Engvall

[Nibor]

5 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Ah, my apologies if that's the case. However with that in mind, the sale of Kodjia, plus Bolasie & Adomah sell on's, gives us plenty of scope for these kind of transfers. 

I think if you look at our signings last season and the wage bill that doesn't go as far as you might think. It's not that we can't afford to sign £2m players, it's that we can't afford to take punts at that level. Some signings don't work out but a signing of that expense not even getting a game isn't acceptable. 

[BCFC_Dan]

24 minutes ago, Nibor said:

No, it doesn't.  FFP is about the level of losses allowed.  You are thinking of SCMP which was what we operated under in league one.

But, unless I've misunderstood, player costs are spread over the duration of their contract so a £5m spend isn't a £5m hit to the accounts in the year the player is signed. Obviously the costs still come out somewhere, but a future sale could cover them (or it might not, it'd be a gamble).

Happy to be corrected on this as I'm no expert when it comes to finance.

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, Nibor said:

I think if you look at our signings last season and the wage bill that doesn't go as far as you might think. It's not that we can't afford to sign £2m players, it's that we can't afford to take punts at that level. Some signings don't work out but a signing of that expense not even getting a game isn't acceptable. 

It's more acceptable than playing a player who's not ready BECAUSE you paid £1.3million (not £2 million. That's based on extras that we won't have to pay if he never makes it here) 

With Tammy doing as well as he did last season, there really wasn't the opportunity to play Engvall and Djuric & Taylor were both first team ready signings, not investments for the future. 

[Nibor]

6 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

But, unless I've misunderstood, player costs are spread over the duration of their contract so a £5m spend isn't a £5m hit to the accounts in the year the player is signed. Obviously the costs still come out somewhere, but a future sale could cover them (or it might not, it'd be a gamble).

Happy to be corrected on this as I'm no expert when it comes to finance.

There's no hard and fast rules but it's common to depreciate the transfer fee over the length of the contract.  It just has the effect of levelling out the losses, the same overall constraint is imposed.  FFP is assessed over the last three years, not just one year.  Obviously wages are a big deal - if you sign a player for £5m on a 4 year deal you're paying him £20k a week, so that's going to look like an expenditure of about £2.5m a season each year for four years.

[Nibor]

9 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

It's more acceptable than playing a player who's not ready BECAUSE you paid £1.3million (not £2 million. That's based on extras that we won't have to pay if he never makes it here) 

I wasn't suggesting playing him because of the fee, I was suggesting not taking very expensive punts.  You simply shouldn't be so far out on your assessment of a player that he's nowhere near getting a game when you lay out that kind of money.

On the fee, LJ is quoted as saying £2m which is probably more reliable than speculation - nothing official has been released.  Don't forget wages.

 

[REDOXO]

As the guy said above. It very much looks like a bollock dropped.

I kept reading, the he's one for the future drivel spouted by some last season. Notably by some on this thread.  He was on our bench not in our development squad, he was bought to play and he didn't. 

Players do come good after a rocky start on occasion and fingers crossed for the bloke, but even keeping in mind some of LJs weird substitutions it was clear LJ would play himself as centre forward rather than throw on Engval when chasing a game, and there was plenty of those  opportunities. 

When you consider all of LJs signings which ones can you say 'well that worked out'?

Wright Yep

Taylor I think so, some don't, but this was a no brainer cheap shot at the Sags punt  

Brownhill and Patterson. Eventually after spending much of the season sitting on their ass often in the stands as Engval was on the bench.

I hope they all come good. Including 4m man Tomlin, but I have my doubts with quite a few. Working on the basis LJ will not get the ridiculous latitude SL gave him last season again, I'm looking forward to quite a few coming good very very early or being sold soon  

 

 

 

[Touch_my_butter]

Not every signing works out - this is why you spread your bets. 

Not every £2m punt turns into a £15m Kodjia 1 season later - only need 1 in 5 to turn a profit.

Look at Chelsea's strategy: buy up as many promising youngsters as possible, ship 'em out on loan, sell some for significantly more than paid, let some go for a loss, turn a profit overall and have a strong pool of young talent at the club.

Really don't know why people are so miffed by the Engvall situation - it's good business.

[Kid in the Riot]

Just now, Touch_my_butter said:

Not every signing works out - this is why you spread your bets. 

Not every £2m punt turns into a £15m Kodjia 1 season later - only need 1 in 5 to turn a profit.

Really don't know why people are so miffed by the Engvall situation - it's good business.

The actual profit we made on Kodjia was circa £6.5 - 7m.

The Engvall signing is not looking like good business.

[Touch_my_butter]

Just now, Kid in the Riot said:

The actual profit we made on Kodjia was circa £6.5 - 7m.

The Engvall signing is not looking like good business.

Stop being so results-orientated.

In a dream-world, every raffle ticket bought brings a prize. By pointing a finger at every player that doesn't work out and saying 'that's bad business' undermines the club's overall transfer philosophy, which is now a very good one!

Look at the big picture: who gives a toss whether it's Engval, Diedhiou, COD, or whoever that kicks on. We've placed our transfer bets, let's see which ones come through. Don't get hung up on the ones that don't.

[Bar BS3]

4 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

The actual profit we made on Kodjia was circa £6.5 - 7m.

The Engvall signing is not looking like good business.

Obviously not good business AT THE MOMENT. 

Not every signing can be a success. Sometimes it can just be wrong player at the wrong club at the wrong time. 

I don't think you can write of the player, or the business side of the transfer until he leaves and we know what we made/lost on them. You certainly shouldn't condemn either, based on a 20/21 year old who's only been here 10 months and is currently out on loan, like many younger players from other clubs. 

If he never makes an impact here but we sell him on for £1million, it was a punt that didn't work out. Move on. 

If he does ok here, we'll probably make money. 

If he develops and becomes a success in our first team, then it was a fantastic piece of business. 

 

[Ska Junkie]

Has anyone thought about the WC next summer? Maybe GE is of the opinion that he has a chance of being in the Swedish squad if they get there? He won't be going if he's sat on our bench where as playing and scoring regularly in Sweden albeit on loan would give him a chance.

We still own the player and he gets experience plus a chance to go to Russia.

[Bar BS3]

Just now, Ska Junkie said:

Has anyone thought about the WC next summer? Maybe GE is of the opinion that he has a chance of being in the Swedish squad if they get there? He won't be going if he's sat on our bench where as playing and scoring regularly in Sweden albeit on loan would give him a chance.

We still own the player and he gets experience plus a chance to go to Russia.

That was exactly the reason for him wanting to get games in Sweden this season, but to get into the under 21 championships. 

[Touch_my_butter]

2 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Obviously not good business AT THE MOMENT. 

Not every signing can be a success. Sometimes it can just be wrong player at the wrong club at the wrong time. 

I don't think you can write of the player, or the business side of the transfer until he leaves and we know what we made/lost on them. You certainly shouldn't condemn either, based on a 20/21 year old who's only been here 10 months and is currently out on loan, like many younger players from other clubs. 

If he never makes an impact here but we sell him on for £1million, it was a punt that didn't work out. Move on. 

If he does ok here, we'll probably make money. 

If he develops and becomes a success in our first team, then it was a fantastic piece of business. 

 

I'd argue it's good business regardless of how he works out.

The information we had at the time was:

- 20 years old (young, lots of time for development/improvement)

- Swedish (EU national, no work permit)

- Decent level of English

- Internationally recognised

- Striker (a position we needed to strengthen, and valuable on the market)

- Decent scoring recorded in top Swedish league

- Good looking lad (for marketing)

- Relatively cheap price of £1.5-2m in todays market

He was an obvious purchase, and a smart move from the club.

[Wolf Island]

1 minute ago, Touch_my_butter said:

I'd argue it's good business regardless of how he works out.

The information we had at the time was:

- 20 years old (young, lots of time for development/improvement)

- Swedish (EU national, no work permit)

- Decent level of English

- Internationally recognised

- Striker (a position we needed to strengthen, and valuable on the market)

- Decent scoring recorded in top Swedish league

- Good looking lad (for marketing)

- Relatively cheap price of £1.5-2m in todays market

He was an obvious purchase, and a smart move from the club.

Well summarised MA

[Nibor]

Just now, Touch_my_butter said:

I'd argue it's good business regardless of how he works out.

The information we had at the time was:

- 20 years old (young, lots of time for development/improvement)

- Swedish (EU national, no work permit)

- Decent level of English

- Internationally recognised

- Striker (a position we needed to strengthen, and valuable on the market)

- Decent scoring recorded in top Swedish league

- Good looking lad (for marketing)

- Relatively cheap price of £1.5-2m in todays market

He was an obvious purchase, and a smart move from the club.

That sort of thinking won't get you very far.  The key thing is assessing whether he's any good at football which you do by watching not looking at photographs or stats.   The club cannot afford to be so wildly out on that assessment when spending 7 figures.  Either he's going to get given a decent chance in the first team or it's very bad business, there's no way to spin it otherwise.

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Correct. Losses up to £7m I believe. But apparently agreeing a deal worth £2m + wages and signing on fee for one player is "peanuts"? Don't think so.

It's ' peanuts ' in comparison to the obscene amounts of money being thrown around in this league .

 

[Touch_my_butter]

Just now, Nibor said:

That sort of thinking won't get you very far.  The key thing is assessing whether he's any good at football which you do by watching not looking at photographs or stats.   The club cannot afford to be so wildly out on that assessment when spending 7 figures.  Either he's going to get given a decent chance in the first team or it's very bad business, there's no way to spin it otherwise.

Disagree.

The club CAN afford to be wildly out on their assessment. MULTIPLE TIMES. We're buying saplings and hoping a few grow into mighty tress.

Additionally: I'm sure they did take a look at his footballing abilities also. Unfortunately, they didn't have your crystal ball to hand.

[Nibor]

Just now, Touch_my_butter said:

Disagree.

The club CAN afford to be wildly out on their assessment. MULTIPLE TIMES. We're buying saplings and hoping a few grow into mighty tress.

Additionally: I'm sure they did take a look at his footballing abilities also. Unfortunately, they didn't have your crystal ball to hand.

I'd suggest if you think the club can afford to sign players for £2m transfer fees and probably the same again in wages and get them so wrong they can't get near the first team, and do so multiple times, then your grasp on the financial side of football is tenuous at best.  Nobody said anything about a crystal ball, but there's transfers that don't work out - like Tomlin may not for whatever reason - and then there's the Styvar league of incompetence.  If Engvall isn't good enough to get a run in the side then it's the latter, and that isn't acceptable.

[Touch_my_butter]

Just now, Nibor said:

I'd suggest if you think the club can afford to sign players for £2m transfer fees and probably the same again in wages and get them so wrong they can't get near the first team, and do so multiple times, then your grasp on the financial side of football is tenuous at best.  Nobody said anything about a crystal ball, but there's transfers that don't work out - like Tomlin may not for whatever reason - and then there's the Styvar league of incompetence.  If Engvall isn't good enough to get a run in the side then it's the latter, and that isn't acceptable.

Just thinking bigger picture buddy - when you're a high-roller like Stevey L, you can afford to take a couple of hits now and then. He is not going to look at each line in the end-of-year balance sheet and say 'My God, we lost £Xm on that player, that's unacceptable!' - He'll look at total revenues vs. operating expenses, transfer costs, etc. and look for it all to balance out as per the initial strategy. It's the fans who get hung up on player X and Y not working out (different mindset with managing finances).

Being too conservative with signing young players is worse than getting it wrong every now and then.

[Kid in the Riot]

14 minutes ago, Touch_my_butter said:

I'd argue it's good business regardless of how he works out.

The information we had at the time was:

- 20 years old (young, lots of time for development/improvement)

- Swedish (EU national, no work permit)

- Decent level of English

- Internationally recognised

- Striker (a position we needed to strengthen, and valuable on the market)

- Decent scoring recorded in top Swedish league

- Good looking lad (for marketing)

- Relatively cheap price of £1.5-2m in todays market

He was an obvious purchase, and a smart move from the club.

 

[Nibor]

Just now, Touch_my_butter said:

Just thinking bigger picture buddy - when you're a high-roller like Stevey L, you can afford to take a couple of hits now and then. He is not going to look at each line in the end-of-year balance sheet and say 'My God, we lost £Xm on that player, that's unacceptable!' - He'll look at total revenues vs. operating expenses, transfer costs, etc. and look for it all to balance out as per the initial strategy. It's the fans who get hung up on player X and Y not working out (different mindset with managing finances).

Being too conservative with signing young players is worse than getting it wrong every now and then.

You've not read the thread have you?  It's not just about SL's deep pockets, we're constrained by FFP.  That does not permit the club to waste vast amounts of his money whether he likes it or not.  And you can bet your bottom dollar that he will not be ok with laying out that sort of money for a player who can't even get a game.  There is a massive gulf between taking a punt on a few young players and spending £2m plus the same again in wages, I don't know why you're trying to pretend that's not the case.

[BRISTOL86]

1 hour ago, Nibor said:

£2m is a lot of money for us make no mistake.  We were only able to blow a lot of cash last time around because of money coming in from Kodjia and Bolasie, we can't afford to speculate at the £2m level not because SL hasn't got the cash but because he won't be allowed to spend it due to FFP.  The stadium has added some income but not enough to be blasé about seven figure sums - if Engvall is so far away that LJ won't give him a chance then a major bollock has been dropped which impacts resources available to the first team significantly.

With all due respect I'm sure the club are well aware of what they can and can't do within the confines of FFP. 

[Strictly Obi]

Engval was an insurance policy, in case Tammy was no good. But unfortunately for him, Tammys success was Engvals downfall. I guess we waste money each year on insurance policy's for houses, property's etc And if we don't need to make a claim, then technically we've wasted our money. He really needed a run of games last year, but never got the chance. I can only assume, he was regarded as too similar to Tammy. 

[Kid in the Riot]

15 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

It's ' peanuts ' in comparison to the obscene amounts of money being thrown around in this league .

Is it? Aside from the top 5 or 6 big spenders with parachute payments. For £2m I'd expect us to be getting a player that's in and around the first team to be honest.

Burton spent £400k last summer, THAT'S peanuts.

[Touch_my_butter]

Just now, Nibor said:

You've not read the thread have you?  It's not just about SL's deep pockets, we're constrained by FFP.  That does not permit the club to waste vast amounts of his money whether he likes it or not.  And you can bet your bottom dollar that he will not be ok with laying out that sort of money for a player who can't even get a game.  There is a massive gulf between taking a punt on a few young players and spending £2m plus the same again in wages, I don't know why you're trying to pretend that's not the case.

Do you think Bournemouth are having the same discussion about Nathan Ake (£20m), Tyrone Mings (£8m), Jordan Ibe (£15m), Benik Afobe (£10m), Josh King (tribunal), Callum Wilson (£3m), or even Lys Mousset (£7m) - who we were supposedly in for?

No - they buy young, promising, top-end talent. Some are going to work out, some won't. They are happy for the ones that do, and don't get hung up on the ones that don't.

If you can propose a superior transfer strategy, I'd like to hear it.

[Nibor]

22 minutes ago, Touch_my_butter said:

Do you think Bournemouth are having the same discussion about Nathan Ake (£20m), Tyrone Mings (£8m), Jordan Ibe (£15m), Benik Afobe (£10m), Josh King (tribunal), Callum Wilson (£3m), or even Lys Mousset (£7m) - who we were supposedly in for?

No - they buy young, promising, top-end talent. Some are going to work out, some won't. They are happy for the ones that do, and don't get hung up on the ones that don't.

If you can propose a superior transfer strategy, I'd like to hear it.

I think Bournemouth can rely on 5x the revenue and all of those players will be in the first team or around it.  The equivalent would be them spending about £10m on a transfer fee and £50k a week in wages on a player who they loaned out to league one.  I think their fans would be concerned about that.

I've advocated buying younger players from lower leagues for years, but if Engvall is so far away that he can't even be given a chance then what we've done is panic buy without properly assessing the player.  I would like to see him get the chance.

 

[You Do The Dziekanowski]

As said above, GE could easily get in the Sweden team next World Cup (if they qualify and he plays games) one good tournament just like sissokho last year and we could be drowning in money

 

but just like every post on this thread its hypothetical 

 

[Touch_my_butter]

Just now, Nibor said:

I think Bournemouth can rely on 5x the revenue and all of those players will be in the first team or around it.  The equivalent would be them spending about £10m on a transfer fee and £50k a week in wages on a player who they loaned out to league one.  I think their fans would be concerned about that.

I've advocated buying younger players from lower leagues for years, but if Engvall is so far away that he can't even be given a chance then what we've done is panic buy without properly assessing the player.  I would like to see him get the chance.

 

I see, so the overall strategy is right, but you would like to see every player we buy be a success?

Can't argue with that.

[Nibor]

29 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

With all due respect I'm sure the club are well aware of what they can and can't do within the confines of FFP. 

Perhaps, perhaps not.  We've not exactly been a model of sensible investment over the last ten years.

But even if they do have a grasp of the budget that's a different question to how sensibly it's spent.  What I was suggesting though is that some of the fans on here thinking we can take punts of that size do not have a grasp of what the finances are or what FFP means.

[Touch_my_butter]

Just now, Nibor said:

Perhaps, perhaps not.  We've not exactly been a model of sensible investment over the last ten years.

But even if they do have a grasp of the budget that's a different question to how sensibly it's spent.  What I was suggesting though is that some of the fans on here thinking we can take punts of that size do not have a grasp of what the finances are or what FFP means.

I'm fairly sure Steve Lansdown and Mark Ashton have a better grasp of 'what the finances are or what FFP means' than any of us.