By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"I pay attention to argument, complexity, and controversy, and then funnel that back to my own thinking"
So really you're just after a cheeky mass debate :-)
OK, in the spirit of debate I will play along.
Let's go through your original thesis line by line:
1. - "No idea why we weren't in for him"
We don't know that we weren't. Reports suggest several Championship clubs were interested.
2. - "Free transfer in effect"
Which is why he would be wanting a bumper salary. Probably out of our price range. Especially given his age.
3. - "good age at 31"
Gary Lineker and Michael Owen were both retired at 31. Strikers are usually past their best once they reach that age.
4 - "knows the Champ inside out"
Could say the same for Lyndon Dykes who is two years younger and likely to be on his way out of Birmingham fairly soon. He also knows our club inside out, which might not be a good thing.
You cherry-picked a few facts and thought you had a case.
You might get away with that in the world of philosophical whimsy, but finance tends to be a bit more rigorous.
In Watford_Ranger's reply earlier in this thread he referenced Simon Kuper's Soccernomics making the case linking overall league performance to players wages:
If you paid more attention to Clive linking wages budgets to league position you wouldn't need to ask that question.
Spoiler alert: Wrexham and the "several Championship clubs" they outbid for Windass probably have more money to sink into paying players wages than we do!
Not saying I disagree with anything you say but I think you need to take into account the culture of the industry as a whole.
Professional footballers know their careers are short and they have to make as much as they can as quickly as they can.
And the life expectancy of managers in the Championship is less than two years. Half the clubs in the Championship have changed manager since the end of last season.
Expecting loyalty in those circumstances is probably expecting too much.
Who was the last QPR player to be awarded a testimonial?
But we've still only seen one profit from a sell-on clause in the last 15 years!
And if you flip that on its head. How many times have we bought a player, developed them, sold for a profit and shared some of that profit with the club we signed the player from.
Off the top of my head I can only think of:
- Sinclair Armstrong
- Charlie Austin
- Luke Freeman
- Alex McCarthy
- Adel Taarabt
That's not many considering we've spent the last decade talking about being a development club.
On the other hand we've had a few flops who might have cost us a good bit more if we hadn't included a sell-on clause:
But if you look at TK1's earlier post on this thread he does cite Coventry and Sporting reaching precisely that sort of compromise:
"Coventry had a 15% sell-on fee for Gyokeres, but sold 5% back to Sporting Lisbon for one million euros last summer. They will still get 10% when he signs for Arsenal. Definitely worth it."
Admittedly it was after the sale of the player to Sporting but it shows that it can be done.
With respect I haven't made any assumptions about the club at all.
I made an observation about comments that appear on this forum whenever the question of selling a player comes up.
The phrase "but there must be a good sell-on" seems to be obligatory.
That suggests to me that many on here feel that sell-ons are a good thing.
What I am saying is that in the last 15 years we have only once benefitted from a sell-on clause - and that was when Liverpool sold Raheem Sterling to Man City.
I have lost count of the number of threads on this forum discussing Eze and how much we will make when he is sold. But the problem for us is that we have absolutely no control over that, and we might never get to see any sell-on money from Eze.
I completely understand that buyers like these clauses and we might not have the bargaining power to insist on a money up front sale.
But that's essentially my whole point. Theses clauses favour the buyer, not the seller.
With respect to you, you're making this all about Eze.
My point is that since selling Raheem Sterling in 2010 we have only once had any benefit from a sell-on clause.
So my real point is do sell-on clauses benefit the buyer or the seller?
Are we just kidding ourselves when we say that players can only be sold "with a big sell-on" - which I've been reading a lot across this forum.
Once the player is out the door we have no control over that player's future.
Wouldn't it be better to cash-in for as much as we can at the point of sale instead of hoping that the player continues to progress and then gets moved on for a big fee?
If Eze decides he is very happy where he is thank you very much then we will never see a penny.
Effectively we're buying a lottery ticket every time we sell a player. If we hit the jackpot then happy days. But if we don't then we're effectively robbing ourselves.
I take your point that sell-on clauses have become standard practice. And it would probably need some tough negotiating to get a buyer to waive the sell-on and pay more up front.
But do sell-on clauses really benefit both sides?
The only time we have benefitted from a sell-on is Raheem Sterling. We sold him to Liverpool in 2010. And we had to wait five years for him to be sold-on.
Based on our experience I think sell-on clauses have been benefitting the buying clubs far more than the selling club.
With a three year P & S cycle does it really help us to wait five years for a sell-on clause to be triggered? Assuming it ever gets triggered before the player gets too old and starts to lose value.
I think you might have missed the point of the question.
Would we be better off waiving the sell-on (which even if we get lucky we might have to wait several years for) in favour of a bigger up front fee when we sell players?
As per my original post:
"Given where we are now, trying to get back on track as a development/selling club, wouldn't be better off waiving the sell-on for our next few sales in favour of a bigger up front fee?
It would mean more money to play with now and someone else can take the risk of developing that player's potential."
4) How long will we have to wait to see the money?
The one and only time we have hit the jackpot with a sell-on is Raheem Sterling. And even then we had to wait five years before Liverpool sold him to Man City.
I put this question on the Kolli thread but I think it's worth it's own thread.
Whenever there's a discussion about selling one of our players I keep reading that a large sell-on clause should be a condition in any player sale we make.
It sounds like it makes sense. But does it really help the selling club?
Five years ago we sold Eze with a decent sell-on clause.
And we're still waiting...........
Given where we are now, trying to get back on track as a development/selling club, wouldn't be better off waiving the sell-on for our next few sales in favour of a bigger up front fee?
It would mean more money to play with now and someone else can take the risk of developing that player's potential.
I wonder how much the sell-on for Sinclair Armstrong was? And will we ever see any of it!?
Slightly deviating from the topic and not having a go at francisbowles or anyone in particular but I do keep reading that a large sell-on clause should be a condition in any player sale we make.
Five years ago we sold Eze with a decent sell-on clause.
And we're still waiting...........
Given where we are now, trying to get back on track as a selling club, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off waiving the sell-on for our next few sales in favour of a bigger up front fee.
It would mean more money to play with now and someone else can take the risk of developing that player's potential.
I wonder how much the sell-on for Sinclair Armstrong was? And will we ever see any of it!?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
