Transfer Speculation / Gossip

[Gregorys Boy]

Its always debatable how much managers think about these things when signing players.  Maybe Lambert was just thinking these are the sort of players who could get us competing in the top half of the table again and not worrying too much about how much we get when they leave.   Of course if we had kicked on like that then we might not be thinking about these things anywhere.   Am hopeing that someone like Kozak will stick around awhile and be a big player for us anyway.

[RussellC]

For what it's worth I don't think it's a particularly outlandish debate to be having as to whether Lambert's signings would return a profit. For instance most of the people saying that they would are including Ron Vlaar as a definite profit because he'd fetch upward of £10m. But on other threads pepole are adamant that Vlaar won't be going this summer because no-one will pay that amount. The difference between what we value him at and what we'd actually get if we put him up for sale is surely a point worthy of debate?

The reality, as I see it, is that the jury's out on too many of Lambert's signings to really sit firmly on either side of the fence. We'd definitely make a huge profit on Benteke and definitely make small losses on the likes of Helenius, Luna, Bennett whilst (hopefully) breaking even on KEA. Kozak and Okore we just don;t know about, and I can understand the reluctance to credit Guzan's signing to Lambert in the sense that it wasn't like he was scouted by him. He also renewed Andy Marshall's contract, effectively retaining the status quo of the goalkeeping staff for his first season in charge.

Sales value depends on so much more than ability too, e.g contract length, injury history, is the player settled at the club?, etc. Therefore isn't the relevant question in all of this how many of the players have improved  since signing for us?

It really is outlandish, as said earlier, Benteke on his own gets back about 3/4s of the money Lambert has spent (there can be no debate that he'd be worth as much as Lukaku) at that point getting our money back on Okore and Kozak (which seems fair) and getting a decent profit on Vlaar means we're already in profit, that's without even looking at the other 15? players in the squad that he's signed.

In which case you're saying that out of all of Lambert's signings only 2 would definitely return a profit? Three if you include Guzan?

[edgysatsuma89]

Dave, Shall we just wait and see once that Scottish chap on Sky sports tells us "that's it til January" . At the moment, I am questioning why we are loaning players, rather than selling them? Is it because they are crap, unsellable, or we want to keep them because they might be worth something one day? Apparently, this adds up to nonsense according to you. Whereas, I feel it's a healthy debate with different posters being either overly optimistic, in my view, or genuinely saying it as they see it.

Benteke, brilliant signing. Should make a huge profit on him. Vlaar, yup, based on his world cup performances. Profit. The rest, let's wait and see.

Does the last sentence of your first paragraph basically mean those overly optimistic are lying as they are in fact not 'saying it as they see it'? As their view is different to yours? They must not be ay, must be lying for this healthy debate.

[pauliewalnuts]

The profit on Benteke alone would cover most of his signings.

Whether we'd make a profit is not the correct way of assessing the signings.

If (hypothetically) you sign an entire first team, and your star player cost 5m and would fetch 50m, thus paying for the rest, then if the other 10 are mediocre players, you're not going to achieve much.

Our problem is that we have decent players in four positions - Guzan, Vlaar, Delph, Benteke - and then a load of players who generally aren't very good making up the rest of the team / squad.

When two of those four decent players get injured, then the situation looks even worse.

I think Kozak will turn out to be a good signing, and I hope Okore does as well, but we have far too many players who aren't up to it in the squad - which explains why we've finished 15th twice and 16th in the last three seasons.

[RussellC]

Whether we'd make a profit is not the correct way of assessing the signings.

Completely agree. The potential profit that we'd make by selling Benteke doesn't paper over the fact that, at best, Lambert's transfer dealings have been hit and miss.

[Dave]

For what it's worth I don't think it's a particularly outlandish debate to be having as to whether Lambert's signings would return a profit. For instance most of the people saying that they would are including Ron Vlaar as a definite profit because he'd fetch upward of £10m. But on other threads pepole are adamant that Vlaar won't be going this summer because no-one will pay that amount. The difference between what we value him at and what we'd actually get if we put him up for sale is surely a point worthy of debate?

The reality, as I see it, is that the jury's out on too many of Lambert's signings to really sit firmly on either side of the fence. We'd definitely make a huge profit on Benteke and definitely make small losses on the likes of Helenius, Luna, Bennett whilst (hopefully) breaking even on KEA. Kozak and Okore we just don;t know about, and I can understand the reluctance to credit Guzan's signing to Lambert in the sense that it wasn't like he was scouted by him. He also renewed Andy Marshall's contract, effectively retaining the status quo of the goalkeeping staff for his first season in charge.

Sales value depends on so much more than ability too, e.g contract length, injury history, is the player settled at the club?, etc. Therefore isn't the relevant question in all of this how many of the players have improved  since signing for us?

It really is outlandish, as said earlier, Benteke on his own gets back about 3/4s of the money Lambert has spent (there can be no debate that he'd be worth as much as Lukaku) at that point getting our money back on Okore and Kozak (which seems fair) and getting a decent profit on Vlaar means we're already in profit, that's without even looking at the other 15? players in the squad that he's signed.

In which case you're saying that out of all of Lambert's signings only 2 would definitely return a profit? Three if you include Guzan?

No, I think he's saying that we wouldn't even need to bring them into the conversation.

As was covered at tedious length last night, Bacuna, Lowton, Westwood would comfortably turn a profit. Okore, Kozak, Cole, Senderos and Richardson would break even at very worst case scenario. Sylla, El Ahmadi and Helenius would possibly make their money back, or any loss is likely to be negligible.

We might take a bit of a hit on Bennett, Luna and Tonev unless they improve massively but I think we still wouldn't be giving them away for nothing.

[RussellC]

As was covered at tedious length

Dave, you're free to spend your time as you wish. If you found it tedious then why bother responding, you're under no obligation.

[Dave]

As was covered at tedious length

Dave, you're free to spend your time as you wish. If you found it tedious then why bother responding, you're under no obligation.

I'm quite happy to respond, I'm just saying I found it a bit tedious last night with somebody else (not you) repeating his same fallacies over and over again.

[RussellC]

As was covered at tedious length

Dave, you're free to spend your time as you wish. If you found it tedious then why bother responding, you're under no obligation.

I'm quite happy to respond, I'm just saying I found it a bit tedious last night with somebody else (not you) repeating his same fallacies over and over again.

Fair enough. I think Paulie's hit the nail on the head- whether or not we'd return an overall profit isn't really the best way of judging Lambert's record in the transfer market, which is what we're really debating (I think!).

[Dave]

As was covered at tedious length

Dave, you're free to spend your time as you wish. If you found it tedious then why bother responding, you're under no obligation.

I'm quite happy to respond, I'm just saying I found it a bit tedious last night with somebody else (not you) repeating his same fallacies over and over again.

Fair enough. I think Paulie's hit the nail on the head- whether or not we'd return an overall profit isn't really the best way of judging Lambert's record in the transfer market, which is what we're really debating (I think!).

I'd happily agree with that. We're a football club, not a business set up for the trading of footballers.

It's pointless to say Lowton is a successful signing because we might get £2m if we sold him when we only bought him for £1m. Because as a club we need somebody playing at right back who is more valuable to us than to warrant a £2m transfer fee.

However I'd say it's even more pointless to argue that we would make a loss on him if we were to sell him, just because he's not quite good enough to be our first choice right-back.

[Steve67]

And yet Dave, here we are, still debating it.

For the record, I am not on a wind up, calling anyone a liar etc. I just think that generally, Paul Lambert has bought badly and we won't make a profit on nearly all of his signings. Vlaar and Benteke together would pay back the money in one fell swoop, yes. I also think that some of the other hypothesized fees for players are a bit on the high side.

Meanwhile, hopefully, back to the incoming......

[RussellC]

However I'd say it's even more pointless to argue that we would make a loss on him if we were to sell him, just because he's not quite good enough to be our first choice right-back.

I'd agree with this, but it does re-raise the point that it (if we are loaning him to Middlesbrough) it's a very odd move. I'd love to think that it's a sensible move to give our (now) 3rd choice RB a guarantee of game time, but given our handling of (and ability to sell) the bomb-squad last summer, my fear is that it's just Lambert's way of ridding himself of the player and potentially freeing up a place in the 25-man squad.

[supertom]

Player profit doesn't bother me in the slightest. If you're talking about the players we could sell on a profit, like Benteke, Vlaar, Guzan, Delph for example, these are players I'd rather keep hold of. What they might garner in fees doesn't bother me because if we sell them we might as well give up.

Regarding most of the other players in a squad, i'd not lose sleep over selling any of them to be honest. Would we get a profit on most of the remaining? No. But very few sides get great profits on players they've purchased, who are deemed surplus within a year or two. more often than not if you sell a player you deem to be surplus, or not good enough for your side, you're likely going to make a loss. You make the profit on the players who are key to your side because they have value. But of course, you just need to look at Southampton getting absolutely ripped apart to see that selling your best players, even for silly money isn't always a good idea.

Lowton, Bennett, Sylla, Tonev, Helenius, KEA, Luna, Bacuna, N'Zogbia, Bent, and more. They're expendable members of our squad. We'll lose money on the majority of them. They're a mix of past it, inconsistent or just plain not good enough.  Losing any of that lot won't really hurt us.
We might well get a lot of money for Vlaar or Benteke but losing them could be devastating.

[Clampy]

Bearing in mind we didn't make any profit on the likes of Warnock, NRC, Davies, Sidwell and Cuellar (who all cost us the best part of £40m) makes some of Lambert's buys a little easier to digest.

[ADVILLAFAN]

On planet Earth no one will pay £14m quid for Steer, Lowton, Senderos, KEA and Bennett.

Apart from Lambert.

MON and King Kenny would pay 30M