Where are they now? Giefer, Marinovic & Lucic

[Waconda]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

And another reason why transfer fees / net spend type arguments can be very ambiguous.  Nowhere in the fees received do we see deductions for sell-on fees to the likes of Ipswich, Preston, Swindon, Cheltenham, SCO Angers etc.  Nor on the fees paid do we see agent fees, signing on fees, relocation fees, etc.  Nor do we see the impact on wage bill and amortisation (year on year increase in both cases).  I know it’s forcing stuff, but is relevant to the discussion.  And yes, we still have some value in some of those remaining players.

Yep of course all sorts off fees associated with transfers and not as straightforward as fees received/paid alone.

If we say the say the 8 players we still have from those fees paid would fetch £12 million in the current market. Then I would think that would comfortably cover those excess costs associated ?

Therefore a healthy profit in player trading during LJs reign. Lots of misses and poor signings but overall made the club a lot of money.

The re-writing of history sometimes is strange and agenda driven - IMO.

Edited November 12, 2021 by VT05763

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

Yep of course all sorts off fees associated with transfers and not as straightforward as fees received/paid alone.

If we say the say the 8 players we still have from those fees paid would fetch £12 million in the current market. Then I would think that would comfortably cover those excess costs associated ?

Therefore a healthy profit in player trading during LJs reign. Lots of misses and poor signings but overall made the club a lot of money.

The re-writing of history sometimes is strange and agenda driven.

It is totally your decision where you draw the line on the position of recruitment / trading, it’s a complicated area.  And if you want to summarise as above in bold, that’s absolutely fine.

I have a different view.  The club made £41.4m loss in the years he was here, so I can’t agree that he made a lot of money, unless you add - he spent a lot of money too .  The problem with LJ is that he is bleeding inconsistent.  Does good things and bad things.  Both on the playing and non-playing sides.  Why couldn’t he just be totally good or totally bad?

Its why he still lives in our heads and people have such differing opinions on him.  I reckon if you add all the pluses and minuses together you end up at zero

[Waconda]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

It is totally your decision where you draw the line on the position of recruitment / trading, it’s a complicated area.  And if you want to summarise as above in bold, that’s absolutely fine.

I have a different view.  The club made £41.4m loss in the years he was here, so I can’t agree that he made a lot of money, unless you add - he spent a lot of money too .  The problem with LJ is that he is bleeding inconsistent.  Does good things and bad things.  Both on the playing and non-playing sides.  Why couldn’t he just be totally good or totally bad?

Its why he still lives in our heads and people have such differing opinions on him.  I reckon if you add all the pluses and minuses together you end up at zero

 "The club made £41.4m loss in the years he was here" 

Do you mean the clubs as a whole ? That is a different issue to what was being claimed here.

The accusation was that the transfer policy during LJs time here cost the club money, which is simply not true. The club made money on transfers during this time, the only debate is how much.

Edited November 12, 2021 by VT05763

[Davefevs]

36 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

 "The club made £41.4m loss in the years he was here" 

Do you mean the clubs as a whole ? That is a different issue to what was being claimed here.

The accusation was that the transfer policy during LJs time here cost the club money, which is simply not true. The cub made money on transfers during this time, the only debate is how much.

What I am trying to say is that there is more to “trading” than transfer fees….so there is an argument that the “transfer policy” did cost us money, even if certain element of the transactions themselves didn’t.  At a very simplistic level - looking at the football club accounts only - the assembly of the playing squad in LJ’s reign came in at a loss of £35.0m.

You can obviously claim I’m moving the goalposts.  I have no issue with that.  I’m just giving an alternate view.

You can also say that SL was supportive of the losses made, no arguments there.

If you were interviewing MA or LJ for a job, they’d undoubtedly say they were hugely successful in player trading, and quote all manner of numbers at you….positive numbers in the tens of millions.  You’d think “wow”. And in some respects what they did was good.  But when I analyse I go two different ways:

1. Granular, signing by signing, sale by sale, successes v failures

2. Wider, impact of policy against overall financials.

As part of 1. I might ask “how many of those big sells were players you bought”.  But as I’m quite an unbiased person I might also ask “what is the value of the ones yet to be sold”, or “what did you contribute to their development”, etc, etc.

As I said, your view is fine, mine is just different, and for different reasons.

PS. I don’t think the poster who said the transfer policy cost us money is wrong either, it depends how they judge / evaluate.

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Davefevs

[Waconda]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

What I am trying to say is that there is more to “trading” than transfer fees….so there is an argument that the “transfer policy” did cost us money, even if certain element of the transactions themselves didn’t.  At a very simplistic level - looking at the football club accounts only - the assembly of the playing squad in LJ’s reign came in at a loss of £35.0m.

You can obviously claim I’m moving the goalposts.  I have no issue with that.  I’m just giving an alternate view.

You can also say that SL was supportive of the losses made, no arguments there.

If you were interviewing MA or LJ for a job, they’d undoubtedly say they were hugely successful in player trading, and quote all manner of numbers at you….positive numbers in the tens of millions.  You’d think “wow”. And in some respects what they did was good.  But when I analyse I go two different ways:

1. Granular, signing by signing, sale by sale, successes v failures

2. Wider, impact of policy against overall financials.

As part of 1. I might ask “how many of those big sells were players you bought”.  But as I’m quite an unbiased person I might also ask “what is the value of the ones yet to be sold”, or “what did you contribute to their development”, etc, etc.

As I said, your view is fine, mine is just different, and for different reasons.

 

You are moving the goalposts but I appreciate your view.

It is a very complicated situation and yes there are multiple hidden costs BUT I am taking issue with the constant history re-writing of some that on a purely fees received versus fees paid we made losses, pure fantasy.

Edited November 12, 2021 by VT05763

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, VT05763 said:

You are moving the goalposts but I appreciate your view.

It is a very complicated situation and yes there are multiple hidden costs BUT I am taking issue with the constant history re-writing of some that on a purely fees received versus fess paid we made losses, pure fantasy.

Cool.

FWIW, of the players signed solely by LJ/MA by my records, we paid (purely in fees) £59.35m and received (purely in fees) £37.30m.

We still have the following players here:

….and therefore an unknown £s value of that £22.05m deficit.  I suspect a decent slug of that will be covered by those above.

[Fordy62]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cool.

FWIW, of the players signed solely by LJ/MA by my records, we paid (purely in fees) £59.35m and received (purely in fees) £37.30m.

We still have the following players here:

….and therefore an unknown £s value of that £22.05m deficit.  I suspect a decent slug of that will be covered by those above.

Tight call. For what it’s worth:

6m Bentley

1m JD

1m Kasey Palmer (generous)

1m Nahki Wells 

10m HNM

4m Kalas

1m Weimann

1m Baker

I Can’t even bring myself to think up a value for COD!

Although part of me wonders if the above are transfer fees of days gone by. 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

I Can’t even bring myself to think up a value for COD

£4.75 with small chips / £6.00 large chips.