Taylor Moore

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Awesome, i count that as 22, with kodjia coming in the season before i think, and walsh, watkins and szmodics  all around the million mark too. While some like elliasson were good performers, most just havent been worth it, we can blame ashton and lj all we want, but lansdown sanctioned all that, bringing players in to hopefully generate a big profit, when really we had to sell our crown jewels to keep the whole mess ticking over another year.

One of the things I started to put together a while ago was a bit of a “recruitment family tree”, e.g. who signed when and who were they meant to replace / cover, the logic behind each.

I always look back at the strikers and can rightly see the Abraham in then Kodjia going, but quite how a combo of Gustav Engvall, Matty Taylor, Jamie Paterson (secondary striker), Milan Djuric, Famara Diedhiou, Cauley Woodrow, and Louis Diony all came in within 18 months of each other, and were all registered at the same time….yet Bobby Reid transpired to be the best of the lot!!!  Only Engvall wasn’t available as he’d gone on loan.  That really was kid in a sweet shop.

[Fordy62]

7 hours ago, Simon bristol said:

Awesome, i count that as 22, with kodjia coming in the season before i think, and walsh, watkins and szmodics  all around the million mark too. While some like elliasson were good performers, most just havent been worth it, we can blame ashton and lj all we want, but lansdown sanctioned all that, bringing players in to hopefully generate a big profit, when really we had to sell our crown jewels to keep the whole mess ticking over another year.

The Crown Jewels argument always gets me. MA and LJ were allowed to reinvest the money, they were just rubbish at it. Good recruitment allows you to sell your best players, but barring a couple (Webster & Brownhill), Ashton & Johnson were complete dross. 

[Port Said Red]

Taylor Moore strikes me as one of those who has interests outside the game and finds concentrating on one thing for 90+ minutes a challenge.

I wonder if he has deeper issues as well, didn't he admit to having therapy sessions earlier in his time here?

[Waconda]

2016/17

Transfers paid - £11.34 million

Transfers received - £12.80 million 

2017/2018

Transfers paid - £12.09 million

Transfers received - £2.97 million

2018/2019

Transfer paid - £9.14 million

Transfers received - £26.55 million

2019/2020

Transfers paid - £29.66 million

Transfers received - £43.86 million

2020/2021

Transfers paid - £0

Transfers received - £3.69 million

2021/2022

Transfers paid  - £1.44 million

Transfers received - £0

Total over the period =

Transfers paid - £63.67 million

Transfers received - £89.87 million

* A Transfer fee PROFIT of £26.20 million. *

Obviously we paid and received loan fees not counted.

 We also have several first team players still at the club who are of considerable value signed during this time.

This figure conveniently missed out on virtually every spreadsheet I see on here.

 

 

 

[Waconda]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

£57.800m spent (22 players)

£29.000m recouped (10 players) - minus sell-ons, e.g. Webster’s sell-on to Ipswich reduces this amount.

(filtered on players £1m+)

Can have a right royal debate on how many are / were a success.

Guess, two main lenses:

- on the pitch

- financial (inc wages etc)

 

 

 

(For info, I’ve recently realigned some fees by going back to the club accounts, so they are in a reasonable ball-park).

The club made £26.20 million in PROFIT on transfer fees during this time period and several of the players signed are still at the club and have value.

We have paid and received loan fees of course.

So lets knock it down to £20 million in PROFIT with Kalas, Bentley, HNM, DaSilva  and Weimann with value in the transfer market.

Need to look at transfers as a whole not pick and chose to suit agenda.

[1960maaan]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

£57.800m spent (22 players)

£29.000m recouped (10 players) - minus sell-ons, e.g. Webster’s sell-on to Ipswich reduces this amount.

(filtered on players £1m+)

Can have a right royal debate on how many are / were a success.

Guess, two main lenses:

- on the pitch

- financial (inc wages etc)

 

 

 

(For info, I’ve recently realigned some fees by going back to the club accounts, so they are in a reasonable ball-park).

Skewed slightly by Webster, but that does highlight LJ/MA 's Clubs in the bag or Kid in a sweetshop philosophy . 
Buying players for the future, but spending "good" wages and a decent fee, to me indicates the lack of proper scouting. It appears they have gone for players at a level that should be a safe bet, and got them wrong. Even Eliasson, popular and effective (in the right system) didn't make the millions he maybe could . Year of good numbers of assists & goals, which he could easily got playing in the right formation, he may well have brought in very good money. Instead Johnson wanted something out of him he couldn't give and it went pear shape for everyone. 

That sort of thing feels like a theme. Moore and Vyner , looked to have real promise, then a switch of position or role has ended up hitting their form. Moore , after some good showing at RCB , lost it completely when he covered the left side (not once but twice). Vyner looked quality at RCB, then DMF, RB,RWB,MF, I do feel a little for them, even though you think they should be able to just to some extent.

I will go though the list and see who I think are hits & misses. 

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

£57.800m spent (22 players)

£29.000m recouped (10 players) - minus sell-ons, e.g. Webster’s sell-on to Ipswich reduces this amount.

(filtered on players £1m+)

Can have a right royal debate on how many are / were a success.

Guess, two main lenses:

- on the pitch

- financial (inc wages etc)

 

 

 

(For info, I’ve recently realigned some fees by going back to the club accounts, so they are in a reasonable ball-park).

Skewed slightly by Webster, but that does highlight LJ/MA 's Clubs in the bag or Kid in a sweetshop philosophy . 
Buying players for the future, but spending "good" wages and a decent fee, to me indicates the lack of proper scouting. It appears they have gone for players at a level that should be a safe bet, and got them wrong. Even Eliasson, popular and effective (in the right system) didn't make the millions he maybe could . Year of good numbers of assists & goals, which he could easily got playing in the right formation, he may well have brought in very good money. Instead Johnson wanted something out of him he couldn't give and it went pear shape for everyone. 

That sort of thing feels like a theme. Moore and Vyner , looked to have real promise, then a switch of position or role has ended up hitting their form. Moore , after some good showing at RCB , lost it completely when he covered the left side (not once but twice). Vyner looked quality at RCB, then DMF, RB,RWB,MF, I do feel a little for them, even though you think they should be able to just to some extent.

I will go though the list and see who I think are hits & misses. 

[Simon bristol]

33 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

The Crown Jewels argument always gets me. MA and LJ were allowed to reinvest the money, they were just rubbish at it. Good recruitment allows you to sell your best players, but barring a couple (Webster & Brownhill), Ashton & Johnson were complete dross. 

They certainly were rubbish at it,, but when they are going to the owner saying steve we really need marley watkins/ an other, why were alarm bells not ringing enough to ask what the plan was for this signing?

im not a fan of nige but when he came out and said the plan of selling your best players is crap he hit the nail on the head,, our recruitment is pathetic anyway, but youd need a 50% success rate for that to work financially, and thats without considering the effect on results of selling your best players all the time.

for a webster or brownhill theres 6/7 or more brought in who cost fees/ agents fees/ signing on fees/ wages who just werent up to it.

[Waconda]

1 minute ago, Simon bristol said:

They certainly were rubbish at it,, but when they are going to the owner saying steve we really need marley watkins/ an other, why were alarm bells not ringing enough to ask what the plan was for this signing?

im not a fan of nige but when he came out and said the plan of selling your best players is crap he hit the nail on the head,, our recruitment is pathetic anyway, but youd need a 50% success rate for that to work financially, and thats without considering the effect on results of selling your best players all the time.

for a webster or brownhill theres 6/7 or more brought in who cost fees/ agents fees/ signing on fees/ wages who just werent up to it.

You have to factor in the players desire to leave.

Webster and Brownhill for example were offered Premier League Football.

Far to easy to say we shouldn't be selling our best players.

The reinvestment was poor overall though I agree.

[Fordy62]

10 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

They certainly were rubbish at it,, but when they are going to the owner saying steve we really need marley watkins/ an other, why were alarm bells not ringing enough to ask what the plan was for this signing?

im not a fan of nige but when he came out and said the plan of selling your best players is crap he hit the nail on the head,, our recruitment is pathetic anyway, but youd need a 50% success rate for that to work financially, and thats without considering the effect on results of selling your best players all the time.

for a webster or brownhill theres 6/7 or more brought in who cost fees/ agents fees/ signing on fees/ wages who just werent up to it.

He obviously trusted Johnson because he was his mate (realistically the only reason he got the job) and Ashton must’ve impressed him by doing a fairly reasonable job by selling so many of Cotts’ squad early doors. So he evidently (and naively) gave them fully control. 

Ultimately he backed the wrong horse and no we have no resources. Oh well, Nige is slowly sorting but out so the next manager can have a good go. 

[ashton_fan]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

£57.800m spent (22 players)

£29.000m recouped (10 players) - minus sell-ons, e.g. Webster’s sell-on to Ipswich reduces this amount.

(filtered on players £1m+)

Can have a right royal debate on how many are / were a success.

Guess, two main lenses:

- on the pitch

- financial (inc wages etc)

 

 

 

(For info, I’ve recently realigned some fees by going back to the club accounts, so they are in a reasonable ball-park).

Of course some of those players are still with us (eg Kalas, our most expensive signing) so we can expect to get more transfer fees to redress the balance in the future (I expect Massengo to be one of those shortly). The 10 players who have been sold for £29m cost us £21.3m so we made a decent profit on them.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

Of course some of those players are still with us (eg Kalas, our most expensive signing) so we can expect to get more transfer fees to redress the balance in the future (I expect Massengo to be one of those shortly). The 10 players who have been sold for £29m cost us £21.3m so we made a decent profit on them.

I think the original quiz question was “how many have been successes”, rather than the financial outcome.  The answer is very few.

From a purely financial aspect….Ashton’s Modus Operandi….it’s just Webster, that’s one single player of those we paid £1m or more for.  There are some more borderline successes financially, Magnússon, Eliasson, even Eisa if you look at fees alone.  Of those players yet to be sold, who might turn in a sizeable transfer profit?  A few might turn a couple of million, but that’s it.

If you add “success on the pitch” you get a more blurred view, more that push towards “okay” / “meh”….but when you push the mantra of world class recruitment like MA did, it’s clear the results are far from world class.

We’ve seen his “grifting” at Ipswich already.  At least at City he got to sell other people’s players, e.g. Kodjia, otherwise god knows what shit we’d be in.

(caveat - I added Atkinson, even though he was post-Ashton)

This made me laugh this morning!

 

[Bris Red]

17 hours ago, DT The Optimist said:

 I started the thread re Klose remaining at the club... there were a few comments in relation to Taylor Moore returning to us.... so I thought I would start one  in relation to TM on its own right.  

I fully appreciate NP has implied TM does not feature in his plans, but he is contracted to BCFC until 2023, so perhaps easier said that done...

I had a look at a Hearts forum as he no longer seems to play, or start... and this is an interesting read, although a lot of 'X rated' adults only comments' 

I get the distinct impression he has not impressed our Northern friends 

http://www.talkhearts.co.uk/thread-7052.html 

Oh dear !!!

‘Can’t get a game for Bristol shitty’ hahah. They really do have a high opinion of themselves don’t they?

I forget how huge of a football club Hearts are, average attendances of 15 k would suggest otherwise to me 

[ashton_fan]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think the original quiz question was “how many have been successes”, rather than the financial outcome.  The answer is very few.

From a purely financial aspect….Ashton’s Modus Operandi….it’s just Webster, that’s one single player of those we paid £1m or more for.  There are some more borderline successes financially, Magnússon, Eliasson, even Eisa if you look at fees alone.  Of those players yet to be sold, who might turn in a sizeable transfer profit?  A few might turn a couple of million, but that’s it.

If you add “success on the pitch” you get a more blurred view, more that push towards “okay” / “meh”….but when you push the mantra of world class recruitment like MA did, it’s clear the results are far from world class.

We’ve seen his “grifting” at Ipswich already.  At least at City he got to sell other people’s players, e.g. Kodjia, otherwise god knows what shit we’d be in.

(caveat - I added Atkinson, even though he was post-Ashton)

This made me laugh this morning!

 

I appreciate your point but your original post implied we'd lost money on those transfers by not taking into account the players still on our books, which was not the case

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, ashton_fan said:

I appreciate your point but your original post implied we'd lost money on those transfers by not taking into account the players still on our books, which was not the case

Even so, I don’t reckon the remaining players recoup £28m though.  Do you?

[1960maaan]

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

Of course some of those players are still with us (eg Kalas, our most expensive signing) so we can expect to get more transfer fees to redress the balance in the future (I expect Massengo to be one of those shortly). The 10 players who have been sold for £29m cost us £21.3m so we made a decent profit on them.

I'd dispute the decent profit. We made a good profit on one, the rest I doubt covered the wages.

I'd say if you get a decent amount of games from a player, and you make any profit, that's a "HIT". The likes of Eliasson & Magnússon , sold in their Prime for small profit has to be looked on as a miss. 

12 of @Davefevs list could be looked on as financial failures , but (for instance) ODowda has played a decent amount of games , not fulfilled his promise but has been a starter under 3 managers . We won't get our money back, but bad luck has stopped us getting it on the pitch HIT/MISS ? Injuries stopped him being a HIT, Financially it will be a miss. Magnússon played over 50 games for us, left making a profit. But a (then) current International and only 24 ? I think it could be looked on as a miss, a bit like Eisa, profit but more by luck than planning. 

As Ashton & Johnson's raisin d'être was to buy young players and sell at a profit, I'd say unless you're making multiple millions on a deal, it's a failure. 
Webster , good business but he was known . Good business that we risked the rumour of an injury prone player, great profit. Brownhill to me is the real deal. Free transfer, sold for £8m ?  I don't count the Academy sales as no scouting or work by the recruitment team involved . 
So of the players we have signed, the business model they were trying to implement  produced Webster and Brownhill .  I would guess only HNM would bring any proper profit on fees, so massive failure . 

[PHILINFRANCE]

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This made me laugh this morning!

 

I thought that he only used one agent anyway and that, effectively, was the main problem with our recruitment.

[Mr Sno]

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I thought that he only used one agent anyway and that, effectively, was the main problem with our recruitment.

This player is already on the books.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I thought that he only used one agent anyway and that, effectively, was the main problem with our recruitment.

A few agents, but for a man who talked about fishing in big ponds, he used bait that only caught certain fish!

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Sno said:

This player is already on the books.

Still agents to deal with.  Still a cut to be taken!!!

 

[GrahamC]

@1960maaan Not quoting your whole post & certainly not defending Mark Ashton but don’t agree re Eliasson.

The only offer we had for him was from a tiny French side who got relegated, he’s now playing in their second division.

Considering it was during the pandemic & when you contrast it with the shambles that we had with Famara, we did remarkably well to do better than break even in the circumstances.

[1960maaan]

17 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

@1960maaan Not quoting your whole post & certainly not defending Mark Ashton but don’t agree re Eliasson.

The only offer we had for him was from a tiny French side who got relegated, he’s now playing in their second division.

Considering it was during the pandemic & when you contrast it with the shambles that we had with Famara, we did remarkably well to do better than break even in the circumstances.

I know, that was part of my point. We bought a winger, an out and out winger , yet Johnson didn't play with wingers. Even then he provided  good number of assists and goals. If we had been playing with a system that suited him, we may well have got full value from him.  
All if's and but's, but that time we signed , or loaned about 6 wingers and never set up to play that way.

[ashton_fan]

53 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I'd dispute the decent profit. We made a good profit on one, the rest I doubt covered the wages.

I'd say if you get a decent amount of games from a player, and you make any profit, that's a "HIT". The likes of Eliasson & Magnússon , sold in their Prime for small profit has to be looked on as a miss. 

12 of @Davefevs list could be looked on as financial failures , but (for instance) ODowda has played a decent amount of games , not fulfilled his promise but has been a starter under 3 managers . We won't get our money back, but bad luck has stopped us getting it on the pitch HIT/MISS ? Injuries stopped him being a HIT, Financially it will be a miss. Magnússon played over 50 games for us, left making a profit. But a (then) current International and only 24 ? I think it could be looked on as a miss, a bit like Eisa, profit but more by luck than planning. 

As Ashton & Johnson's raisin d'être was to buy young players and sell at a profit, I'd say unless you're making multiple millions on a deal, it's a failure. 
Webster , good business but he was known . Good business that we risked the rumour of an injury prone player, great profit. Brownhill to me is the real deal. Free transfer, sold for £8m ?  I don't count the Academy sales as no scouting or work by the recruitment team involved . 
So of the players we have signed, the business model they were trying to implement  produced Webster and Brownhill .  I would guess only HNM would bring any proper profit on fees, so massive failure . 

We all have different opinions but the numbers are facts, it doesn't include the big fee paid for Kelly during the MA/LJ period, there were some poor signings in that group but it's a fact that the players sold for quite a bit more than they cost, as for the ones still on our books we don't know what we'll get for them (COVID will have reduced their values) but they will have played a high number of games for us so that must be worth something, I'm just trying to take a balanced view

[Silvio Dante]

I think the other thing about this is an understanding of where the market was at the time. Not just us, but other teams were spending £1m + on “punts”. Even now, someone like Atkinson is £1.6m and isn’t a guaranteed starter.

The theory is/was that if you buy 5 “punts” and one comes off you make a profit, while also having bodies in the squad. The problem is that if none come off it’s a hell of a lot more noticeable if the punts are £1m and not £100k

There is no doubt we haven’t got Vfm on a lot of the list, and I do think we were dealing in an inflated market where we were probably taken advantage of by our CEOs love for a deal. However I do understand the strategy and Moore ticked a lot of boxes that made the punt, at the price in that market, a tenable one.

[petehinton]

Someone mention above, but Can see that LJ totally destroyed his confidence on a few occasions, probably playing a factor  

[Sleepy1968]

5 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

The Crown Jewels argument always gets me. MA and LJ were allowed to reinvest the money, they were just rubbish at it. Good recruitment allows you to sell your best players, but barring a couple (Webster & Brownhill), Ashton & Johnson were complete dross. 

An embalmed fly in a spider's web and about to be dinner would still have a more nuanced player recruitment strategy than LJ or Swiss Tony.

[GrahamC]

37 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I know, that was part of my point. We bought a winger, an out and out winger , yet Johnson didn't play with wingers. Even then he provided  good number of assists and goals. If we had been playing with a system that suited him, we may well have got full value from him.  
All if's and but's, but that time we signed , or loaned about 6 wingers and never set up to play that way.

Fair comment, the more you look at it, the stranger it all becomes;

Signing Marley Watkins & Adelakun at the same time, who are basically the same player & then never using either of them.

Szmodics then Palmer both arriving in the same summer when we already had Paterson (who is a far superior version of this type to either of them) on our books, so we then loan him out to Derby.

Nagy arriving & Pack suddenly leaving on deadline day, the former not being an effective replacement for the latter.

How much LJ felt he had no say in all this I have no idea, but it just resembles a 7 year old in a sweet shop.

[Bristol Rob]

The Moore purchase is a conflicting one.

On paper, everything about it suggested good deal, good price (given the market at the time) and with us seemingly shopping in the French markets fairly often, a bilingual English/French player probably helped settle in some other players when it came to communicating in training/match days, add to that his England youth games and I would struggle to think of another 'on paper' signing I wouldn't be disappointed in going for again.

But he has never kicked on and improved to a level where you think he would survive a Championship season. Maybe it was too many loans, maybe he just isn't good enough or maybe he is just disillusioned with life in Bristol, but with the contract he has, his next 12 months will see him still on pre-pandemic money, so that probably takes the sting out of things for him.

[Numero Uno]

I remember getting pelters on here about 18 months ago for suggesting he wasn't fit for purpose...........people posting aubergine emoji's and shit like that. I'm no football genius but it stood out as clearly as night follows day that you cannot be as error prone as he is and be anywhere near good enough to play Championship football over a sustained period. He's no kid (unlike Scott who has the talent but has hit a rough patch that you totally accept and expect for that matter) and hasn't been for a number of seasons now. Lower league player all day long - another one of LJ's fantastic club in the bag signings.

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

The Moore purchase is a conflicting one.

On paper, everything about it suggested good deal, good price (given the market at the time) and with us seemingly shopping in the French markets fairly often, a bilingual English/French player probably helped settle in some other players when it came to communicating in training/match days, add to that his England youth games and I would struggle to think of another 'on paper' signing I wouldn't be disappointed in going for again.

But he has never kicked on and improved to a level where you think he would survive a Championship season. Maybe it was too many loans, maybe he just isn't good enough or maybe he is just disillusioned with life in Bristol, but with the contract he has, his next 12 months will see him still on pre-pandemic money, so that probably takes the sting out of things for him.

For me, part of his problem is that he’s got a bit “top heavy”, a bulky, and lost a bit of agility.  I know bodies change over time, but he had a nice athletic build when he came here.  He looks very different nowadays.  Shame,mad he can pass the ball pretty well from the back, had a bit of pace too.  But alas, his time looks over here.

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

For me, part of his problem is that he’s got a bit “top heavy”, a bulky, and lost a bit of agility.  I know bodies change over time, but he had a nice athletic build when he came here.  He looks very different nowadays.  Shame,mad he can pass the ball pretty well from the back, had a bit of pace too.  But alas, his time looks over here.

Wasn't he mostly playing in midfield as a youth and then became a defender?