3 more players

[BoroMart]

What's that based on?

Guesstimate, Steffen was on huge wages at city, even paying 1/3rd of his wage without any loan fee would cost 1m. Half Mowatt a wage would be 1m as they signed him when he was sought after on a free transfer. Muniz probably fairly low wage, archer was hugely in demand, we had to fight off about 8 clubs to get him and will paid a premium for that. Giles would be at least 500k to pay wages and loan fee add in ramsey and you are getting around those figures.

The reality is we spent a lot on loanees because we had a lot of loanees from prem sides

 

[B_G]

Guesstimate, Steffen was on huge wages at city, even paying 1/3rd of his wage without any loan fee would cost 1m. Half Mowatt a wage would be 1m as they signed him when he was sought after on a free transfer. Muniz probably fairly low wage, archer was hugely in demand, we had to fight off about 8 clubs to get him and will paid a premium for that. Giles would be at least 500k to pay wages and loan fee add in ramsey and you are getting around those figures.

The reality is we spent a lot on loanees because we had a lot of loanees from prem sides

Its a total guess. You have no idea. And why are people costing wages against loans but not against signings? Signings don't play for free once they are here you know.

 

[BoroMart]

Its a total guess. You have no idea. And why are people costing wages against loans but not against signings? Signings don't play for free once they are here you know.

And it’s a total guess from you what you think it is. My guesstimate is based on reported wages for said players. Feel free to state what and why you think we spent less or more than that range…

It’s pretty obvious why, signing a player is acquiring a fixed asset with a capEx cost associated with that. There is no CapEx cost and you don’t gain an asset on your books when you sign a loaner, but they’re not free either, so wage/loan fee is the only measure of cost, it’s entirely OpEx weighted as a transaction.

 

[B_G]

And it’s a total guess from you what you think it is. My guesstimate is based on reported wages for said players. Feel free to state what and why you think we spent less or more than that range…

It’s pretty obvious why, signing a player is acquiring a fixed asset with a capEx cost associated with that. There is no CapEx cost and you don’t gain an asset on your books when you sign a loaner, but they’re not free either, so wage/loan fee is the only measure of cost, it’s entirely OpEx weighted as a transaction.

I haven't given any sort of indication of what I think it costs. I've got no idea. All I said we've clearly budgeted for it. My argument is based on performance. There's players of high quality available to us that we couldn't sign and we'd be daft not to use it if we can make it work.

 

[B_G]

And one bad signing can cost you more than three bad loans in the long run.

 

[indeedido]

And it’s a total guess from you what you think it is. My guesstimate is based on reported wages for said players. Feel free to state what and why you think we spent less or more than that range…

It’s pretty obvious why, signing a player is acquiring a fixed asset with a capEx cost associated with that. There is no CapEx cost and you don’t gain an asset on your books when you sign a loaner, but they’re not free either, so wage/loan fee is the only measure of cost, it’s entirely OpEx weighted as a transaction.

Players are Intangible Assets and are amortised.
They also require wages.

Amortisation + Wages might be higher or lower than Loan Fee + Wages.
I’d rather pay that loan fee and wages to hire a Cameron Archer. Real quality.
Than I would the amortisation and wage for a Hoppe.
I would bet a fair bit that hiring Archer cost us less than buying Hoppe did over the season.
Now I’d rather buy Akpom than hire Connolly.
There is no right or wrong, it is not binary.
Quality and Value for Money are the important things.
I don’t think our recent buys provided as much as our recent loans.

 

[BoroMart]

I haven't given any sort of indication of what I think it costs. I've got no idea. All I said we've clearly budgeted for it. My argument is based on performance. There's players of high quality available to us that we couldn't sign and we'd be daft not to use it if we can make it work.

. Our squad is ultimately dictated by finances, that’s a fact, and loanees aren’t free that’s also a fact. Prem league players even young pros are on bigger wages than the championship that’s a third fact. This all has to be weighed up, comparing the value of loans, the cost to our own player development and the % opportunity of getting promoted against three relegated sides with far bigger resources than us

 

[BoroMart]

And one bad signing can cost you more than three bad loans in the long run.

Of course it can, which is why we spread our bets on multiple players in the 2-5m bracket rather than one 10m player. Chances are they won’t all fail and put the club in trouble like Britt did, we’ve learned from that

 

[B_G]

. Our squad is ultimately dictated by finances, that’s a fact, and loanees aren’t free that’s also a fact. Prem league players even young pros are on bigger wages than the championship that’s a third fact. This all has to be weighed up, comparing the value of loans, the cost to our own player development and the % opportunity of getting promoted against three relegated sides with far bigger resources than us

Its also fact that not every loanee gets paid 100% of the wages of the loaning club. None of us know what we paid for the loans last year. Nothing has been publicised. Yourself and Nero are making assumptions to.push your argument.

 

[B_G]

Of course is can, which is why we spread our bets on multiple players in the 2-5m bracket rather than one 10m player. Chances are they won’t all fail and put the club in trouble like Britt did, we’ve learned from that

I agree with this strategy when it comes to signings. I also agree with the strategy of padding this out with a couple of loanees that are valued at £5-20m to add that extra quality. If they don't work out they go back and all you've lost is the wages paid.

Put it this way, payero has cost us more than all of our loans last season combined. I don't know the figures but I'm 99% sure this is the case.

 

[Nano]

I agree with this strategy when it comes to signings. I also agree with the strategy of padding this out with a couple of loanees that are valued at £5-20m to add that extra quality. If they don't work out they go back and all you've lost is the wages paid.

Put it this way, payero has cost us more than all of our loans last season combined. I don't know the figures but I'm 99% sure this is the case.

This bit isn't true. You've also lost the opportunity cost of using that money for something else, say a player that has a good season and becomes worth 10x what you paid for them aka an asset.

The Payero transfer is mental, I'm not going to argue with that. It is baffling that only 3 years ago we had a recruitment system in place that signed Argentina internationals for big money on short contracts that the manager didn't want and then didn't play them. I am definitely not suggesting that should be our policy.

I also find it hard to believe we paid the reported figure and it just makes no sense to give that sort of player a 3 year contract which makes it unlikely to be able to make a profit on them anyway.

 

[BoroMart]

Its also fact that not every loanee gets paid 100% of the wages of the loaning club. None of us know what we paid for the loans last year. Nothing has been publicised. Yourself and Nero are making assumptions to.push your argument.

It isn't a fact that that it applies to ANY of the players we loaned, just speculation by you. You have alluded an assumption that we aren't paying the full wages for some or all of the players, but you have no idea really and seem to be making assumptions to push your argument.

 

[BoroMart]

This bit isn't true. You've also lost the opportunity cost of using that money for something else, say a player that has a good season and becomes worth 10x what you paid for them aka an asset.

It's even worse, not only do you sink cash instead of buying potential future talent, but you also lose the opportunity cost of developing the players you already own by getting first team experience.

 

[Nano]

It isn't a fact that that it applies to ANY of the players we loaned, just speculation by you. You have alluded an assumption that we aren't paying the full wages for some or all of the players, but you have no idea really and seem to be making assumptions to push your argument.

We almost certainly weren't paying all of Steffen's. He's on £80k but we'll have paid a good chunk. The others will all have been 100%. They were all players that were in demand. Most likely they were 100% plus a loan fee. He's right that we don't know the details but there are enough reports on all clubs, the business they do and the way loans work to know the market well enough to understand the likelihood of the situation.

 

[B_G]

It isn't a fact that that it applies to ANY of the players we loaned, just speculation by you. You have alluded an assumption that we aren't paying the full wages for some or all of the players, but you have no idea really and seem to be making assumptions to push your argument.

What are you on about?

 

[indeedido]

We should limit ourselves to one first team and one squad player on loan. You can’t build a team of loanees. Even if we had got promoted we would have spent 40m to stand still

I struggle with this, I really do.
11 of the last 18 teams to get promoted to the PL have been heavy users of loans. Really heavy.

Even the other clubs had one first team player on loan.
If we had got promoted we would then have the choice of how to invest the PL revenues to stay up. It may be that buying Archer and Ramsey for £32m would have been the right option, but it wouldn't have cost us £40m and we wouldn't have stood still.

I really think it strange to think that it is wisest to plough all funds into buying low price players from minor leagues abroad with the belief that:
1. They will be good enough to get you up.
2. They must offer better value for money versus other recruitment options.
3. Will develop and increase their value and could be sold for profit.
4. Will stay and form a collective that organically grows and provides miraculous continuity.

This view that we now have a point of difference because we have a massive recruitment resource backed by massive databases and analysis, is not a point of difference against the masses of other clubs trying to do exactly the same thing, all across the major leagues of world football.
It still comes down to judgement at the end of the day.

 

[Nano]

I struggle with this, I really do.
11 of the last 18 teams to get promoted to the PL have been heavy users of loans. Really heavy.

This is where statistics can be totally misleading. Correlation does not equal causation. There are other questions that need to be asked to work out whether teams were promoted because of their loan players or not. Were the loans key players or were they squad players? Burnley added some loan players to a PL squad and £40m of new players so it's impossible to know whether the loans got them promoted or whether they would have been promoted anyway.

You also have to consider that there are 24 teams in the league and if all 24 are filling their squad with loan players then it's only working for 3 of them and the other 21 are failing. What is the average number of loans for teams that have failed to get promoted for the longest time? How many of the teams that failed to get promoted had a squad filled with loan players? Just doing what everyone else is doing doesn't prove that it is the right thing to do. If Mowatt had started well last season then we'd have probably sent Hackney back out to L1 or L2.

Brentford are regularly talked about as the model for recruitment. Long term, strategically buying players, developing them and selling for a profit. I'm fairly certain they didn't rely on loans so heavily.

 

[BoroMart]

We almost certainly weren't paying all of Steffen's. He's on £80k but we'll have paid a good chunk. The others will all have been 100%. They were all players that were in demand. Most likely they were 100% plus a loan fee. He's right that we don't know the details but there are enough reports on all clubs, the business they do and the way loans work to know the market well enough to understand the likelihood of the situation.

Pretty much my thoughts, I'd absolutely agree that we almost certainly were not paying all of Steffen. Probably 1/3rd at most. Mowatt, West Brom didn't want to pay his massive wages, we wouldn't have paid it all either, probably 40-60%ish.

Agreed, Archer, Muniz, Giles and Ramsey we will almost certainly have paid full wages, Villa kids will be on closer to 10k not 50k. We probably had to top it off with a loan fee as well as there was competition for them. I heard and read that Giles was only on about 7K at Wolves, but they had been making profit on loans for him.

Whatever the actuals are, we threw money down the pan on them because we didn't get promoted, and we could have invested that in a permanent player most likely, and played our kids to get them experience and we would be in a better position.

 

[BoroMart]

What are you on about?

You are assuming that it's wrong that we paid most if not all of their wages, Steffen is the only one we clearly couldn't pay. When you add their reported wages up, it's pretty clear the club burned millions last year on those players.

 

[B_G]

You are assuming that it's wrong that we paid most if not all of their wages, Steffen is the only one we clearly couldn't pay. When you add their reported wages up, it's pretty clear the club burned millions last year on those players.

I'm not assuming anything. I will repeat again, I have no idea what it cost to loan those players but it obviously fit into our wage budget.

We also burned millions paying the players we've signed. What's the difference? This is such a ridiculous way of looking at it.