Whether intended or not, at first team level it has been more of a transition due to the signings getting crocked. It's amazing how a fixation on a decision to allow 1 player to leave (the only one who could really make a case for being retained) can colour someone's judgment about an entire transfer policy....
There's only one poster fixated on a certain players departure, and it's the one who keeps bringing up said certain player.
The 'naive' transfer policy won't have us 20th based on results at the end of the season. Oscar, Tufan and Pelkas haven't been poor signings at all. Debatable whether Pelkas is worth 35k a week but we have the security of the short term deal and he can go in summer if he doest justify the price tag. We've gone up a level since last year, it's the start of a project and all folk want to do is slag off the signings that are making the difference. Mental
Theres a website with traditionally fairly accurate guesstimates for all clubs and across multiple sports and it tallies pretty accurately with what's been suggested by those likely to know on here. Of course we await the books, but I'm pretty confident we'll be running a £22m wagebill this year or thereabouts, so the difference between this and last year has to be going somewhere. Specifically regarding Pelkas, remember we've taken over his Fenerbache contract. If he stays as a permanent then I doubt we will be offering him anything like that.
Do you think the website reflects clauses in loan contracts? Surely we aren't paying 30k a week for Karl Darlow to come and sit on our bench.
According to those well known on this site we were paying 25k (26 according to that site you've been on) for Vale so why not? Obviously if we are paying him that, then if/when he gets the shirt he'll be pretty strongly expected to retain it, otherwise he'll be returning to the Bigg Market from Prinny Ave fairly sharpish I'd expect. Dodo and Vale leaving along with the other outgoings have basically covered Darlow and Connolly - who is suggested to be on similar to Vale - but we have shifted out a lot of players this winter. 4 grand here and 3 grand there makes a hell of a difference when it's what, 10 players?
We had a 7.5m wage bill in League One, and while only guessing until we get our Championship accounts for last season, you can only assume that increased to at least 10-12m last season. If our wage bill has indeed only increased to 22m from even a conservative 10m (and I find it hard to believe that players had only a 2.5m step up from their League One salaries but we'll play the game), then when taking the 8m or so transfer fees into account against the KLP transfer fee of 15m, we're only out of pocket an additional 5m against a 'tripling' of our commercial income (Tan's own words). For all the waffling some do about our FFP position, the numbers tell their own story. We had an 8m loss in the League One season, granted, but it's impossible to determine the "FFP loss" as opposed to the out-and-out loss (in much the same way that clubs like Stoke and Boro lose upwards of 20m a season but a large chunk of that is seemingly discounted for FFP purposes). Now we could well have a wage bill much higher than 22m, but that's for the accounts to tell us, not some faux ITKers.
Do you deliberately misunderstand every point other posters make? Tufan gets criticised for hitting it over the bar. If every one of them efforts went in the top corner every time he tried he'd be considered world class. At least he got into the positions to shoot. Also, what do you mean by accept average performances? What do you suggest instead? That we riot in the stadium? Or boo the team when we don't win? The latter actually happened around me on Saturday at the final whistle. The entitlement from some after winning a few games is jaw dropping. We're not going to win every game and sometimes we won't play as well as we can either... That's why we're not top of the table. What tires me is watching our fans kick off about our players when we don't win. It seems to have gotten worse since we pulled into mid table, which I just can't fathom. It's like having Arsenal fans on here sometimes. I don't mind critiquing a performance, or even managerial decisions, but it baffles me when a player who was one of the better performers on the day seems to get targeted more than others, regardless of whether they're one of our summer signings or one of our League 1 crop. Oscar played better against Preston simply because it was Preston at home and not Norwich away. Everyone played poorly versus Norwich so whatever point you were making there applies to everyone. 'The same excuse for Oscar, Pelkas and now Tufan'... This is a ridiculous statement. Oscar is our top scorer, and Tufan has just played one of his better games for us. They've done nothing that needs excusing. Saying they'd play for bigger clubs than Hull City if they were more consistent is a fact. It's almost like expectations for them and the team have recently become far too high as opposed to some bizarre narrative where they're all playing poorly and people are making excuses for them. Do you think Tufan played poorly on Saturday?
If my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Who has said he needs to be hitting every shot in the top corner? Do you deliberately misunderstand every point PLT has made? Or me? You've just written this huge ranty post when it seems you have no idea what either of us has tried to say. I thought that was one of Tufan's best performances for us and have said that previously, is that ok? I just found it funny I'd seen word for word the same justification/hand-waving for performances as "If they were better they wouldn't be at City" as if that's that.
I believe we spent 10.5 at least. That was Baz's l/HDM's figure. In summer alone. And the guaranteed income from KLP was 12 by all accounts. And where do you get 12m from for last year? And clearly I'm quoting external sources which you can easily find linked on the city fans fb page or the HDM website. So less of the 'faux itk' sonny Jim. What's laughable is that you're accusing me of making **** up whilst quoting actual reports when you're denying that we could be anywhere near ffp based on intuition despite the club disclosing it as a very real consideration.
Because you made some absurd comment about PLT expecting him to hit all his shots top corner and if he was he'd be playing for a bigger side when that's not what PLT said at all? FFS man.
He was criticised for shooting over the bar. My point is at least he got into those positions. My point is also its harsh to criticise it going over when not many other shots were even coming in. The biggest problem we had on Saturday were deliveries into the box from wide in my opinion, not Tufan's contribution. The biggest problem on this thread is bickering, and to avoid a 40 pager for the poor bastards that see this ****e in the morning, I'm bowing out of this now before it gets unnecessarily pedantic.
I do believe transfer business is a lot easier than it's made out to be, a 50% success rate will bring you success. But there are so many clubs with completely disjointed policies, no clear style, and chopping and changing of managers. We ended up pretty much replacing the full squad in 1 window, signing 16 players in 1 window cannot be considered gradual and we'll be signing around 8-10 this summer which is another year of major upheaval. We're having the same conversation as the summer but I never said I'd sign the players we did, I always said I'd have gone for a lot younger players with a high ceiling and a large potential profit to provide the depth. It would've also been a lot cheaper and lower risk than the current approach was whilst giving us manoeuvrability in future windows without being crippled by FFP
The only player whose inherent value (so ignoring that we signed them for a free) has increased is Oscar, and even with him we're seeing over the past few weeks a lot of discussion around how much he actually contributes in games. None of the young players we signed has come on, with Sinik being loaned back to his previous club. Vale has gone back to Chelsea, and Simons is showing a bit of promise so has been signed permanently. I really don't think that for the outlay we spent we've seen anywhere near the increase in value you would hope for, with a lot more misses than hits. It would have been a lot cheaper to just bring in 10 youngsters but then we'd be in a much worse position in the table and likely involved in the relegation battle a lot more closely.
Yes, Oscar is the only real success of the window. Yet, he alone makes last summer's window a profitable one. And that's why I say recruitment is much more simple than it's made out to be. 1 out of the 16 players we signed has gone on to significantly increase value, that's pretty bad. But if you could increase that number to even 25% you'll make good money. The only real youngster we signed last season to make an immediate impact and for the long term was Salah. I'd have looked to bring in 4-6 quality, experienced pros (e.g. Oscar/Seri/Christie) and then 6-8 young players to flesh the squad out. The experienced pros would have been the bankers as signings and you'd need to have a high success rate but the youngsters would be riskier but potentially more profitable. I'd avoid where possible to take youngsters straight out of u23 football though
You said similar in the summer and I asked you then, but if it's as easy as you're making it out to be then more clubs would do it. If you seriously think you're better placed to advise on transfer strategy, get some skin in the game, but as this isn't how most clubs are able to operate, I'd suggest it's a touch more complex than you're making it out to be, both in terms of finding the players that fill a particular portfolio, and then getting them at what you deem to be an appropriate value. We tried to get Twine for instance, but were priced out.
