| Adshead 15:40 - Jun 18 with 31173 views | ColDale |
|  | | |  |
| Adshead on 07:12 - Jun 20 with 3692 views | fitzochris |
| Adshead on 06:25 - Jun 20 by Albert_Whitehurst |
I don't see where the football world has caught up with anything - it's still a cash rich business where the immediacy of success on the pitch far outweighs the long term critical thinking when it comes to the terms & impact of transfers. Hence clubs going into administration, failed Managers receiving huge sums at payout time and again, players throwing tantrums to get more cash or force moves. Successful businessmen lose all their business logic when they put money into football clubs. Greed and corruption are ingrained in the sport.
I agree with your last line, we don't spend time and effort developing players that will become saleable assets to knock them out cheap. |
Sorry, I just meant the football world had caught up and on to the sell-on clause that, according to Chris Dunphy, were relatively rare when Garlick implemented them and no doubt led to the “stitching up” line.
It’s very far behind in all the aspects you correctly describe.
And absolutely agree with the point you’re making about selling assets on the cheap. The market is crazy, unsustainably so, but why should we lose out? We should exploit the beneficial side of it.
Having now spoken to various people relating to the Adshead transfer, it appears we have indeed sold him for a modest upfront fee but the deal could be worth a lot, lot more IF he reaches certain targets.
It’s open to debate as to whether that is the sensible deal for the club. |  |
| |
| Adshead on 07:33 - Jun 20 with 3632 views | BigDaveMyCock |
| Adshead on 22:32 - Jun 18 by James1980 |
A lad who comes in my local supports Fulham and was lambasting them for playing tiki taka against superior teams in the premier league. |
Did you make him aware of Calvin’s availability? |  |
| |
| Adshead on 07:35 - Jun 20 with 3628 views | ColDale |
| Adshead on 07:12 - Jun 20 by fitzochris |
Sorry, I just meant the football world had caught up and on to the sell-on clause that, according to Chris Dunphy, were relatively rare when Garlick implemented them and no doubt led to the “stitching up” line.
It’s very far behind in all the aspects you correctly describe.
And absolutely agree with the point you’re making about selling assets on the cheap. The market is crazy, unsustainably so, but why should we lose out? We should exploit the beneficial side of it.
Having now spoken to various people relating to the Adshead transfer, it appears we have indeed sold him for a modest upfront fee but the deal could be worth a lot, lot more IF he reaches certain targets.
It’s open to debate as to whether that is the sensible deal for the club. |
I think it goes back further than Colin Garlick. The Bywater deal was the blueprint for what followed afterwards wherein it could have reached a total of £2.6 million. For that to happen, West Ham would probably have had to win the Prem League several years on the spin but it was a deal that included appearance bonuses, sell ons, international caps etc. Ultimately, I think following their relegation we renegotiated with West Ham as they hadn't banked on becoming a Championship club and to stick with the original deal would have been detrimental to his career. | | | |
| Adshead on 07:44 - Jun 20 with 3611 views | fitzochris |
| Adshead on 07:35 - Jun 20 by ColDale |
I think it goes back further than Colin Garlick. The Bywater deal was the blueprint for what followed afterwards wherein it could have reached a total of £2.6 million. For that to happen, West Ham would probably have had to win the Prem League several years on the spin but it was a deal that included appearance bonuses, sell ons, international caps etc. Ultimately, I think following their relegation we renegotiated with West Ham as they hadn't banked on becoming a Championship club and to stick with the original deal would have been detrimental to his career. |
Perhaps it does, I’m just going off an interview I did with Chris Dunphy. He said the concept of sell-on clauses were relatively alien to buying clubs circa 2005 and they were only too happy to agree to them because of the relatively low upfront fee.
They’ve worked for us due to the success these players have gone on to have (someone should write a book about it), but, I guess, if that’s true about Bywater it shows the downside of such a deal if a player doesn’t fulfil their potential. | |
| |
| Adshead on 08:03 - Jun 20 with 3566 views | D_Alien |
The fact remains that for clubs like Dale, attracting quality youngsters is the most difficult hurdle and having lads like Adshead move to much bigger clubs is the best form of publicity
Would Norwich be interested if we demanded £1m+ up front? Those advocating we should hold out for such fees need to explain why they think they would. Those who think the deal is the right way forward have the facts on their side |  |
| |
| Adshead on 08:11 - Jun 20 with 3546 views | judd |
| Adshead on 08:03 - Jun 20 by D_Alien |
The fact remains that for clubs like Dale, attracting quality youngsters is the most difficult hurdle and having lads like Adshead move to much bigger clubs is the best form of publicity
Would Norwich be interested if we demanded £1m+ up front? Those advocating we should hold out for such fees need to explain why they think they would. Those who think the deal is the right way forward have the facts on their side |
He's only worth what someone is willing to pay for him.
Did we have to accept what Norwich offered?
It does beg the question did we need to sell now? |  |
| |
| Adshead on 08:26 - Jun 20 with 3515 views | dingdangblue |
| Adshead on 08:11 - Jun 20 by judd |
He's only worth what someone is willing to pay for him.
Did we have to accept what Norwich offered?
It does beg the question did we need to sell now? |
That is probably why we have yet to sell any player for £1 million pounds - even though we have had million pound players on our books in the past. Someone like Peterborough would have got at least £1 million upfront for the likes of Dawson and Hogan because of their multimillionaire owner and his bargaining power - because we are poor in the football world and we can't afford to tie players down on 3 year contracts we are always likely to get shafted with upfront transfer fees received. [Post edited 20 Jun 2019 8:27]
|  |
| |
| Adshead on 08:35 - Jun 20 with 3487 views | 49thseason |
This sale probably brings the income since January from players sold to over a million quid. Cannon, McGahey, Rafferty, and now Adshead. Hopefully these sales will have offset Hills profligate spending on an unfeasably big squad and put a few pounds into BBM pockets for players we actually need. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Adshead on 08:36 - Jun 20 with 3485 views | fitzochris |
| Adshead on 08:03 - Jun 20 by D_Alien |
The fact remains that for clubs like Dale, attracting quality youngsters is the most difficult hurdle and having lads like Adshead move to much bigger clubs is the best form of publicity
Would Norwich be interested if we demanded £1m+ up front? Those advocating we should hold out for such fees need to explain why they think they would. Those who think the deal is the right way forward have the facts on their side |
Facts on their side? I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. Did we ask Norwich for £1million?
Other clubs, Peterborough for example, have no issue attracting non-league players with the promise of bigger things. It’s worked out very well for them.
Attracting young players and promising not to stand in their way, as long as the fee is right for the club, shouldn’t deter anybody.
As Judd says, and as was demonstrated by the sale of Adam LeFondre, sometimes the need to sell outweighs true market value.
So, back to the original point. Were Norwich prepared to pay more than £300-350k up front? The answer is, neither of us know, so nobody has any facts on their side. | |
| |
| Adshead on 09:06 - Jun 20 with 3424 views | Cleedale |
| Adshead on 08:26 - Jun 20 by dingdangblue |
That is probably why we have yet to sell any player for £1 million pounds - even though we have had million pound players on our books in the past. Someone like Peterborough would have got at least £1 million upfront for the likes of Dawson and Hogan because of their multimillionaire owner and his bargaining power - because we are poor in the football world and we can't afford to tie players down on 3 year contracts we are always likely to get shafted with upfront transfer fees received. [Post edited 20 Jun 2019 8:27]
|
Add to that, when did we last actually sell direct to a Prem club?
Dawson and Hogan both went to Champ. clubs. In fact Daws came back for the rest of the season. Lambert - Bristol Rovers, Murray - Brighton, Alfie - Rotherham.
Can't think back at the mo. but was Bywater THE last player we ever sold direct to a Prem. club.
I'd love to know what percentage of Prem players who make appearances every week ARE NOT form these shores. (No disrespect there btw). 80%? 85%? Perhaps even 90%? OK, so the Prem is THE world league now...for the moment.
For a long while now these players are bought 'off the shelf' from abroad because they're of the required standard. No?
So, the only way to sell to the Prem from our end is to make it worth their while/their gamble as otherwise...buy another hook, line and sinker and try elsewhere?
Is the development league (U23s) the beginnings of an attempt to displace the Champ., (sorry if that appears an obvious btw), but when you read that only ONE Championship club made a profit (Derby) in the last season - whichever season that actually was - and that was due to some shadey ground sale!
Not looking good from the efl end is it; really? | | | |
| Adshead on 09:35 - Jun 20 with 3371 views | seasidedale |
WBA were in the premiership when they b ought him, Bywater deal gave us, if memory and info I gleaned from other sources worked out at 600k in the end | | | |
| Adshead on 10:18 - Jun 20 with 3293 views | D_Alien |
| Adshead on 08:11 - Jun 20 by judd |
He's only worth what someone is willing to pay for him.
Did we have to accept what Norwich offered?
It does beg the question did we need to sell now? |
Did Dale accept Norwich's original offer? Plus, we don't know the terms of Adshead's contract
I wasn't expecting Adshead to make much of an impression this year in the L1 maelstrom, so taking all things into consideration, perhaps we did need to sell now - both from our point of view and from the lad's point of view | |
| |
| Adshead on 10:21 - Jun 20 with 3285 views | D_Alien |
| Adshead on 08:36 - Jun 20 by fitzochris |
Facts on their side? I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. Did we ask Norwich for £1million?
Other clubs, Peterborough for example, have no issue attracting non-league players with the promise of bigger things. It’s worked out very well for them.
Attracting young players and promising not to stand in their way, as long as the fee is right for the club, shouldn’t deter anybody.
As Judd says, and as was demonstrated by the sale of Adam LeFondre, sometimes the need to sell outweighs true market value.
So, back to the original point. Were Norwich prepared to pay more than £300-350k up front? The answer is, neither of us know, so nobody has any facts on their side. |
Facts - as in the reality of having young players brought through our academy attracting considerable offers from bigger clubs. Those youngsters could sign up for other youth academies
Beware of misinterpreting posts, especially before claiming "nonsense"
[Post edited 20 Jun 2019 10:23]
| |
| |
| Adshead on 10:31 - Jun 20 with 3258 views | 49thseason |
To be honest, I think L1 is a difficult division to blood young players in. There are a lot of big, athletic players who wont give a youngster either room or time to play. The ones that survive, like Camps and Allen either learn quickly or bulk up but many simply do not have tha phyiscality or determination to survive which is why the premiership U23 teams we see occasionally are stuffed with powerful 6 footers. Almost everyone we have played in the last 2 seasons have been , man for man, bigger than the Rochdale team. Bringing Alby and McNulty back into the side was not an accident, we just needed more size and strength. | | | |
| Adshead on 10:43 - Jun 20 with 3225 views | fitzochris |
| Adshead on 10:21 - Jun 20 by D_Alien |
Facts - as in the reality of having young players brought through our academy attracting considerable offers from bigger clubs. Those youngsters could sign up for other youth academies
Beware of misinterpreting posts, especially before claiming "nonsense"
[Post edited 20 Jun 2019 10:23]
|
Only you know what you truly meant, so if I misinterpreted that I apologise. I took what you were saying as follows: those happy with modest up front fees have all the facts and those not so happy with modest upfront fees, don’t.
The thing is, there are so many variables with this transfer that nobody is in possession of all facts bar those involved, and even they are giving out contradictory information.
You have to question how we came to sell Adshead now - did Norwich approach us, has his agent touted him around or have we touted him around?
My personal opinion is that the fact he is leaving us to join a Premier League development squad, rather than a first team is that he’s left us before his time. But without having the answers to the above, it’s guessing. | |
| |
| Adshead on 10:47 - Jun 20 with 3213 views | Cleedale |
| Adshead on 09:35 - Jun 20 by seasidedale |
WBA were in the premiership when they b ought him, Bywater deal gave us, if memory and info I gleaned from other sources worked out at 600k in the end |
Thanks Seaside - obv. forgot that fact in the euphoria of him coming back on loan.
So we still made abt. a third of that potential (with add-ons) Bywater sale back then - not bad for that solitary game at Carlisle. Joking btw., as obv. had potential but finding the right level.
Was having a friendly beer with some WHU fans a few years back and so that conversation did come up. Had to swallow humble pie
when they almost died laughing when his name cropped up.
They weren't impressed. Wonder if they still greet opposition coaches the way 'some' did when Man U last visited the old Boleyn ground - perhaps it was even named after that famously beheaded ex-of Henry VIII?
Seriously though, my points were/are more about the divisions that are appearing in the divisions (leagues) - the haves and the definitely have-nots and where this potentially might lead..... | | | |
| Adshead on 10:48 - Jun 20 with 3204 views | dawlishdale |
| Adshead on 10:21 - Jun 20 by D_Alien |
Facts - as in the reality of having young players brought through our academy attracting considerable offers from bigger clubs. Those youngsters could sign up for other youth academies
Beware of misinterpreting posts, especially before claiming "nonsense"
[Post edited 20 Jun 2019 10:23]
|
Whichever way you dress it up, we do indeed seem to have accepted a very low bid for Adshead. Fitz was initially told that it was far in excess of £300k, but has subsequently been told that it was indeed the lower amount.
Yes; there are the usual add on's, but given his young age and the fact that he will likely play in Norwich's Under 23 team this year, almost certainly followed by a spell on loan somewhere, mean that we won't be getting the add ons for quite some time, if ever.
I ask you this.... where else would an EPL team be able to sign a highly talented England u18 international with L1 experience, and under contract until the end of 2021 for £300k?
It just wouldn't happen.
Even bury managed to get £400,000 up front when they sold Matty Foulds to Everton. Foulds had never played any first team games !!! | | | |
| Adshead on 10:52 - Jun 20 with 3191 views | Cleedale |
| Adshead on 10:31 - Jun 20 by 49thseason |
To be honest, I think L1 is a difficult division to blood young players in. There are a lot of big, athletic players who wont give a youngster either room or time to play. The ones that survive, like Camps and Allen either learn quickly or bulk up but many simply do not have tha phyiscality or determination to survive which is why the premiership U23 teams we see occasionally are stuffed with powerful 6 footers. Almost everyone we have played in the last 2 seasons have been , man for man, bigger than the Rochdale team. Bringing Alby and McNulty back into the side was not an accident, we just needed more size and strength. |
Great post that 49th. | | | |
| Adshead on 12:14 - Jun 20 with 3075 views | jonahwhereru |
| Adshead on 10:43 - Jun 20 by fitzochris |
Only you know what you truly meant, so if I misinterpreted that I apologise. I took what you were saying as follows: those happy with modest up front fees have all the facts and those not so happy with modest upfront fees, don’t.
The thing is, there are so many variables with this transfer that nobody is in possession of all facts bar those involved, and even they are giving out contradictory information.
You have to question how we came to sell Adshead now - did Norwich approach us, has his agent touted him around or have we touted him around?
My personal opinion is that the fact he is leaving us to join a Premier League development squad, rather than a first team is that he’s left us before his time. But without having the answers to the above, it’s guessing. |
I rarely post twice on a football opinion type thread. However looking at the way Dale have promoted Dan he has had a for sale sign around his neck for a while.
Debut at 16
Game time in a televised FA cup game at Wembley
Captain in the Checktrade
Run of games in a struggling side last season
We hardly tried to hide his talent under a bushel. So while we dont know who approached who in this transfer I think the club did the agents job for him in the way the player was showcased.
On balance still think it was the right decision, as Norwich still have taken some of the risk. There are many 17 year olds who don’t make it for various reasons. | | | |
| Adshead on 13:11 - Jun 20 with 2954 views | fitzochris |
| Adshead on 12:14 - Jun 20 by jonahwhereru |
I rarely post twice on a football opinion type thread. However looking at the way Dale have promoted Dan he has had a for sale sign around his neck for a while.
Debut at 16
Game time in a televised FA cup game at Wembley
Captain in the Checktrade
Run of games in a struggling side last season
We hardly tried to hide his talent under a bushel. So while we dont know who approached who in this transfer I think the club did the agents job for him in the way the player was showcased.
On balance still think it was the right decision, as Norwich still have taken some of the risk. There are many 17 year olds who don’t make it for various reasons. |
Some sceptical types had already mentioned those points when Keith Hill stood to make money from any potential transfer...
Again though, a certain Mr Hill had apparently valued Adshead a lot higher than £350k. It’s not his valuation that counts, however. | |
| |
| Adshead on 13:27 - Jun 20 with 2893 views | D_Alien |
| Adshead on 10:43 - Jun 20 by fitzochris |
Only you know what you truly meant, so if I misinterpreted that I apologise. I took what you were saying as follows: those happy with modest up front fees have all the facts and those not so happy with modest upfront fees, don’t.
The thing is, there are so many variables with this transfer that nobody is in possession of all facts bar those involved, and even they are giving out contradictory information.
You have to question how we came to sell Adshead now - did Norwich approach us, has his agent touted him around or have we touted him around?
My personal opinion is that the fact he is leaving us to join a Premier League development squad, rather than a first team is that he’s left us before his time. But without having the answers to the above, it’s guessing. |
Accepted, and as you rightly say, there's some guesswork involved on all sides
What i disagree with is the perennial bleat about us selling players on the cheap
judd made a good point about market value. If we were seriously selling considerably below market value i'd be unhappy too, but with add-ons in the equation i really don't think we are. Into that equation - the X factor if you like - is that Dale's policy in the transfer market has bourne considerable fruit, to the extent that it's probably keeping us afloat and any change to that policy would in my view be a mistake
[Post edited 20 Jun 2019 13:28]
| |
| |
| Adshead on 13:50 - Jun 20 with 2837 views | DaleiLama |
| Adshead on 13:11 - Jun 20 by fitzochris |
Some sceptical types had already mentioned those points when Keith Hill stood to make money from any potential transfer...
Again though, a certain Mr Hill had apparently valued Adshead a lot higher than £350k. It’s not his valuation that counts, however. |
Not to mention the "behind closed doors" game with ManU that only people itk knew about. A sort of whited out shop window.
I believed then, and still believe now, that a manager taking a cut of the proceeds is a conflict of interest (was broadly pilloried for it at the time) but if this is the only way we can get by, then I came to the conclusion that it is what it is.
I wouldn't imagine BBM would have such a % deal as he's stepped up from relative obscurity with less experience. Only time will tell if we can keep saleable assets coming through and still rely on this to balance the books. |  |
| |
| Adshead on 13:51 - Jun 20 with 2833 views | fitzochris |
| Adshead on 13:27 - Jun 20 by D_Alien |
Accepted, and as you rightly say, there's some guesswork involved on all sides
What i disagree with is the perennial bleat about us selling players on the cheap
judd made a good point about market value. If we were seriously selling considerably below market value i'd be unhappy too, but with add-ons in the equation i really don't think we are. Into that equation - the X factor if you like - is that Dale's policy in the transfer market has bourne considerable fruit, to the extent that it's probably keeping us afloat and any change to that policy would in my view be a mistake
[Post edited 20 Jun 2019 13:28]
|
I’m not advocating a change of policy. I’m all for the add ons. Pretty much every deal in football has them now.
All I am suggesting is that an initial fee of £350k is low. Without any of the background, such as necessity to sell, or the player wanting away etc etc, all I can say is, on the face of it, given the way the market is just now, it seems low.
The plus side, or risk pay-off if you prefer, is that if Adshead hits numerous targets, one of which involves him making the first team squad and others involving subsequent appearances, then the deal is very lucrative, or so I’m told. | |
| |
| Adshead on 13:54 - Jun 20 with 2822 views | SaxonDale |
Whilst it is easy to get annoyed at the size of the official fee (believe me I've done it) I suppose the real litmus test will be when we get a better idea of add-ons which we could be due further down the line. Given the cost of young English talent, particularly from other English clubs, we could easily see a 20% sell-on become a 10 million windfall in 3-5 years. Given the prospect of that I would much rather a deal of £300,000 + 20% than say £1,000,000 with 5% (complete speculation on the numbers of course.)
I do however agree with the posters who are asking- why can't we have our cake and eat it? The buzz around Adshead as a young talent has been pretty much unprecedented from day one and I doubt we'll ever see another player of ours linked with Barca, Utd et al. Which makes it pretty depressing when considered the money paid upfront, (and I assume Adshead won't be making much in add-ons in the first 12 months) will probably only plug the financial hole for this season.
I think what worries me the most is if a messageboard-manager like myself can see much more value in having 20% sell-on in Adshead compared to money upfront surely Norwich can too. As Fitzo has said, sell-ons are no longer a secret in football and considering the potential sell-on of Adshead I'd be amazed if it hasn't been capped by Norwich-IF that cap is anywhere close to 2 million I think we've undersold and been naive. I'm sure Norwich know that an extra million on the bid would have, whilst being pennies for them, meant we'd probably forgo any future clauses, something which could in the long term save them a lot. |  | | |
| Adshead on 16:18 - Jun 20 with 2657 views | judd |
| Adshead on 13:54 - Jun 20 by SaxonDale |
Whilst it is easy to get annoyed at the size of the official fee (believe me I've done it) I suppose the real litmus test will be when we get a better idea of add-ons which we could be due further down the line. Given the cost of young English talent, particularly from other English clubs, we could easily see a 20% sell-on become a 10 million windfall in 3-5 years. Given the prospect of that I would much rather a deal of £300,000 + 20% than say £1,000,000 with 5% (complete speculation on the numbers of course.)
I do however agree with the posters who are asking- why can't we have our cake and eat it? The buzz around Adshead as a young talent has been pretty much unprecedented from day one and I doubt we'll ever see another player of ours linked with Barca, Utd et al. Which makes it pretty depressing when considered the money paid upfront, (and I assume Adshead won't be making much in add-ons in the first 12 months) will probably only plug the financial hole for this season.
I think what worries me the most is if a messageboard-manager like myself can see much more value in having 20% sell-on in Adshead compared to money upfront surely Norwich can too. As Fitzo has said, sell-ons are no longer a secret in football and considering the potential sell-on of Adshead I'd be amazed if it hasn't been capped by Norwich-IF that cap is anywhere close to 2 million I think we've undersold and been naive. I'm sure Norwich know that an extra million on the bid would have, whilst being pennies for them, meant we'd probably forgo any future clauses, something which could in the long term save them a lot. |
This is the problem with a policy of not disclosing transfer fees - the endless speculation and supposition.
However, one major concern is the number of outlets that are reporting the initial fee in the £300 - £350k area.
As in the case of Andy Cannons undisclosed fee, the unofficial disclosures eventually proved to be accurate, so either we have a leak at Rochdale or we cannot control the clubs we are agreeing undisclosed fees with, it would appear.
In January I am pretty certain that Adshead was valued at £1m by the club. Whether that as an initial fee or a fee over his career, I suspect the former.
He has now been sold to a club new to the Premier league and its' subsequent tsunami of inbound cash.
The raft of £300- £350k assumptions/presumptions/assertions is alarming.
Did we have to sell now?
Did we have to go undisclosed?
Were there other offers from other clubs?
As has been pointed out elsewhere, none of us here knows how to value a player, but we can measure in relative terms. The Bury player example being apposite.
SaxonDale has hammered home the nails firmly on the head with his erudite post and does add to the thought that we have had to sell because of cashflow issues, rather than wait to see if anything better came along for a contracted17 year old.
We may very well have an agreement the likes of which we have never had before in terms of add-ons, and of recent years we have been massively grateful for those windfalls. But as SaxonDale questions, why can't we have our cake and eat it?
You can also question whether sell on clauses have stopped the sale of Dawson because the selling club has to inflate their valuation to accommodate the sell on liability and the buying club knows it is paying over the odds. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
