Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Juggy

£8.5m on a 30 year old?

Recommended Posts

Does the same risk not apply to younger players too? Not all of the 23/24 year olds we buy will be sold for a profit. RVW could conceivably be a flop and sold on for peanuts.

Also do you not think every team needs some experienced players mixed in with the young ''uns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Chip20"]Does the same risk not apply to younger players too? Not all of the 23/24 year olds we buy will be sold for a profit. RVW could conceivably be a flop and sold on for peanuts.

Also do you not think every team needs some experienced players mixed in with the young ''uns?[/quote]
No harm in a leader or two, but it isn''t clear at this moment in time whether this man even speaks English. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it does Chip. Some fans have just failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not a selling club any more and we are now mixing with the big boys, they obviously can''t come to terms that we will have ONE player in our playing squad who will have limited resale value. Clearly they want us to sell our best players in the near future. Smells of little Norwich to me (a phrase I hate using)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ellis206"]Of course it does Chip. Some fans have just failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not a selling club any more and we are now mixing with the big boys, they obviously can''t come to terms that we will have ONE player in our playing squad who will have limited resale value. Clearly they want us to sell our best players in the near future. Smells of little Norwich to me (a phrase I hate using)[/quote]
Every club is a selling club, if the price is right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, but these days the price will be right on our terms. A first team player wouldn''t leave Norwich on the cheap now, they will only go if the offer is to good for us to turn down, ie the John Ruddy situation. Apart from Holt, I can''t remember us actually selling an important player under this current board, Holt was obviously getting replaced anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
some one at work today was talking about "resell value" of players... I cant understand how people think we need to sign players simply to sell them on...we should be able to answer the phone, hear its Manchester united, and just laugh and hang up...we are a big club.. not a tin pot side... lets start thinking like one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"]some one at work today was talking about "resell value" of players... I cant understand how people think we need to sign players simply to sell them on...we should be able to answer the phone, hear its Manchester united, and just laugh and hang up...we are a big club.. not a tin pot side... lets start thinking like one.[/quote]
Sometimes players demand a move, and when they do there is no point in keeping them. e.g. Grant Holt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the absence of a big sugar Daddy or Mummy for that matter clubs like ours need to be run in a business like fashion. To a certain extent all clubs are selling clubs if the price is right. Of course the primary objective is to stay and prosper in the EPL. We have gone some way to doing that. My point and that of many is that if players are under 30 years of ago or so we have more chance of  growing our investment, Darren Bent being a prime example a few seasons ago he cost Villa £22m now they will be lucky to get £5 or £6m due to a combination of age and not being played. I have no problems at all having the odd experienced 30 + player in the side but not at the considerable cost of £8m plus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ellis206"]Of course it does Chip. Some fans have just failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not a selling club any more and we are now mixing with the big boys, they obviously can''t come to terms that we will have ONE player in our playing squad who will have limited resale value. Clearly they want us to sell our best players in the near future. Smells of little Norwich to me (a phrase I hate using)[/quote]Nope, it sounds like a potential journeyman strategy where we pay over the odds for underperforming older players. We''ve been there before under Roeder etc but this could be even more wasteful and unsuccessful this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="ellis206"]Of course it does Chip. Some fans have just failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not a selling club any more and we are now mixing with the big boys, they obviously can''t come to terms that we will have ONE player in our playing squad who will have limited resale value. Clearly they want us to sell our best players in the near future. Smells of little Norwich to me (a phrase I hate using)[/quote]Nope, it sounds like a potential journeyman strategy where we pay over the odds for underperforming older players. We''ve been there before under Roeder etc but this could be even more wasteful and unsuccessful this time. [/quote]

Never breed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yorkshire Canary"]In the absence of a big sugar Daddy or Mummy for that matter clubs like ours need to be run in a business like fashion. To a certain extent all clubs are selling clubs if the price is right. Of course the primary objective is to stay and prosper in the EPL. We have gone some way to doing that. My point and that of many is that if players are under 30 years of ago or so we have more chance of  growing our investment, Darren Bent being a prime example a few seasons ago he cost Villa £22m now they will be lucky to get £5 or £6m due to a combination of age and not being played. I have no problems at all having the odd experienced 30 + player in the side but not at the considerable cost of £8m plus[/quote]

You prove the opposite to our argument here Yorkshire. Bent has repaid the £22m fee in just the 2012 season when his goals made the difference between staying up under Mcleish and relegation.

But for Bent''s goals in a season where Villa only won seven games, they would have lost the best part of £100m in Prem money for last and next season.

As the Americans say "Do the math".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="ellis206"]Of course it does Chip. Some fans have just failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not a selling club any more and we are now mixing with the big boys, they obviously can''t come to terms that we will have ONE player in our playing squad who will have limited resale value. Clearly they want us to sell our best players in the near future. Smells of little Norwich to me (a phrase I hate using)[/quote]Nope, it sounds like a potential journeyman strategy where we pay over the odds for underperforming older players. We''ve been there before under Roeder etc but this could be even more wasteful and unsuccessful this time. [/quote]

 

Apart from Nash, as third-choice goalie, who is old, we have bought a 19-year-old and four players in their early to mid-20s. Other players we have been linked with, such as Toivonen and Hooper and Alderwereild, are all mid-20s. But on the basis that we are looking at one player who is 30 you think our strategy is to concentrate on older players?

 

I like negative posts here that go against the grain of popular opinion. May have posted a few in my time. But they work better if there is some faint connection with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have a point there Cambridge to some extent, albeit Lambert came in with a fresher strategy with Benteke the following year, got a player for £7m and turned him into about £20m and his goals kept them up in 2013. Another series of good examples was was has happened under recent seasons at Stoke where Pullis spent a  lot on older players such as Crouch only to find that shedloads of cash has been spent and few of the squad are actually worth anything anymore. As said before I have no problem with having a few older players in the squad provided they do not cost large transfer fees. The best example in our long history was probably someone like Martin Peters whose best years were behind him but contributed a great deal to squad and results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people on here really need to really consider what they are typing. Jas is right, as are others.

If you purely buy players on their potential in terms of selling on price then you''d screw up.

If you purely buy players on their ability and ignore their age you''d also screw up.

It is worth pointing out that at this time the squad only has two players above the age of 30. Hoolahan and Nash. Of those two only Hoolahan is what you could really call a first team regular - up to now at least.

We do have a fair few 29 year olds: Whitaker, Fox, Turner and Becchio.

There are 26 players (including Redmond) that we have in our squad at the moment, not including youngsters like the Murphy''s. The average age of the squad is - a little over 26. Remember that is including Nash.

In terms of a typical match day starting 11 I think you can be looking at a lot less than that even. Of the 26, 14 are 26 or younger.

Looking at the squad as a whole, another 30 year old player wouldn''t hurt us, especially if he has the creativity we have been missing. Look how Pirlo still pulls the strings for club and country.

I understand that people are saying it is a larger gamble than what we are used to seeing but if it is successful it could really push us on a bit and it''s less likely for a team to come in for a 31 year old than it is for a 25 year old. There is a little bit more security around a player of that age.

The whole re-sale argument is nuts. It is not the most important factor behind a signing. The most important factors surrounding any signing is that they have the right attributes to work with the players currently here and to adapt/fit with the style the manager wants us to play. And that they are likely to be successful at the above and in turn bring success to our club.

Age is a factor as well, but for me that comes under fitting in with what we have.

But when it comes down to it, no one can actually be sure of ''re-sale'' value when it comes to players because that depends entirely on their performances and their is no guarantee on that.

Diego Forlan, for example - was signed by Man Utd when he was 23. Kleberson was signed aged 24, also for Man Utd for £6.5million, two seasons later he was sold on for 2.95million Euros. I have no idea what the exchange rate was in 2005 but even so I can tell you that is quite a loss.

The point is, that any club would be foolish to base a signing on their potential value in say a season or two seasons time - because it includes far too many variables.

Look at James Vaughan for example. He could have been an absolute steal, he looked like he had put the worse of his injuries behind him but then suffered them again in his first season with us. He then had a season on loan to the championship but didn''t really catch the eye. We didn''t make a great loss on him because we didn''t pay much up front for him in the first place.

But like with poker, you want to play with the best, you have to be able to put money where your mouth is. Every signing is a gamble, a risk. The fact that Quag has been a success in Italy is a good thing, it means that teams there will swoop for him if things don''t turn out right for him here. We might not get all of our money back but again that all depends on how much we pay up front and in add ons.

If the fee is say £5million plus £3.5million in add ons for things like remaining in the premier league and goals etc - I would say it is a very good deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yorkshire Canary wrote: "Another series of good examples was was has happened under recent seasons at Stoke where Pullis spent a lot on older players such as Crouch only to find that shedloads of cash has been spent and few of the squad are actually worth anything anymore."

Pulis is a manager like that though isn''t he? He''s got a bit of a history of buying older players. It''s given them what will at least be six seasons of premiership football. For the size of the club, that is more than respectable.

What you are also omitting is that whilst money has been spent on older players, they have probably helped make that money back by retaining premiership status for those seasons - this last one being even more important.

And that''s what I am saying. It''s about balance. You have too many younger players and you run the risk of not having enough experience and/or a good run seeing to six teams picking them off in January or the summer.

To some people the latter part may sound ok, but do you really want to be loosing 2-5 players every summer and having to rebuild?

Every team needs a couple of older pro''s, around 30, who are perhaps less attractive to teams higher up the footballing pyramid who are more interested in signing 23year olds for £20million. It ensures a bit of continuity, a bit of consistency. Not to mention a couple of older heads for the tough games, to help the younger lads etc.

Also worth mentioning that at this point we have a squad of 26 including Redmond. The average age of the squad is just a fraction over 26. There are two players over 30 (Hoolahan and Nash), the are 12 players aged 27 and older and 14 that are 26 and under.

I am sure there is a bit of adjusting yet to be seen but as Purple has already stated - our two most recent additions to midfield are now our youngest midfielders at 19 and 23. Olsson is 25 which makes him older than Ryan Bennett and Ayala but younger than the other defenders currently on our books.

Maybe we could just do with the experience, consistency and creativity that a decent 30 year old could give us.

Personally I think this is more to do with people not knowing much about the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^this^

Good post, well articulated.

30 is not an overly concerning age for this price tag/level of player. As Chicken says, whilst it almost certainly means no sell-on threat+/-profit, it is these kind of signings that can help solidify a team of younger talents, such as RVW/Fer.

I really hope this comes off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Experience is always invaluable. I certainly feel he can add something to our team and to individuals in the team, manycanlearn from him.

I think the value is good and I for one believe that it could be a great purchase to bring on butterfield who looks to need a little more time with hoops in between the two.

For me a very exciting prospect, certainly I would as the club has reported, show some interest in signing him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cant be bothered to find where ive been quotedbuthes too old, id rather have austin and rhodes. yeh hes good but its just a waste of money, will never get any return on him and if we should get dragged into a relegation battle id prefer to not have a bunch of overpaid pre madonnas in the team that dont really give a damn about the club and are just here to pick up a pay check

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
good player no doubt - too much money for someone that agesome of you lot were all fretting about paying more than 5 mill for hooper not that many months back, and now you think spending 10 mill euros + on this dude is a wise move ? lolyou need players that want to play for you and are hungry, not the ones with agents just out to bag a few quid from sky tv money

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="iron_stan"]good player no doubt - too much money for someone that agesome of you lot were all fretting about paying more than 5 mill for hooper not that many months back, and now you think spending 10 mill euros + on this dude is a wise move ? lolyou need players that want to play for you and are hungry, not the ones with agents just out to bag a few quid from sky tv money[/quote]I will still be disappointed if we sign Hooper for any money at all. I really don''t expect him to do anything in the premier league and haven''t been impressed by anything I''ve seen of him (admittedly only a handful of TV matches). In my eyes he is an average championship player at best- maybe not even that.Quag is a different prospect all together for me and I have no problem at all with the club spending whatever it feels it can afford for someone of such undoubtable top league and international quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems some people would only be happy if we played kick''n''chase with shorts down to our ankles and a ball that weighed as much as Nathan Redmond. Nothing like the good old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Too much money for the player of his age? No, simply a function of market pricing.

The greater risk for us is not whether Hooper et al are ''good'' enough to wear a City shirt. Rather, the risk is that we have insufficient goals in the team to avoid losing £80m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highland spot on.

I also don''t think hooper is on our radar, we had our interest. H would be second fiddle this year and actually I would think next summer we would need to improve on him.

Fabio is technically gifted and hence why a coup for a team with so many energetic hard working players, he has the ability to unlock defences and his quality will bring so much to others and I think that is the key. For me we bring in fabio and we would have more goals and better cohesion on the field than having a goal poacher. I can see another. Striker coming in but not hooper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want The Quag!

I don''t want Hooper. Never have. Unless he costs zilch, of course.

But then I''d still want us to sign The Quag!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="ellis206"]Of course it does Chip. Some fans have just failed to come to terms with the fact that we are not a selling club any more and we are now mixing with the big boys, they obviously can''t come to terms that we will have ONE player in our playing squad who will have limited resale value. Clearly they want us to sell our best players in the near future. Smells of little Norwich to me (a phrase I hate using)[/quote]Nope, it sounds like a potential journeyman strategy where we pay over the odds for underperforming older players. We''ve been there before under Roeder etc but this could be even more wasteful and unsuccessful this time. [/quote]

 

Apart from Nash, as third-choice goalie, who is old, we have bought a 19-year-old and four players in their early to mid-20s. Other players we have been linked with, such as Toivonen and Hooper and Alderwereild, are all mid-20s. But on the basis that we are looking at one player who is 30 you think our strategy is to concentrate on older players?

 

I like negative posts here that go against the grain of popular opinion. May have posted a few in my time. But they work better if there is some faint connection with reality.

[/quote]I''m not actually saying that our strategy is to concentrate on over-age players, but this could be the start, hence the use of the word ''potential''. What I don''t get is that Holt was too old etc but scores goals and performs when we need him to as in the last three games and flog him, yet we go for somebody not much younger for much more money who is unproven etc in the Prem. Craaaaaaazzzzy   !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real issue here is that there''s some that can''t come to terms with the fact we''re moving up as a club. They don''t want the quality players, they can''t wrap their head around the fees and the wages required to sign quality.

I have genuinely heard somebody say that we shouldn''t waste our time going for players with a big ego ( in reference to Quagliarella, where''s the proof of this by the way?) and should be going for a "proven Premier League goalscorer" in... Adam Le Fondre.

Well hell, why not get DJ Campbell and Kevin Davies while we''re at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing with Quag which I dont think has been touched on so far, is that regardless of his direct sell on value, he is of such quality that he would probably be worth an extra 5 goals per season to RvW, irrespective of how many Quag himself scores.

5 goals in the Prem can be worth several mill added onto a transfer fee so indirectly, we could recoup some of the Quag money back when we come to sell RvW a few years down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="kick it off"]5 goals in the Prem can be worth several mill added onto a transfer fee so indirectly, we could recoup some of the Quag money back when we come to sell RvW a few years down the road.[/quote]

 

5 or so extra goals last season and we''d have a few more pennies in the kitty. That''s how badly we missed quality up front, be it even a poacher. Age and resell shouldn''t be he issue, if he can bag the goals, then it is too good to not consider.

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...