I'd be happy if we never spent a transfer fee again

[darra]

10 minutes ago, royalowlisback said:

And they just spent £35 Million on Mane - so what's your point?

It was a joke mate

[royalowlisback]

1 minute ago, darra said:

It was a joke mate

Sorry - a bit snappy at the moment, the Missus is on the blob. 

[darra]

14 minutes ago, royalowlisback said:

So to get this right, I had to know you meant Hunt the second time round, even though you didn't know we paid a fee for Bannan - which is more common knowledge than the Hunt one?

 

Getting players on frees, isn't sustainable, if it was that easy every club in football would do it. The key is a mixture of signings - but not signing young players on an upward trajectory, and then selling them on a huge profit is a sure-fire way to keep losing money. Most of the 'free' signings we make are older, have little or no re-sale value - then leave for nothing or retire (same thing).

Finding and signing young players on a trajectory is a fine art and great if you can afford to. Teams like Man C, Chelsea, Man U and Liverpool.can afford to do it we can't. Chelsea have over 40 youth players on their books. Just before his death Butch Wilkins was discussing academies and how many youth players will make it. The answer was around 1%. I'd absolutely love it if we could find some gems and sell them on for a profit

[Luke]

3 hours ago, edwinowl said:

We have to remember however many of these players have come here because of DM and his pull. It’s almost the perfect storm in terms of big club/fanbase and DM:  Not sure what it is but he seems to attract players. Long may it continue 

Here we go with this made up rubbish again 

NO player has signed here because of Darren Moore 

 

 

[edwinowl]

5 minutes ago, Luke said:

Here we go with this made up rubbish again 

NO player has signed here because of Darren Moore 

 

 

I’ll bow to your better judgement then my friend  

[thebizzle]

3 hours ago, royalowlisback said:

We are getting frees (with probably large signing on fees etc), but they are all old with no sell on fee.

 

 

Dele Bashiru, Byers, Adeniran ?

 

Soon to be Mallike Wilks who is 23 ?

[royalowlisback]

6 minutes ago, thebizzle said:

 

Dele Bashiru, Byers, Adeniran ?

 

Soon to be Mallike Wilks who is 23 ?

So it's happening then - is it on a free?

[thebizzle]

Depends if we can reach an agreement with Hull, everything else is sorted.  Get the impression they are wanting to complete a signing first.  They were after Twine at MK but he is going to Burnley now

[royalowlisback]

7 minutes ago, thebizzle said:

Depends if we can reach an agreement with Hull, everything else is sorted.  Get the impression they are wanting to complete a signing first.  They were after Twine at MK but he is going to Burnley now

Good stuff.

 

My comment related to the names mentioned on the opening post from the OP - they were all towards the end of their careers, with the exception of Bannan and Hunt whom we paid fees for.

[nickswfc]

1 hour ago, royalowlisback said:

So to get this right, I had to know you meant Hunt the second time round, even though you didn't know we paid a fee for Bannan - which is more common knowledge than the Hunt one?

 

Getting players on frees, isn't sustainable, if it was that easy every club in football would do it. The key is a mixture of signings - but not signing young players on an upward trajectory, and then selling them on a huge profit is a sure-fire way to keep losing money. Most of the 'free' signings we make are older, have little or no re-sale value - then leave for nothing or retire (same thing).

 

Again, an oversight on Bannan, but I was literally just listing free transfers mate, so can we just focus on that and the point.

 

I'm all for signing young players, developing them and selling on for a profit - it sounds great on paper - but you're competing fee wise with other clubs and to unearth a gem for a modest fee is very, very difficult. So with that comes the risk of wasted ££.

 

I much prefer the idea of picking up released academy players and developing them, as the risk is lower if they don't materialise into a saleable asset. 

 

Also, the idea that 'every club would be doing it' isn't realistic, demanding fans and a desire from owners for instant success will mean fees are always paid.

 

For us, given a) we have felt huge pain from overspending and b) DM showed last season you can get very good players for frees - we're in a unique position in that I think our fans would be more understanding of the strategy. Evidenced by most fans being very positive on the business we've done so far this summer.

[thebizzle]

Our more succesful signings over the last probably 10 years, have been free transfers.  Especially compared to when we've paid fees.

 

Free - Bannan, Westwood, Hutchinson, Fizz, Byers, Gregory, Lees, Wallace, Semedo, Kieran Lee

 

£££ - Rhodes, Abdi, Dave Jones, Reach etc

[royalowlisback]

4 minutes ago, nickswfc said:

 

Again, an oversight on Bannan, but I was literally just listing free transfers mate, so can we just focus on that and the point.

 

I'm all for signing young players, developing them and selling on for a profit - it sounds great on paper - but you're competing fee wise with other clubs and to unearth a gem for a modest fee is very, very difficult. So with that comes the risk of wasted ££.

 

I much prefer the idea of picking up released academy players and developing them, as the risk is lower if they don't materialise into a saleable asset. 

 

Also, the idea that 'every club would be doing it' isn't realistic, demanding fans and a desire from owners for instant success will mean fees are always paid.

 

For us, given a) we have felt huge pain from overspending and b) DM showed last season you can get very good players for frees - we're in a unique position in that I think our fans would be more understanding of the strategy. Evidenced by most fans being very positive on the business we've done so far this summer.

All fair points, and I take them on board.

 

But, as for not ever paying a fee again - do you really think that is realistic, bearing in mind we need to improve our position in the leagues (a promotion or 2) as well as having some sellable assets so we don't end up completely skint?

[royalowlisback]

Just now, thebizzle said:

Our more succesful signings over the last probably 10 years, have been free transfers.  Especially compared to when we've paid fees.

 

Free - Bannan, Westwood, Hutchinson, Fizz, Byers, Gregory, Lees, Wallace, Semedo, Kieran Lee

 

£££ - Rhodes, Abdi, Dave Jones, Reach etc

Bannan wasn't free.

 

Other side of the coin - we paid fees for Joao and Hunt, and made a profit on them both. It depends on who you buy, not necessarily how you buy.

[thebizzle]

Just now, royalowlisback said:

Bannan wasn't free.

 

Other side of the coin - we paid fees for Joao and Hunt, and made a profit on them both. It depends on who you buy, not necessarily how you buy.

 

Why don't you think Bannan was free?

 

And yes I agree with you're second point.  I'm not saying we should never pay transfer fees.  I'm saying out best value signings have been those we signed for nothing.

[thebizzle]

He had a few months left on his deal at Palace, we barely paid a penny for him, unless we got promotion to the Premier league within 3 years

Edited June 24, 2022 by thebizzle

[royalowlisback]

1 minute ago, thebizzle said:

He had a few months left on his deal at Palace, we barely paid a penny for him, unless we got promotion to the Premier league within 3 years

It was reported as undisclosed, whether we paid 10p or 10m, a fee is still a fee.

[thebizzle]

1 minute ago, royalowlisback said:

It was reported as undisclosed, whether we paid 10p or 10m, a fee is still a fee.

 

In that case there is no such thing as a free transfer due to signing on fees

[royalowlisback]

Just now, thebizzle said:

 

In that case there is no such thing as a free transfer due to signing on fees

The whole point of this thread, from the OP, was about never paying a Transfer Fee again - if we paid anything, anything at all to Crystal Palace (not to Bannan) then we have paid a fee. The amount doesn't matter.

[thebizzle]

Also, 

2 minutes ago, royalowlisback said:

It was reported as undisclosed, whether we paid 10p or 10m, a fee is still a fee.

 

Undisclosed means - not revealed or made known publicly

 

There's plenty of deals that are undisclosed fee's where there is not a fee being paid.  You're not that naive 

[thebizzle]

Just now, royalowlisback said:

The whole point of this thread, from the OP, was about never paying a Transfer Fee again - if we paid anything, anything at all to Crystal Palace (not to Bannan) then we have paid a fee. The amount doesn't matter.

 

Aye - i'm saying you don't know.  It was undisclosed.  So that means it wasn't revealed.  It doesn't mean, we have paid an amount.  It mean's they are not disclosing the information.