I think you have misunderstood. What I am saying is that selling players for big money should allow us to spend more than the £1-2m on new recruits that we have been doing. Otherwise, where would that money go? You sell Clarke for £25m, Ballard for £20m and Neil for £20m then (after sell on clauses) that gives you £40m or so to spend on players. That surely means you sign players for £7-10m and increase the quality in the squad. If we stick with Emilio Neverheardo for £500k from Le Harve then what is the point of the model?
I might be getting this round my neck but you seem to be criticising the club based on a scenario you've drawn up yourself. We've no real idea what 'the model' actually is or what plans the club have made for the various future possibilities. Perhaps they're already committed to doing everything you've said and more.
FFS I'm no accusing anyone of lining their pockets, I'm saying IF we sell a couple of players and bring in £30m+ and DON'T then sign some more established/higher quality players then you have to ask what the club is doing with that money? Is Clarke's departure funding the next 5 transfer windows or are we going to try to sign 3 or 4 players capable of getting us higher up the league? Are we a football club, or a finishing school for other teams? Questions, not accusations. As well you know Smug.
I'm not ****ing criticising anyone. I'm asking questions, I'm stating what I THINK the model means. I'm playing out how I THINK the model works and starting a conversation about how other people think the model works.
Yeah, as I've just said, you're concocting various scenarios and saying how the club would be wrong if they actually happen. I could just as easily post a story about us signing loads of experiences players, in the summer, and storming the PL. You've just stated, "Sticking with £1-2m signings will only line the pockets of the club's owners." You've no proof of that either, that's not a question, or an 'if' .... just more speculation.
-sustainability -accessing markets that not everyone is looking at -bringing in quality for below its market value -selling that quality at market value when it hits its peak -not have to compete with clubs at the same level in terms of transfer fees and wages. And on top of that it's more interesting than signing the usual overpaid mercenaries. Using it to run the club. Investing it in more signings who's value can be maximised.
I'm coming up with a single, likely scenario that we sell a couple of players in the summer. I am suggesting that this is the first demonstration of how KLD's model will work. I'm not criticising, I'm not accusing. I'm putting across my opinion of how things could/should work. If anything, I'm a massive fan of this model, albeit I think there are room for some tweaks to the approach. You seem to be spoiling for a fight Smug, and I don't understand why.
You've just stated, "Sticking with £1-2m signings will only line the pockets of the club's owners." If that's not criticism, or an accusation, I've no idea how I lost my grasp of the English language tbh. I'm not spoiling for a fight. You've put forward various 'points' and I've responded ... ... unless I'm totally wrong, on this as well, the entire basis of a forum for debates. Are the other posters, who've responded in the same vein, spoiling for a fight ... or is it just me? I've not been aggressive, I've not insulted you and have been polite.
We're already doing that without huge sales. My question is, can we look slightly higher up the market and maybe buy players ready for the here and now who ALSO have resale value. Let's be honest here, of all the signings made this season, only Jobe has improved the 1st team (and that is up for debate). Now, there's nothing to suggest these lads won't come good, I think there are some very good players there, but would it be a terrible thing to sign 3 or 4 lads who are ready to hit the ground running and get us up the table whilst these younger lads develop? I don't know, I'm just offering out suggestions, but at no time have I suggested we sign the "usual overpaid mercenaries" When Clarke goes in the summer, I'd like us to look at the lad Whittaker from Plymouth as his replacement, but let's be honest you are looking at £10m for him in today's market. Not a figure achievable now, but possibly doable in the summer. At 23 he has time to improve and has potential to have his value doubled with a couple of good seasons for us. That stays withing the principles of the model, but also as the potential to gives us an immediate uplift (especially if that approach is replicated in a couple of other areas of the team) in terms of where we finish and how close we can get to promotion. I'd argue that replacing Clarke with Sergio Griorgini, an 18yo winger from Metz who will come good in 2-3 years potentially sets us back 2-3 years unless Mundle or Ba can be the ones to step into the Clarke void. My understanding of the model has always been - buy a player with potential for a £2m, develop him, play him, sell him for £20m. Take that £20m and buy 2 players for £7m (for example) - develop them, play them. Sell them for £25m each. Take that £50m and buy 3 players at £10m each etc etc etc Positive iterations each time, without breaking the bank and make us non self sustainable. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe it will always be 18/19yos from foreign academies who will eventually be sold on for a tidy profit - that makes excellent business sense, but where does it leave us in terms of league position?
We're in a good spot financially to really push on this summer. All of our major assets, outside of Rigg, are tied down to at minimum 2026. Only Evans, Dack and Taylor are out of contract this summer. This means we can dictate the market and get good value for our players. We got good money for an injured Stewart with under a year left on his deal so I trust the club to get the biggest fee possible for our assets. @TopCat_ is right though, when we sell a player it has to lead to us shopping in a higher price bracket. I suspect we will lose at minimum of two big players this summer so lets say that brings us around £40million, at least £30million of that has to be reinvested into the squad with players in the £5-£10million range being the main targets. Coventry have done a good job of selling and then reinvesting and not really dropping off in terms of league position. You can then use the surplus money for things like training ground upgrades, stadium upgrades, more staff hires, new contracts and so on. It's a big crossroads this summer and it will show what the 'model' truly is.
Well you certainly achieved that Its good to stimulate some discussion and at least here we seem to be able to do so in good faith
Yeah, I largely agree with you. My original response to you was that I don't think we'll deviate from the policy of mostly signing players who's value can be increased. You're right, as we progress, you'd imagine that the quality of the potential (if you see what I mean) will increase.
Yeah I do, and that's the point I'm trying to make. The model can still work, even if you spend £30m on 4 players as long as they are the right players (in terms of the model)
Very poor post mate, I'll leave you with it. I often get comments like that or 'Smug's screaming at someone who doesn't agree with him' ... ... invariably from someone who's just said something stupid and is trying to wriggle out of it. Perhaps reading your own signature would explain better than I can. Have a great day with your scenario building.
Personally think we have already seen it's intentions. We have sold players for decent wedge Ross Stewart. Instead of having a quality forward for 5 or 7m. We now have 3 or 4. And none have been effect or shown they can get goals. They have 3 amongst themselves. People laughed at Simms but I see another hatrick for him last night. In 45 mins he scored the same as 3 strikers we have in 30 games or summit.
Yeah, I think that's right. If it was me running it, I'd be grouping potential signings into at least three categories. Players who's value can be increased that will improve the first team; players who's value can be increased that may improve the first team; players who's value won't increase but who's presence is beneficial to the group (these being in the minority of players signed). But to be honest, I think that's pretty much reflected in the players we've signed overall. Even if the numbers from each category hasn't been quite in the right proportions. So you might still get those £1-2m signings but they won't be the only ones.
Thats my take on the approach we will take as well (Once there have been a couple of sales), a mixture of signings for short, medium and long term. The problem with the summer and January windows has been in my opinion where we have bought with the future in mind and not the short or medium term needs of the team. This may well stand us in a better position next season as the players from this seasons transfer dealings are a year further on in their development. I have an interesting train of thought, that the focus is on a much longer term "project" with eyes on the full Sustainabilty rules that hit in 2025/26. I have pasted the wording of whats coming in 25/26 and my interpretation of how that COULD affect us As part of The Squad Cost Rule spending on wages (players and head coaches), transfers and agent fees will be capped at 70 per cent of a club's revenue. This will be assessed over a calendar year and not a season, so spending in the summer transfer window will be included in the calculations. For a club like us if you base it on what our anticipated turnover is of £35 million excluding players sales. Players sales are then added onto the income figure so (as an example) in the summer we sell 3 players for £50 Million - Total Income 85 Million, that still only gives us £38.5 Million to play with, that has to cover incoming transfers and wages for players and playing staff. If you took an average playing side salary of £15k a week with a 25 man squad and 5 playing staff thats £23.4 million per year in wages alone, which would only leave £15 million for transfer fees. At current rates thats what? 2 Championship players? but we have sold 3 to get that figure so we are a potentially a player short. If i have mis-interpreted the rules, then hopefully someone will point it out and set me on the right track.
