Signing Caulker?

[Nibor]

Taarabt was quoted at 4.5 m but eventually went for 1m. he also had games in the Spurs first team. I think it is less about the money but where harry thinks the boy can end up. If he feels he can make a top flight defender then he will never sell him, they hardly need the money. I am quite sure Spurs will want to see another 2 years from the lad, more Championship or prem loan experience to see how he develops. The most important thing for Caulker is that he plays every week. He needs games as all young players do. I am sure Caulker would see his future higher up in the Prem, and why would he not have that ambition but equally a season on the bench at a lower Prem club is no use to him either.

Taarabt wanted to go to QPR because he had Modric, Van der Vaart, Kranjcar and a few other superstars in their prime in front of him at Spurs and QPR could offer him more money than he was on. He was never going to get into the first team for them.

Gallas, King and Woodgate are nearing retirement whether for age or injury and Dawson and Kaboul aren't anything for Caulker to be frightened of.

Caullker has said himself the plan is for him to go on loan in the Prem next season, and there's little doubt he will make it at the next level.

'Arry doesn't want to sell him, and won't. If he did, it would be because Caulker wanted to leave in order to play, and there'd be buyers well ahead of us in the queue and a price bigger than £3m because of that. It won't happen.

Our only hope of getting Caulker next season is that a Prem loan doesn't materialise and he enjoyed his time here so much he's willing to come back. It's somewhere between slim and no chance and I think closer to the latter sadly.

[REDOXO]

I made a comment recently about signing Caulker on the forum and many said we had no chance. They are probably right but if there is the slimest chance of signing this boy I would suggest that one day he might make one of those threads about best and worst signings, god Love'im.

[Red Robin]

personally feel the likes of caulker are the signings required if the club want to hit the prem.

millen says he is building a team to challenge next season,caulker would be a fantastic signing,he likes it at AG why not it could happen.

millen would be crazy not to ask and see what reaction comes back.

players like maynard,pittman,adomah,caulker are the standard required.

[Alex_BCFC]

He will be playing in the Prem next season so forget it.

[bcfczd]

Gallas, King and Woodgate are nearing retirement whether for age or injury and Dawson and Kaboul aren't anything for Caulker to be frightened of.

However, if tottenham need a new gallas, tottenham will tend to pay £10+ million for a proven player who is less of a gamble

[Nogbad the Bad]

If he does stay in the championship then why not with us?

Maybe the answer from Harry will be "ok, have him for another year, but give me first option on Maynard"?

Maynard is City's ace card when it comes to the possibility of getting Caulker.

If Spurs did want first option on Maynard - not an unlikely possibility at all - then KM could insist it was dependent on Caulker remaining at AG, either on loan or as part of an eventual swap deal with perhaps 3m coming our way.

Redknapp is getting on a bit (64) and may not be thinking very long term at Tottenham - he might well go on to manage England in the not too distant future. Either way, short term success is always the priority in the PL and they may well continue to sign 2 centre backs a year to try and ensure it. However highly he rates Caulker for the future he'll want CL qualification and Cup success now, and will be less concerned with what happens at Spurs in 2 or 3 years time.

Under those circumstances It might well be in Caulker's best interests to continue to improve in the Championship as first choice with City rather than be 4th/5th choice at Spurs with international new signings forever on the horizon.

We've seen that Caulker is a player who could potentially lead this club to promotion and signing him would make the inevitable departure of Maynard very much easier to bear.

[Monkeh]

How many of those are defenders?

And.....if Harry Redknapp thought Caulker was already good enough he wouldn't have allowed him out on loan.

You never said defenders you said 20 yo and used Rooney and Owen for your arguement,

So don't come back at me simply because I pointed out you were wrong,

[Robbored]

You never said defenders you said 20 yo and used Rooney and Owen for your arguement,

So don't come back at me simply because I pointed out you were wrong,

I mentioned Wilshere, Owen and Rooney because I couldn't think of any 20 year old PL defenders. I would have though that was obvious.

[SC_Red]

Curtis Davies is the only one I can think of.

I think there'd be a great chance of Caulker being worth more than £3m after a season or two at this level (the risk I'd worry about more would be injury with that many eggs in one basket) - but I think £3m is very very unlikely to be enough to get him even if he wanted to come, in his one season here will have already made him worth more.

I think you have to take the Bristol City factor into account. Our players just dont go for as much as higher profile clubs players or clubs with a reputation for producing good youngsters like Cardiff and Southampton.

Maynard was different as he's a striker and their value is pretty easily established by goals scored so by him scoring at a higher level than the one we bought him from he was always likely to go up in value. But look at other strikers at this level whove sc.ored less goals than him but still get touted for more because of who they play for like Chopra and Carrol

I think there would be very little chance of a defender playing for Bristol City being valued at anymore than £3m by prem managers after a season or 2 at this level because our players simply dont command big fees historically like some other clubs do.

£3m would be a massive risk on a defender and I dont think we'd pay it even if Spurs did agree to that as a fee. I think he's worth more like £1.5m with a lot of add ons for appearances, U21 call ups and sell ons.

[Nibor]

I think you have to take the Bristol City factor into account. Our players just dont go for as much as higher profile clubs players or clubs with a reputation for producing good youngsters like Cardiff and Southampton.

Maynard was different as he's a striker and their value is pretty easily established by goals scored so by him scoring at a higher level than the one we bought him from he was always likely to go up in value. But look at other strikers at this level whove sc.ored less goals than him but still get touted for more because of who they play for like Chopra and Carrol

I think there would be very little chance of a defender playing for Bristol City being valued at anymore than £3m by prem managers after a season or 2 at this level because our players simply dont command big fees historically like some other clubs do.

£3m would be a massive risk on a defender and I dont think we'd pay it even if Spurs did agree to that as a fee. I think he's worth more like £1.5m with a lot of add ons for appearances, U21 call ups and sell ons.

I don't think the Bristol City factor exists. We simply haven't had a young player anywhere near as good as those that have gone for lots of money. Maynard will go for lots eventually because he is that good, so would Caulker in the extremely unlikely event he was our player.

Spurs won't sell him for £3m so it's all a moot point really.

[SC_Red]

I don't think the Bristol City factor exists. We simply haven't had a young player anywhere near as good as those that have gone for lots of money. Maynard will go for lots eventually because he is that good, so would Caulker in the extremely unlikely event he was our player.

Spurs won't sell him for £3m so it's all a moot point really.

possibly. but do you think if we'd gone up last season and Maynard had scored a few in the Prem that a team like Liverpool would of come in and bid £35m for him? I dont because we arent seen as a club with players worth big money historically.

I agree Spurs wont sell him and in a way I'm glad as I think its a decision I'd rather have taken out of our hands.

[Nibor]

possibly. but do you think if we'd gone up last season and Maynard had scored a few in the Prem that a team like Liverpool would of come in and bid £35m for him? I dont because we arent seen as a club with players worth big money historically.

I just don't think history or where you buy the player from has anything to do with it. We haven't been in a position where we've had a player worth a lot of money with a long contract where we could hold out other than once with Akinbiyi and we got £3.5m for him which at the time was very big money.

If Maynard had scored 18 goals in the Prem I expect he'd be worth what Darren Bent was at a similar stage in his career when signed from Charlton who don't have that sort of history either - £16.5m - provided he had more than a year to run on his contract.

There are plenty of examples of players going for big money from clubs that haven't had a history of doing it and Carroll's fee was utterly ridiculous, it can't be used for any useful comparison.

[SC_Red]

I just don't think history or where you buy the player from has anything to do with it. We haven't been in a position where we've had a player worth a lot of money with a long contract where we could hold out other than once with Akinbiyi and we got £3.5m for him which at the time was very big money.

If Maynard had scored 18 goals in the Prem I expect he'd be worth what Darren Bent was at a similar stage in his career when signed from Charlton who don't have that sort of history either - £16.5m - provided he had more than a year to run on his contract.

There are plenty of examples of players going for big money from clubs that haven't had a history of doing it and Carroll's fee was utterly ridiculous, it can't be used for any useful comparison.

I do. I think a player doing it at this level for someone like Newcastle or WBA for example will go for a lot more than a player doing it for us.

Akinbiyi was a long time ago and another factor is these days less and less clubs seem to take a punt on a good english championship player when they can get better value abroad

[Nibor]

I do. I think a player doing it at this level for someone like Newcastle or WBA for example will go for a lot more than a player doing it for us.

That's not the same argument.

Big clubs might well be able to hold out for more money more often. That's because they pay more money in wages and have more chance of promotion. A player at the likes of Newcastle is less likely to get his head turned and more likely to be on a long, big money contract.

It's nothing to do with whether they have a track record of producing players that go for big money. In fact, Newcastle don't have that do they?

It doesn't affect how much a player is worth to us at all and whether or not we're seen as a club with a track record of producing players is irrelevant.

Were Preston a club with a track record of producing big money talent when they sold Nugent?

How about Watford when they sold Ashley Young?

Or even Charlton when they sold Bent?

Leicester with Heskey?

Coventry with Keane?

Players are worth what someone is willing to pay which will be based on their judgement of how good the player is and how much he'll be worth in future, and what we're willing to sell for which will be based on cost and risk of replacement, risk of losing him for less or nothing later as a result of his contract running down or the player being unsettled.

[SC_Red]

That's not the same argument.

Big clubs might well be able to hold out for more money more often. That's because they pay more money in wages and have more chance of promotion. A player at the likes of Newcastle is less likely to get his head turned and more likely to be on a long, big money contract.

its part of the argument. You said

"I just don't think history or where you buy the player from has anything to do with it."

I'd say what youve now said suggests it does have something to do with it.

It's nothing to do with whether they have a track record of producing players that go for big money. In fact, Newcastle don't have that do they?

It doesn't affect how much a player is worth to us at all and whether or not we're seen as a club with a track record of producing players is irrelevant.

Were Preston a club with a track record of producing big money talent when they sold Nugent?

How about Watford when they sold Ashley Young?

Or even Charlton when they sold Bent?

Leicester with Heskey?

Coventry with Keane?

Players are worth what someone is willing to pay which will be based on their judgement of how good the player is and how much he'll be worth in future, and what we're willing to sell for which will be based on cost and risk of replacement, risk of losing him for less or nothing later as a result of his contract running down or the player being unsettled.

track record is just one part of it. I'm not sure on Newcastle.

the players you list above are all strikers which arent the same as defenders in the transfer market. I think someone will take a punt on Maynard but not for the amounts they would if he'd done it at a bigger club at this level.

If Caulker signed for us for £3m (he wont but lets say he does) I would be amazed if he was worth significantly more (i.e. we made good money on him after paying Spurs a sell on and paid up his contract) after 2 years of playing well for us at this level.

[Nibor]

its part of the argument. You said

"I just don't think history or where you buy the player from has anything to do with it."

I'd say what youve now said suggests it does have something to do with it.

Size of the club you're buying from might, not their track record of development which was your argument. In fact, looking at the examples it wouldn't seem that size of club has much to do with it at all unless you think Leicester are big?

track record is just one part of it. I'm not sure on Newcastle.

It's not any part of it and Newcastle no track record whatsoever of developing and selling players for big money prior to Carroll.

the players you list above are all strikers which arent the same as defenders in the transfer market. I think someone will take a punt on Maynard but not for the amounts they would if he'd done it at a bigger club at this level.

Young is a midfielder. Curtis Davies is a defender. There are others that aren't strikers.

If Maynard goes we won't get a good price on him because of his remaining contract length more than anything else. Not because of our track record of developing players.

If Caulker signed for us for £3m (he wont but lets say he does) I would be amazed if he was worth significantly more (i.e. we made good money on him after paying Spurs a sell on and paid up his contract) after 2 years of playing well for us at this level.

If he had 2 years of contract left and had been free from injury and was still playing for the u-21s then he'd be worth a great deal more. The risk is in the judgement of the player's ability and in injuries, not much else.

[SC_Red]

Size of the club you're buying from might, not their track record of development which was your argument. In fact, looking at the examples it wouldn't seem that size of club has much to do with it at all unless you think Leicester are big?

It's not any part of it and Newcastle no track record whatsoever of developing and selling players for big money prior to Carroll.

Gazza was quite good wasnt he?

I'd say it is. I'd guess scouts spend more time looking at the young players at Cardiff and Southampton than they do at ours for example and would be more willing to take a punt on potential from clubs they know develop players the right way. Unless your suggesting its just coincidence that virtually no players of any value have been born and raised in Bristol in the last few years.

Young is a midfielder. Curtis Davies is a defender. There are others that aren't strikers.

so one defender is enough to say without question that an injury free Caulker after 2 seasons of playing well for Bristol City would be worth well in excess of £3m? Its an unwinnable argument unless it happens but I just dont see where the confidence that that would be the case comes from.

If Maynard goes we won't get a good price on him because of his remaining contract length more than anything else. Not because of our track record of developing players.

thats a big part of it but not the whole story in my opinion.

If he had 2 years of contract left and had been free from injury and was still playing for the u-21s then he'd be worth a great deal more. The risk is in the judgement of the player's ability and in injuries, not much else.

I just dont see it. Where is the record of defenders from the championship playing for the U21s going for well in excess of £3m? By well in excess I mean enough to cover our sell on to Spurs paying off his wages and still making a good profit.

[Nibor]

Gazza was quite good wasnt he?

One player every 25 years is a track record now?

I'd say it is. I'd guess scouts spend more time looking at the young players at Cardiff and Southampton than they do at ours for example and would be more willing to take a punt on potential from clubs they know develop players the right way. Unless your suggesting its just coincidence that virtually no players of any value have been born and raised in Bristol in the last few years.

so one defender is enough to say without question that an injury free Caulker after 2 seasons of playing well for Bristol City would be worth well in excess of £3m? Its an unwinnable argument unless it happens but I just dont see where the confidence that that would be the case comes from.

thats a big part of it but not the whole story in my opinion.

I just dont see it. Where is the record of defenders from the championship playing for the U21s going for well in excess of £3m? By well in excess I mean enough to cover our sell on to Spurs paying off his wages and still making a good profit.

I've given a number of examples of players from small clubs and clubs without track records of youth development going for top dollar to bigger clubs. There are plenty more, even those who aren't strikers (which isn't really relevant, strikers cost more at every level).

Can you give some examples of players who were as good as them but went for much less than top dollar whilst still under more than a year's contract because they came from a club who didn't have a track record of youth development?

I genuinely can't think of any really which is why your theory seems like bunk to me.

If the player is good enough they'll be worth the money. Caulker is.

[CotswoldRed]

£3m for Caulker is a bargain, because he's already played for us and is, therefore, a known quantity.

IF we could get him for that kind of money and the stadium thing goes through sooner rather than later, I could see the board sanctioning this, just.

[DaveF]

Surely Caulker would only be interested In signing for us if assurances were made that we will keep players like Maynard, Adomah and Pitman?

[SC_Red]

One player every 25 years is a track record now?

I've given a number of examples of players from small clubs and clubs without track records of youth development going for top dollar to bigger clubs. There are plenty more, even those who aren't strikers (which isn't really relevant, strikers cost more at every level).

Can you give some examples of players who were as good as them but went for much less than top dollar whilst still under more than a year's contract because they came from a club who didn't have a track record of youth development?

I genuinely can't think of any really which is why your theory seems like bunk to me.

If the player is good enough they'll be worth the money. Caulker is.

you said no track record whatsoever prior to Carrol. I provided an example.

you provided one example of a defender going for big money after performing well at a young age in the championship as your track record for proving Caulker will definately be worth well in excess of £3m if he plays well for us for 2 seasons (and was on a 4 year contract so he still had 2 years left after that presumably)

But I cant use 1 example of Newcastle developing and selling a player for big money when you said they've had none whatsoever?

I'm supposed to research that ridiculous question and then have a debate on wether each player actually is better when its opinion? As I say, ridiculous and you know it is.

[Riaz]

Surely Caulker would only be interested In signing for us if assurances were made that we will keep players like Maynard, Adomah and Pitman?

Why leave a top prem club who have big plans for him??!

[Nibor]

you said no track record whatsoever prior to Carrol. I provided an example.

you provided one example of a defender going for big money after performing well at a young age in the championship as your track record for proving Caulker will definately be worth well in excess of £3m if he plays well for us for 2 seasons (and was on a 4 year contract so he still had 2 years left after that presumably)

But I cant use 1 example of Newcastle developing and selling a player for big money when you said they've had none whatsoever?

I said they had no track record. Selling a player 23 years ago isn't what a reasonable person would understand as a track record.

I'm supposed to research that ridiculous question and then have a debate on wether each player actually is better when its opinion? As I say, ridiculous and you know it is.

All you've done is start with an opinion and attempted to substantiate it with more opinion. You've attempted to rule out the examples I've provided with yet more opinion that for some weird reason strikers don't count. Ignoring that there are other examples that aren't strikers.

And now when I suggest you try substantiating your opinion with some examples you think it's ridiculous.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. It's been fun.

[DaveF]

Why leave a top prem club who have big plans for him??!

I didn't say he would be!

[Riaz]

I didn't say he would be!

sorry! I missed the key word "only"

[SC_Red]

I said they had no track record. Selling a player 23 years ago isn't what a reasonable person would understand as a track record.

you said no track record whatsoever prior to Carrol.

So you were saying Carrol shows they do develop and sell players for big money and gave Carrol as the first example. I gave you another.

All you've done is start with an opinion and attempted to substantiate it with more opinion. You've attempted to rule out the examples I've provided with yet more opinion that for some weird reason strikers don't count. Ignoring that there are other examples that aren't strikers.

And now when I suggest you try substantiating your opinion with some examples you think it's ridiculous.

I guess we'll agree to disagree then. It's been fun.

Nope. Your quite wrong. I've asked for examples of young defenders in the championship going for well in excess of £3m to prove that Caulker would definately be worth that too after 2 years with us if he kept playing well. You came up with one. Curtis Davies who didnt go for well in excess of £3m.

I didnt say strikers dont count. Youve made that up. I said the price of strikers was inflated and couldnt be used as a way t ojudge what defenders at this level went for. but carry on making incorrect statements to help you feel right.

You were the one asserting Caulker would easily be worth a lot more than £3m after 2 seasons with Bristol City in the championship. I came up with reasons he might not be. You got cross because your never wrong.

It is ridiculous and you know it. If you think I'm going to spend time going through the sales of players and working out what they had left on their contracts then you must be mad. And we all know youd come back telling us how to manage a football club, be a referee or run the line anyway. Because your brilliant at all of them.

You dont do any of them but your brilliant at them none the less. In your own head anyway.

[Robbored]

Why leave a top prem club who have big plans for him??!

He won't and we all know that.

The question remains whether Millen can get Caulker on another seasons loan, at the end of which he'll still be only 20. Thats very young for a PL defender and unlikely he'll knocking on the first team door at Spurs, even though King, Gallas and Woodgate are either injury prone or ageing. Spurs can go pretty much anywhere in the world to recruit two or three top quality center backs if they feel they need to.

Plus in just 18 months its likely that Harry Redknapp will have left Spurs to take up the England job. That might have a big factor in Caulkers future at Tottenham.

[Riaz]

He won't and we all know that.

The question remains whether Millen can get Caulker on another seasons loan, at the end of which he'll still be only 20. Thats very young for a PL defender and unlikely he'll knocking on the first team door at Spurs, even though King, Gallas and Woodgate are either injury prone or ageing. Spurs can go pretty much anywhere in the world to recruit

two or three top quality center backs if they feel they need to.

Plus in just over a year its likely that Harry Redknapp will have left Spurs to take up the England job. That might have a big factor in Caulkers future at Tottenham.

All the points you make are correct. But Caulker has said he wants to be playing in the prem next season.

I'm sure if he does drop again to the championship - he'll come here. But why halt his progess? He's proven himself at this level - he's made it look easy most of the time.

I personnally think tottenham will loan him out to a lower prem team next season, with a view to playing him the season after, if he does well.

I'm certain the lad has a big future and fully expect him to play for England.

[Nibor]

you said no track record whatsoever prior to Carrol.

So you were saying Carrol shows they do develop and sell players for big money and gave Carrol as the first example. I gave you another.

Nope. Your quite wrong. I've asked for examples of young defenders in the championship going for well in excess of £3m to prove that Caulker would definately be worth that too after 2 years with us if he kept playing well. You came up with one. Curtis Davies who didnt go for well in excess of £3m.

I didnt say strikers dont count. Youve made that up. I said the price of strikers was inflated and couldnt be used as a way t ojudge what defenders at this level went for. but carry on making incorrect statements to help you feel right.

You were the one asserting Caulker would easily be worth a lot more than £3m after 2 seasons with Bristol City in the championship. I came up with reasons he might not be. You got cross because your never wrong.

It is ridiculous and you know it. If you think I'm going to spend time going through the sales of players and working out what they had left on their contracts then you must be mad. And we all know youd come back telling us how to manage a football club, be a referee or run the line anyway. Because your brilliant at all of them.

You dont do any of them but your brilliant at them none the less. In your own head anyway.

I thought for a while you might actually be capable of reasonable debate, but you just can't help yourself can you? Still, on the bright side you racked up half a dozen posts that weren't worshipping Robbored. Well done you.

[Donald]

I said they had no track record. Selling a player 23 years ago isn't what a reasonable person would understand as a track record.

Agreed, Newcastle have a reputation as buying club not a developing club and even then they tried to flop Carroll 12 months earlier on the cheap!

Think the fact that when they first had Shearer they stuck him in goal some up newcastle!

can't think of another top quality player that Newcastle have produced before Carroll? oh and anyone who suggests Sheola Ameboi will get a slap!