| The proposed loan of Fede 19:49 - Jul 23 with 18235 views | oldcob |
to Newcastle. Am I the only one who sees no sense in this? Newcastle gain, they get an experienced Premiership International centre back. Fede gains he's playing the standard of football he wishes. Apart from saving Fede's wages, what are Swansea City getting out of this? I can't see anything. Why would we agree to this?
[Post edited 23 Jul 2018 20:01]
|  | | |  |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:13 - Jul 25 with 1232 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:08 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
Well he didn’t for a start.
Secondly it is ethos not outcome, even if what you said was tee (it isn’t, whichbis why you ignored the question) If you think surplus (it wasn’t a surplus) is a metric of a sustainable model then I assume you think if I had 25k to my name and chucked £500 at the lottery every week, won 500k in my first year - then that is a sustainable long term model yes? Or is that methodology the architipical short term strategy? |
Ethos means nothing, and is not measurable
At least half of the voting public on this board have expressed a desire to see Laudrup back which has to be an endorsement of his ethos.
And no doubt that is why you have latched on to this line of attack; you can find a ready stream of people willing to defend him against the bullshit you pluck out of your arse. Sad and pathetic little child that you are. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:14]
|  |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:14 - Jul 25 with 1228 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:05 - Jul 25 by londonlisa2001 |
I’m struggling to follow this line of thinking.
Not the bit about milking the club, I understand that. I don’t understand how it is necessarily short term thinking though.
If we bought a player for £5m at age 25 and sold for £10m at age 27, that hasn’t shrunk the pot available for the club whether a percentage is taken off both ends or not. The percentage taken off both ends reduces the profit (it’s an opportunity cost if you like - we’ve not achieved as much as we may have done) but the club still has more than it would have done if the player hadn’t been bought. Plus it’s had use of that player for 2 years. |
Well the response here should really be “whatever” followed by “fin”.
But that’s easy. Your example is a specific one rather than a spectrum of successes and failures seen in true transfer dealings.
There are two scenarios, take 10% of both ends of sales and purchases. Take nothing of either end - which tactic retains your pot the longest? Which ethos suggests growing/protecting the clubs sacred pot is paramount?
This is why result and intent are irrelevant. |  |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:18 - Jul 25 with 1201 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:14 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
Well the response here should really be “whatever” followed by “fin”.
But that’s easy. Your example is a specific one rather than a spectrum of successes and failures seen in true transfer dealings.
There are two scenarios, take 10% of both ends of sales and purchases. Take nothing of either end - which tactic retains your pot the longest? Which ethos suggests growing/protecting the clubs sacred pot is paramount?
This is why result and intent are irrelevant. |
Yes, intent, results and the real world in general are all irrelevant.
Only the ethos as personally determined by Mr Dim matter, whose decision shall be final, binding, and repeated endlessly. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:19 - Jul 25 with 1188 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:13 - Jul 25 by Shaky |
Ethos means nothing, and is not measurable
At least half of the voting public on this board have expressed a desire to see Laudrup back which has to be an endorsement of his ethos.
And no doubt that is why you have latched on to this line of attack; you can find a ready stream of people willing to defend him against the bullshit you pluck out of your arse. Sad and pathetic little child that you are. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:14]
|
Ethos means everything. It sets the strategic goals of the business plan and model. Laudrups ethos was to sign for short term personal gains.
At least half of the voting public on this forum probably don’t understand the most basic of football business concepts. And more than half voted to take a deal of £5m to render their own shares worthless. I will take your selected stats with a pinch of salt.
Talking of them, what was the deficit in transfers for Laudrups reign?
No amount of projecting and name calling will save you here Shakey hand. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:21 - Jul 25 with 1174 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:18 - Jul 25 by Shaky |
Yes, intent, results and the real world in general are all irrelevant.
Only the ethos as personally determined by Mr Dim matter, whose decision shall be final, binding, and repeated endlessly. |
Irrelevant to the point being made yes, which is a long or short term business model.
I again put it to you. I have 25k to my name. Put £500 a week on the lottery. After year 1 I am 500k in surplus, even though the win was a 8,000,000-1 shot.
Is the result irrelevant? Was it a short term ethos? Or does it represent a long term financial strategy?
Take your time. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:22 - Jul 25 with 1175 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:14 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
Well the response here should really be “whatever” followed by “fin”.
But that’s easy. Your example is a specific one rather than a spectrum of successes and failures seen in true transfer dealings.
There are two scenarios, take 10% of both ends of sales and purchases. Take nothing of either end - which tactic retains your pot the longest? Which ethos suggests growing/protecting the clubs sacred pot is paramount?
This is why result and intent are irrelevant. |
It’s not irrelevant.
Obviously taking nothing off both ends increases the pot most - I said that in my post.
But buying a player and selling that player for more money creates a larger pot than buying a player and selling him for less money.
Buying a player and selling that player for more money even if 50% of the profit is withheld from the club also creates a larger pot than buying a player and selling him for less money.
You can’t ignore the proficiency in indentifying players who will increase in value (either by buying under value, or by identifying improvement as being likely through coaching or simply realisation of potential) when looking at any management team.
The Laudrup model (Laudrup / Tutu model) was also focused on that increase in value as part of it. Hence the identification of players that had a relatively low initial cost (some of whom would turn out to be successful, some not - as you say, that’s not the issue as the discussion is one of approach).
So in and of itself, the approach is not necessarily short termist. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:24]
| | | |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:26 - Jul 25 with 1150 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:21 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
Irrelevant to the point being made yes, which is a long or short term business model.
I again put it to you. I have 25k to my name. Put £500 a week on the lottery. After year 1 I am 500k in surplus, even though the win was a 8,000,000-1 shot.
Is the result irrelevant? Was it a short term ethos? Or does it represent a long term financial strategy?
Take your time. |
If you are up on the lottery staking £500/week for a year you are a lucky moron.
Nothing to do with ethos | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:27 - Jul 25 with 1145 views | Tom1912 |
I'm really struggling to see the issue with the transfer activity in Laudrup's era (other than of course any dodgy dealings with Tutumulu taking a slice).
12/13 and 13/14 were a great period of transfer business for the club, up their with some of our best business in the PL.
Looking at the arrivals, and splitting them by players who did well for the club and didn't:
Successful signings:
Bony - £15m (sold for £25m+)
Shelvey - £5m (sold for £12m)
JDG - Loan fee
Michu - £2m -(£1m loan fee, left for free)
Chico - £2m - (sold for £3m-£4m)
Hernandez - £5.5m (sold for £3m-£4m)
Ki - £5.5m (£0.5m loan fee, left due to contract expiring)
Amat - £2m (still at club)
Unsuccessful signings
Pozuelo - £450k (left for free)
Canas - free transfer/signing on fee (left for free)
Vasquez/Shecter/Lamah - Loan fee
Ki and Amat as successful signings are probably debatable but both have played a decent number of games for the club and Amat is still here and could make a difference this season, so I've included them there.
Frankly, I wish we'd carrying on doing business that well. What cost the club our PL place was the money spunked on the likes of Baston, Mesa, Clucas, Andre Ayew etc. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:28 - Jul 25 with 1139 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:22 - Jul 25 by londonlisa2001 |
It’s not irrelevant.
Obviously taking nothing off both ends increases the pot most - I said that in my post.
But buying a player and selling that player for more money creates a larger pot than buying a player and selling him for less money.
Buying a player and selling that player for more money even if 50% of the profit is withheld from the club also creates a larger pot than buying a player and selling him for less money.
You can’t ignore the proficiency in indentifying players who will increase in value (either by buying under value, or by identifying improvement as being likely through coaching or simply realisation of potential) when looking at any management team.
The Laudrup model (Laudrup / Tutu model) was also focused on that increase in value as part of it. Hence the identification of players that had a relatively low initial cost (some of whom would turn out to be successful, some not - as you say, that’s not the issue as the discussion is one of approach).
So in and of itself, the approach is not necessarily short termist. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:24]
|
It is utterly irrelevant. We are talking approach not outcome.
Well it doesn’t necessarily increase it most, it protects it most. Protection is an ethos not an outcome. Hence why result is irrelevant, business strategy is paramount when determining intent.
Buying a player and selling him for more is something that can be done in any strategy, even a blind scattergun one, it is not exclusive to the short term Laudrup/Tutumlu model. So again irrelevant to determining approach.
Do you think looking at Laudrups history, the deal struck by Tutumlu to cream off both ends, the short term management of MIchu and the Laudrup era in general was set up for the long term benefit of the club and seen as a sound business model to continue?
Be honest.
(Anyway, we are going to have to pick this up later, way past my bed time) [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:40]
| |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:29 - Jul 25 with 1133 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:26 - Jul 25 by Shaky |
If you are up on the lottery staking £500/week for a year you are a lucky moron.
Nothing to do with ethos |
SO result is irrelevant then when determining short or long term business models?
Yeah I know. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:40 - Jul 25 with 1108 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:28 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
It is utterly irrelevant. We are talking approach not outcome.
Well it doesn’t necessarily increase it most, it protects it most. Protection is an ethos not an outcome. Hence why result is irrelevant, business strategy is paramount when determining intent.
Buying a player and selling him for more is something that can be done in any strategy, even a blind scattergun one, it is not exclusive to the short term Laudrup/Tutumlu model. So again irrelevant to determining approach.
Do you think looking at Laudrups history, the deal struck by Tutumlu to cream off both ends, the short term management of MIchu and the Laudrup era in general was set up for the long term benefit of the club and seen as a sound business model to continue?
Be honest.
(Anyway, we are going to have to pick this up later, way past my bed time) [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:40]
|
One part of their strategy isn’t irrelevant whereas the second part of the same strategy is irrelevant?
That’s nonsense.
For every player brought into the club, or sold from the club, the club (any club) pays agents and intermediaries. The difference in that period is that one agent in particular was setting up the deals. But that wasn’t the whole strategy. The whole strategy involved deliberate targeting of players at less than value. Canas, Pozuelo, Michu, Chico, Hernandez. Tutu did his thing and brought these players to the club (remember that the flip side of all this is the players themselves benefitting as well, hence their agreement t9 join us rather than a rival).
If they are then worth more to us 2 years later, the club makes money (so does everyone else involved). That’s the whole point. That increases the pot.
As for whether I think it’s sound business practice. Well I don’t believe that we should as a club, engage in these sorts of practices (even though it’s fairly commonplace - one top, top manager does the same and many others do as well).
But that doesn’t mean it’s short termist which was point I made. | | | |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:45 - Jul 25 with 1095 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:29 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
SO result is irrelevant then when determining short or long term business models?
Yeah I know. |
I think you have been looking at a MOOC on strategy but have yet to progress beyond the first half page.
In business, results are a function of risk.
When we talk about risk, we distinguish between those assessed before the event - ex ante - and those seen afterwards, ex post.
Ex ante, a person staking £500 a week on any form of gambling with a simple win/loss outcome is a mug, whether or not they win.
Is business with any degree of complexity a win/loss outcome? No but we can measure performance against a series of measures, ex post. Which is how it is done. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:51]
| |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:47 - Jul 25 with 1085 views | jacksfullaces |
the fact anything done by the club can be defined as a strategy is laughable, certainly in the last few years. it would appear that philosophy, ethos etc has all been eroded post laudrup.
why pages and pages of trying to be right about this is worthy of anyone's time is beyond me as is calling everyone a troll that might offer a different (even aggressively different) point of view. #selfawareness
unless this enlightenment is likely to somehow bring the board round to admitting all their failures and putting a new structure in place I'd suggest everyone looks to be right about something far more important. | | | |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:49 - Jul 25 with 1078 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Best thing to do is leave this thread alone.
E20 has been mugged right off. |  | | |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:50 - Jul 25 with 1078 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:40 - Jul 25 by londonlisa2001 |
One part of their strategy isn’t irrelevant whereas the second part of the same strategy is irrelevant?
That’s nonsense.
For every player brought into the club, or sold from the club, the club (any club) pays agents and intermediaries. The difference in that period is that one agent in particular was setting up the deals. But that wasn’t the whole strategy. The whole strategy involved deliberate targeting of players at less than value. Canas, Pozuelo, Michu, Chico, Hernandez. Tutu did his thing and brought these players to the club (remember that the flip side of all this is the players themselves benefitting as well, hence their agreement t9 join us rather than a rival).
If they are then worth more to us 2 years later, the club makes money (so does everyone else involved). That’s the whole point. That increases the pot.
As for whether I think it’s sound business practice. Well I don’t believe that we should as a club, engage in these sorts of practices (even though it’s fairly commonplace - one top, top manager does the same and many others do as well).
But that doesn’t mean it’s short termist which was point I made. |
One part of their strategy is based on speculation, it is no guarantee so it cannot be a meaningful approach. The telling part of the approach is the certainties wouldn’t you agree? The certainty was that they were taking the money whether it made a profit or not. How can that in any way be a successful long term model? It can’t is the obvious answer.
Exactly. So if there is unrelated agents then short termism is not guiding the decisions. They don’t get any benefit personally from the purchases or sales, they get their reward through it benefitting the long term health of the club. They brought in excellent players, I will happily say so- but that is irrelevant as I said. Would they have brought them in if they wouldn’t get the slice?
If* they are worth more. That can be said for any strategy you can think of, it is not exclusive to one. It can be said for the shortest term thinking of all strategies, it can be said for the longest thinking of all strategies. It goes hand in hand with any purchase. It’s speculative. What was certain again though? That they were taking the cut success or not, that’s short termist.
I was chatting to skippy about the overround the bookies have which guarantees their win. Eventually the punter runs out of money, it was mathematically inevitable. Backing red or black at 1.91 odds. Some will win, some will lose - but the fact the cream is taken off both means the pot is diminishing even if you go on a run, the longer you are there the more certain it is. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 18:01]
| |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:55 - Jul 25 with 1062 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:45 - Jul 25 by Shaky |
I think you have been looking at a MOOC on strategy but have yet to progress beyond the first half page.
In business, results are a function of risk.
When we talk about risk, we distinguish between those assessed before the event - ex ante - and those seen afterwards, ex post.
Ex ante, a person staking £500 a week on any form of gambling with a simple win/loss outcome is a mug, whether or not they win.
Is business with any degree of complexity a win/loss outcome? No but we can measure performance against a series of measures, ex post. Which is how it is done. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:51]
|
Buying players is gambling, it is gambling in the commodity of players. Every signing is a gamble.
You cannot judge a business approach by short term outcome. Utterly moronic to think you can.
Even more moronic to get two selective dates to mould it around your own senseless rhetoric. What are the figures for his whole tenure (irrelevant but interesting). [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:58]
| |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:59 - Jul 25 with 1051 views | Shaky |
If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, Dim.
Or a certain amount of training as a bookie for that matter. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:00 - Jul 25 with 1049 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:50 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
One part of their strategy is based on speculation, it is no guarantee so it cannot be a meaningful approach. The telling part of the approach is the certainties wouldn’t you agree? The certainty was that they were taking the money whether it made a profit or not. How can that in any way be a successful long term model? It can’t is the obvious answer.
Exactly. So if there is unrelated agents then short termism is not guiding the decisions. They don’t get any benefit personally from the purchases or sales, they get their reward through it benefitting the long term health of the club. They brought in excellent players, I will happily say so- but that is irrelevant as I said. Would they have brought them in if they wouldn’t get the slice?
If* they are worth more. That can be said for any strategy you can think of, it is not exclusive to one. It can be said for the shortest term thinking of all strategies, it can be said for the longest thinking of all strategies. It goes hand in hand with any purchase. It’s speculative. What was certain again though? That they were taking the cut success or not, that’s short termist.
I was chatting to skippy about the overround the bookies have which guarantees their win. Eventually the punter runs out of money, it was mathematically inevitable. Backing red or black at 1.91 odds. Some will win, some will lose - but the fact the cream is taken off both means the pot is diminishing even if you go on a run, the longer you are there the more certain it is. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 18:01]
|
All player purchases are based on speculation. So your argument suggests that no approach can be strategic? Most businesses involving purchase and sale of assets are the same, yet they would all claim to have a strategy,
An unrelated agent gets his cut on transfers in. There’s no additional reward to them in the club’s long term health. There’s a benefit to them if they can then move the player on again at a profit - exactly the same as was the case under the Tutumlu time. An argument can be made that in our current situation, the agents can still move their players on to other premier league teams and they’ve forgotten about us at that point. In Tutumlu’s case that can’t be said. As he would lose out personally in the club going down as we have. No similar players could be brought in at that point, so the structure collapses.
I didn’t say I liked it remember, simply that it’s not necessarily short termist.
Your last point is only relevant if the choice is a cut or no cut. That wasn’t the case here. It was simply the identity of where the cut went that was different - not its existence. | | | |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:03 - Jul 25 with 1033 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 17:55 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
Buying players is gambling, it is gambling in the commodity of players. Every signing is a gamble.
You cannot judge a business approach by short term outcome. Utterly moronic to think you can.
Even more moronic to get two selective dates to mould it around your own senseless rhetoric. What are the figures for his whole tenure (irrelevant but interesting). [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 17:58]
|
You have no idea of how businesses are judged, Dim. None.
US listed companies publish quarterly financial statements, and brief investors and the financial analyst community on their expected profits. If these are missed, CEOs often get the boot.
That is a little extreme, but CEOs of European companies expect the same thing on an annual basis.
That's life. A life you simply have no conception of. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:06 - Jul 25 with 1011 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:00 - Jul 25 by londonlisa2001 |
All player purchases are based on speculation. So your argument suggests that no approach can be strategic? Most businesses involving purchase and sale of assets are the same, yet they would all claim to have a strategy,
An unrelated agent gets his cut on transfers in. There’s no additional reward to them in the club’s long term health. There’s a benefit to them if they can then move the player on again at a profit - exactly the same as was the case under the Tutumlu time. An argument can be made that in our current situation, the agents can still move their players on to other premier league teams and they’ve forgotten about us at that point. In Tutumlu’s case that can’t be said. As he would lose out personally in the club going down as we have. No similar players could be brought in at that point, so the structure collapses.
I didn’t say I liked it remember, simply that it’s not necessarily short termist.
Your last point is only relevant if the choice is a cut or no cut. That wasn’t the case here. It was simply the identity of where the cut went that was different - not its existence. |
No it doesn’t.
My argument is that speculation is a given of any purchase. Strategy goes in to each and every signing. People don’t just sign players for a laugh, they sign them with the intent to improve the team.
However - if that also comes with a caveat that they take a % of all those purchases - not only that but ANY sales even if they were already at the club before arrival and is not even a representative of them - that has to be short term thinking. Personal gain over long term health and growing power of the club. How else can that be long term thinking? Come on. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:08 - Jul 25 with 999 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:06 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
No it doesn’t.
My argument is that speculation is a given of any purchase. Strategy goes in to each and every signing. People don’t just sign players for a laugh, they sign them with the intent to improve the team.
However - if that also comes with a caveat that they take a % of all those purchases - not only that but ANY sales even if they were already at the club before arrival and is not even a representative of them - that has to be short term thinking. Personal gain over long term health and growing power of the club. How else can that be long term thinking? Come on. |
Agents' fees are what is known as a transaction cost, Dim.
To the extent they are broadly industry standard they are irrelevant since everybody incurs transaction costs.
Fin. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:11 - Jul 25 with 991 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:03 - Jul 25 by Shaky |
You have no idea of how businesses are judged, Dim. None.
US listed companies publish quarterly financial statements, and brief investors and the financial analyst community on their expected profits. If these are missed, CEOs often get the boot.
That is a little extreme, but CEOs of European companies expect the same thing on an annual basis.
That's life. A life you simply have no conception of. |
Again, saying things and then having meaning are vastly differing things.
One minute you are telling me that outcome is a key indicator of approach, then admitting it isn’t, and now saying it is again. (It still isn’t by the way).
You are comparing apples to fridge freezers and again focusing on outcome determining approach. I wouldn’t even expect that from a GCSE business study class. You have been told, and it has been explained to you in detail.
You are not realising you are now talking about results determining performance - not approach. Y
I can only assume you are now posturing to save face. Whether it was the concept that has just twigged or your usual complete minunderstanding of the topic only you can truly know. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 18:13]
| |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:12 - Jul 25 with 988 views | londonlisa2001 |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:06 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
No it doesn’t.
My argument is that speculation is a given of any purchase. Strategy goes in to each and every signing. People don’t just sign players for a laugh, they sign them with the intent to improve the team.
However - if that also comes with a caveat that they take a % of all those purchases - not only that but ANY sales even if they were already at the club before arrival and is not even a representative of them - that has to be short term thinking. Personal gain over long term health and growing power of the club. How else can that be long term thinking? Come on. |
Oh, so the identification of certain types of players is now a strategy then?
And again, you are confusing the reality of every purchase and sale attracting commissions and just the recipient changing with the fallacy that we wouldn’t have paid those amounts otherwise.
The strategy, again, was to identify undervalued players to the club and selling them at a profit to buy more expensive undervalued players. Those players would only have joined us because of Laudrup / Tutu. That is not necessarily short termist, irrespective of a cut being taken. | | | |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:16 - Jul 25 with 966 views | Shaky |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:11 - Jul 25 by E20Jack |
Again, saying things and then having meaning are vastly differing things.
One minute you are telling me that outcome is a key indicator of approach, then admitting it isn’t, and now saying it is again. (It still isn’t by the way).
You are comparing apples to fridge freezers and again focusing on outcome determining approach. I wouldn’t even expect that from a GCSE business study class. You have been told, and it has been explained to you in detail.
You are not realising you are now talking about results determining performance - not approach. Y
I can only assume you are now posturing to save face. Whether it was the concept that has just twigged or your usual complete minunderstanding of the topic only you can truly know. [Post edited 25 Jul 2018 18:13]
|
No Dim, I am contrasting for you the difference between Apples and oranges.
Alas you are unable to grasp that gambling - an activity with two possible outcomes - differs from business, an activity with a complex spectrum of outcomes influencing many different variable. | |
| |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:19 - Jul 25 with 955 views | E20Jack |
| The proposed loan of Fede on 18:12 - Jul 25 by londonlisa2001 |
Oh, so the identification of certain types of players is now a strategy then?
And again, you are confusing the reality of every purchase and sale attracting commissions and just the recipient changing with the fallacy that we wouldn’t have paid those amounts otherwise.
The strategy, again, was to identify undervalued players to the club and selling them at a profit to buy more expensive undervalued players. Those players would only have joined us because of Laudrup / Tutu. That is not necessarily short termist, irrespective of a cut being taken. |
Of course it is, as I have said many times, it is a strategy present in every single approach and not unique to one. So determining on whether one is a long or short term approach based on something present in both approaches makes little sense.
To judge and compare you look for differences not similarities present in all by default. The differences of course is that they/he takes a cut regardless and narrows the field of choice. But let’s take it away from signings as people clearly are not on the same page regarding this part f the transfer policy.
I will repeat regarding sales. Tutumlu took a slice of ALL outgoing players whether he represented them or not, whether he brought them in or not, whether he was even there when they signed for us or not. Is this a long term business model? Or again is short termist deals looking to take from a pot needed for a club with limited income to grow? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
