In all seriousness, Mackay-Steven is not a bad player! Not good enough for us (yet) but still a good player. I'd have Johnny Russell (also of Dundee United) in a heartbeat though
I appreciate that you're not the brightest spark Carrabuh, and you don't like it when you're made to look a little silly, but at least make an effort to read my posts if you're going to try and be sarcastic. As I said above, transfermarkt (which is one of several professional valuers, though not as detailed or as up-to-date as the valuations the clubs will get, it is pretty accurate and reliable) values Hooper at 4.4m. So let me try and explain this simply to you, the valuation given multiplied by between two and three is a very good estimate of what would be a fair price for a player on a long contract. You may not like it, but that's how it is. As I said above, Hooper does not have a long time left on his contract, therefore we will not be paying c.£12m for him. I never said that. I certainly never said we would pay 10m. What I said was that 9-10m would be a fair price if he was on a long term contract. I realise you are obsessed with Juan Pablo to the point that you are blinded to how we actually will be able to stay in this league, but you are going to have to accept that there are many ways to kill a cat. Hooper is about the safest way we can spend £7m to kill this one. Juan Pablo can wait a year or two until we're able to take a risk. The old boy isn't going to get any worse. Right now our priority has to be staying up. I'll get frustrated if we don't start playing nice football once we've been in the league three years, otherwise financial stability is more important.
Wrong. Juan Pablo represents a technically adept, foreign taught player who plays great football. However, he also represents someone who has no experience of being kicked to shreds on a rainy North-West night, has never lived away from home and it is unsure whether he might be homesick. I.e. Juan Pablo represents a high-risk, high-reward player. The sort of player we should not be buying for a couple of years.
I have heard good things about JR, although I am yet to see him play myself. Have you seen him much? If so what do you think of him?
"I would be happy for the club to pay up to 9m for him and I'd say we jhaven't got a bargain, just a fair price." Even though you say he's not on a long term contract and we wouldn't pay that amount, you then say we should and blame me for the inference? I'll have a go at explaining this "simply" to you. Nevermind, I can't be bothered, read it yourself, if you can't understand your own comments then there is little hope I can drum it into you.
Ahahahahahaha! Congratulations Carrabuh, you've outdone yourself with stupidity. Nothing in that quote contradicts what I said above. Clearly you don't understand how valuation works. 18months on a contract is enough to add 1.5-2 times the asset value. So up to 9m would indeed, as I said,be a fair price, but not a bargain! 9-10m, or possibly more, would be what I would expect if he was on a long term contract, which he's not. Over that would be eye watering, but not unbelievable if Celtic are in a strong position and a club is willing to pay. As I said, though, we will not be paying that so whether you like the professional valuation or not, you've no need to worry. I suggest you stop trying to argue about valuing players, because it's quite clear you don't understand. In fact, it's quite clear you don't really understand financials at all. Don't get me wrong, your desire for great football is commendable and I too would love to see us playing with a much nicer style, but we have to be realistic and, above all, patient. The time for risk taking with players will come. I.e. when it doesn't risk our Premier League status. Come back to me in two years and, if we are still in the Prem, I will be completely on your side about Juan Pablo. Lest we forget, though, as pretty playing teams in this league go we are a long way from the worst. In fact, as the long ball count showed when it was posted a month or so ago, we are solidly mid-table on that front.
This is random! http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/norwich-transfer-news-canaries-set-1547350?
Rob, I doubt your brain has enough power to keep you alive for two years, let alone understand anything you have written in the present (or financials).
Ahahahahahaha that showed me! Totally destroyed my point... And gracious to boot! Look, aside from the sarcasm, I appreciate that valuation is not something everyone has experience of. You need not take my word for it, but I can tell you for free that in football advisory circles, Hooper now for 9m would not be considered surprising. I have explained in detail why. Anything more and we're being taken for a ride, anything less than about 7 and we'll have got a bargain. Of course, he could immediately get injured, or not fit in at all, in which case it would end up being Celtic with the bargain, but that's where hindsight comes in. Right her, right now, a player like Hooper is worth a healthy wad
Rob, listen, what is your argument here? Are you saying we should bid 9 million, if so then why put your response to " Originally Posted by carrabuh Don't tell me, tell the bloke who said bid 9-10 million for him because apparently its his official worth." BY SAYING "As I said above, Hooper does not have a long time left on his contract, therefore we will not be paying c.£12m for him. I never said that. I certainly never said we would pay 10m. What I said was that 9-10m would be a fair price if he was on a long term contract." WHEN YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID "I would be happy for the club to pay up to 9m for him and I'd say we jhaven't got a bargain, just a fair price." This is despite saying he's not on a long term contract. Instead of laughing to yourself, you are probably better investing your time getting your argument correct. Just say whether we should bid 9 million for him, I'm just puzzled by your choice of my comment to respond to because it infers you didn't when you clearly did.
Ok, I appreciate the jumble of different quotes has confused you because i was speaking in hypotheticals, so I'll start at the beginning: - Hooper's asset value is £4.4m - a player with eighteen months left on his contract one can expect to pay between 1.5 to 2 times the value - a player with a long term contract (two years plus) you can expect to pay 2-3 times the value - there are other variables (for instance a club desperately not wanting to sell) that could push up to 4 times (see Andy Carroll) Ergo, a fair price for Hooper would be between 7 and 9 million, which I said all along. If he was on a longer contract, then a fair price would have been between 9 and maybe even 12 million. Now is that understandable? Secondly, I never said we would pay 9 million. We won't. I doubt we have that sort of money. What I said was that I would be happy if we did. Does that make sense too? Which all leaves us well off what was actually my point, which was this: Juan Pablo represents a technically adept, foreign taught player who plays great football. However, he also represents someone who has no experience of being kicked to shreds on a rainy North-West night, has never lived away from home and it is unsure whether he might be homesick. I.e. Juan Pablo represents a high-risk, high-reward player. The sort of player we should not be buying for a couple of years. Which is the part you've conveniently ignored.
No. I'm saying I would be happy for us to. We won't, so it's irrelevant, but I wouldn't mind because professional valuation would deem this within the normal range. Look, the bit you don't seem to get is that 9m is the top end of fair for a medium length contract (18months), but the bottom for a long term contract. That's why I said it. Hypothetically, if he were on a long term contract, I would be happy with us paying up to 12m! That would be what he is considered to be worth. He's not, so we won't... It's not very interesting, but that is how valuation works. I My argument is correct. Just because you don't understand, doesn't make it incorrect, it just means its not clear. It's not about whether we should or we shouldn't bid that. We should bid as low as they are willing to sell. What I am saying is that 9m, if it were what we end up paying, would still be fair. I.e. imagine a scenario where we had 9m to spend and Celtic wouldn't accept a penny less. Then it might happen. I doubt we are prepared to spend much more than 7m, to be honest. If we get him for that, I would be very pleased, because I would feel we've got him for the lower end of a fair price. Not a bargain, but then you often have to get lucky to find a bargain.
We need forwards who can win games, I'm not interested in players who lack confidence those who need a couple of chances, target men or washed up has beens we need players who are ruthless that type of player you hate to see near the ball if they're playing against you. With the current situation we're having to be reactive which I dislike but we need to find the right kind of players to suit our team. In the summer we need to invest in some luxury and style. This week will hopefully be interesting I'm sure there is some continental targets as well as British based players.
We need forwards who can win games, I'm not interested in players who lack confidence those who need a couple of chances, target men or washed up has beens we need players who are ruthless that type of player you hate to see near the ball if they're playing against you. With the current situation we're having to be reactive which I dislike but we need to find the right kind of players to suit our team. In the summer we need to invest in some luxury and style. This week will hopefully be interesting I'm sure there is some continental targets as well as British based players.
