TE="originallambrettaman, post: 8164504, member: 1000044"]Deal confirmed at £7m, which is, I believe, exactly what I said would be final outcome before we got distracted with claims of wumming and nonsense about how players are valued. He's a decent larker, but it's the right price and we've got a more than able replacement in Robertson(we've also immediately replaced Brady with Clucas from Chesterfield for £1m). I suspect everyone's glad this one is finally sorted. [/QUOTE] Juds Just seen article on line in Hull Dailly Mail this morning mentioning Brady £7m move to Norwich & Hull £1m signing Brady not going to Austria with Hull
Understood how player transfers work out then yet eh Lambretta? Yep, I'd say I was bang on the money if what Superman says is correct...
As I called the transfer fee correctly from minute one, I'd say it was fairly obvious that it was not I who had had any lack of understanding with regard to this particular deal. It's been fun chaps, but my work here is now done, I wish you luck for the coming season and I hope the player we've flogged you lasts more than forty minutes.
Huh?? "Pat yourself on the back"? "Exactly what you said"? Really? I must have been reading a different thread! You were constantly banging on about how our initial derisory £2m bids (I think I can now call them derisory, that's seems to be the general consensus) were "market value", about how unreasonable and unprofessional Steve Bruce was being and that you "hope we never do business with Hull again". I know you will come back with a carefully constructed reposts pointing out the things that you were right about and that you've been taken out of context, but come on man even you have to admit you got it wrong on this on quite a few levels. I honesty thought LambrettaMan spoke nothing but sense and if anyone and anything was annoying during this debate it was you trying to discredit his wise words by somehow trying to make out he was wumming. Bizarre. Anyway, I'm just happy the deal is finally done, a full two weeks before the season starts so that's perfect for me. He's a player I rate highly, and the fact he's an established international already at the age of 23 hopefully means he has a long career ahead of him at the top. AN and D-Mac clearly rated him high on their list of summer targets means this is a great deal for the club. I also agree that we won't be paying anything like £7m straight up, and you are right Rob in saying that surely some of the Snodgrass money will be involved in the transactions, staggered as they may be. It's a good deal for both clubs, fair play to Brucey for getting the best deal for Hull, and for not biting off his nose to spite his face - though not sure that would be possible anyway with his nose! A centre-half now please, Dick van Dyk would be amazing
I think we've overpaid. It depends on how much of the £7m is add-ons, but we'll never know that. Brady is a good player and can play in two different positions, but I can't help feeling that when he plays it will be at the expense of Johnson or Olsson. Will he score as many goals as Johnson? Does he have Olsson's pace? Hopefully the answer to both questions is yes and he will turn out to be good value for the money paid. It's true that whatever Hull still owes on Snodgrass will reduce the amount paid from the budget, but that won't include any add-ons for appearances or PL survival of course. Perhaps the whole thing has just gone on too long to get excited about it now.
Fair enough. You said £7m from the start. But you haven't called it yet btw - still just rumours... Although I've no doubt the overall price will be arou that once you factor in the outstanding Snodders amount and add-ons. But it doesn't alter the fact that you misunderstood how add-ons work in a bid and the difference with the actual sum paid and when or how a player asset valuation factors in. I hope that at least made sense to you Snodders was a good but for you - you just got very unlucky. He'll do a fantastic job in the Champ
I didn't say it was market value Tony. You are misquoting me. I've already explained it all multiple times. The only thing I disputed was whether it was "derisory" and whether the bids we were told about represented the true value of the bid
Cheers fella, thanks for your input on this, I appreciated it at least Good luck for the new season, hope Snoddy gets himself fit and gets you in the mix, he'll rip the championship a new one if he can get back to 100% And don't worry about Rob, he seems to enjoys being our resident "dog with a bone" from time to time - he just won't let it go! We're all friends here so all the best
Rich coming from you Tony! I won't deny it sure does wind me up when people don't read explanations and keep repeating the same wrong thing afterwards. Though I accept that's partly my fault as my explanations tend to be *a little* wordy...
I think we're fighting a losing battle in convincing others how it works, Rob. There are still those who think Bournemouth got 'mugged' when they signed Mings for £8m (less than twice his 'asset value') but still see the Brady price as reasonable (at 3-4 times his asset value). It seems simple enough to me. As long as it doesn't prevent us from signing a quality CB and a quality striker/AM.
So when you said our initial bids (about £2m) were "bang on market" what exactly did that mean? Turns out his actual value is more than three times that, as agreed by both parties. And regardless of how the £7m is paid, or even how much of it is paid, £7m is the player's market value as per the deal. And I wouldn't worry Rick, if he has a couple of decent seasons he'll be worth more than that soon enough
I do from time to time at least admit when I'm wrong, and I do try to avoid fighting losing battles these days. Anyway, **** it, the sun is shining and we got ourselves a new players - let's be happy!
Sorry I appreciate that's my wording by "bang on market" and "market standard" or similar, I just mean that it was an acceptable starting point to bid from. Having performance related add-ons are "market". In player contracts, including relegation clauses are now "market". It's not to do with price, but I accept it's a confusing word that I used. Without knowing the full details of our bid (which I said probably included debt write-off and significant add-ons), all I was saying is that I couldn't believe McNally and co would have opened the bidding with an off-market bid all things considered. Which is why Bruce announcing our bid as "£2m" was disingenuous - our whole actual first bid I would bet was worth a lot more and the £2m headline price wasn't so different to what you might expect (the fact that Hull were never going to accept anywhere near that, doesn't automatically make it derisory). It's different to his "value" (which apart from anything else entirely depends on the negotiating position of the parties, as we've clearly seen, so isn't fixed). I agree that the price we ultimately end up paying will be his value at the point he is sold - as simple as you say. Whether the deal remains "market" will depend on the other parts of the deal (I.e. The Snodders fee write-off). The irony being, of course, that even if a new deal is not market, if others follow that lead with the way it's structured, it might then be market... The one thing I have changed my mind on (and admitted) was I thought Hull would negotiate. They didn't. So while the first bid I don't think can be described as derisory - McNally is too professional for that - it does mean our following bids are a bit strange. Suggests a breakdown in communication between the clubs. Or maybe it was because Brady was seriously considering signing a new contract. Very harsh (and again rich) to suggest I never admit in wrong. I've apologised multiple times when I've got and said things wrong on here Munky. You of all people should know that and have the good grace to admit that while I might be stubborn and persistent, if I'm wrong I hold my hands up
Please don't tell me there's been loads of arguing about transfermrket.com?! You realise its mainly bullshit, right? Has no bearing whatsoever on anything and is constantly out of date because its not a real tool. There is a real database that clubs use but its nothing like that. Have we overpaid for Brady? Certainly our opening gambit was deluded and insulting. Maybe we wanted to put pressure on the player? I said straight away he was a £5m player based on multiple factors, so yeah - maybe a million or two imo - which is quite a lot when you consider our transfer kitty and the constraints attached to that, but nearly all deals involve 'overpaying' these days - especially if they come from the British Isles (technically Brady doesn't, but you get my drift). I doubt the deal will end up at the full deal price anyway - they rarely do! And if they do, it means we, and he, have shared enormous success - so lets hope Hull get their full amount! As I say, its all relative. Brady is versatile and effectively fills the role of two players in our squad. He's only 23 and the potential is there for profit. If not, he's a useful player who improves our squad in an area (left hand side) where we had weaknesses and imbalance at times. It puts pressure on two players to up their game. All relative. Overall, both clubs will be happy with the deal.
I suspect not, unfortunately. However, we shouldn't underestimate the pull of the EPL, AN and the craft of McN.
