By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Mmm if Gylfi does stay and has a repeat of his goals / assist stats I'd suggest he would be worth a 40 million investment.
Financially speaking, it would be far more prudent to sell Gylfi regardless of whether you think he will keep us up if he stayed. We have stayed up every season without him so on the balance of probability we would stay up without him anyway, especially if we invested that money back into the squad.
As a club that makes very little money on or off the field without player sales, it means keeping players at the peak of their value instead of selling would eventually stagnate our team to a point where relegation would be a statistical inevitability. We need to be selling high and biying smartly, that is a sustainable model for longevity. Holding onto these players is far too short term thinking financially speaking.
Simply put, Siggy is worth more than £40m, I've said it all along, and it's true. Look at the market this summer, FFS. Selling him well below his value is certainly not a wise move, on the pitch or for our finances.
Let's say we did take £40m. Those theoretical "three players" may all be of the £5m-Jenkins bargain bin variety for all we know. Maybe slightly more expensive, but the point remains. They may all fail and then we're relegated, simply because we wanted to take a big sum of money. I don't have a lot of confidence in our scouting/recruitment team, and I have none in Jenkins. Maybe you do, I don't know.
But, we shouldn't be looking to move our best and most influential player at a discount, someone who has meant so much to us for so long. If he wants to leave, force his hand. If not, it's £50m or we go into another season with him giving us a great chance of staying up. He is a committed professional, I doubt there would be an issue.
And, I didn't say any financial discussion is tedious, I said "a lot". And a lot are. But, I've praised you and others for having the resolve and interest to do it when it matters, and that's how I truly feel.
You are continuing to miss the point I'm making.
It's nothing to do with his value in the market, it's to do with the opportunity it represents to us as a club.
Whatever our total transfer budget is, it's stupid for a club in the position we are in to spend it all on one player. And yet, given the admission that we cannot bring in players without selling Gylfi, that's exactly what we are in effect doing. We are swapping the opportunity to bring in players in order to keep one. I said £40m as that's what we've seemingly been offered in cash terms. It doesn't matter what the figure is. Yes, we shouldn't undersell him, but if only one club are interested, you have to ascertain what's actually available. There is also a time value. Selling a few weeks ago was worth more than selling now.
Your last paragraph contradicts your first and second.
If we had not received an offer for Gylfi I'd agree with you.
But the minute we receive an actual offer, by not accepting that offer, we are effectively investing that amount in the player in question. It's an opportunity cost. We give up the opportunity to spend that £40m or whatever on other players.
If we can spend that amount on other players anyway, so be it. But we can't. So we have a choice. Spend it on say three players that would improve the squad, or keep Siggy.
However good a player he is, he is not good enough that it is worth giving up the opportunity to improve the squad in the position we currently find ourselves in.
So it's not win win.
And saying 'it's a football forum' includes the financial side of the game as much as it includes discussion about anything else. You may well find it tedious, I'm sure others agree with you. I'm also sure people find discussion about players we have no intention of signing tedious as well. Each to his own.
Big assumptions being made here - again.
In Gylfi, we have a known quantity. One of the most consistently effective midfielders in the Premier Leage. And (and I'm surprised this needs reminding), one of the key reasons we're not playing Cardiff this year.
Yes, it's great money and we should take it. But to suggest that losing him doesn't bring huge risk to our survival this year is naive.
Can you guarantee that the money spent to replace Siggy will replace the goals and assists he gives us?
In Gylfi, we have a known quantity. One of the most consistently effective midfielders in the Premier Leage. And (and I'm surprised this needs reminding), one of the key reasons we're not playing Cardiff this year.
Yes, it's great money and we should take it. But to suggest that losing him doesn't bring huge risk to our survival this year is naive.
Can you guarantee that the money spent to replace Siggy will replace the goals and assists he gives us?
No, of course not. And I can't guarantee that he will do the same either.
None of us would have believed what happened with Michu that second season. None of us. None of us would have accepted £20m for him that summer. But we should have done.
Knowing when to sell is important for a club of our size. It's the way we get bigger.
In Gylfi, we have a known quantity. One of the most consistently effective midfielders in the Premier Leage. And (and I'm surprised this needs reminding), one of the key reasons we're not playing Cardiff this year.
Yes, it's great money and we should take it. But to suggest that losing him doesn't bring huge risk to our survival this year is naive.
Can you guarantee that the money spent to replace Siggy will replace the goals and assists he gives us?
surely its more risk to us to not take it? When Gylfi's contract runs out. Who do you think we replace him with, and more importantly - with what?
We will be left with no player and nothing to replace him with.mfast forward 3 years and it is essentially like we gave him away on a free transfer,
The only way to give ourselves the best chance of longevity at this level is selling and recycling the money on improving the team.
surely its more risk to us to not take it? When Gylfi's contract runs out. Who do you think we replace him with, and more importantly - with what?
We will be left with no player and nothing to replace him with.mfast forward 3 years and it is essentially like we gave him away on a free transfer,
The only way to give ourselves the best chance of longevity at this level is selling and recycling the money on improving the team.
His contract run out in 2020
Longevity at this level?
Consider this - as it stands, without him, we are strong relegation candidates. Yes, we could replace him well, but that's a lot of goals and assists to plug with new players.
By my count, we've added 8 first team players since the Americans took over last June
I would agree, Eastern (and Patches).
If we keep Siggy/Llorente, it would be an improvement on the team that finished 8th or whatever after January. Not bad.
I would like an upgrade at RB and winger, and a better CB than Bartley/VDH, but we can't have everything. Signing proven quality in Mesa and a talented kid in Abraham, while clearing out A LOT of deadwood, is good business.
I'd imagine we're still looking to bring in a fullback and/or winger, Siggy sale or not, but we'll see. A lot of time left until September.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 23:57 - Aug 8 with 1916 views
Consider this - as it stands, without him, we are strong relegation candidates. Yes, we could replace him well, but that's a lot of goals and assists to plug with new players.
But its the 2017/18 season now. That means if we keep him we have him for 3 seasons. Then we are in the situation you are so fearful of at this moment (being without him) yet we would have nothing to replace him with as opposed to £45m now.
So if you think we are pretty much nailed on to get relegated wiout him, I suppose the question is would you keep him to have a decent chance to stay up for 3 years before being nailed on to go down... Or sell him for £45m and replace him and improve the rest of the side along with it.
Only one of those options sees us nailed on for relegation within the next 5 years surely, and that is getting into a position where we have no player and no money. Football must be a long term plan, short term plans end up in long term failure.
But its the 2017/18 season now. That means if we keep him we have him for 3 seasons. Then we are in the situation you are so fearful of at this moment (being without him) yet we would have nothing to replace him with as opposed to £45m now.
So if you think we are pretty much nailed on to get relegated wiout him, I suppose the question is would you keep him to have a decent chance to stay up for 3 years before being nailed on to go down... Or sell him for £45m and replace him and improve the rest of the side along with it.
Only one of those options sees us nailed on for relegation within the next 5 years surely, and that is getting into a position where we have no player and no money. Football must be a long term plan, short term plans end up in long term failure.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2017 0:10]
Ok. So he helps keep us in the PL for 3 years then we lose him for nothing.
That's a minimum of £321M in TV revenue. I daresay we should able to find an able replacement with that money over that time period.
That's what at stake here if you're looking at this deal financially. I'd argue that you may be the one taking the short term view as letting him go brings unnecessary risk of relegation THIS season
As someone mentioned above, this team under PC was trending at top 8 finish on points per game.
Personally - I'd rather keep him and see if we can get ourselves back to the standard we showed during the Laudrup days.
The longer this goes on, the less it looks good for Everton to me. There is something in the deal that is obviously sticking in their craw. It makes the Swansea board look less and less of a roll over-and-give-up 'selling club' in the lower reaches of European/Prem/Championship football.
Although Siggy has said nothing since the end of season bash, lots of media outlets have put words in his mouth. He has trained with whoever, is up to speed and is probably one of the brighter and more media savvy players in the top flight. This Everton deal looked a shoo-in 72 hours ago. I'm not so certain now and will personally be pleased if it goes end up.
Lisa...QUOTE
But the minute we receive an actual offer, by not accepting that offer, we are effectively investing that amount in the player in question. It's an opportunity cost. We give up the opportunity to spend that £40m or whatever on other players.
If we can spend that amount on other players anyway, so be it. But we can't. So we have a choice. Spend it on say three players that would improve the squad, or keep Siggy.
However good a player he is, he is not good enough that it is worth giving up the opportunity to improve the squad in the position we currently find ourselves in.
So it's not win win. UNQUOTE
This is 2008 Lehman Bros economics Lisa. There is cash to buy anyway at the moment. Perhaps 20-30 million from the TV deal, without 'borrowing.' Your first paragraph implies we have nothing invested in the first place in Gylfi as an asset and have to take it on the chin if 50 million doesn't come our way then mourn the loss of three players we could buy (Baston, Tabanou, Frankenstein???) . This is the economics of people who borrow, or 'deploy leverage' in that shitti e st of US phrases. If nothing else, the directors who took us out of the Petty era put their money where their mouth was and didn't borrow. With Gylfi we have a tangible asset. Your 45 or 50 million is intangible, even more so if it is to be spent on 3 players of unknown worth when all Europe and Africa know we have just charged top dollar and are cash rich.
Sigurddsson is an asset on the books, a big asset. By not selling him and without any debt on his presence on the books, we are investing nothing in him now, we have already in the Spurs deal. We are, like the rest of the squad, paying his maintenence costs (wages) as he depreciates over the next few years as an asset. At that point we either realise his value in the market or write him off on the books ... the choice is a moot point in performance against value for any player. Leon and Angel are effectively written off as assets already, (who would buy them??) but their value to the squad in training is priceless, as is their worth in a starting or bench line up. They may be financially written off long ago but they have enormous value to the Club.
Ok. So he helps keep us in the PL for 3 years then we lose him for nothing.
That's a minimum of £321M in TV revenue. I daresay we should able to find an able replacement with that money over that time period.
That's what at stake here if you're looking at this deal financially. I'd argue that you may be the one taking the short term view as letting him go brings unnecessary risk of relegation THIS season
As someone mentioned above, this team under PC was trending at top 8 finish on points per game.
Personally - I'd rather keep him and see if we can get ourselves back to the standard we showed during the Laudrup days.
[Post edited 9 Aug 2017 0:16]
But how much of that £321m is earmarked to simply keep us afloat? I would say pretty much all of it. Our running costs are £109.5m p/a.
So without sales we can never invest in players. If we would earn £321m to be able to spend it on improving the squad then I would agree with you. However simply staying in the PL for 3 years just breaks us even.
So without selling it means these players will be leaving us and we would have to replace with free transfers/bargain basement signings. So would you rather that in 3 years or the ability to spend £45m every time we need to replace somoene - surely you can see having the money to invest in the squad is far more likely to have long term success than keeping him and then having nothing?
You also assume that we would get relegated if we sell him, when in reality, we would still be odds on to stay up with that kind of cash behind us to replace him.
My view certainly isnt short term I assure you. Keep him and we are nailed om for relegation in 3 years time. Sell him and with £45m in the bank to invest and recycle, it would be a shock if we were to be relegated and cant envisage we would start a season among the bottom 3 favs to be relegated for a very long time.
It's nothing to do with his value in the market, it's to do with the opportunity it represents to us as a club.
Whatever our total transfer budget is, it's stupid for a club in the position we are in to spend it all on one player. And yet, given the admission that we cannot bring in players without selling Gylfi, that's exactly what we are in effect doing. We are swapping the opportunity to bring in players in order to keep one. I said £40m as that's what we've seemingly been offered in cash terms. It doesn't matter what the figure is. Yes, we shouldn't undersell him, but if only one club are interested, you have to ascertain what's actually available. There is also a time value. Selling a few weeks ago was worth more than selling now.
No I'm not, Lisa.
Eastern has done a great job of describing why Siggy is worth the money, we are relegated without him. Maybe we can bring in quality like Viera if we sell him, maybe we can't. The scary thought is maybe we won't. Take Siggy off the team and bring in Chadli and Yiadom, and we're playing Cardiff next season like Eastern said.
And again, we would have been in the Championship this season if it weren't for Siggy in the first place. The little respect he has been shown on here lately has been appalling. I am to assume no one on PS has ever been offered double their salary to be happier and more successful? Otherwise, the hypocrisy is unbearable.
No one knows what's taken place behind closed doors, and we should wait and see what happens before jumping to conclusions. It's better for the heart and mind, as well.
People need to realise we are not relegated without Siggy. We have not been relegated from the PL yet and have been without him for half the time. We have also had our closest calls with relegation with him in our side.
He is a fantastic player but the team suffers with his selection. Everything goes through him and we bevome very predictable. The difference in expanse of play without his selection in the 4-0 win over Serie A side Sampdoria was stark.
So keeping him in return for scraping break even profit and loss for the next 3 years before getting relegated as we have no funds to invest in the team. Or selling him and being able to continually invest in the improvement of the side for years and years to come... It really is an easy decision.
The longer this goes on, the less it looks good for Everton to me. There is something in the deal that is obviously sticking in their craw. It makes the Swansea board look less and less of a roll over-and-give-up 'selling club' in the lower reaches of European/Prem/Championship football.
Although Siggy has said nothing since the end of season bash, lots of media outlets have put words in his mouth. He has trained with whoever, is up to speed and is probably one of the brighter and more media savvy players in the top flight. This Everton deal looked a shoo-in 72 hours ago. I'm not so certain now and will personally be pleased if it goes end up.
Lisa...QUOTE
But the minute we receive an actual offer, by not accepting that offer, we are effectively investing that amount in the player in question. It's an opportunity cost. We give up the opportunity to spend that £40m or whatever on other players.
If we can spend that amount on other players anyway, so be it. But we can't. So we have a choice. Spend it on say three players that would improve the squad, or keep Siggy.
However good a player he is, he is not good enough that it is worth giving up the opportunity to improve the squad in the position we currently find ourselves in.
So it's not win win. UNQUOTE
This is 2008 Lehman Bros economics Lisa. There is cash to buy anyway at the moment. Perhaps 20-30 million from the TV deal, without 'borrowing.' Your first paragraph implies we have nothing invested in the first place in Gylfi as an asset and have to take it on the chin if 50 million doesn't come our way then mourn the loss of three players we could buy (Baston, Tabanou, Frankenstein???) . This is the economics of people who borrow, or 'deploy leverage' in that shitti e st of US phrases. If nothing else, the directors who took us out of the Petty era put their money where their mouth was and didn't borrow. With Gylfi we have a tangible asset. Your 45 or 50 million is intangible, even more so if it is to be spent on 3 players of unknown worth when all Europe and Africa know we have just charged top dollar and are cash rich.
Sigurddsson is an asset on the books, a big asset. By not selling him and without any debt on his presence on the books, we are investing nothing in him now, we have already in the Spurs deal. We are, like the rest of the squad, paying his maintenence costs (wages) as he depreciates over the next few years as an asset. At that point we either realise his value in the market or write him off on the books ... the choice is a moot point in performance against value for any player. Leon and Angel are effectively written off as assets already, (who would buy them??) but their value to the squad in training is priceless, as is their worth in a starting or bench line up. They may be financially written off long ago but they have enormous value to the Club.
It's nothing to do with his value in the market, it's to do with the opportunity it represents to us as a club.
Whatever our total transfer budget is, it's stupid for a club in the position we are in to spend it all on one player. And yet, given the admission that we cannot bring in players without selling Gylfi, that's exactly what we are in effect doing. We are swapping the opportunity to bring in players in order to keep one. I said £40m as that's what we've seemingly been offered in cash terms. It doesn't matter what the figure is. Yes, we shouldn't undersell him, but if only one club are interested, you have to ascertain what's actually available. There is also a time value. Selling a few weeks ago was worth more than selling now.
Agreed. Finances of Swansea City is completely different to finances of the bigger clubs, we sell to survive. Stop selling, we die. No matter how many fanboys the player has. Trundles sale was a sad day but that £1m was vital in us being able to progress, that premise stays regardless of league. Or until we improve revenues off the field (of which again his sale can help to pay for).
Far too many think they understand the finances of a football club but clearly don't.
- We have been taken the piss out of before while our peers (such as Southampton) have managed to sell for top dollar.
- That situation would continue indefinitely unless we make a stand and say no to below market offers
- Spurs have just sold a right-back that they had already replaced for £50m FFS! Siggy earns a team, any team he plays for (with the set pieces alone), more points than Kyle Naughton...Jesus Christ, he is desired by Everton to replace Ross Barkley (who is also going for around £50m
- We set the price early doors and we have stuck to it
- In my opinion Siggy and his agent then tried to create a situation whereby we dropped our price (by refusing to go on tour), his motive being to curry favour with Everton and get some more wedge in his backpocket when he signs.
- We cannot allow our players to believe that it is they or their agent who decides whether we have received a fair offer, that is Swansea City's decision and we must protect our interests.
- We cannot allow our competitors to perceive us as a soft touch any longer...if our players are good enough for the top clubs (Sinclair, Allen, Vorm, Davies, Bony, Ash...Siggy, Llorente, Mawson) then WE are good enough to be paid the same prices that these clubs pay every other club when they go shopping.
- I said we would get £50m eventually and it would seem that way too me right now...there is a lot of old bollocks written on here about the business and the money. In business, when it comes to doing a deal, you need a pair of bollocks and a cool head.
- Many have tried to make out that Everton are in the driving seat, that it is they who will set the price and the date of this transfer...last day of the window etc. I don't think so. I believe the Americans will not budge on the price and I believe that if Everton don't come up with the money this week Siggy won't be leaving at all. I'm fine with that. It will have been made clear to other clubs, Siggy and the rest of our players that we are not to be f*cked with.
What I am frustrated with is this idea that we don't have any money to spend without the sale of Siggy and the lack of action to address the squad depth. If, IF, Clement wants Yiadom from Barnsley, why can't he sign him? If, IF, we were interested in signing Chalobah why aren't we making an effort to bring in another midfielder. If, IF, we were sweet talking John Terry to come and be a very expensive, 'Daz slow', substitute...why haven't we brought in central defensive cover yet? Badstuber? FFS! Our wingers are clearly shite. Why don't we move a couple on and get in someone young and hungry on loan?
I am not buying the argument that we don't have any money. That argument doesn't stack up.
- We have been taken the piss out of before while our peers (such as Southampton) have managed to sell for top dollar.
- That situation would continue indefinitely unless we make a stand and say no to below market offers
- Spurs have just sold a right-back that they had already replaced for £50m FFS! Siggy earns a team, any team he plays for (with the set pieces alone), more points than Kyle Naughton...Jesus Christ, he is desired by Everton to replace Ross Barkley (who is also going for around £50m
- We set the price early doors and we have stuck to it
- In my opinion Siggy and his agent then tried to create a situation whereby we dropped our price (by refusing to go on tour), his motive being to curry favour with Everton and get some more wedge in his backpocket when he signs.
- We cannot allow our players to believe that it is they or their agent who decides whether we have received a fair offer, that is Swansea City's decision and we must protect our interests.
- We cannot allow our competitors to perceive us as a soft touch any longer...if our players are good enough for the top clubs (Sinclair, Allen, Vorm, Davies, Bony, Ash...Siggy, Llorente, Mawson) then WE are good enough to be paid the same prices that these clubs pay every other club when they go shopping.
- I said we would get £50m eventually and it would seem that way too me right now...there is a lot of old bollocks written on here about the business and the money. In business, when it comes to doing a deal, you need a pair of bollocks and a cool head.
- Many have tried to make out that Everton are in the driving seat, that it is they who will set the price and the date of this transfer...last day of the window etc. I don't think so. I believe the Americans will not budge on the price and I believe that if Everton don't come up with the money this week Siggy won't be leaving at all. I'm fine with that. It will have been made clear to other clubs, Siggy and the rest of our players that we are not to be f*cked with.
What I am frustrated with is this idea that we don't have any money to spend without the sale of Siggy and the lack of action to address the squad depth. If, IF, Clement wants Yiadom from Barnsley, why can't he sign him? If, IF, we were interested in signing Chalobah why aren't we making an effort to bring in another midfielder. If, IF, we were sweet talking John Terry to come and be a very expensive, 'Daz slow', substitute...why haven't we brought in central defensive cover yet? Badstuber? FFS! Our wingers are clearly shite. Why don't we move a couple on and get in someone young and hungry on loan?
I am not buying the argument that we don't have any money. That argument doesn't stack up.
So where is this money coming from then?
The accounts are there for all to see. Over the last 7 years we have spend on average 300k per season on players (net). But that doesn't take into consideration agents fees and signing on fees. So we have made a loss on transfers in and out.
Say Siggy leaves in 3 years and runs his contract down. We want to spend an amount of money to keep us progressing (£20m?) so where does this surpluss come from?
How many players do people think the board will bring in with the funds given from the sale?? How much of it will they reinvest?? Genuine question.
Impossible to say. I would expect a heavy investment into the gap left by the sale (£15m-£20m) a right back (£5m) and a forward (£10m). So 3 players at a combined fee of £30m-£35m would be my guess. But thats just a guess obviously.
And the caveat of course that this may well be over both transfer windows this season simply due to time constraints.
- We have been taken the piss out of before while our peers (such as Southampton) have managed to sell for top dollar.
- That situation would continue indefinitely unless we make a stand and say no to below market offers
- Spurs have just sold a right-back that they had already replaced for £50m FFS! Siggy earns a team, any team he plays for (with the set pieces alone), more points than Kyle Naughton...Jesus Christ, he is desired by Everton to replace Ross Barkley (who is also going for around £50m
- We set the price early doors and we have stuck to it
- In my opinion Siggy and his agent then tried to create a situation whereby we dropped our price (by refusing to go on tour), his motive being to curry favour with Everton and get some more wedge in his backpocket when he signs.
- We cannot allow our players to believe that it is they or their agent who decides whether we have received a fair offer, that is Swansea City's decision and we must protect our interests.
- We cannot allow our competitors to perceive us as a soft touch any longer...if our players are good enough for the top clubs (Sinclair, Allen, Vorm, Davies, Bony, Ash...Siggy, Llorente, Mawson) then WE are good enough to be paid the same prices that these clubs pay every other club when they go shopping.
- I said we would get £50m eventually and it would seem that way too me right now...there is a lot of old bollocks written on here about the business and the money. In business, when it comes to doing a deal, you need a pair of bollocks and a cool head.
- Many have tried to make out that Everton are in the driving seat, that it is they who will set the price and the date of this transfer...last day of the window etc. I don't think so. I believe the Americans will not budge on the price and I believe that if Everton don't come up with the money this week Siggy won't be leaving at all. I'm fine with that. It will have been made clear to other clubs, Siggy and the rest of our players that we are not to be f*cked with.
What I am frustrated with is this idea that we don't have any money to spend without the sale of Siggy and the lack of action to address the squad depth. If, IF, Clement wants Yiadom from Barnsley, why can't he sign him? If, IF, we were interested in signing Chalobah why aren't we making an effort to bring in another midfielder. If, IF, we were sweet talking John Terry to come and be a very expensive, 'Daz slow', substitute...why haven't we brought in central defensive cover yet? Badstuber? FFS! Our wingers are clearly shite. Why don't we move a couple on and get in someone young and hungry on loan?
I am not buying the argument that we don't have any money. That argument doesn't stack up.
Excellent summary....completely agree...
QUOTE
I said we would get £50m eventually and it would seem that way too me right now...there is a lot of old bollocks written on here about the business and the money. In business, when it comes to doing a deal, you need a pair of bollocks and a cool head.
- Many have tried to make out that Everton are in the driving seat, that it is they who will set the price and the date of this transfer...last day of the window etc. I don't think so. I believe the Americans will not budge on the price and I believe that if Everton don't come up with the money this week Siggy won't be leaving at all. I'm fine with that. It will have been made clear to other clubs, Siggy and the rest of our players that we are not to be f*cked with.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
