IMHO this is a extremely simplistic post addressing a complicated issue. As a broad strategy to reduce the age of the squad and to invest in players that may (MAY not definitely) realise a profit when sold then what you suggest would I guess work.

But let me address some of the issues I have with what you suggest:

1. It's too simplistic to say never buy a player over 26 unless they are on a free transfer. With advances in sports science and nutrition players are remaining at their peak longer. Players are no longer burnt out by the age of 30 - look at Ronaldo and Tiago Silva as examples or McArthur who is playing the best football he has in the last 3 years at the age of 34. So a player aged 27 could have 5 to 6 years left at their peak.

Furthermore you have to ask why at the age of 27 or 28 would a player be available on a free transfer? Either they're not good enough, have a history of injuries (hence shortening their career) or are looking for a big pay out because they know they can negotiate a large signing bonus and salary. What we'd save on a transfer fee we'd lose on the bonus and salary not to mention what effect this huge salary would have on the wage structure and the rest of the players.

2. What is so magical about players aged 29? As I've already said players are playing at their peak much longer than they used to. And I assume you don't include goalkeepers in this because it is accepted they don't reach their peak until they are 28/29 and can play at the top level well into their 30s.

If we had this strategy when Wilf signed his last contract he'd be about to leave on a free transfer - I know you don't rate him but how pissed off would you, the rest of the fan base and the board be if he just left now for nothing?

Or as you suggest 18 months ago we'd have "offloaded" him for, what, £50m? Do you seriously think we'd be in the Premier League now if we had done that? And who would we have have replaced him with and could you guarantee this player would have been a success?

3. See my point above about Wilf and his contract. What you suggest is we never let anyone's contract run above 29 so when they are 27/28 - probably at their peak and performing for us, we offload them when they could still perform for us for the next 4-5 years. This is nonsense.

Last year it was estimated we made £116m in prize money and TV revenue from being in the Premier League, not counting commercial revenue and gate receipts (of which there were none). Would you seriously gamble £116m by selling our best player at the time because he was 27 and hoping to find a ready made replacement?

4. And here is the fundamental flaw with what you suggest. Your whole argument seems to be based upon the premise that we can find replacement younger players that will almost immediately perform at the level of the players they are replacing.

I know what you will say - look at Olise and Eze. On the face of it, and based on what we have seen so far, we have been INCREDIBLY lucky with Olise and Eze, but that's not always the case. Example: Max Meyer, who at the time we signed him was one of the brightest young talents in German football. He wasn't up to playing in the Premier League (although I would argue that might have been Hodgsons tactics, I do wonder whether Meyer would have played better under Vieira).

In summary our transfer strategy needs to consider the players we have now, the players available in the market and our academy that can fill that role in the system we are playing, the age of those players, their value to us and to the market, our transfer budget and the wage structure, not to mention the social dynamics of the dressing room (have you not played Football Manager?)

It's not simply a case of whether the player is an asset we can sell later for a profit.

Yes, i think for the first time we can look forward with a certain amount of confidence, excellent signings, superb academy work, but i disagree with your Brighton statement, them and Southampton similar clubs have + figures for their last five years not -72m, if we could get some money in for Wilf, Benteke and Luka before their contracts expire it would be better

The club needs to have a flexible approach to recruitment, always looking to strengthen the squad (whilst complying with FFP), and we should look to reap the value of investments in players on the pitch not on transfer profits.
If we look to making a profit on transfers, we become a selling club. We identify talent and invest, then we develop them and increase their value, then sell at a profit. However we then reap the value of the investment financially, instead of on the pitch. But do we make more of a profit from transfers than we can from playing better players (instead of selling) and finishing higher up the league than we would have without selling. To mitigate these you should only sell when the replacements available improve the team (and are cheaper, so you can keep from making a loss in transfers), otherwise , you weaken the team and decline.
Therefore you look to reaping the value of your investment in talent on the pitch, so keeping players beyond their maximum selling price (even to the point of contracts running out), only selling / letting go when you have or can buy a better player as replacement, so always strengthening the squad.
This is still overly simplistic, the transfer fee for a player is to compensate the club that hold the players contract for the unexpired portion of the contract. Therefore the longer time remaining on a contract, the greater transfer fee the owning club can demand. The cost of any player includes their wages and bonuses as well as their transfer fee (in fact, typically, the wage costs are significantly greater than transfer fees) so these have to also be taken into account.
In addition, whether you buy, sell or keep a player also needs cooperation / willingness from other clubs and the player. Keeping a proven player is less of a gamble than investing in an unproven player.
Finally this is all carried out in competition with other teams, trying to persuade players to go to them instead of you, and even if you’re successful in improving your team, you also need to improve greater than those teams around you (or you decline with a better team).
- If your club doesn’t decline (e.g. move down the league and get relegated) the talent policy is not bad.
- If you improve the talent policy is good.
Therefore for a number of years (since Parish took over), we’ve had a good strategy (we got promoted, then have established ourselves in the premier league). Hopefully the recent changes are an even better strategy, leading to increased success, signs are they are, but it’s early days yet. If in three or four seasons time we’re competing for silverware (cups) regularly, and finishing in the top 1/2 of the table and pushing for Europe it is. We should also by them be reaping benefits from our academy (a different way of investing in talent).

Edited by Bearcage (09 Jan 2022 1.09am)

i dont think them three replacements would be missed much anyway, so 25m for the lot would be more useful.