Bad business sense

[Dell Boy]

I'm not sure if this has been covered as a separate topic before but it does get to me when clubs seemingly show no business sense.

I don't know about a lot of you but when I got to the grand age of 30 my dreams started moving from playing for the club to buying it and having a grand time running the club single-handedly.

In those dreams one of the first things I'd say to my manager would be not to spend any material sums of money on players with no (or very limited) re-sale value.

Football is a business and Everton are seemingly permanently skint. There's a huge market out there for players and the turnover at each club seems to get higher every season.

I appreciate that there is 'some' premium put on a player's value because of his age but I just can't accept that Kone for example is the right buy for us at the reputed £6m when he's going to be 30 in a couple of months time.

And it doesn't have to be seen as a negative thing this sell-on business. It's not just looking to buy a young player that might really develop and then go off to a Sky Big 4 team for twice or three times the value - it could be you buy a player and then sell him on to a lesser club for maybe 50% or 75% of the original price paid.

Also the argument about needing a few old wise, experienced heads isn't relevant here. There will always be players that stick with the club for a long time and grow old with us. Likewise you'll have free transfers etc.

I know there are far worse examples of this out there (any club touched by Harry Redknapp for example) but it just becomes a bit more important given our financial limitations at Everton.

Any thoughts?

I don't want this to be about Kone specifically - he may well turn out to be brilliant for us - but he comes with an added risk that's all I'm saying

 

[efcfanwirral]

Unfortunately the kone deal is about to be balanced out by a deal that makes great 'business sense' but is ridiculous for our on pitch ambitions - the sale of baines. All the club will look at is age, fee and depreciating value I imagine

 

[MercuryBlue]

If we are talking bad business sense the transfer side isnt really our biggest problem. The board have struggled for years to improve the business off the field, selling off various assets, the poor sponsorship deals compared to other clubs, the inability to promote the clubs image effectively....

 

[Dell Boy]

If we are talking bad business sense the transfer side isnt really our biggest problem. The board have struggled for years to improve the business off the field, selling off various assets, the poor sponsorship deals compared to other clubs, the inability to promote the clubs image effectively....

There's a whole series of threads on the wider issues mate.

Just keen on talking about the player/age/sell-on issue here if possible

 

[Toffee mints]

I've been saying this recently, take fernandinho at twenty odd million at 28.

 

[Sideliner]

each case will have to be judged on merit - some players reach their sell by date much sooner than others -
would Ryan Giggs been a bad buy at age 29 ? or Roony at this stage of his career ? WBA just bought Anelka age 33 for 3 mil - at age 30 he was the top ,scorer in the PL

 

[Steve Wigan]

As fitness techniques improve, the 'shelf life' of a lot of footballers is extended, and as a generalisation I don't think its necessary to write off many players as they reach 30. Goalkeepers, for starters, have a longer career than most outfield players if they keep relatively fit (Brad Freidel a good example...and there are many more) Outfield players from the point of view of a team, can contribute more as they get older and learn to pace their game better. Arteta at Arsenal hardly runs around at all...he sits in midfield and uses the ball to do his running. Arsenal try to play in a way that means he always has options that are positive. 'Re sale value' I think, applies more to teams with a full roster of international talent..Man City, Chelsea, etc. They have the freedom to buy virtually who they like , knowing that almost any of their players who wants to move on will command a good fee. I think if too much concern is made of resale value, it would greatly limit our chances in the transfer market...for example Kone will be well worth the money if he contributes greatly to our progress over the next three years....but spending a similar amount on a young lively striker with minimal pedigree has more chance of being a disaster.

 

[throughthewindandthedrain]

the money you pay is down to the players value to the club and has always been dominated by proven ability and then how many years you can get out of them. Don't see that focussing on sell on value when you buy is good business sense at all though because it means you have people running the club who are focussed on players they don't see as a long term part of the clubs future. Might make sense on paper but your club may soon become a soulless operation without passion or commitment from everyone involved. Unless you are Manchester United or Real Madrid then the product becomes less attractive and performances erratic at best. If young players end up bringing money into the club then it is probably because you have been focussing on them as future stars for the club anyway. the moneyball thing ignores all the things that make the game important to most people. bad bad business sense

 

[Essex Blue]

Re-sale value is not the be all and end all. Look at Distin and Heitinga, it would have been argued that Heitinga had re-sale value when he was signed and that Distin didn't, but we all know who has been the better buy.

There's a load of Sunderland whoppers creaming themselves and thinking they're doing something novel by Di Canio stating that he wants to implement the 'Udinese Model'. What they really mean is that they want to become a SELLING CLUB, that immediately sells their players as soon as they start showing their true potential, it isn't a novel idea by any means and has been around for donkeys years.

It's about working out what would be best for the club, another 4 years of Baines at the top of his game, or 18million for a left back? There is not an abundance of great players available on the market, and therefore I now think we would be better off keeping Bianes, which goes against the 'Udinese Model' and your supposedly better 'business sense'. But in fact, keeping Baines would be better business.

 

[Evertonized]

I agree about sell on value, but you've also gotta look at the bigger picture.

If Jelavic gets back in form and scores 15, and Kone gets 10 or more - then we've had a much better season up front than in the last season.

Them extra 10 or so goals, could be the difference between Europe and 7th. To me, £6,000,000 is worth that.

 

[IRO1977]

My problem with Kone is that he's a player that relies heavily on his physical attributes i.e. speed and strength, and those are the ones that usually deteriorate quickly after hitting 30. It's the clever, quick thinking type players who don't rely so much on the physical side of things who seem able to play at a high level well into their 30's, such as Scholes, Beardsley, Sheringham and Strachan. When Kone loses that yard of pace i fear he'll have little else to fall back on

 

[ToffeeDan]

Experience = Quality = Higher Transfer Price = Older - therefore not much re-sale value.

Youth = Potential = (possible) High Transfer Price and re-sale value - the problem being finding these players before someone else does. Anyone can identify the established players with the right ability but they come at a much higher price.

Clubs are looking to match the transfer fee to a reasonable contract length (suits both parties) and buy at around 24-5 years of age - so established players with some prospect of a re-sale value (which equates to a profit against the written down value on the books). Everton have sold only a handful of players at a loss over the past 10 years on this financial basis - and made significant financial gains on the likes of Arteta, Lescott and so on - Rooney and Rodwell being equally worth mentioning - so to have the odd 28-29 year old coming in is not a big disaster really.

 

[paultheblue]

I'm not sure if this has been covered as a separate topic before but it does get to me when clubs seemingly show no business sense.

I don't know about a lot of you but when I got to the grand age of 30 my dreams started moving from playing for the club to buying it and having a grand time running the club single-handedly.

In those dreams one of the first things I'd say to my manager would be not to spend any material sums of money on players with no (or very limited) re-sale value.

Football is a business and Everton are seemingly permanently skint. There's a huge market out there for players and the turnover at each club seems to get higher every season.

I appreciate that there is 'some' premium put on a player's value because of his age but I just can't accept that Kone for example is the right buy for us at the reputed £6m when he's going to be 30 in a couple of months time.

And it doesn't have to be seen as a negative thing this sell-on business. It's not just looking to buy a young player that might really develop and then go off to a Sky Big 4 team for twice or three times the value - it could be you buy a player and then sell him on to a lesser club for maybe 50% or 75% of the original price paid.

Also the argument about needing a few old wise, experienced heads isn't relevant here. There will always be players that stick with the club for a long time and grow old with us. Likewise you'll have free transfers etc.

I know there are far worse examples of this out there (any club touched by Harry Redknapp for example) but it just becomes a bit more important given our financial limitations at Everton.

Any thoughts?

I don't want this to be about Kone specifically - he may well turn out to be brilliant for us - but he comes with an added risk that's all I'm saying

Mate Im 59 next year and I still clean my boots on a Friday night hoping for a call from the club for a start on the Saturday

 

[Ihaters]

There's roughly a mil per league place. If he improves us a total of 6 league places before he retires as our striker... say 3 years (2 places per year). He's paid for himself and possibly more if we get Europe.
If he doesn't then its a poor buy.
Guess we'll have to wait and see but there are other avenues than resale by which a player can pay for himself.

Cahill's a prime example... Cost little, sold him for about a mil but he made us shed load of money through league places with his goals.

 

[Dell Boy]

Guess we'll have to wait and see but there are other avenues than resale by which a player can pay for himself.

Cahill's a prime example... Cost little, sold him for about a mil but he made us shed load of money through league places with his goals.

There are of course lots of other issues to be decided when buying a player but my point is I find it strange that it's not a more fundamental question (or at least that's how it seems).

The quote with Cahill isn't relevant as we bought him when he was pretty young (24/25 I think) and got great service out of him.

It's all about opinions but if I was this imaginary chairman and my manager came to me wanting a huge whack for a 30 year old I'd tell him to use his contacts and try and find a 25 year old instead. There's no chief scout that can guarantee anything so it's always a gamble isn't it?