If you look again NB, I said: "No real multiples given his age and his disrupted season last year." So no double or triple then. Given that Dynamo Kiev paid £7.7m for him in July 2013, the £5.95m seems a reasonable valuation. IMO, this would involve far less risk than the Brady deal, which was highly inflated by his young age and potential for development. If we pay around £5m for Mbokani his valuation will probably drop to around £4m in a year's time because of his age (29 now, 30 then), unless of course he does really well for us. We'd be buying experience rather than potential, as was the case with both RvW and Brady, where the risks are far higher.
You'll be disappointed to know that Dynamo Kiev paid for him with euros and we would pay them in euros as well if it happens.
I don't see any risk with Brady. Quite the opposite on fact, I think its a prime reason why we signed him.
Indeed, and this is the kind of thing that I get annoyed about with transfermarket.com - or it's interpretation at least. It has led Rick to come to the conclusion that because of these 'values' and what we actually ended up paying that the Brady deal is riskier than if we bid what we're supposed to be looking to bid for this guy, and I just don't see how on earth anyone could come to that conclusion? Robbie Brady has only ever played his football in England, he's had two good seasons in the Premier League where he picked up some excellent reviews and hasn't looked out of place. He's settled in the country, speaks the language, understands the English game and looks highly unlikely to become a disruptive influence to the club in any way. He also has at least ten years ahead of him in the game, and if he does well for us his sell-on fee (should we go down that road) is likely to be well in excess of whatever we pay for him, so not only does he make perfect sense on the football pitch he is also a shrewd bit of business. Then compare this with Mbokani, someone who has never played in England, would clearly take some time to settle in the country and with the way the game is played over here. I don't even know if he speaks the language (I guess he may well do, but this could be another potential risk). He's had eight clubs already and doesn;t appear to have ever stayed at a club for longer than three seasons, and all the leagues he has played in are vastly inferior to the overall quality of the Premier League - the exception being a short stay in the Bundesliga with Wolfsburg where he failed to score in seven games. Belgium looks to be the only country in which he has been prolific, and that's hardly a barometer of quality. Added to this is the fact he's 29 so will have no sell-on value even if he does do well with us - and even that is something I have serious doubts about. He might work out, he might be a gamble worth taking but I personally would rather err on the side of caution and look elsewhere, if indeed we are in the market for another striker. I certainly do not consider him being less risky than Robbie Brady - quite the opposite in fact
Not sure about Quintero - he could be a slightly more annoying version of Wes. I can see him losing possession frequently and flattering to deceive. On the other hand, he's got a strong left foot, a clever linker in midfield, and would get plenty of free kicks/bookings out of the opposition.
Yep that Colombian looks great. Think we'd be lucky though! I don't think Brady was a risk, on the contrary I think he is a pretty sturdy bet and following this lengthy discussion and having seen him play on Saturday I'm pleased we got him even if it was a high price - as has been said several times it really doesn't matter all that much what his price is if he plays regularly, we stay in the PL and we possibly sell him for more. My only concerns are based on completely unscientific reasoning (albeit I don't think fans are given enough info to do more than be unscientific): (i) going on the Hull fans forum they mostly seem to think we've substantially overpaid for Brady - I'm not so fussed about the money, but it does suggest he's not going to tear up any trees; and (ii) general opinion online is that he isn't much more than a mid-table player. That means he is a decent signing, but I think it is risky to overrate him just because he's our ?second highest ever purchase.
I wouldn't complain. If the two final players in are him a Mbokani I'd be a touch nervous about our defence but would get over it.
Isn't mid-table ideal for us. We're not going to get further. I'd happily take us playing 11 mid table players.
At this stage, definitely. I just don't think we should be expecting great things of him and certainly not in regard to massive sell-on potential (which seems to be the main objection to Mbokani).
I'm not fussed about sell on potential. The gain we would make having a striker put consistent chances away far outstrips our need to make money from selling players.
I don't know about anyone else, but I have plenty of reservations about signing that guy, not just his lack of sell on potential.
True, definitely - but what about £7m for Gradel? Or £4.5m for Steven Berghuis. These deals can really only be assessed in retrospect. If Mings has a stormer for Bournemouth, helps them stay up and then goes for £20m, what can you say?
