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.
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]
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 07:57 - Jul 25 with 1734 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 07:20 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
MIchu, Hernandez and De Guzman the immediate three with a host of other signings designed to line the pockets of those signing them as opposed to a long term vision of the future. It was about the “here and now”.
If there was any sort of long term plan then Michus injury wouldn’t have been as horrendously mismanaged as it was. De Guzman would not have been signed on a continuous loan and we would not have been signing players only represented by the manager and agent taking a slice.
The whole ethos of Laudrups reign was the definition of short termism.
Michu cost us how much again? One of the Cardiff City directors who I did a bit of work for at the time said that we had received a £25m bid for him in the summer of our Uefa Cup season, maybe Phil, or someone on the Trust at the time can confirm either way?
Hernandez signed for £5.5m, was a decent player on the whole while being inconsistent and left for £4m according to some reports.
De Guzman, probably one of our most successful loans ever. It probably cost alot less in the two years than what the Tammy Abraham deal cost, the deal which you applauded from the off, and he was alot more successful.
Whether you believe the "lining the pockets" story or not, the fact is the transfer policy was hell of a lot more cost effective back then to what it is now. How many millions pounds worth of player have we got out in Spain and soon to be Turkey out on loan again?
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:01 - Jul 25 with 1723 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:00 - Jul 25 by 34dfgdf54
Michu cost us how much again? One of the Cardiff City directors who I did a bit of work for at the time said that we had received a £25m bid for him in the summer of our Uefa Cup season, maybe Phil, or someone on the Trust at the time can confirm either way?
Hernandez signed for £5.5m, was a decent player on the whole while being inconsistent and left for £4m according to some reports.
De Guzman, probably one of our most successful loans ever. It probably cost alot less in the two years than what the Tammy Abraham deal cost, the deal which you applauded from the off, and he was alot more successful.
Whether you believe the "lining the pockets" story or not, the fact is the transfer policy was hell of a lot more cost effective back then to what it is now. How many millions pounds worth of player have we got out in Spain and soon to be Turkey out on loan again?
You didn’t ask anything about price, you asked what was set up for the short term. I answered you.
All of those players were signed for the short term. How much they cost is utterly irrelevant to that.
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:04 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
I just did in answer to the first time you asked it.
<<MIchu, Hernandez and De Guzman the immediate three with a host of other signings designed to line the pockets of those signing them as opposed to a long term vision of the future. It was about the “here and now”.>>
Michu signed at 26 De Guzman - Loan deal, are meant to be for short term success, as we tried with Tammy, but it failed, this one worked. Hernandez signed at 27
Both permanent signings had sell on value, Michu was unlucky with injury, it happens. You just confuse me, because you thought the Sam Clucas signing made "sense", but we are set to lose atleast £6m on him, which is more than we lost on the whole set of players you mentioned put together. We also got relegated as him, along with others, weren't good enough.
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:31 - Jul 25 with 1638 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:22 - Jul 25 by 34dfgdf54
<<MIchu, Hernandez and De Guzman the immediate three with a host of other signings designed to line the pockets of those signing them as opposed to a long term vision of the future. It was about the “here and now”.>>
Michu signed at 26 De Guzman - Loan deal, are meant to be for short term success, as we tried with Tammy, but it failed, this one worked. Hernandez signed at 27
Both permanent signings had sell on value, Michu was unlucky with injury, it happens. You just confuse me, because you thought the Sam Clucas signing made "sense", but we are set to lose atleast £6m on him, which is more than we lost on the whole set of players you mentioned put together. We also got relegated as him, along with others, weren't good enough.
Why do you keep saying they were successes? We are talking about short termism, not how good they were or much they cost, utterly irrelevant. They were signed on the main because Tutumlu got a cut. Sell on value was null and void because it was about there here and now, hence why MIchu was horrendously mismanaged (not unlucky), his long term future was not even in the thought process.
You are comparing apples with fridge freezers with regards to comparing signings and ethos of that time to now.
We were backed into a corner last season. Our options were not very varied. Things are judged on their merits and in context. We were making good profits and were a mid table Prem side full of options when Laudrup took over. Last year we were doing anything we can to stay in the Prem, short termism was our only feasible option and in that instance it was the right thing.
We were always for the good of the club and the long term. Short term gains started to become the norm after we succumbed to it under the Laudrup era. It was a slippery slope and we never climbed back that the top.
How anybody can say they think Laudrup and co intended for it to be a long term project while hamstringing us financially for personal gain is beyond me. We paid £4m in agents fees and commissions for Pozuelo and Canas alone ffs.
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:31 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Why do you keep saying they were successes? We are talking about short termism, not how good they were or much they cost, utterly irrelevant. They were signed on the main because Tutumlu got a cut. Sell on value was null and void because it was about there here and now, hence why MIchu was horrendously mismanaged (not unlucky), his long term future was not even in the thought process.
You are comparing apples with fridge freezers with regards to comparing signings and ethos of that time to now.
We were backed into a corner last season. Our options were not very varied. Things are judged on their merits and in context. We were making good profits and were a mid table Prem side full of options when Laudrup took over. Last year we were doing anything we can to stay in the Prem, short termism was our only feasible option and in that instance it was the right thing.
We were always for the good of the club and the long term. Short term gains started to become the norm after we succumbed to it under the Laudrup era. It was a slippery slope and we never climbed back that the top.
How anybody can say they think Laudrup and co intended for it to be a long term project while hamstringing us financially for personal gain is beyond me. We paid £4m in agents fees and commissions for Pozuelo and Canas alone ffs.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 8:33]
We were a mid table Premier League side when Laudrup took over? It was our second season!
We were doing everything in our power to stay up because of terrible recruitment over and over again, it's plain to see!
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:57 - Jul 25 with 1600 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 08:44 - Jul 25 by 34dfgdf54
We were a mid table Premier League side when Laudrup took over? It was our second season!
We were doing everything in our power to stay up because of terrible recruitment over and over again, it's plain to see!
Every second of it huw jenkins fault. He thought he could be a Bayram Tutumklu remember the guy failed in business on his own and when he went alone here running the show without consultation ... Well, it's history as they say.
Nolan sympathiser, clout expert, personal friend of Leigh Dineen, advocate and enforcer of porridge swallows.
The official inventor of the tit w@nk.
The proposed loan of Fede on 07:57 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Which grain?
Does anyone actually think Laudrups reign was set up for the long term then? Please explain. (You won’t be able to of course).
I think you are just being a bit silly like usual.
We will never know that either way. Who knows what he would have done if he had been allowed to rid himself of treacherous b-stards like Garry "8th place then down the khazi " Monk (and not forgetting an ego maniac chairman who couldn't bear being out of the limelight ).
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 09:13 - Jul 25 with 1549 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 09:03 - Jul 25 by Brynmill_Jack
We will never know that either way. Who knows what he would have done if he had been allowed to rid himself of treacherous b-stards like Garry "8th place then down the khazi " Monk (and not forgetting an ego maniac chairman who couldn't bear being out of the limelight ).
Yes we will know, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that if you are signing people for personal financial gain, limiting yourself to players that are represented by a certain man in order to continue leeching off the club and then also leech off the club for its sales, it will get less and less money to re-invest every time we get a purchase and a sale. It is a crippling arrangement that is the complete opposite of a steady and long term arrangement.
Hence why it couldn’t last long with him, didn’t last long with him, never lasts long with him and was a toxic environment. It was only ever built for the immediate.
The proposed loan of Fede on 09:13 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
I said we were a mid table Premier League side, not an experienced one. You are asking me stuff and responding to it as if I have said something else.
Laudrups reign was short termism. That goes for the ethos, the dealings and the attitude. To suggest otherwise is bizarre.
Saying how successful we were over that short period, or how much players cost isn’t really holding the opposite view.
We were still a Mid Table Premier League side when he left then on that basis, 11th when he come in, 12th when he left.I just find it strange you completely contradict yourself on pretty much every subject.
Tammy Abraham, poor loan deal which was expensive - Good Signing Jonathan De Guzman - Successful Loan signing - Short term gain, can't be justified
Andre Ayew, £18m, process of being loaned out - Risk worth taking to stay up Canas - Free, young captain from a La Liga side. Didn't work out. Shocking and expensive mistake
Hernandez - Purchased for £5.5m, sold for £4m - No profit, short term nepotism. Clucas - Massive loss on the cards, not good enough, signings in bulk were poor which led to relegation - Good Signing as he's English and holds value, take the £4/5m on the chin.
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 12:02 - Jul 25 with 1454 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 11:51 - Jul 25 by 34dfgdf54
We were still a Mid Table Premier League side when he left then on that basis, 11th when he come in, 12th when he left.I just find it strange you completely contradict yourself on pretty much every subject.
Tammy Abraham, poor loan deal which was expensive - Good Signing Jonathan De Guzman - Successful Loan signing - Short term gain, can't be justified
Andre Ayew, £18m, process of being loaned out - Risk worth taking to stay up Canas - Free, young captain from a La Liga side. Didn't work out. Shocking and expensive mistake
Hernandez - Purchased for £5.5m, sold for £4m - No profit, short term nepotism. Clucas - Massive loss on the cards, not good enough, signings in bulk were poor which led to relegation - Good Signing as he's English and holds value, take the £4/5m on the chin.
Where have I contradicted myself on one subject? Let alone all.
We absolutely were a mid table side when he left yes. Your point? Where have I said otherwise?
I can only assume you aren’t understanding what is being said. No other logical explanation for you continuing to respond with what you are.
Unless you are suggesting Garry Monk was creaming off profits from sales and purchases all owned by his agent, risking the long term health of our players in order to get short personal benefits while continuously loaning the same players due to little interest in stock value?
And what that has to do with last years business is even more baffling.
The proposed loan of Fede on 14:15 - Jul 25 by Kerouac
Are you done getting your arse kicked yet...*yawn*
Not sure yet, let me know when it begins.
The concept of that is too far fetched. Saying it doesn’t make it true unfortunately, it doesn’t stop a host of trolls trying it though. You are the latest in a long line, not even the first one today funnily enough.
The proposed loan of Fede on 14:29 - Jul 25 by Chief
Whats the point here?
99% of premier league managers sign players for the here and now because they know the chances are that they'll be out of a job within 2 years.
Very few managers have carte blanche on transfers to be able to do that.
We are talking about a whole ethos not a player or two. I don’t think I have ever seen such blatant short termism when not forced to by circumstance, than the Laudrup era at Swansea.
The proposed loan of Fede on 14:37 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Very few managers have carte blanche on transfers to be able to do that.
We are talking about a whole ethos not a player or two. I don’t think I have ever seen such blatant short termism when not forced to by circumstance, than the Laudrup era at Swansea.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 14:38]
You don't recall QPR a few years ago signing the likes of Krankjar, Julio Cesar and Rio Ferdinand then?
The proposed loan of Fede on 14:48 - Jul 25 by Chief
You don't recall QPR a few years ago signing the likes of Krankjar, Julio Cesar and Rio Ferdinand then?
I do yes. But again that is surface level signings and a differing situation. They were using the money of Air Asia and Tony Fernandez, having a rich beneficiary is a fairly lengthy plan as it takes that time to get any return.
We did not. The only money we had to grow as a club was the money we made from the transfer market essentially. Yet the manager and his agent ensured that with every purchase and sale, the pot to regenerate and grow the club got smaller and smaller as they took a piece of the pie with every passing transaction into the personal pocket and away from the club.
The clubs well-being was never on the agenda as a result. The motives were financially driven which down the line would curtail growth. It was a short term plan... as it proved. There really is nothing to argue. An enjoyable short term plan but a short term plan all the same which started the change in ethos which eventually killed us. We tried to restore the former growth, sensible long term values but we were tainted by that point and the easy option often taken. The greed even seeped in at board level.
By the time we tried to regenerate and build for the future we were too far gone and far too late.
The proposed loan of Fede on 14:55 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
I do yes. But again that is surface level signings and a differing situation. They were using the money of Air Asia and Tony Fernandez, having a rich beneficiary is a fairly lengthy plan as it takes that time to get any return.
We did not. The only money we had to grow as a club was the money we made from the transfer market essentially. Yet the manager and his agent ensured that with every purchase and sale, the pot to regenerate and grow the club got smaller and smaller as they took a piece of the pie with every passing transaction into the personal pocket and away from the club.
The clubs well-being was never on the agenda as a result. The motives were financially driven which down the line would curtail growth. It was a short term plan... as it proved. There really is nothing to argue. An enjoyable short term plan but a short term plan all the same which started the change in ethos which eventually killed us. We tried to restore the former growth, sensible long term values but we were tainted by that point and the easy option often taken. The greed even seeped in at board level.
By the time we tried to regenerate and build for the future we were too far gone and far too late.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 15:01]
OK so you do remember such an example of short termisim then. Yes they had Fernandes money but we also didn't buy players as old as the ones they signed or on as much wages. I'm still confused as to what you would have wanted Laurdrup to do? Its not like we signed loads of 30 something's on huge contracts
The proposed loan of Fede on 14:18 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Not sure yet, let me know when it begins.
The concept of that is too far fetched. Saying it doesn’t make it true unfortunately, it doesn’t stop a host of trolls trying it though. You are the latest in a long line, not even the first one today funnily enough.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
