Transfer Thread Summer 2019

I wish I could disappear to Australia on a regular interval.

 

We bought Luongo and Gladwin (who was thought to be a prospect, now injured at Blackburn Rovers) from Swindon for 3.5 million. So Luongo was worth 2.5-3 million. Whatever you say about him, he has really put in a shift for us, I am certain we would be in a lower league without him.
I agree that if we could get 4 milion for him that would be good...He is older, often goes to Australia, deserves an attempt elsewhere, one year of the end of contract and is on a good wage is all reasons to sell...and Chair, Manning, Scowen can all replace him.

I would perfer Luongo to go than Freeman to be honest, but we will get more for Freeman

 

Thanks for the correction on Luongo.

I see that Transfer Markt surprisingly value him at 4.5M€ which is more than Freeman

 

I would have thought that the Bread Man would have an inkling over who would stay, who would go and who he would keep.
Maybe the manager discussions discussed all the scenarios hence the reason for us turning into Queen's Park Glasgow Rangers

 

I see Luongo as a box to box or holding central midfield player. I don't see Manning (left sided player) or Chair ( further forward) in those roles, while Scowen will need both assistance and back up, which Goss hasn't shown he can provide yet..

At least Eze and Chair have the potential to replace Freeman.

 

Eze and Chair should be the obvious replacements for Freeman.

I feel more confident with Eze as he has already been integrated into the first team. With the absence of Freeman, I hope that Eze will further develop and really grow into the postion.

 

Freeman always looks very sharp where Eze can often look too laid back. I think Eze really needs to step up this season and turn up to very match.

 

Ingram joins hull city but don’t know the fee yet

 

Pennies for a man very publicly dropped because he wasn’t good enough. Gets his wages off the books.

 

Cousins signs for Stoke - watch him roll-out a man of the match performance first game of the season

 

... and score!

 

Watch him crumple into a heap in the eleventh minute and miss the first six months of the season.

 

Shhhh!...

 

Reported we got 200-250,000 for Ingram, reputed we paid 500,000 for him.


Unfortunately he was never going to make it at QPR, after the mauling he took at the start of last season, so good to get off the wage bill at least. I must admit I never really rated him, the only time I was impressed was that time he took a kick to the head at Brentford when he was standing in for Smithies. Imho he was actually too big (heavy) for a goalie and so a bit static, he didn't talk much either.
Lumley will have a problem seeing off Kelly next season.....and what ever the papers are saying I do not think Dieng is our number 3, as far as I know he has not resigned. He will be looking for another club he can play at...and not be the no3 and out on loan again.

Now onto reshaping the midfield. There is a big difference between Freeman and Luongo.
At least two clubs (Sheff Utd, Leeds) are interested in Freeman, although not offering what we want yet.
We are offering Luongo, as far as the rumours go...no one is in for him (he obviously therefore understands he is not wanted on voyage!)

 

I don't think that Luongo is "not wanted", but I believe that it is more of a case that he does not want to (will not) accept a new contract on "lower wages". Here I do not not blame him at all.

As a result, we can either run down his contract or try to sell him, and we are correctly trying to do the later.

Unfortunately as we are looking for a buyer, then our negotiation leveage is not very strong, plus any delays puts additional pressure upon us. I am sure that he will find a new club and it will be a very deal (for them).

 

This piece is a bit long and a lot of it is common knowledge. But I found the part of how clubs consider the cost of signing a player very interesting. Considering this I find the way our club now operate much more sound, and I have a greater understanding of how tricky it must have been to get rid of all the overpaid wrong-uns.

Anatomy of a transfer story: A consumer's guide to rumors, fake news, buyback clauses and more
https://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/marcottis-musings/62/post/3881418/anatomy-of-a-transfer-story-a-consumers-guide-to-rumorsfake-newsbuyback-clauses-and-more

Q: What's the biggest misconception out there in the way we talk about the transfer market?

A: Many still don't seem to understand how most clubs think about what a player costs them. When clubs buy players, they amortize (write off the initial cost) the fee over the life of the contract. So if Player X (him again) joins for $50m and signs a five-year deal worth $5m a season, he's costing the club $15m a year ($10m in amortisation and $5m in wages). If Player Y joins on a free transfer (yes, I know it's not quite "free" so let's leave that to one side a minute) and signs a five-year deal worth $20m a season, he's costing the club more than Player X.

But there's a twist. Let's say both play pretty poorly and after two years, the club wants to get rid of them. In Player X's case, as long as they sell for $30m or more, they get their money back (in accounting terms) because that's the value left on the contract. In Player Y's case, he cost nothing, so any transfer fee means they've turned a profit on him. (Remember though: because he signed the bigger $20m contract, it will likely be harder to find a buyer who can take on that expense in addition to paying a transfer fee.)

Incidentally, amortization is also why clubs are incentivised to offer longer contracts, and even raises, in some situations. Take Player X. If, after two years, he signs another five-year deal worth, say, $6m a season, he's happy because he gets a 20 percent raise, right? But the club is also happy because they can spread the residual value of his fee ($30m) over another five years, which means it is now costing them $12m a season ($6m in amortisation plus $6m in wages).

So they've managed to pay him 20 percent more, while saving themselves 20 percent. Everybody wins.

 

A very read. Thanks for posting.

 

Couldn't agree more. He saved our bacon in a number of games last season, chipping in with goals or acting as a defender at set pieces. I see no reason to move him on just yet. I would prefer we played a nice free flowing pass and move game, but Smith offers an alternative option that we can turn to if things are not working out. If we can replace him with something similar but better, great, but that's unlikely. He may come in handy for the Millwall away type games of the season. Just my opinion and to be honest, looking at the rest of the current squad and talk of top players leaving, we could well be in a relegation battle and relying on Smith again.

 

Football is all about opinions. We have tried hoofball as plan A, with Smith. We have tried it as plan B & C for the past 3 ****ing years. It's part of the reason we find ourselves fighting relegation every year. If you keep a player like Smith then you may as well tell your fans that the football will be ****e, we will be bypassing the midfield but he may get 10 goals a season. Whoopee