JoeAman08

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Danny Ings is the most high profile PFCC compo.

Assuming that he’s had two improving seasons (he should do, he’s only 19), and clubs courting him might include the top 6 clubs, then I’d expect Ings record to be broken.

A fee like that after two more seasons would be having our cake and eating it too. Of course AS may not want that but I think shows why we are driving such a hard bargain and expect we would next summer still. 

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Danny Ings is the most high profile PFCC compo.

Assuming that he’s had two improving seasons (he should do, he’s only 19), and clubs courting him might include the top 6 clubs, then I’d expect Ings record to be broken.

A fee like that after two more seasons would be having our cake and eating it too. Of course AS may not want that but I think shows why we are driving such a hard bargain and expect we would next summer still. 

11 minutes ago, P'head Red said:

I would rather keep him than not. The only issue is, we get to next summer and he hasn't signed a new deal, teams could be willing to wait another year and he'll go for free. 

To be honest two years of Scott would be a dream. As I said, the money is nice, but not sure we’ll run the club in the way that we need to sell. I wonder what our compensation would be if his contract ran down? @Davefevs or @Mr Popodopolous any insights on that? Assuming a premier league club. 
 

Blackburn just done it with Brereton Diaz. Valued him highly to the point he didn’t go. Didn’t pay off with promotion but shows you can keep players destined for bigger things happy. 

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thinking one or two windows ahead, short of promotion if we don't get a £25m bid what's the plan?

I expect clubs will try to leverage down the price because it's business, obviously. Factors to consider:

1) Scott may have his head turned by a PL or foreign top division club. See Gykores at Coventry and in general many players down the years.

2) How long has the contract offer been on the table for?

3) Once we get into the final 18 months value v time wise starts to cross a threshold, thinking the January window. Usually not a good time to sell although post a Winter World Cup that could change- Souttar at £15m seemed a bit toppy IMO. Could depend on how we are doing on the pitch too as to our necessity and or inclination to sell at that point.

You would know the figures better than me but doesn’t the last covid year drop off after this season? I expect we’ll be pretty comfortable going into next summer either way for how we now do business. 
 

So even if we get 10-12m for Alex next summer, we will be well off. It seems to me we will want to be more in the 8-10m loss range at most going forward. Not pushing that 13m a season. Maybe a rare occasion we think we are close and add a piece or two and push it for a season. Just don’t think that will be the norm like it was under Ashton. So if that is the case expect everyone is calm.
 

Maybe we do something for AS if he doesn’t go this window. Like extend a season with a release clause more like what we’d expect to get for him with a year left. Maybe even a bit less. Obviously max his wage so he has protection against injury. 
 

I think probably best for everyone if he goes this summer for the 20-25m up front plus add ons and sell ons. Just don’t think we are desperate like we were 12-24 months ago. 

2 minutes ago, Grey Fox said:

And what would our odds be if our squad included :

g/k Heaton

Back four Ayling, Webster, Kelly , Bryan

Midfield Brownhill, Scott , Naismith, Williams 

Forwards Semenyo , Reid 

Or we can just continue to be mediocre, I know what I prefer 

 

While I agree about ambition, think Scott is the wrong example. The finances have been battered and selling Scott sorts the club out for minimum the next 6 windows. That allows us to be more ambitious for the next 3 seasons not just this one. 
 

Selling Webster was unambitious. Maybe even Lloyd Kelly. Selling both Reid and Bryan was a bit though we did get good value considering the contracts. Perhaps we should have balanced books by selling one and not the other? Idk the answer. Brownhill we kept longer than I thought we would. Semenyo you can argue didn’t change our trajectory one bit last season. 
 

There is a fine line between being financially smart and ambitious. Perhaps look at it as selling Scott means we can be more ambitious for the next 3-4 seasons. We can’t forget Scott himself needs to make a statistical leap this season too for it to be worthwhile. Without the whole goals and assists debate, if he is to play behind the striker most of the season he will need to add more. He probably isn’t a natural fit to how we play as we play more like 2 pivots and an attacking player central. Whereas Scott seems to be best maybe in between those roles

15 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

The most important thing with Scott for me, is to get a sizable sell on clause, 

Agreed and why a west ham, Brighton or Wolves would be best. 

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If Scott goes then game changer, don't need to worry for years if it's for £25m or so. Even close to £20m and we'd be very much secure.

I do see what you're saying though, even if Scott goes for big money we'll only reinvest a portion to keep clear..in theory we could replicate clubs like that hut better albeit Millwall wage bill 2021-22 £23.3m so that is on the rise. Depends how close we want to push the adjusted £39m tbh.

Yea just my opinion we won’t really push that 39m going forward. I think still one bad year on the books still for the 3 year period so a Scott sale helps take the pressure off there. I wonder though whether we think we are fine as is and maybe with one more(Knight?). So we can keep Scott and just not be able to add in January. 
 

Then if we must sell him next summer for 12-15m. Worse for accounts but with the last awful year dropping off we’d be fine anyway. If we say 13m a season, how close to that do you think we are getting this season? Are we still right up on it? Or have we shed the wage bill enough that we looking at more like 8-10m? 

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I actually think we're abour £36-37m or thereabouts due to the overhang from 2021-22 but moving forward I can't disagree..this is before sales. Once that £19m FFP loss from 2021-22 is gone clearer waters still lie ahead plus the TV deal rises form 2024-25 which means more revenue for all

Yes what I am saying but I don’t think we’ll want to push that 36m over 3 seasons anymore. We could sign 5 two mil players on 15k a week comfortably if we sell Scott(for example just throwing something random out). What would the pressures of that be the last year of that Scott money?
 

I think Ashton may have been a wakeup call to SL. He knows he’ll post losses but does he want to post the max losses on minimum return? I think he has seen the likes of Luton, Coventry and Millwall(growing budget I know) be more successful on smaller losses. Just my opinion anyway. If Scott adds a 7m a year plus to our accounts I don’t think it means we’ll spend that. 

56 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Good thing we've got a.good academy,,

And to think people wanted to scrap it.....

But seriously, we are moving in the right direction, we get 25 mil, I reckon  nige will get 8 mil of that,

Idk it is a weird one now. When we sold webster we brought in big fees and wages. Think we all agree the wages won’t be happening. I just don’t think they’d say here is 8m.

I just think we’d keep building the squad in a similar manner. We’d maybe just be able to get our top targets a bit more often over the next 5-6 windows. Or we could move a few targets forward. 

The right way to go about it I think which is why I think our asking fee is 25m. 25m this summer or 15m next summer. We are healthier now financially and will remain so. So we won’t really be using those funds anyway imo. I don’t think we will be running close to ffp maximum anymore. 

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Looking at age, trajectory, position. Trying to compare different fees, age position similar stages and of career although strikers v midfielders? What percentage higher does a striker cost.

Maybe it's a pointless exercise.

I don’t think it is pointless. Or even if it is, it is fun to do. Just don’t think the player you were comparing to AS was worthwhile for discussion. Sounding harsher than I am intending btw. 

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The reverse argument works too.  Very few transfers can be compared like for like, all manner of little nuances why two “like” players might be valued completely differently.

Not sure why it creates so much fuss on here.

If Nige and Steve and Phil want to value Alex at £25m that’s up to them.  That might be purely because they think nobody will pay it.

We will find out at some point.

It shouldn’t stop discussion though, but valuations are rarely so black and white.

True. Not many similar to Scott anyway really. Most his age and level are at bigger clubs. So hard to put a value anyway imo. So no reason we shouldn’t set the market for it. 
 

For championship midfielders he is somewhere inbetween Kalvin Phillips and James Maddison. Phillips went up with Leeds. Maddison went for 22m plus add ons or around that figure. Of course that was 5 years ago or so. 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Inter but yes. Part of me thinks we won't but then I see Balogun reportedly in the market for £35m and think Scott at £25m is good if not a bit cheap!

Bit who blinks first? I wonder if Scott himself would be happy to stay another year just jn case or is he seeing a move as inevitable. Only he and his entourage will know that I guess.

Idk why you keep mentioning Balogun and Scott in the same breath. Balogun is coming off a 21 goal season in the French top flight for a team that overachieved and finished 4th. He is also now playing at a senior international level. Arsenal wanting 35m for him doesn’t make Alex Scott at 25m cheap. 

Never thought he got a consistent run, in a consistent team or in a consistent position. He arrived and we went almost straight into covid. He had a lot against him in our most dour sides in years. Watched him play back in his own country against PSG a few weeks back and he looked good. 
 

Is time to move on but reckon we’ll look back and think we didn’t do him many favours. He’ll be a good player in a top league for years imo. 

3 minutes ago, RedRaw said:

Well it would be a rejection as the club have made it clear what the starting point is. 

if a club comes in with a bid of say £22m, potentially it becomes a negotiation…up front fee with add-ins to take it to minimum £25m+
 

Alex committed to the club on a long contract and we gave him the platform and developed him into a position where some top uk and European clubs are interested in him….let’s not roll over and have our tummy tickled, we get what we want and he leaves with all our blessing

 

I don’t think budging on 25m is rolling over. It is being realistic for the health of our club and the career of Alex Scott. Lets be clear, he stays and gets a nasty injury, it hurts both us and the player.  
 

20m quid is with a quick look a top 5 fee paid for someone with no premier league experience from championship to higher league. 4 of those were attacking players with goals and assists to their name and a CB named Webster. All pre covid sting I believe as well. 

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Steve indicated that £25m was the minimum, more if multiple clubs bid for him. I doubt we will reduce the price by £7m.

Think it is easy to say until you get that 20m bid. It isn’t a money thing for me either. We know SL can afford it. It is looking at how that sets us up for the next 3-4 seasons with that money. 25m is a good number to quote imo and don’t think it should go below 20m. 

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Daily Mail says Inter are set to make an £18m bid. If so.

Too low of course.

To be honest, at that price(says £18m I know euros has been out there too) you have to start the discussion with Alex himself I think. I always looked at the 25m as the max. 20-25m and I don’t think we withhold the move from him. That would have to be guaranteed 20-25m though. Then some add ons and sell on. 
 

It isn’t an easy line to toe. Being ambitious and keeping our best but also providing a platform for players to move on. At 18m quid it becomes a negotiation imo not just a flat out rejection. 

1 hour ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Don’t think any of them aside from Stones have done well enough to oust Maguire, he’s in possession of the shirt and has always been good playing for England. 
 

I get picking players on form etc etc but I think centre back is high up in the positions that you need more tried and trusted players. Same as goalkeeper, which is why Pickford is firmly the no 1. 

Which I think is fine for a time. Why I don’t complain about Pickford because he is playing week in and week out. Not sure it sends a great message to the younger players trying to break through to the squad that no matter how well you do Maguire is still in.

Idk my opinion anyway. I agree about more tried and trusted but many of the ones I have named are plenty tried and trusted for their clubs. Running the risk of missing out on better just because he come in at the right time. England hasn’t won anything and come up short a few times now in recent years. So I don’t see how you can just say ok we won’t look to upgrade when there are options. 

12 minutes ago, Betty Swallocks said:

Harry Maguire plays in a position where we haven’t been well stocked with quality or quantity.
Another season of not playing and I think Levi Colwill will have taken his place. 

Disagree especially over the last year or so. Tomori, Stones, Guehi, Smalling, Dunk, Burn(playing LB) and Mings all have been playing more often and arguably better than HM has over the same period. 

50 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m quite happy if clubs see £25m as too high.  I’d suggest we are pricing him because we want to keep him…and that’s what we should be doing.  If someone wants to go high, then fine.

First bit I agree with.  Second bit - £10-15m is just as useful - I don’t.  The reason why is I don’t think he stays this summer without extending his term.  Plus I’m sure the contract offer on the table does exactly that as well as increases Alex’s salary.

I think there is still a bit in the pot too, plus likely we might lose someone like Wilson for a few quid too.

As it stands I don’t think we need much more than Jason Knight.

I did say after not as useful. Just don’t think we’ll be pushing out the FFP boat either way. Even if we are say under the 39m allowance by 15m I don’t think it means we’ll just go for it. So why sell a year early just because we get a few more quid? That is my opinion on it anyway. 
 

I also don’t think it makes much sense for Alex Scott to sign a new deal if he does not leave this summer. Yes a risk from an injury standpoint but I can’t remember many of his reputation signing new deals making a future deal harder. Maybe Caicedo with a gentleman's agreement to let him leave this summer but still looks like they could be pricing him out of a move.
 

Not sure how common release clauses are in the championship. Realistically, if he did extend with a release clause, surely his agent wouldn’t agree to 20m or more. I personally think it would be risky for the player to have much higher than 15m. He is almost guaranteed a move in the next 12-13 months. No one is meeting that price at the min. More unlikely in January imo with strikers more the priority in that window. So means he stays for a year and next summer would be looking at a more affordable 10-15m imo. I just don’t see him signing something new if he does not leave. 
 

Jason Knight and it looks really strong. I know we don’t like collecting players and have a few forwards. I’d like to see one more different than what we have. Wells, Conway and Cornick similar for me as central forwards. None really big but good at passes to feet and holding. So maybe a bigger centre forward. Then on wide options have good players but maybe someone with just pure pace that can keep high lines on their toes. Either option maybe and think we’d be complete. Can see us maybe running out of ideas at times in forward positions.

I get why clubs are balking at the price. Suits us because I really feel this is a strong side at the minute with keeping everyone. I am not worried about losing value. Selling next summer for 10-15m is just a useful being another year away from covid loses(ok maybe not just as useful but still pretty good). 
 

The only thing to worry about is our scope to continue to add this summer without the sale of Scott. Also, the ability to offer new contracts to some like Pring, Vyner and perhaps a good performer or two during the season. 

I am pretty relaxed about AS. Ask 25m maybe go as low as 22m. If not, we get another season of him. We’d still possibly fetch 12-15m for him next summer if he has a good season again. 25m helps more but don’t think FFP is much of an issue anymore. So 8 10 12 15 next summer will still go quite a ways. We don’t seem to be a club that will push FFP to the limit going forward anyway. 
 

I think if he can take another step forward in his game, then we can be a top 6 contender this season with the current squad(another 1-2 in as well). It may be more worth it to us having him play. 

44 minutes ago, Percy Pig said:

Assists is a pointless stat. You could play the greatest pass in history on a plate for a striker and if he misses it you it counts for nothing. 

Key passes, line breaks and passes leading to shots demonstrate more about a midfielder than any other stats. Those are areas where Scott is streets ahead of his peers. 

He's also never in a million years a 10. But that's by the by. 

Agree about assists. Agree about where Scott excels too and that he isn’t a natural 10. 
 

Just think he is talented enough to have better numbers when he does play further forward. I know not always that black and white dependent on systems and what is asked. Just would like to see more growth from him. Take another step and dominate at this level if he were to stay. 

29 minutes ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Shouldn’t be forgotten that due to injuries in the squad, he turned out as a RB/RWB in a few games, which won’t have helped his attacking stats. 

Pinch of salt, but going off tranafermarkt, he had 13 games behind the striker and registered 0 goals and assists. 
 

Maybe it just isn’t his position that far forward. I would agree with that I think he is more of a box to box or even a playmaker from deep. However, with as talented as he is, you’d expect more return in the basic goals and assist stats. 
 

Wherever he plays, if he stayed another season, I’d like to see him put the team on his back a bit more. Doesn’t mean more goals and assists per se. Just be the main man that everyone knows is the key to how we play but still rarely stop him

16 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

Great, then he'll be staying. Good times.

Exactly!!  10m is very low. Can’t see it being lower than 20m and that be with serious add ons. 
 

Like having the chat would you rather have our squad as is now(maybe add roberts and another) and keep Scott another season and get 10-15m for him. Or get the 20-25m this season? 
 

Personally, would rather have Scott for the season. I’d like to see him put this team on his back in a way and drag us to a playoff spot. Obviously the squad around him is a strong as ever too but his third full season with all the praise and accolades, it would be nice to see him take the statistical leap in terms of goals, assists and key passes. I don’t really fancy us for playoffs without Scott. Perhaps similarly positioned to slightly better. With Scott, and another step forward from him, I can see us in the top 6. 
 

The 25m would almost be too much for how we run the club now. Would we go buy 4-5 million quid players? With more expensive fees probably comes higher wage demands and we have a structure now(for the good). Or does it evolve with such a sale? 

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Joe - we can agree to disagree.

His name has nothing to do with it….generally many City fans think nobody is good enough for us.  If it was another footballer with his profile we’d be thinking differently.  Take Matty James signing.

I was skeptical of James but he did come off a good season with Coventry tbf and we had a need for a CM.
 

JB would have been a good signing but just wasn’t sure he walks into the side as it stands. Not gutted he isn’t returning. Roberts seems much more the profile we should be bringing in for that position. 

22 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You make it sound like we weren’t trying to sign him?  As for position, a lot of OTIB said “he ain’t a LB he can’t defend” so with Pring our best LB where do you think he was being signed to play?  As a high earner he wasn’t coming to share minutes.  Was he?

Idk but not sure he better than Pring at LB. Don’t think he is a good enough attacking player to beat out Mehmeti and Bell either. So must have been to share minutes? I don’t think we were going to flat out drop Pring, Mehmeti and Bell. There were minutes to fill from Dasilva’s departure and that is about it. 
 

Have thought maybe we might drop the one behind the striker for maybe more tradition 3 in a 433. That would maybe open up minutes for him there too as a LCM. 
 

Take out the name and history. Would have been signing a 29 year old former standout at that this level but not quite good enough for the step up. One who has come off a rough season where fitness was an issue. I think many would find it odd we are looking to replace Pring with that profile. Also think most would want their left winger to not be a LB even if an attacking one. 
 

Also, don’t think earning has anything to do with minutes. He’d have had to beat someone out so fair enough if he did. As long as someone fits the wage structure I don’t think the number matters that much to Pearson. 

Unless Pring is leaving I never got the Bryan signing. All the talk of playing in midfield or on the wing seemed silly too. Yes the versatility is there but not sure signing basically a career left back for the left wing would be something anyone was interested in if it was any other player. Not saying wouldn’t have him back but he wouldn’t be first choice for me on either left side position as we currently stand. 
 

As someone else said, Roberts seems a much more sensible signing. Left side of the defence versatile and with Atkinson out covers us there and behind Pring which we don’t have an option currently. Still allows you to sign Currie if you really thought highly of him. 
 

We talk about pathways and all that but we sign most to 3 year deals. Naismith, Weimann and James we all need to look at as being replaced in the next year or two. Football moves fast and a signing today that looks strange may look like a miracle just 6-12 months down the line. What I like is we are being linked with good players. Players with experience in terms of games played and versatile but all in all proven.

Mcrorie ready to take the next step from Scottish League to English championship.  Dickie arguably took his step and regressed. Still a great age and ready to get back to that level. Roberts has good experience in L1. Was in a good setup at Brighton and ready to take the next step in his career. 
 

These feel like less clubs in the bags and punts that they used to be. More measured and sure. That is are target we go and get it done. You are a bit unsure then we move to the next. We definitely feel more professional than we have in a long time. Probably Steve Cotterill. Of course summers are a bit more boring not being linked with 30 players from 7 different leagues