Jump to content

Were we too obsessed with 'sell on' value?


graeme_4
 Share

Recommended Posts

With all the transfer activity that's ongoing at the moment (which I'm pretty pleased with), it got me thinking about our signing policy over the last few years. 

Under McCoist it was extremely wasteful, and we paid well over the odds for guys that had little ability or any sell on value. This whole tenure was one embarrassment after another, and the amount of money pished up the wall on the likes of Kevin Kyle and Cribari was ridiculous.

Then came Warburton, who was (seemingly) the anti-McCoist. The majority of his signings early on were cheap, young, unproven and with potential to develop and be sold on. There was loads of buzz words around 'value' and 'sustainable business models', but when it came down to it we really lacked quality. I think he tried to bring in a better calibre of older and experienced player (Barton, Kranjcar, Hill) to balance this, but ultimately MW couldn't handle the bigger personalities that come with better players. 

Now onto Pedro - it seems like we've finally decided we need quality for the here and now, and he's right. They might not have sell on value, but they aren't (Alves aside) coming to the end of their careers either. We're signing players who should be right at the peak of their powers or are just about to hit that point. 

Not sure where I'm going with this, but I feel like I'm happy we're signing or linked with players who are near enough the finished article, with a mix of slightly younger players who aren't far behind. It's what we should and need to be doing now.

And I'm certainly looking forward to this season now much more than I was a month ago...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. 100%. The idea that every player we signed had to have some kind of sell on value otherwise it was a waste was ridiculous. Not every player will be sold on at a profit and tbh, signing a cf at 30/31 who will score 25-30 goals a season is far more valuable than signing a youngster who might only get ten goals but his value doubles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buy for cheap and sell for lots after development is a good strategy

We were just fucking shite at it

Our whole scouting system as been a shambles but hopefully its getting addressed,one of the reasons the taigs are so far ahead of us is they were so much better at this than us

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit in between. I think the whole point was to get sell-on value to steady the club, turn a profit and use the money to build a team of finished article players with a mixture of sell on value ones.

It hasn't worked out like that, we tried to do it on the cheap and fucked it and before that we had a manager offering Kevin Kyle ££££ a week when he openly said he'd have been happy with £500. The manager has been backed big style and the majority could still be sold on anyway. If Cardoso and Morelos have a couple of good seasons you're talking about £15-20 mill for both, which evens out the Alves signing, Candeias and potentially Dorrans who will hopefully all come in and be successful, without worrying about having to offload them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A players value to the club must be viewed as more than just his sell-on price. His contribution to the team and the success the team enjoys as a result of said contribution must surely be primary here and his resale value secondary. As a corollary to that, his resale value will usually increase if he's been part of a successful team anyway. Financial benefits to the team can accrue from success in terms of gate and merchandise sales as well as European income, all of which could be argued to be indirect indicators of a players value to the club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"sell on value" should NEVER be in the mind of a manager. They should be getting players in that can do a job in the here and now regardless of what happens later .... but many managers I think use this philosophy to ensure they get their man... a board loves a money spinner.  I'm sure King will have been told that there are potential profits to be made in future deals when some of these players are moved on.

BUT....  we need to balance the books and moving on players for a fee is the way of the world and something that has to be balanced beside a winning team. It's a tricky one that's for sure

 

 

 We never got a penny for Laudrup off Chelsea - he was worth more to us playing than selling him on....  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clubs like Rangers and Celtic exist in small backwater leagues with very little revenue from prize money, TV, and sponsorship.  In order to reach our full potential we must regularly qualify for Europe and buy players with a view to developing them, then selling them on for profit. 

Celtic have been extremely successful in recent years with their buy to sell policy and could yet make significant sums of money this summer from the likes of Tierney and Dembele.  We need to look at what they're doing and try to replicate that success.   We'll never be able to compete with them on the park, if we can't compete with their finances off the field. 

Is 'sell on value' important?  Absolutely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sell on value is a luxury IMO.

Get a team that forms the foundation for a number of years and add quality to it then worry about getting in younger players to supplement the main team with a view to sell on profits.

In saying that if Morelos does well the. We could see a sizeable return on him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said:

"sell on value" should NEVER be in the mind of a manager. They should be getting players in that can do a job in the here and now regardless of what happens later .... but many managers I think use this philosophy to ensure they get their man... a board loves a money spinner.  I'm sure King will have been told that there are potential profits to be made in future deals when some of these players are moved on.

BUT....  we need to balance the books and moving on players for a fee is the way of the world and something that has to be balanced beside a winning team. It's a tricky one that's for sure

 

 

 We never got a penny for Laudrup off Chelsea - he was worth more to us playing than selling him on....  

I keep saying it...we need to get away from the mindset about selling players, I mean what's the point in say running the taigs close this season then sell on say 3 of our better players to make a profit....the board need to run the club in a manner that we don't need to sell, we need to keep building so we can win the league and hopefully get into the champions league

I take your point about laudrup but we didn't win a thing in his last season....im not saying it was laudrup fault but if he had of moved on we may of moved in a different direction in the transfer market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said:

We need to concentrate on winning titles before we even contemplate buying for Sell On value. That means putting a winning team on the park whatever it's make up.

We are not a feeder club.

It's a nice thought but in reality every club outwith Barca & Real Madrid are feeder clubs. 

Sooner we get better at recruitment and selling players for maximum profit is when we will overtake the taigs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Smell the hotdog said:

It's a nice thought but in reality every club outwith Barca & Real Madrid are feeder clubs. 

Sooner we get better at recruitment and selling players for maximum profit is when we will overtake the taigs.

Aye but I want us taking players aff Barca & RM, I have high standards  :dance:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is both yes & no.

Of course, any player we sign must, first of All, contribute to a winning team but at some point we should also be looking to maximise our investment, because that what players predominantly are & any business wants a return on that investment.

Simply, a little but of both us where we should be, sign an Alves to bring stability & experience to the club that can only be achieved with more experienced campaigners but then you go & sign exciting young prospects like Rossiter or the young Columbian lad (name escaped me) who have the potential to both contribute with youthful vigour but also offer the chance of financial return which might offset those players with no such prospect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, reallyruff said:

A players value to the club must be viewed as more than just his sell-on price. His contribution to the team and the success the team enjoys as a result of said contribution must surely be primary here and his resale value secondary. As a corollary to that, his resale value will usually increase if he's been part of a successful team anyway. Financial benefits to the team can accrue from success in terms of gate and merchandise sales as well as European income, all of which could be argued to be indirect indicators of a players value to the club. 

Yep, agree with this. For us right now the priority should be to bring in players to improve the first team.

As you say If they do well the sell on part will take care of itself.

Not adverse to taking a punt on one or two young up and coming players but focus should be to pool majority of our resources into putting a better team on the park for today

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally we'll concentrate a lot of time on players to sell on, but Pedro had to create a team. To do that you need good, experienced players at their peak as well, and we didn't have many of those

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

With all the transfer activity that's ongoing at the moment (which I'm pretty pleased with), it got me thinking about our signing policy over the last few years. 

Under McCoist it was extremely wasteful, and we paid well over the odds for guys that had little ability or any sell on value. This whole tenure was one embarrassment after another, and the amount of money pished up the wall on the likes of Kevin Kyle and Cribari was ridiculous.

Then came Warburton, who was (seemingly) the anti-McCoist. The majority of his signings early on were cheap, young, unproven and with potential to develop and be sold on. There was loads of buzz words around 'value' and 'sustainable business models', but when it came down to it we really lacked quality. I think he tried to bring in a better calibre of older and experienced player (Barton, Kranjcar, Hill) to balance this, but ultimately MW couldn't handle the bigger personalities that come with better players. 

Now onto Pedro - it seems like we've finally decided we need quality for the here and now, and he's right. They might not have sell on value, but they aren't (Alves aside) coming to the end of their careers either. We're signing players who should be right at the peak of their powers or are just about to hit that point. 

Not sure where I'm going with this, but I feel like I'm happy we're signing or linked with players who are near enough the finished article, with a mix of slightly younger players who aren't far behind. It's what we should and need to be doing now.

And I'm certainly looking forward to this season now much more than I was a month ago...

Hopefully whatever these guys cost is recouped in silverware and European adventures..  they are more important than every player having a sell on value. If any of the younger guys develop and we cash in then great but it's about trophies and memories for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Dude said:

Yes. 100%. The idea that every player we signed had to have some kind of sell on value otherwise it was a waste was ridiculous. Not every player will be sold on at a profit and tbh, signing a cf at 30/31 who will score 25-30 goals a season is far more valuable than signing a youngster who might only get ten goals but his value doubles.

I think MW signed players, remember his 3 out of 10 comments, in the hope that they would unearth another Jamie Vardy from the lower leagues similar to the way I do my lottery every week.  

Garner, however, seems to sum up MW's signing policy.  Bought for 1.5m with a resale value of 500k, the rest we can't even sell.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...