Transfer Rumour Harry Winks

[bluestevon]

Main issue we've had is simple, we've targeted the best (or highest profile) players from bad teams, Iceland, Williams, etc in doing so we've then paid them astronomical sums - over 100k pw in part due to their importance to those clubs meaning they where already on wages more thsn their ability dictated so then we rather than realize the clubs profile over their current one is the incentive for the move - we decide to then give them a huge pay rise.


Similarly we've taken players who've failed in their big move, Schneiderlen, Mina, Gomes etc and rather than acknowledge this - we give them an increase over what they are earning (by having failed) - it'd be like a team buying Bolasie or Klassen off us then giving them an extra 50% wage increase - utter madness.


Then whenever we buy from abroad to 'tempt' the player we offer stupidly high wages - Tosun, Sandro etc meaning when they inevitably fail, no one then wants to go near them for a fraction of what we are paying.

We've acted since Moshiri came in as if the only way we can attract anyone is by paying stupidly high wages.


In essence we've ignored the fact that as a highish profile premiership team, we have a very large pulling factor for players already, instead we've just gone the 'show we're attractive by paying silly wages'.

Our wages at 95% of turnover for the actual players we have should be more around 60% - we are literally overpaying by that much across the board on players.

In effect, we often say would such and such a player get that type of contract anywhere else, say Gomes or Mina, Iceland etc, the answer is no, so why the hell are we giving them that in the first place.

 

[Johnnytotal]

cockney John Ebbrell

 

[bluestevon]

They are all factors though? If Andre Gomes was good, injury free and 25 we'd have no problem shifting him even if he was on the same wages he is now. That goes for all the players we have struggled to sell in the last few years.

We have identified the completely wrong footballers ever since Moshiri has been here, and yet you questioned a poster for raising a very valuable point that if we signed Winks on a permanent deal, we would never see our money back on him again principally because he'd be approaching 30 by the time we came to sell him and he's a very average footballer. He's already getting paid quite well at Spurs.

To the point about wages, we paid the going rate that a club trying to gatecrash the top 6 can expect to pay. You aren't getting players like Digne, Mina and Gomes out of Barcelona if you don't pay them what they want.

Then you don't get those players - you don't overpay habitually on players unless you are setting up to implode.

 

[Jimmyjoe]

Why oh why are we after Winks. Way to lightweight and one paced. Its like we never learn.

Saying that though, I will respect him if he signs and demands the no 40 shirt.

 

[toffee-L]

Then you don't get those players - you don't overpay habitually on players unless you are setting up to implode.

I agree completely. Our strategy (if ever there was one) was doomed from the outset.

 

[brieverton]

The chances of a loan turning into a permanent deal are quite high here, imo, which is why we should avoid any deal further.

It takes a lot of process discipline to stop that happening, and a permanent turns into the easy option next year, with other options left unpursued, again.

If it was strictly on loan to get us over an FFP hump this season then its less objectionable, but I don't see that.

 

[fandjango]

Let's get Moussa Sissoko and then we can play a reject Spurs midfield 3 of Sissoko Winks Alli.

Sissoko actually rejected us

 

[blue to the bone]

We are the only club that are severely restricted by profit and sustainability rules. Despite the examples you have given, Manchester United have still cleared over £100m in player sales in the last three years. They also have a plus £500m annual turnover and a wages to turnover ratio of less than 60% so they are not in any way ever in danger of falling foul of the rules.

You are correct that their football operation is very badly run, but to compare them to us is folly.

No. I was talking about your point about losing money on players that you said we were alone it. Nothing to do with turnover in your original point at all.

 

[Drico]

We're basically the luxury step-down club du jour.

This self-appointed position serves to flatter our egos in the absence of actual competence, trophy contention, and hard work. The club is not prepared to put in the long slog to develop a proper recruitment structure. So, what better way to remind ourselves that we are still a "grand old team" than to be the destination-of-choice for expensive top-end failures. Forget the cups. Feel the magnetism.

It's like the faded Lothario deluding himself that he is still a prize even though it's really only his wallet that attracts genuine attention these days.

I'd allow us one of these downwardly-mobile types if we were regularly bringing in young, hungry players who go on to prove themselves at Everton. But we're not doing these things. We're lowering our horizons by installing a Harry Winks-type ceiling. There is no real upside here. He'll, at best, "do a job" - and that job would be mid-table all things going really well. If the manager thinks Winks is good enough for him, he'll be appraised on that judgement in due course. Lampard appears to be thinking short-term. I can't say that is a bad strategy right now. It's just not a sustainable one after this season. Any benefit of the doubt that he has - and it's effectively kept him in a job up to now - will dissipate if the likes of Winks comes in and, yes, stinks the place out. The shine will quickly tarnish. But I suppose the aim is to survive to the World Cup right now and see how it goes then.

I can't get too exercised over this summer. We really could be in the Championship. Maybe we soon will.

 

[toffee-L]

No. I was talking about your point about losing money on players that you said we were alone it. Nothing to do with turnover in your original point at all.

My post clearly references Profit and Sustainability rules in the first sentence before then remarking that we were the only club who had problems with it, which is an undeniable fact.

I made no mention of turnover or wage-turnover ratio in my post because I didn't actually think anyone would compare our situation to that of Manchester United, who can absorb losses easily of players leaving for free whilst we can't.

 

[blue to the bone]

My post clearly references Profit and Sustainability rules in the first sentence before then remarking that we were the only club who had problems with it, which is an undeniable fact.

I made no mention of turnover or wage-turnover ratio in my post because I didn't actually think anyone would compare our situation to that of Manchester United, who can absorb losses easily of players leaving for free whilst we can't.

It doesn't. But not goin to argue it anymore

 

[deipnosophist]

And in the more acclaimed Bill Kenwrights tale we've slept for 27 years.

...that is a LOT of Betty's hot pots

 

[toffee-L]

It doesn't. But not goin to argue it anymore

How much you'll get back for players is fundamentally one of the most important considerations that needs to be made when signing players with the rules being the way that they are.

Anyway Harry Winks.

Crap player. Please avoid.

 

[blue to the bone]

OK . I'll refer to ur point that no other club sells players at a loss and loses money on them only us. If you can prove this solely based on player trading then I will accept your point..

 

[kenada_blue]

They are all factors though? If Andre Gomes was good, injury free and 25 we'd have no problem shifting him even if he was on the same wages he is now. That goes for all the players we have struggled to sell in the last few years.

We have identified the completely wrong footballers ever since Moshiri has been here, and yet you questioned a poster for raising a very valuable point that if we signed Winks on a permanent deal, we would never see our money back on him again principally because he'd be approaching 30 by the time we came to sell him and he's a very average footballer. He's already getting paid quite well at Spurs.

To the point about wages, we paid the going rate that a club trying to gatecrash the top 6 can expect to pay. You aren't getting players like Digne, Mina and Gomes out of Barcelona if you don't pay them what they want.

If Gomes was good, injury free, and 25 why would we sell him?