Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, April 17, 04:13:52pm

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

• Haha and maybe you’re another manifestation of Eganonoa who has to appear as Muniz fan ! As I have maintained for ages another club wants him , but doesn’t want to pay the £90m he’d be worth if he played to his ability all the time . World Cup 2016 he will want to play to his best next season , but at Spurs probably and with Marco there too . (NT) -- alanos, Wednesday, April 02, 08:47:28pm (82-132-214-16.dab.02.net/82.132.214.16)

  ---

• Muniz is on such a ridiculously good contract that an argument could be made that the most financially-efficient thing for the club to do is to keep him and play him until his contract runs out and he leaves for free. PSR makes such a strategy unrealistic. But if we were in a PSR-free world, I'm certain that this is an approach clubs would take towards young players on low-wage long-term contracts. (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 02, 09:00:11pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
  • Beyond that, though, you are correct. Those posters on here wanting us to emulate Brighton and buy young and expensive surely have to be happy then for the club to sell on those young and expensive players for even more money just when they are coming good for us. Too much gambling for me. I like our current path of aiming for broken things others don't want. But there is logic in the youth churn strategy and if you want us to do it, then Muniz would surely be first on the block (NT) -- eganonoa, Wednesday, April 02, 09:05:03pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
    • What’s gambling is having nobody to sell and skirting PSR with big fees and contracts on older players, with few options to potentially sell and reinvest, if we stay still we go backwards. It’s understanding your place in the food chain within PSR rules, as SOS has shown we are in a poor position financially, with 2 big recent sales, we have barely anything to buy players. Muniz like any player will have a price, possibly our highest given his age & position. (NT) -- Henry1879, Wednesday, April 02, 09:31:39pm (82-132-222-148.dab.02.net/82.132.222.148)
    • I'd love for us to be able to do what you say - buy players with no concern about whether or not they have resale value. But to do that, we need to generate another £30-£40m a season and reduce our salaries. Matchday income won't do that, even qualifying for the champions league would only do some of it. Selling players at a sensible point in their value curve seems to be the only way we can run. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Thursday, April 03, 09:00:31am (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
      • Ultimately I'm not saying that, but posing that there's more than one way to cook an egg. Right now the dominant trend is for teams to buy young making youth increasingly expensive and thus riskier. Our current strategy of buying slightly older reclamation projects is sensible, not following the herd and instead focusing on value the markets ignoring. We've proven there's still a market for our fixed-up "prime" age players and done well with one big sale a summer and more managerial stability (NT) -- eganonoa, Thursday, April 03, 11:26:44am (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
        • I'm also highlighting contradiction in what's being said. On the one hand its panic about our wage bill. On the other its an insistence that we MUST buy young, sell young. Logically that means we must sell Muniz over anyone else, removing our best value contract before we realize its on-field value. Amid all the endless repeating about Brighton and Palace, we're all on similar, middling wage bills, all one bad season from it all being for nought and all doing just about as well as each other. (NT) -- eganonoa, Thursday, April 03, 11:48:19am (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
          • Reply too long, so inside.... -- Same Old Story, Thursday, April 03, 12:12:09pm (webdefence-pool-02.cluster-lonb.forcepoint.net/85.115.53.202)
            • What seems slightly different in the last Summer window, is that we have signed the experienced Premier League pros but who are more of the journeymen category but not at journeymen prices. What will be even more disappointing is if we end up saying the same about ESR. On a different point, there are some who say these players are MS signings. Even if true (I certainly don't know), we don't know what he was offered instead. (NT) -- Barry@ENF, Thursday, April 03, 02:07:50pm (cpc95104-newt39-2-0-cust313.19-3.cable.virginm.net/77.101.245.58)
              • I think the idea being touted that these are Silva's signings are wide of the mark. It clear we have a three-part committee transfer strategy; sensible in a world where coaches come and go. I'm certain that Silva is exercising more influence on that now than he was at the start of his tenure. But that doesn't make them "his signings". We have a manager who has proven time-and-again that he can take ugly ducklings others pass over and turn them into gold. It would be absurd not to lean into that (NT) -- eganonoa, Thursday, April 03, 02:49:52pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
                • That system has been in place for years.And yet , in the past , all the "bad signings" were "Tony signings". (NT) -- Billy B, Friday, April 04, 04:17:33am (180-150-112-239.NBN.mel.aussiebb.net/180.150.112.239)
                  • Yep. It would be silly not to believe the coach is able to exercise more influence in a committee the longer he's been in it, showing success. But it's also a bit ridiculous to believe that Silva's just pulled out the names of past Fulham players like Sess and Andersen and rammed them through committee. This summer had all the hallmarks of a continuation of our way of doing business; not some coach-led revolution. We clearly believe there's untapped value in the market for players 23 and above (NT) -- eganonoa, Friday, April 04, 03:25:42pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
            • We're not too far apart. I agree on Andersen to an extent. But he doesn't rely on pace so could be holding value. And he has an extreme skill-set we needed because we lost both Tosin and Ream just when teams found out we were vulnerable to the high press. So I see some sense. I also think we have a decent sale pipeline (Robinson, Andreas, Bassey, ESR & Muniz) and an ability shed contracts (Adama, Raul). So I think things look better than you do. But again, we're not too far apart I don't think (NT) -- eganonoa, Thursday, April 03, 02:31:52pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
              • What I vehemently disagree with is posters constantly going on about Brighton & Palace as if there's are the only models and we don't have one of our own. Brighton are taking ever larger bets and churning players and managers. Palace's ownership structure is a mess with the glue in Freedman about to depart. They're both going to come undone. I think we have a relatively unique strategy, prefer our long-term situation and see us as about equals on the pitch today. (NT) -- eganonoa, Thursday, April 03, 02:44:01pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
              • It’s all clubs, look at city’s Jan signings, spurs signings, Utd signings, almost none are 25+, yet they can afford almost who they want. Football is partly dictated by accounts now, whether people like it or not, hence every signing is through the lens of PSR as much as playing ability, the rules dictate that. BHA aren’t taking larger risk, their younger players hold value, on a spreadsheet and to sell on if need be, have lower wages (good for new 80% rule). (NT) -- Henry1879, Thursday, April 03, 07:50:02pm (94.196.33.37.threembb.co.uk/94.196.33.37)
                • Their whole method is based on spreadbetting, some will fail, but spread the risk, not all eggs in 1 or 2 baskets, they’re continually investing in their talent pipeline. Spend big on older players leaves little room for error if they don’t pan out. CPFC is a club I know well, why is their ownership structure a mess? Freedman has nothing to do with ownership, he didn’t own a single share. (NT) -- Henry1879, Thursday, April 03, 07:51:53pm (82-132-222-9.dab.02.net/82.132.222.9)
                • Congrats, you've identified the reasons we shouldn't take up this strategy. "[A]ll clubs" are doing it leaving a gap in the mid-20s reclamations we're good at; big clubs "can afford who they want" and get the best young talent, the one smaller club best at it is owned by professional "spreadbett[ers]", & football is "dictated by accounts". Money is typically made in markets by specialists identifying undervalued assets, not by blind followers copying the trend. We should stick to our niche. (NT) -- eganonoa, Thursday, April 03, 10:46:52pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
                  • Reply inside -- Henry1879, Friday, April 04, 03:01:34pm (94.196.33.37.threembb.co.uk/94.196.33.37)
                    • You have missed the point. Please re-read & reflect. I'm not arguing what I want, I'm describing what I believe is our club's rationale. To reiterate & sign off: there are many ways to find value; when the majority focus on one asset (here, young players) prices rise sucking the value out. I believe the club sees this happening, is trying to chart its own course & thinks our resale pipeline (Robinson, Andreas, Bassey, Lukic, Sess, Cuenca, Muniz, Berge, ESR, maybe Wilson) sufficient. I agree (NT) -- eganonoa, Friday, April 04, 03:51:26pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
                      • Beyond the speculative future pipeline (which is ultimately speculative for all and contingent on luck, injuries and good coaching) there is also some data that can point to the club's strategy as being economically efficient today. For instance, transfermarkt's "cost per point" analysis which argues that our squad is the 2nd most cost-efficient squad in the league (links inside). Again, as I say, there are many ways to cook an egg. -- eganonoa, Friday, April 04, 04:03:42pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
                        • Unfortunately you lost me at the transfer market, I can’t think I know a more worthless website/source. If has Josh king worth 1m, Muniz at €20m, tete (with 6 months of his contract) at €10m, I don’t know how they decide their numbers, but I’ve seen more economic logic on a Donald trump tariff chart. (NT) -- Henry1879, Friday, April 04, 04:35:51pm (94.196.33.37.threembb.co.uk/94.196.33.37)
                          • I've had this discussion on here several times. I literally know someone who helped write the algorithms for that website. It's all based on a very loose 'time remaining' vs 'percieved value' vs 'net salary' formula. It takes absolutely no account of clubs need/desire to sell, contract clauses, interest from other times etc - all of which are significant when setting value. As you surmise, when it comes to anything to do with valuations, its essentially worthless. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Friday, April 04, 04:59:40pm (NoHost/81.79.75.149)
                            • Analysis based on purchase price, not their algorithm of current value. It's purchase price divided by points. I'm pretty sure they source their purchase price data from publicly available sources and it's pretty decent (or as decent as exists). Have a look through the last few seasons (link inside) and see how many you reckon are miles off. And again, just one metric of analysis of our current transfer strategy. At least more accurate that subjective perceived future player value -- eganonoa, Friday, April 04, 05:10:44pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)
                              • Apologies, i had been reading the argument above as 'value', not purchase price. (NT) -- Same Old Story, Monday, April 07, 09:49:57am (NoHost/81.79.75.149)
                          • Good that I "lost [you] at transfermarkt" given that that was a side point made after my main one. Presume that means you finally understand basic market economics. Good. On that side point, the analysis is not based on their speculation of current squad worth, but how much each player was purchased for. It's generally decent at that. Total cost of all players divided points = how much was spent per point. We're 2nd best on that metric. Not exactly so complicated as to get lost in I should hope (NT) -- eganonoa, Friday, April 04, 05:05:04pm (pool-108-18-149-21.washdc.fios.verizon.net/108.18.149.21)

  ---

• You’re not far off the mark mate. I don’t see anyone knocking on the door at figures quoted here. And indeed stats don’t always tell the full story. (NT) -- CB, Thursday, April 03, 08:24:27am (213-18-191-186.customer.gigaclear.net/213.18.191.186)