|
World of Football All non Palace football talk - includes latest scores on Internationals and matches that affect palace. |
|
Thread Tools |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Not buying players.
In the midst of all the hype and hysteria of Transfer Deadline Day I had a rather interesting thought. Is it possible put together a competitive team without buying any players? In this Jordan-esque utopia of club management your stated policy is not to pay any transfer fees. You can bring in players on free transfers, Bosmans and free agents and also loans (the number of which I believe is limited?) and also bring on talent through the academy. The point is you don't pay any fees, and therefore any agents, for any players.
So my question is two-fold. Could Palace operate at the current level under this policy and if not, at what level do you think a club could be competitive (in their particular league) using this policy?
__________________
Doctor Mosh says: "If you not living on the edge, you're taking up too much BOOM!!" |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I think you'll still have to pay agents, just no fee to the selling club.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
At the risk of being nieve, what would agents be doing for us that we need to pay them for?
__________________
Doctor Mosh says: "If you not living on the edge, you're taking up too much BOOM!!" |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Negotiating a contract for their player I would guess.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Didn't SJ have a go a few years ago saying that the players should pay the agents and not the clubs?
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Given the things Spurs achieved last season having famously not bought any players before the season started, I thought I might revive this thread and canvass some more opinions.
__________________
Doctor Mosh says: "If you not living on the edge, you're taking up too much BOOM!!" Last edited by Sluggo; 01-07-2019 at 04:11 PM. Reason: Spelling |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
They are an example of how spending money and not spending money don't always equal success. These are the purchases over the previous 2 seasons: Sissoko - £31.5m Janssen - £20m Wanyama - £13m N'Koudou - £10m Sanchez - £36m Moura - £25.5m Aurier - £22.5m LLorente - £13.5m Foyth - £12m How much value did they get there? |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Which all goes to show that dabbling in the transfer market is very much a gamble. So why not leave it alone?
__________________
Doctor Mosh says: "If you not living on the edge, you're taking up too much BOOM!!" |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Value? Not bad really. Certainly not terrible. Sissoko turned his season completely round and how valuable were some goals from Moura (early days still) and Llorente? Sanchez played a fair bit from memory even if he is a bit ho hum to my mind. The only obvious failure is Janssen? The others are too soon to tell or it's a question about what is value; sometimes their resale might be the judge.
__________________
God's own county - Kent. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The £50m is net spend, the almost £200m they have actually spent arguably could and should have been spent a lot better than it was. Moura is a success but arguably the only one on that list who makes Spurs best 11! They have got better by their younger players developing and improving whilst very few of their team going beyond their peak. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Wanyama has suffered with countless injuries, but for £13m he's been decent value, Foyth was reported at £8m and seems reasonable for a player with potential, we sold our better version after a full season for £50m. Aurier was played with injuries as well. Sanchez and Moura are decent value. Llorente was a decent back up, suffered a bit with not playing regularly imo. Janssen and N'Koudou have flopped, but I bet they get close to the fees they paid when they come to sell. Which also goes some way to determine their value to the side.
__________________
To make any lie all that more believable just add "In America....." |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|