Ska Junkie Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, eric04 said: Peterborough have also had two bids rejected for Cheltenham’s Mo Eisa. According to a Bee on 1FF's, they've had a bid accepted for him, up to £1M. They don't half polish some rough diamonds to be fair to them so it would make sense as it's their kind of signing, again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 So Peterborough see they 23 year old league 1 striker at £6m+ but Doncaster's 26 year old league one striker at only £750,000. Do strikers drop that much in value over three years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 Just now, Big C said: So Peterborough see they 23 year old league 1 striker at £6m+ but Doncaster's 26 year old league one striker at only £750,000. Do strikers drop that much in value over three years? Good point. I think it illustrates Perterborough’s fantastic knack of signing players for relatively low fees, and then selling them for a mega profit a couple of years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, Big C said: So Peterborough see they 23 year old league 1 striker at £6m+ but Doncaster's 26 year old league one striker at only £750,000. Do strikers drop that much in value over three years? Marriott is over priced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Army 75 Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Davefevs said: Marriott is over priced Probably why he is still there . Me personally I would like him at Ashton Gate. And if he hit it off he will be a valuable asset. I hope we have made an offer we think he’s worth and don’t budge on it . I reckon we could see him put in a transfer request. In general not just us. Also they might want to secure someone before he goes. Either way. Hurry up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 30 minutes ago, Major Isewater said: Karma, don't you just love it ? Do you prefer it with pilau rice or nan bread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Isewater Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Marriott is over priced He would have to notch at least 15 goals in a Championship side to merit a 6 million quid price ticket. May be he will , may be he won't, either way I am sure there is better value to be had out there . Eisa at 1 million would seem better more interesting to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phileas Fogg Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Major Isewater said: He would have to notch at least 15 goals in a Championship side to merit a 6 million quid price ticket. May be he will , may be he won't, either way I am sure there is better value to be had out there . Eisa at 1 million would seem better more interesting to me . Agreed. Hope that's what we go for. Peterborough bidding for him themselves is a good sign anyway, they obviously have very good scouts especially for forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Musicworks Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 For me Eisa would seem a reasonable gamble, thereby cutting out the middle man (Peterborough) who may then be asking £8m next year for him. Realistically for £1m we could buy him (loan him out to League 1 for a season) as we may be doing with the likes of Eliasson and then bring him through to the first team. I know the ‘1 for the future’ scenario may irritate some but it is after all what Chelsea do succesfully. At least from a business perspective their value increases and it’s a good way to improve our assets. Our recent transfer activity I believe shows a tweaking of our plans by bringing in ready made Championship players, but still working to a business model of buying players and increasing their value, whilst developing a stock of great young prospects. 23/24 year olds will undoubtedly increase in value whilst 27/28 year olds will be good for short term momentum and then sold on like Aden before they turn 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedorDead BCFC Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 56 minutes ago, Johnny Musicworks said: For me Eisa would seem a reasonable gamble, thereby cutting out the middle man (Peterborough) who may then be asking £8m next year for him. Realistically for £1m we could buy him (loan him out to League 1 for a season) as we may be doing with the likes of Eliasson and then bring him through to the first team. I know the ‘1 for the future’ scenario may irritate some but it is after all what Chelsea do succesfully. At least from a business perspective their value increases and it’s a good way to improve our assets. Our recent transfer activity I believe shows a tweaking of our plans by bringing in ready made Championship players, but still working to a business model of buying players and increasing their value, whilst developing a stock of great young prospects. 23/24 year olds will undoubtedly increase in value whilst 27/28 year olds will be good for short term momentum and then sold on like Aden before they turn 30. If we bought Mbappe and say he’s one for the future. We seem to like that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Johnny Musicworks said: For me Eisa would seem a reasonable gamble, thereby cutting out the middle man (Peterborough) who may then be asking £8m next year for him. Realistically for £1m we could buy him (loan him out to League 1 for a season) as we may be doing with the likes of Eliasson and then bring him through to the first team. I know the ‘1 for the future’ scenario may irritate some but it is after all what Chelsea do succesfully. At least from a business perspective their value increases and it’s a good way to improve our assets. Our recent transfer activity I believe shows a tweaking of our plans by bringing in ready made Championship players, but still working to a business model of buying players and increasing their value, whilst developing a stock of great young prospects. 23/24 year olds will undoubtedly increase in value whilst 27/28 year olds will be good for short term momentum and then sold on like Aden before they turn 30. No problem buying for the future, just need to be careful not to spend too much and waste / use (opinion!) some of the budget that might make a difference to the first team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Davefevs said: Marriott is over priced They are on Booking.com ....... Hilton and Premier Lodge undercut ‘em every time..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Big C said: So Peterborough see they 23 year old league 1 striker at £6m+ but Doncaster's 26 year old league one striker at only £750,000. Do strikers drop that much in value over three years? Marriott scored 27 last season and Marquis 14.....and Marquis had more minutes on the pitch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said: I know the ‘1 for the future’ scenario may irritate some but it is after all what Chelsea do succesfully.... Do they? Chelsea had 38 ‘one for the future’ players out on loan last season....how many of those do you think will make it to their first team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 13 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said: They are on Booking.com ....... Hilton and Premier Lodge undercut ‘em every time..... Danny Hylton? But he was in Lg2! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Danny Hylton? But he was in Lg2! Jeff Stelling used to get excited on Soccer Saturday when the three ‘hotel’ boys notched on the same day - Marriott, Hylton and .....I can’t recall the third....was it Danny Premier-Lodge ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 minute ago, JonDolman said: I think they make a lot of money from what they do. But obviously its a bit weird how they have so many amazing youngsters, and they will probably sell most of them whilst buying the likes of Drinkwater, Barkley and Giroud. Hoping that young players will soon realise its better for their career to go to place where there is a pathway. Yep that’s spot on....they may make a load of dosh, but they are nurturing ‘ones for the future’ for other clubs to benefit from their best years....strange policy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said: Yep that’s spot on....they may make a load of dosh, but they are nurturing ‘ones for the future’ for other clubs to benefit from their best years....strange policy... Not really strange. It’s basically a licence to print money. They sign the player when they’re unknown and young, player spends loads of time out on loan and being paid mainly by someone else, then if and when they become a valueable asset, the money goes to Chelsea instead of the clubs that actually have assisted his development! Money goes to money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS4 on Tour... Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said: Not really strange. It’s basically a licence to print money. They sign the player when they’re unknown and young, player spends loads of time out on loan and being paid mainly by someone else, then if and when they become a valueable asset, the money goes to Chelsea instead of the clubs that actually have assisted his development! Money goes to money! Yes, but the post to which I was responding was saying that Chelsea’s ‘one for the future’ policy was very successful for them, yet none of their ‘ones for the future’ end up playing for them?! I reckon that’s strange, especially when you don’t need the money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Musicworks Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said: Do they? Chelsea had 38 ‘one for the future’ players out on loan last season....how many of those do you think will make it to their first team? Hardly any I should think but Chelsea generate a considerable income from them in loans and transfers. It’s not about the football, more a business. It works on percentages like a hedge fund. Basically going to Chelsea increases their value as many like Tammy do out on loan as well as loan fees. There was an article in the national press last season about how successfully Chelsea had worked the policy. It’s like a hedge fund where x amount are purchased and it only needs a good return on a few to turn a profit. There are always the failures but they are massively outweighed by the profits. As you say not many make the first team but on a business level it doesn’t matter so much. We may not be a Chelsea but our owner has made his fortune from investments so would not be surprised if he allocates a ‘1 for the future fund’. It has a potential to be a massive income generator. So in the last few seasons some of our investments ( ie Engvall) may have turned a loss depending on loan fees received but other investments still have time to mature (Eliasson, Bakinson, Hinds, Jonny Smith, McCoulsky, Taylor Moore etc). It will probably be another season or 2 to start judging the performance of our investment portfolio as it did with the Academy. A couple of seasons ago that looked a dire investment, but now with Reid, Bryan , Kelly and Vyner it’s paying off. At least it’s beginning to look like a sustainable plan. Can we operate it and get to the ‘promised land’ only time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Johnny Musicworks said: Hardly any I should think but Chelsea generate a considerable income from them in loans and transfers. It’s not about the football, more a business. It works on percentages like a hedge fund. Basically going to Chelsea increases their value as many like Tammy do out on loan as well as loan fees. There was an article in the national press last season about how successfully Chelsea had worked the policy. It’s like a hedge fund where x amount are purchased and it only needs a good return on a few to turn a profit. There are always the failures but they are massively outweighed by the profits. As you say not many make the first team but on a business level it doesn’t matter so much. We may not be a Chelsea but our owner has made his fortune from investments so would not be surprised if he allocates a ‘1 for the future fund’. It has a potential to be a massive income generator. So in the last few seasons some of our investments ( ie Engvall) may have turned a loss depending on loan fees received but other investments still have time to mature (Eliasson, Bakinson, Hinds, Jonny Smith, McCoulsky, Taylor Moore etc). It will probably be another season or 2 to start judging the performance of our investment portfolio as it did with the Academy. A couple of seasons ago that looked a dire investment, but now with Reid, Bryan , Kelly and Vyner it’s paying off. At least it’s beginning to look like a sustainable plan. Can we operate it and get to the ‘promised land’ only time will tell. How much would Chelsea have profited had they held on to De Bruyne, Salah and Lukaku - £200m + worth of players let go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, downendcity said: How much would Chelsea have profited had they held on to De Bruyne, Salah and Lukaku - £200m + worth of players let go? Matic too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knighty Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 Looks like forest will get grabbon for 6 million... surely u pay the man his wage and have him as a marquee signing warn the rest of the league we want to go further this year??? Imagine frontline of grabbon n Famara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chaplain Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 28 minutes ago, Knighty said: Looks like forest will get grabbon for 6 million... surely u pay the man his wage and have him as a marquee signing warn the rest of the league we want to go further this year??? Imagine frontline of grabbon n Famara Didn’t he play for 2 championship sides last year, one got relegated and the other is close to going bust, maybe not the sort of warning we need to send. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, BS4 on Tour... said: Yes, but the post to which I was responding was saying that Chelsea’s ‘one for the future’ policy was very successful for them, yet none of their ‘ones for the future’ end up playing for them?! I reckon that’s strange, especially when you don’t need the money... Well it's successful for them financially I guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said: Well it's successful for them financially I guess! Which is the whole point, it's a player farm intended to make money. If any of them make it to the first team (unlikely) it would a bonus but it's not the main purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe jordans teeth Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 5 hours ago, Major Isewater said: He would have to notch at least 15 goals in a Championship side to merit a 6 million quid price ticket. May be he will , may be he won't, either way I am sure there is better value to be had out there . Eisa at 1 million would seem better more interesting to me . Eisa at 1 million would seem better to lansdown as well I expect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shtanley Posted July 5, 2018 Report Share Posted July 5, 2018 Get eisa for £1m, offer him to Peterborough for £1m and 50% sell on. Then buy Eisa for £6m. Easy, way cheaper than Marriott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42nite Posted July 6, 2018 Report Share Posted July 6, 2018 8 hours ago, Shtanley said: Get eisa for £1m, offer him to Peterborough for £1m and 50% sell on. Then buy Eisa for £6m. Easy, way cheaper than Marriott. Why not just buy Eisa for £1m and keep him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted July 6, 2018 Report Share Posted July 6, 2018 8 hours ago, Shtanley said: Get eisa for £1m, offer him to Peterborough for £1m and 50% sell on. Then buy Eisa for £6m. Easy, way cheaper than Marriott. As Winston Churchill said, this post is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.