Jump to content
IGNORED

Young guns waste of money?


sh1t_ref_again

Recommended Posts

I have seen a number of posts on here and twitter calling out the clubs transfer policy and branding Eisa Adelenkun, Moore, Watkins a waste of money and instead of wasting on these the club should have bought a proven striker instead, are these the same people who were branding Odowda and Eliasson a waste of money last year? Whilst we all want ever player to be a success, the reality is some of the punts will be  a total disaster (Engvill) and other we just get our money back on, but you may also uncover a jem. You have to give these players time to develop and adapt to playing at a higher standard and how LJ wants us to play. A few years ago the ones for the future we were picking up for free or for a few hundred thousand, but as we have progressed we have now upped the level of prospects we are going after and these are now million pound players, along with a greater risk maybe comes greater reward.

And if a proven striker could have come in at the cost of these players we would have done it as well.

At to these the likes of Dasilva and Palmer who will cost a lot more, but we are buying potential and I am fully behind our policy and see its the only way we can fight against the clubs with deeper pockets.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think many people are opposed to taking a punt on promising young talent, more that the club doesn't seem to be very good at spotting it.

Engvall a disaster but all clubs get those. Maggers, we may have gotten transfer money back but I daresay he was on a decent wedge whilst sat on the bench, Taylor Moore cost us £1.5m apparently 3 years ago and I bet we have paid nearly all his wages since then so maybe £2.5m so far and I see no evidence that will ever pay off. ODowda I think we paid £1.5m ish for, and in the 3 years he will have been with us (should he leave end of season, I would guess he'd have cost at least a further £1m in wages, so we need at least £2.5m to break even - which is possible maybe. Elliasson was reported to have cost £1.8m 2 years ago, so by seasons end nearly £3m spent. Again its possible we will get our money back but with him we may be planning big things for him next season. Eisa is another who cost £1.5m but who knows what will happen with him, and same with Adelakun.

None of these were a case of unearthing a gem for next to nothing, so whilst it is a good policy on paper, the club needs to be a damned sight better at it than it has been so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, phantom said:

Valid point but if those players cost circa £5m and didn't get near the team

Isn't there an arguement to buy more experience in a smaller quantity - say 2 players at £2.5m each?

That hasn't been the case with any though has it?

It has for a player costing £1.5m, would 2 players at £750k really be better, doubtful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Blimey. More evidence that fans don’t quite understand how the policy works. It’s no good judging a young player after 12-18 months!

Moore and ODowda 3 years by the end of season and I suspect we found out what a lemon Engvall was well before 18 months were up. LJ has had Elliasson for 2 years and still doesn't appear convinced.

Far too early on some I agree of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem to be a "fingers crossed" approach rather than buying a much smaller number of automatic first team starters as Cotts wanted to do.

Four promising fourth division youngsters or one Andre Gray?

It's loans and youth products that have been the real success story and are just about making up for the lack of progression of these speculative buys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said:

That hasn't been the case with any though has it?

It has for a player costing £1.5m, would 2 players at £750k really be better, doubtful.

Maybe not in transfer fee alone but money invested that wouldn't have been for an experienced pro?

11 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Blimey. More evidence that fans don’t quite understand how the policy works. It’s no good judging a young player after 12-18 months!

Err assume you are capable of looking back a bit further than that?

The names mentioned are just an example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
9 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

.....but the reality is there is such thing as FFP. And they do seem to be getting stricter.

Are they?

So far only Brum have been stung, yet many many others have found inventive ways to carry on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Alan Dicks' Barmy Army said:

Maybe not in transfer fee alone but money invested that wouldn't have been for an experienced pro?

 

Depends on the experienced pro in general.

If we're signing a youngster from abroad for £5m or so, taking into account their age they might be on 10-12k a week tops (speculative numbers, but not unreasonable). Plus signing on fee for one person.

If we're signing 2 experienced players for £2.5m we're also shelling out 2 signing on fees and 2 lots of wages, which because the player is more experienced could still be the same range (or more)* despite being a cheaper signing.

 

*Depending on where the player was signed from. Doubt Pisano would have been on as much as O'Neil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, phantom said:

Valid point but if those players cost circa £5m and didn't get near the team

Isn't there an arguement to buy more experience in a smaller quantity - say 2 players at £2.5m each?

Of course there’s an argument but to do that would not be in line with SLs strategy of building a squad with a decent percentage of home developed players.

Another way to look at it is that these younger players will benefit from being on Citys books even if they’re not anywhere near the first team. They gain valuable experience of men’s competitive football playing under different managers learning all the different styles of management.

It stands them in good stead later in careers wherever they end up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

Of course there’s an argument but to do that would not be in line with SLs strategy of building a squad with a decent percentage of home developed players.

Another way to look at it is that these younger players will benefit from being on Citys books even if they’re not anywhere near the first team. They gain valuable experience of men’s competitive football playing under different managers learning all the different styles of management.

It stands them in good stead later in careers wherever they end up.

I'm sure you're fishing there but I will bite (can't help myself)

You surely don't advocate the club pissing millions up against the wall so that we make the rejected players more useful to other presumably lower level clubs ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is we can only field eleven players at a time, so there will be disappointments and fans raising concerns with regard to appearances and why certain players were actually bought.

For instance, Bobby Reid has started 14 games this season for Cardiff and out of that has been subbed off nine times, wonder what they think having spent £10 million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they’ve been a waste of money. Last summers signings of Watkins, Adelakun and Eisa particularly. Combined, they have featured in 26 games, 16 of which were Marley Watkins. These 3 are also not that young, Watkins is 28, Eisa is 24 and Adelakun is 22. The latter two already have experience in the league pyramid so were clearly not brought in with the intention of being loaned out (cause, y’know, they haven’t left). So overall we spent £2.5m (plus whatever tribunal we pay for Adelakun) in fees and god knows how much in wages on three players who haven’t hit 30 games combined. Yes that’s an egregious waste of money, money we could’ve spent elsewhere on one player, a striker perhaps. Where’s the sense in spending s decent chunk on players who might come good in two or three years? There’s young players, like Da Silva, who can play with us and improve right now. That’s what we should be signing, not punting £3m odd into the clouds on three “maybe they’ll work out” players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Loon plage said:

You surely don't advocate the club pissing millions up against the wall so that we make the rejected players more useful to other presumably lower level clubs ??

Every club that endeavours to develop its own players will do pretty much the same as City do.Buy youngsters and hope to turn them into  pro players.That can benefit the club and the individual player.

That said, we all know that It’s a small percentage of youngsters /academy players that actually make it as a professional footballer and even less make the City first team. Obviously there are exceptions as Reid and Bryan were.

Im not sure what the figures are but I’d imagine that something like 1 in 60 actually develop enough quality to represent City in the first team.

The many that don’t make it eventually move on and the club retrieve some if not all of the initial fee so to argue that the fees on youngsters is a waste of money isn’t a well thought argument at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Wade Wilson said:

Yes, they’ve been a waste of money. Last summers signings of Watkins, Adelakun and Eisa particularly. Combined, they have featured in 26 games, 16 of which were Marley Watkins. These 3 are also not that young, Watkins is 28, Eisa is 24 and Adelakun is 22. The latter two already have experience in the league pyramid so were clearly not brought in with the intention of being loaned out (cause, y’know, they haven’t left). So overall we spent £2.5m (plus whatever tribunal we pay for Adelakun) in fees and god knows how much in wages on three players who haven’t hit 30 games combined. Yes that’s an egregious waste of money, money we could’ve spent elsewhere on one player, a striker perhaps. Where’s the sense in spending s decent chunk on players who might come good in two or three years? There’s young players, like Da Silva, who can play with us and improve right now. That’s what we should be signing, not punting £3m odd into the clouds on three “maybe they’ll work out” players. 

Not quite sure what you expect.  Every club gets signings wrong.  If you think that 100% of transfers will be successful then you will be disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RedDave said:

Not quite sure what you expect.  Every club gets signings wrong.  If you think that 100% of transfers will be successful then you will be disappointed.

I don’t think anyone can sit there and by happy with Eisa, Watkins and Adelakun. They’ve just been a waste of money, Watkins’ biggest contribution was breaking Kalas’ jaw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Of course there’s an argument but to do that would not be in line with SLs strategy of building a squad with a decent percentage of home developed players.

Another way to look at it is that these younger players will benefit from being on Citys books even if they’re not anywhere near the first team. They gain valuable experience of men’s competitive football playing under different managers learning all the different styles of management.

It stands them in good stead later in careers wherever they end up.

Like Fleetwood for example. 

:whistle2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...