quickly.

Sadly a lesson many will never learn! The fact is our club is all about player development; nobody can ever predict how it'll turn out.

Edited January 22 by littleyellowbirdie

[Ulfotto 635]

If Josh works as hard on his game off the field as he does on the pitch he’ll be an absolute beast of a player in a few years time.

A key point about his future is the next World Cup is in the States and I’m sure any decisions he makes will be made through this lens.

[hogesar 9,676]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

Even if you're right, spending the best part of £10 million on a player who turns out to do well in the Championship isn't something particularly worthy of praise. Whilst spending 8 or 9 million on a player is far from guaranteed to get you a player who will perform in the EPL, spending that amount on a player who flops in the Championship would be a pretty catastrophic failure.

There's been quite a lot of expensive failures, even some bought specifically for big money in the Championship and haven't worked out. Not least a very young striker who was roundly mocked and ridiculed on here.

[Google Bot 3,278]

57 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Certainly, but it still wouldn't alter the fact that he's fulfilling his backup, worst case scenario objectives.

Reading **** like this about our own players just fries my mind.  He was being played out of position for past two seasons while Pukki was receiving preference through blind hope of what he's done in the past.

How you can put that on the player, I really don't know.  A guy leading the line for one of the largest countries at a world cup, is doing more than fulfilling a worst case objective at Norwich City. 

He's not even had a chance to show what he's capable of across the season for us in that position yet.  And he's had a club legend in front of him in the pecking order.

Get a bit of perspective.

[Capt. Pants 4,236]

32 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

If Josh works as hard on his game off the field as he does on the pitch he’ll be an absolute beast of a player in a few years time.

A key point about his future is the next World Cup is in the States and I’m sure any decisions he makes will be made through this lens.

This. It’s not impossible he could figure for the US whilst being a Championship player, but this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. Next season could be his final one here unless we are promoted.

[BigFish 1,987]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I'm looking forward to his tussle with VVD at Anfield on Sunday. That should tell us a bit more how far he has progressed this season.

I would expect he is very unlikely to be playing

[king canary 7,607]

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

We paid over £8 million for him and during the 3 and a half seasons that he was officially our player he scored precisely 1 league goal for us. We signed him on Premier League wages and only some of those wages were covered during his loan spells away from us. The transfer fee we received for him when he left was very small. 

 

I'm not saying he was a good signing? Just that he wasn't an absolute financial calamity for us.

His two loan spells away from us were with top division teams in Spain and France and the St Etienne deal included an option to buy- I'd imagine there was a decent % of wages covered and maybe even a small loan fee. We also got him off the books a year before his contract ended. 

Naismith on the other hand cost us about the same amount, was likely on more money and reportedly didn't have a relegation wage drop in his contract. He was then here for two full years and when we did shift him on loan finally it was to a midtable Scottish team who were reportedly paying a tiny chunk of his wages. He was on our books for his entire 3 and a half year deal with the only relief coming from Hearts taking that small cut off our books. 

Matt Jarvis cost less but again was on our books his entire 3 and a half year deal, reportedly on Premier League level wages, until Walsall took him for a few months, a team I imagine weren't paying a great deal. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

53 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Reading **** like this about our own players just fries my mind.  He was being played out of position for past two seasons while Pukki was receiving preference through blind hope of what he's done in the past.

How you can put that on the player, I really don't know.  A guy leading the line for one of the largest countries at a world cup, is doing more than fulfilling a worst case objective at Norwich City. 

He's not even had a chance to show what he's capable of across the season for us in that position yet.  And he's had a club legend in front of him in the pecking order.

Get a bit of perspective.

He was signed to contribute to a campaign that was meant to lead to Premier League survival. He was never equipped with the skills needed to achieve that. I'm not speculating, I'm not applying any pre-conceived prejudice, I'm just stating facts. That shouldn't fry anyone's mind.

[Nuff Said 5,142]

57 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Reading **** like this about our own players just fries my mind.  He was being played out of position for past two seasons while Pukki was receiving preference through blind hope of what he's done in the past.

How you can put that on the player, I really don't know.  A guy leading the line for one of the largest countries at a world cup, is doing more than fulfilling a worst case objective at Norwich City. 

He's not even had a chance to show what he's capable of across the season for us in that position yet.  And he's had a club legend in front of him in the pecking order.

Get a bit of perspective.

To be fair to canarydan, his point was about the recruitment team failing to buy a PL ready player who could deliver in his first season, not aimed at Sargent himself.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, Nuff Said said:

To be fair to canarydan, his point was about the recruitment team failing to buy a PL ready player who could deliver in his first season, not aimed at Sargent himself.

Exactly, I love the bloke now, and like you believe we would be top 6 right now if he had stayed fit.

But he was signed to contribute to a Premier League season and was never, at that stage of his career, able to do that. Therefore in the context of the reason he was signed, it was a failure.

[Nuff Said 5,142]

2 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Certainly, but it still wouldn't alter the fact that he's fulfilling his backup, worst case scenario objectives. He was signed by a team with the aim of keeping us in the EPL and was woefully ill-equipped to achieve that aim. Ok, the price we paid for him does not make that a given, but the fact that we paid a similar amount for another flop so could have pooled the cash and bought someone much more likely to do something at that level makes any praise for the recruitment team that season very misplaced.

The only signing they did do well with, as mentioned, was Gunn. And that was because he was almost certainly signed with an eye on the future and not to achieve that elusive aim of Premier League survival.

Although this isn’t fair. The decision to buy two players rather than one who costs twice as much isn’t down to the recruitment team, it’s down to the person who was at the top. The recruitment team would be given a budget and selected candidates based on that.

Edited January 22 by Nuff Said

[shefcanary 2,409]

26 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I would expect he is very unlikely to be playing

I hear that being said, but his agent and himself will note that when it comes to the first decent offer comes in. The best players want to play against the best, it will do the club more harm than good not to play him IMHO, as it will totally **** him off!

[Google Bot 3,278]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

He was signed to contribute to a campaign that was meant to lead to Premier League survival. He was never equipped with the skills needed to achieve that. I'm not speculating,

He was signed to provide cover and a successor to Pukki.  This idea that him being deemed a successful signing is purely based on Prem League survival where anther player is playing that role, is an incredibly twisted perspective to apply.

I suppose Gunn is only fulfilling his backup, worst case scenario, too?

[canarydan23 4,060]

16 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Although this isn’t fair. The decision to buy two players rather than one who costs twice as much isn’t down to the recruitment team, it’s down to the person who was at the top. The recruitment team would be given a budget and selected candidates based on that.

I'm happy to concede on that. It was Webber's fault.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

21 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not saying he was a good signing? Just that he wasn't an absolute financial calamity for us.

His two loan spells away from us were with top division teams in Spain and France and the St Etienne deal included an option to buy- I'd imagine there was a decent % of wages covered and maybe even a small loan fee. We also got him off the books a year before his contract ended. 

Naismith on the other hand cost us about the same amount, was likely on more money and reportedly didn't have a relegation wage drop in his contract. He was then here for two full years and when we did shift him on loan finally it was to a midtable Scottish team who were reportedly paying a tiny chunk of his wages. He was on our books for his entire 3 and a half year deal with the only relief coming from Hearts taking that small cut off our books. 

Matt Jarvis cost less but again was on our books his entire 3 and a half year deal, reportedly on Premier League level wages, until Walsall took him for a few months, a team I imagine weren't paying a great deal. 

I agree that Naismith was a bigger financial hit than than Van Wolfswinkel. The point I was trying to make was actually more in respect of Van Wolfswinkel and Rashica - We reportedly got £4.5 million back in a transfer fee compared to the £9 million we laid out for Rashica. I think it was Petrix who said they thought that Rashica was the worst transfer we'd ever made, which I don't agree with.

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

He was signed to provide cover and a successor to Pukki.  This idea that him being deemed a successful signing is purely based on Prem League survival where anther player is playing that role, is an incredibly twisted perspective to apply.

I suppose Gunn is only fulfilling his backup, worst case scenario, too?

"The only signing they did do well with, as mentioned, was Gunn. And that was because he was almost certainly signed with an eye on the future and not to achieve that elusive aim of Premier League survival."

That was literally in a quote tweet to you.

And you're now telling me that was spent almost 20% of our transfer budget on a backup player? That's either a stupid strategy or not true; given the fact that he featured in every game he was fit for bar 4, and the vast majority of his appearances were starts, it would strongly indicate that "not true" is the correct conclusion. Even I don't think Webber was stupid enough as to make our third most expensive signing in our most expensive ever transfer window a backup player. And I think he's pretty stupid.

He was a key arrival in a transfer window that was meant to help us survive in the EPL. We came nowhere near achieving that aim. There's no twisted perspective there, it's just facts. The fact that it doesn't gel with YOUR perspective should tell you something.

Put it this way; with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what would happen after that god-awful summer of recruitment, would Webber have signed Sargent?

[Google Bot 3,278]

17 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

To be fair to canarydan, his point was about the recruitment team failing to buy a PL ready player who could deliver in his first season, not aimed at Sargent himself.

Our number one striker was Pukki, we weren't buying a replacement, but a backup/successor in Sarge.  Same with Gunn and Krul.

Both have been proven to be very good signings.   I don't know why people can't just leave it at that really, I find it odd to see a fellow fan have such an adverse reaction to other fans celebrating one of our own's recent achievements and trajectories.

[Google Bot 3,278]

13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

And you're now telling me that was spent almost 20% of our transfer budget on a backup player? That's either a stupid strategy or not true;

Well it's fact, as we're seeing now - Sarge is now critical for us, as is Gunn.  Both successes, and there's further evidence in the money we invested into Tzolis as to what our strategy was.

13 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Put it this way; with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what would happen after that god-awful summer of recruitment, would Webber have signed Sargent?

Yes of course he would, the guy is adored by fans and without that freak injury would be top scorer this season, if not very close to it.  It's one of his happier recruitments by far. 

Massive player for us, and honestly, we've replaced one outgoing international striker for another - we're incredibly lucky as clubs can go years looking for this calibre of player.  Same applies to Gunn.

Edited January 22 by Google Bot

[canarydan23 4,060]

6 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Our number one striker was Pukki, we weren't buying a replacement, but a backup/successor in Sarge.  Same with Gunn and Krul.

Both have been proven to be very good signings.   I don't know why people can't just leave it at that really, I find it odd to see a fellow fan have such an adverse reaction to other fans celebrating one of our own's recent achievements and trajectories.

Was anyone reacting to that? Sounds to me like your applying a twisted perspective. Personally, I was only responding to this; "It’s almost like the professionals at the club know more than the posters on this forum. Weird." 

Can't see much celebrating one of our own's recent achievements and trajectories in that comment, but hey ho. No one really made any negative comment until that was posited. It's almost like negativity breeds negativity.

[Google Bot 3,278]

5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Was anyone reacting to that? Sounds to me like your applying a twisted perspective. Personally, I was only responding to this; "It’s almost like the professionals at the club know more than the posters on this forum. Weird." 

Which they do, you don't know what our strategy was so of course the club knows better.

You're claiming that the club failed on their target of bringing in a PL ready striker to replace Pukki?  That is just pure speculation on your part, and now you're extending it out as reality in order to bring what little recruitment successes we have had down.

Out of all the players to make an example of, it's just odd.  And to do it on a thread celebrating the lad is even odder.   He only had a club legend in front of him, of course.

Edited January 22 by Google Bot