This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Where Palace stand in financial spend
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 The groover  Danbury 15 May 23 11.28am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
Did they? Palace knew we were getting 2 quality centre backs and paid good money for both. What I meant was it was not one of the click bait stories. Both come out of no-where. There were some minor mentions but no big headlines.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
MrRobbo  Chaldon 15 May 23 11.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Painter
I think was the idea behind the Academy! Anyway, I don’t think the figures are correct, we haven’t spent £200m on the first team squad. Ish, the academy is primarily about trying to hover up and then nurture the local talent. Scouting will play a part in that, the older the kids get. But my reference was mor about buying for the first team
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheBigToePunt 15 May 23 12.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Regarding Brighton, and at the risk of repeating myself, caution should be applied when praising their model, and certainly if seeking to imitate it. They are having an absolute whale of a time right now, and it is evident that their excellent season results from the model they use. They have every right to be pleased, but there is no reason to think the strategy would work elsewhere, or that it will always work for them. The idea that Brighton always find great value in the market and have a low spending record is at odds with the facts. They got into FFP hot water a couple of years ago because they had spent so much. Since promotion in 2017 they have spent: £66.5m 2017 That's £375m just in fees, without wages and the cost of the network that seeks out these players. Their better signings are absolute gems (Veltman for £1m, MacAllister for £8m), but they drop a good few clangers too. £19m for Jahanbakhsh? £23m for someone called Enock Mwepu (no, me neither. Apparently he retired soon after), £11m for Kozlowski, loads of £5-£10m nobodies: There are about £60-100m worth of flops on the list of signings, and just look at how bloody long the list is too. They've signed a huge number of players, most of whom didn't come off. 2017: £66m deficit on transfers v sales. The reason Brighton are bottom of the 'fees spent on current squad' list posted in the OP is partly because an awful lot of the players they've spent hundreds of millions on are no longer in their squad. If the list showed 'total spent on players' Brighton would be far higher up the list. Some Brighton players have gone for big money, but far more have just shuffled out the back door. Each transfer is a gamble, but Brighton are the kind of gambler that tell you all about their big wins and forget to mention all their losses. You can argue that they sell well, and then reinvest into the model. Fair enough, they have received some very good transfer fees but the fact is that they need to sell big to pay for the speculative 'moneyball' signing strategy. If they hadn't got an absolute touch in getting £50m for White, who they didn't even rate highly enough to pick, or £60m for Curcerella who, based on his performances for Chelsea, is not even worth the £18m (that's £18m by the way) Brighton paid for him to begin with, they'd be running at a painful loss. Their luck has been pretty good, and without those two deals, they'd be in FFP bother because they spend so much. Good luck to them but don't be kidded by the headlines.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 15 May 23 12.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Regarding Brighton, and at the risk of repeating myself, caution should be applied when praising their model, and certainly if seeking to imitate it. They are having an absolute whale of a time right now, and it is evident that their excellent season results from the model they use. They have every right to be pleased, but there is no reason to think the strategy would work elsewhere, or that it will always work for them. The idea that Brighton always find great value in the market and have a low spending record is at odds with the facts. They got into FFP hot water a couple of years ago because they had spent so much. Since promotion in 2017 they have spent: £66.5m 2017 That's £375m just in fees, without wages and the cost of the network that seeks out these players. Their better signings are absolute gems (Veltman for £1m, MacAllister for £8m), but they drop a good few clangers too. £19m for Jahanbakhsh? £23m for someone called Enock Mwepu (no, me neither. Apparently he retired soon after), £11m for Kozlowski, loads of £5-£10m nobodies: There are about £60-100m worth of flops on the list of signings, and just look at how bloody long the list is too. They've signed a huge number of players, most of whom didn't come off. The reason Brighton are bottom of the 'fees spent on current squad' list posted in the OP is partly because an awful lot of the players they've spent hundreds of millions on are no longer in their squad. If the list showed 'total spent on players' Brighton would be far higher up the list. Some Brighton players have gone for big money, but far more have just shuffled out the back door. Each transfer is a gamble, but Brighton are the kind of gambler that tell you all about their big wins and forget to mention all their losses. You can argue that they sell well, and then reinvest into the model. Fair enough, they have received some very good transfer fees but the fact is that they need to sell big to pay for the speculative 'moneyball' signing strategy. If they hadn't got an absolute touch in getting £50m for White, who they didn't even rate highly enough to pick, or £60m for Curcerella who, based on his performances for Chelsea, is not even worth the £18m (that's £18m by the way) Brighton paid for him to begin with, they'd be running at a loss. Their luck has been pretty good, and without those two deals, they'd be in FFP bother because they spend so much. Good luck to them but don't be kidded by the headlines. Very interesting read! Just incidentally, 'Mwepu' looked a good player I have to say but was found to have a heart condition and forced into retirement. I have little sympathy for anything BHA related however that was a very sad story indeed. I think the *BOLD* brings it into perspective. Their model does seem somewhat of throwing enough excrement that some will stick. Players like Mitoma, Caceido, MacAllister and so forth therefore seem genius however if you have financed a million other unsuccessful signings in the process perhaps not so inspirational. It looks as though we are in a position where we absolutely need some assured signings and a bit of luck however cannot cast too wide a net given our financial position. Andersen and Guehi seem like unearthed gems sometimes but I feel confident in saying they cost us about £40mil? We also paid about £30mil for two championship players who now are our two main stars, so some luck there for sure. BHA have been able to do this en masse however I think we have a narrower margin for error and therefore greater accuracy is needed in our identifying transfer targets. I also hope it means we are less likely to sell our players as we are less of a revolving door than the likes of BHA. Edited by Nicholas91 (15 May 2023 12.57pm)
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| MrRobbo Chaldon 15 May 23 1.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Regarding Brighton, and at the risk of repeating myself, caution should be applied when praising their model, and certainly if seeking to imitate it. They are having an absolute whale of a time right now, and it is evident that their excellent season results from the model they use. They have every right to be pleased, but there is no reason to think the strategy would work elsewhere, or that it will always work for them. The idea that Brighton always find great value in the market and have a low spending record is at odds with the facts. They got into FFP hot water a couple of years ago because they had spent so much. Since promotion in 2017 they have spent: £66.5m 2017 That's £375m just in fees, without wages and the cost of the network that seeks out these players. Their better signings are absolute gems (Veltman for £1m, MacAllister for £8m), but they drop a good few clangers too. £19m for Jahanbakhsh? £23m for someone called Enock Mwepu (no, me neither. Apparently he retired soon after), £11m for Kozlowski, loads of £5-£10m nobodies: There are about £60-100m worth of flops on the list of signings, and just look at how bloody long the list is too. They've signed a huge number of players, most of whom didn't come off. 2017: £66m deficit on transfers v sales. The reason Brighton are bottom of the 'fees spent on current squad' list posted in the OP is partly because an awful lot of the players they've spent hundreds of millions on are no longer in their squad. If the list showed 'total spent on players' Brighton would be far higher up the list. Some Brighton players have gone for big money, but far more have just shuffled out the back door. Each transfer is a gamble, but Brighton are the kind of gambler that tell you all about their big wins and forget to mention all their losses. You can argue that they sell well, and then reinvest into the model. Fair enough, they have received some very good transfer fees but the fact is that they need to sell big to pay for the speculative 'moneyball' signing strategy. If they hadn't got an absolute touch in getting £50m for White, who they didn't even rate highly enough to pick, or £60m for Curcerella who, based on his performances for Chelsea, is not even worth the £18m (that's £18m by the way) Brighton paid for him to begin with, they'd be running at a painful loss. Their luck has been pretty good, and without those two deals, they'd be in FFP bother because they spend so much. Good luck to them but don't be kidded by the headlines.
Balanced post, and yep there always needs to be some caution in any approach. When you are buying players with potential you are going to make mistakes. So for every Ferguson there is an Eze. Ultimately we need to understand that and hope that we make more good ones than bad. We also need to play the game, as they did with Curcerella and White. Exceptional money or they stay. Mwepu is a bit of an anomaly so I expect they would have got an insurance pay out or something. Wastage or not, their model is working. At present. If they lose a couple of the big ones this summer, it will be interesting to see if they can effectively replace them without slowing/halting their progress. We are not at hte point we can throw caution to the wind, so need to be singing 2/3 players a window that can come in and make a difference. With a good window this summer, I think we could in future look a bit more into the future.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| palace99 New Mills 16 May 23 2.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Regarding Brighton, and at the risk of repeating myself, caution should be applied when praising their model, and certainly if seeking to imitate it. They are having an absolute whale of a time right now, and it is evident that their excellent season results from the model they use. They have every right to be pleased, but there is no reason to think the strategy would work elsewhere, or that it will always work for them. The idea that Brighton always find great value in the market and have a low spending record is at odds with the facts. They got into FFP hot water a couple of years ago because they had spent so much. Since promotion in 2017 they have spent: £66.5m 2017 That's £375m just in fees, without wages and the cost of the network that seeks out these players. Their better signings are absolute gems (Veltman for £1m, MacAllister for £8m), but they drop a good few clangers too. £19m for Jahanbakhsh? £23m for someone called Enock Mwepu (no, me neither. Apparently he retired soon after), £11m for Kozlowski, loads of £5-£10m nobodies: There are about £60-100m worth of flops on the list of signings, and just look at how bloody long the list is too. They've signed a huge number of players, most of whom didn't come off. 2017: £66m deficit on transfers v sales. The reason Brighton are bottom of the 'fees spent on current squad' list posted in the OP is partly because an awful lot of the players they've spent hundreds of millions on are no longer in their squad. If the list showed 'total spent on players' Brighton would be far higher up the list. Some Brighton players have gone for big money, but far more have just shuffled out the back door. Each transfer is a gamble, but Brighton are the kind of gambler that tell you all about their big wins and forget to mention all their losses. You can argue that they sell well, and then reinvest into the model. Fair enough, they have received some very good transfer fees but the fact is that they need to sell big to pay for the speculative 'moneyball' signing strategy. If they hadn't got an absolute touch in getting £50m for White, who they didn't even rate highly enough to pick, or £60m for Curcerella who, based on his performances for Chelsea, is not even worth the £18m (that's £18m by the way) Brighton paid for him to begin with, they'd be running at a painful loss. Their luck has been pretty good, and without those two deals, they'd be in FFP bother because they spend so much. Good luck to them but don't be kidded by the headlines.
very good summary - i think their owner (Bloom?) has put in over £300m into the club including the new ground so it is clear their growth is not just organic. Of their terrible signings i remember they spent £15m on a striker from the Dutch league , Locadio, a few years back. I remember thinking there are a lot of weak dutch sides who can make average strikers look better than they are. Pretty sure they cancelled his contract a couple of years later. Clearly no signings can be a guaranteed success, however, when buying from the lower leagues you really need to go for top quality. Guehi, Eze and Olise have shown us that - not cheap but clearly worth the purchase price. Southampton for example have gone for £15m strikers after only 1 very good season who have struggled to make the step up - Armstrong (who we were also interested in!) and to a lesser extent Che Adams. IMHO the Coventry striker Viktor Gyökeres may be similar.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| rollercoaster Cornwall 17 May 23 11.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lanzo-Ad
Yes, it is a good feeling that we can sell one player (not that we should) and we are able to replace without everything collapsing. Really not sure about that. When considering our saleable assets I do not think we have reasonable replacements at the club and would be gambling on a new signing fitting straight in. We have very poor or injury prone cover for Olise, Eze, Guehi, Anderson and Doucoure. Our left side attack will be much weakened assuming Zaha leaves. Our squad it too thin now to manage with even a few injuries and I cannot see any academy players ready to fill out the squad next season.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheBigToePunt 17 May 23 12.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by rollercoaster
Really not sure about that. When considering our saleable assets I do not think we have reasonable replacements at the club and would be gambling on a new signing fitting straight in. We have very poor or injury prone cover for Olise, Eze, Guehi, Anderson and Doucoure. Our left side attack will be much weakened assuming Zaha leaves. Our squad it too thin now to manage with even a few injuries and I cannot see any academy players ready to fill out the squad next season. I think you are right, but I have come to look at the issue of squad depth differently lately. I get the idea that you can never have too many good players, but if you have too many players for too few minutes on the pitch then, it seems to me, you are not going to get full value from any of them. Players can get stale or lazy if they are not challenged for their place, but they can also be prevented from developing to their full potential, and from taking on responsibility, if they are rotated too much. Late collapse or not, Arsenal have had a storming season based on picking the same team most weeks. Martinelli, Saka, White, Saliba, Gabriel and Odegard have all not only shown evident personal development, they have carried the weight too. It's old-school, the kind of thing Souness or Keane talk about, but it is their team, they play as if they are responsible for the results because they are - they play every week so who else can be? Chelsea on the other hand have spent far more and have at least two very expensive players for each position, but none of them are first choice, none of them have developed or been given the chance to take responsibility for results. Turning back to Palace and our financial model, if we see the players as assets that we will develop and sell then the development of the individual is paramount. The next stage in Olise' development is to carry some weight for results. No more flitting in and out of games, no more deferring responsibility to Zaha, he now has to carry us, as does Eze. If Rak-Sakyi can only play wide right, and unless Olise can move to a different position and seamlessly continue his current upward development curve, we will have two promising players (and valuable assets) for one position,and one of them needs to be playing all the time now. There is a danger that the development of one or both would be stunted if they were made to share minutes on the pitch. Far better that Rak-Sakyi goes back out on loan again where he can develop through playing every week than to have him go stale whilst providing cover for Olise, in my opinion. We will be in trouble without Zaha, and I think our best bet is not to replace him directly (impossible) but to get a different type of left winger and a better goal scoring forward. What, in my opinion, we can't do is buy two decent left wingers and rotate them. We need one good first choice player in that position to play most games, develop (including playing through dips in form) and take responsibility. Obviously this all requires that we don't get too many serious injuries, but that is true for most sides. Edited by TheBigToePunt (17 May 2023 12.59pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 17 May 23 12.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
I think you are right, but I have come to look at the issue of squad depth differently lately. I get the idea that you can never have too many good players. However, if you have too many players for too few minutes on the pitch then, it seems to me, you are not going to get full value from them. Players can get stale or lazy if they are not challenged for their place, but they can just as easily be prevented from developing to their full potential, and from taking on responsibility if they are rotated too much. Late collapse or not, Arsenal have had a storming season based on picking the same team most weeks. Martinelli, Saka, White, Saliba, Gabriel and Odegard have all not only shown evident personal development, they have carried the weight too. It's old-school, the kind of thing Souness or Keane talk about, but it is their team, they play as if they are responsible for the results because they are - they play every week so who else can be? Chelsea on the other hand have spent far more and have at least two very expensive players for each position, but none of them are first choice, none of them have developed or been given the chance to take responsibility for results. Turning back to Palace and our financial model, if we see the players as assets that we will develop and sell then the development of the individual is paramount. If Rak-Sakyi can only play wide right, and unless Olise can move to a different position and seamlessly continue his current upward development curve, we would have tow promising players (and valuable assets) for one position. There is a danger that the development of one or both would be stunted if they were made to share minutes on the pitch. Far better that Rak-Sakyi goes back out on loan again where he can develop through playing every week than to have him go stale whilst proving cover for Olise, in my opinion. We will be in trouble without Zaha, and I think our best bet is not to replace him directly (impossible) but to get a different type of left winger and a better goal scoring forward. What, in my opinion, we can't do is buy two decent left wingers and rotate them. We need one good first choice player in that position to play most games, develop (including playing through dips in form) and take responsibility. Obviously this all requires that we don't get too many serious injuries, but that is true for most sides. I agree with this and dispensing of financial considerations the same for the CF position too. I almost feel that in buying Mateta and Edouard, what we have done is go for two 'maybe' strikers in the hope one might make the position their own. What we have now is two strikers neither of whom are probably good enough to warrant a starting place, get rotated if not play at all and are on downward curves. I'd like us to sign someone to play left wing and say 'this is our man' and then we can look at the likes of academy players and cheaper, younger options to understudy and challenge.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| MrRobbo Chaldon 17 May 23 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
I think you are right, but I have come to look at the issue of squad depth differently lately. I get the idea that you can never have too many good players, but if you have too many players for too few minutes on the pitch then, it seems to me, you are not going to get full value from any of them. Players can get stale or lazy if they are not challenged for their place, but they can also be prevented from developing to their full potential, and from taking on responsibility, if they are rotated too much. Late collapse or not, Arsenal have had a storming season based on picking the same team most weeks. Martinelli, Saka, White, Saliba, Gabriel and Odegard have all not only shown evident personal development, they have carried the weight too. It's old-school, the kind of thing Souness or Keane talk about, but it is their team, they play as if they are responsible for the results because they are - they play every week so who else can be? Chelsea on the other hand have spent far more and have at least two very expensive players for each position, but none of them are first choice, none of them have developed or been given the chance to take responsibility for results. Turning back to Palace and our financial model, if we see the players as assets that we will develop and sell then the development of the individual is paramount. The next stage in Olise' development is to carry some weight for results. No more flitting in and out of games, no more deferring responsibility to Zaha, he now has to carry us, as does Eze. If Rak-Sakyi can only play wide right, and unless Olise can move to a different position and seamlessly continue his current upward development curve, we will have two promising players (and valuable assets) for one position,and one of them needs to be playing all the time now. There is a danger that the development of one or both would be stunted if they were made to share minutes on the pitch. Far better that Rak-Sakyi goes back out on loan again where he can develop through playing every week than to have him go stale whilst providing cover for Olise, in my opinion. We will be in trouble without Zaha, and I think our best bet is not to replace him directly (impossible) but to get a different type of left winger and a better goal scoring forward. What, in my opinion, we can't do is buy two decent left wingers and rotate them. We need one good first choice player in that position to play most games, develop (including playing through dips in form) and take responsibility. Obviously this all requires that we don't get too many serious injuries, but that is true for most sides. Edited by TheBigToePunt (17 May 2023 12.59pm) 100%. Its a tricky balance. We cant afford a squad full of top players. But nor would a top player come to Palace to sit on the bench. He's starting a bit too much for my liking, but its why you need utility players like Jeff in the squad. Who are capable of playing in a few different roles.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.