| Waghorn 10:08 - Jun 30 with 5166 views | Garv |
My opinion for what it's worth.
He's not THAT good, and the fees being bandied around are pretty crazy for a player of his quality and age.
But it's all relative. He was a shining light last season so I agree it would be devastating to lose him, mainly because we'd be losing our best player and there is no guarantee we could replace him - this is clearly up to Evans.
Personally I'd only be satisfied if we received a fee way over the odds, say £15m, which I think is unlikely.
To conclude, I think he'll stay. |  |
| |  |
| Waghorn on 10:12 - Jun 30 with 4342 views | tractorboy1978 |
He’s not that good but you’d only accept over £15m? |  | | |
| Waghorn on 10:22 - Jun 30 with 4310 views | flimflam |
He most probably had his best season ever last year akin to DM goal fest a few seasons back.
I love him and want him to stay but will he hit those heights again in a different system with a different manager?
In hindsight we should of sold DMc but it easy to say when looking back.
10 million invested wisely would get us pushing at the right end of the table.
Everyone says how great all these players are but we finished 12th last season and any player is replaceable. [Post edited 30 Jun 2018 10:24]
|  |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
| |
| Waghorn on 10:36 - Jun 30 with 4254 views | Guthrum |
| Waghorn on 10:22 - Jun 30 by flimflam |
He most probably had his best season ever last year akin to DM goal fest a few seasons back.
I love him and want him to stay but will he hit those heights again in a different system with a different manager?
In hindsight we should of sold DMc but it easy to say when looking back.
10 million invested wisely would get us pushing at the right end of the table.
Everyone says how great all these players are but we finished 12th last season and any player is replaceable. [Post edited 30 Jun 2018 10:24]
|
Murphy never repeated his achievements of 2014-15 because he was not receiving the supply and support which allowed him to do that. Likewise, for a large chunk of last season, Waghorn wasn't either (chasing long balls into the channel and nobody else in the box). Hence the 15-match goal drought.
In any team where he gets enough of the ball and has other players in and around the opposition area to help, Waghorn is ging to score/provide lots of goals. Any worthwhile system (apart from the "tall target man" approach) will be aiming to do exactly that. |  |
| |
| Waghorn on 10:43 - Jun 30 with 4227 views | Garv |
| Waghorn on 10:22 - Jun 30 by flimflam |
He most probably had his best season ever last year akin to DM goal fest a few seasons back.
I love him and want him to stay but will he hit those heights again in a different system with a different manager?
In hindsight we should of sold DMc but it easy to say when looking back.
10 million invested wisely would get us pushing at the right end of the table.
Everyone says how great all these players are but we finished 12th last season and any player is replaceable. [Post edited 30 Jun 2018 10:24]
|
Last point is a good one. Of course the counter argument is that in a better team (we hope) he will do even better. | |
| |
| Waghorn on 10:45 - Jun 30 with 4216 views | Garv |
| Waghorn on 10:12 - Jun 30 by tractorboy1978 |
He’s not that good but you’d only accept over £15m? |
Like I say that's over the odds, and it's relative. I'd rather keep the player we know can perform, and potentially be better in a better system, than gamble on being able to replace him. Only Evans/Hurst know whether the funds would be available, too. | |
| |
| Waghorn on 10:51 - Jun 30 with 4201 views | chicoazul |
People saying "Id take this much for so and so" or similar on the basis that that would represent a fair fee are completely deluded and simply havent been paying attention to anything Evans either says or does. You can talk all you like about transfer fees but there will be either zero or pretty close to zero of those fees received spent on fees going out. Evans even told us exactly this in his interview so many people were messing themselves over.
We are at a point in our history when transfer fees received are irrelevant to our investments in players. Monies received are used to subsidise the club and replace Evans usual outlay of roughly 6.5m/year and the wage bill does not go up by anything other than a usual modest inflationary amount. So everyone should hope one of two things; that we keep our best players or can somehow replace them with players who are free or very cheap. Mick had a good history of doing the latter. There is no point thinking that if we got 8m for Waghorn or Bart that we would suddenly sign 4 or 5 players for 1m each. This will not happen.
This public service broadcast brought to you by your misanthrope (or is it realist?) in chief Chico. |  |
| |
| Waghorn on 10:57 - Jun 30 with 4168 views | solemio |
Optimists and pessimists: both groups think they are realists.
The only thing for certain is that the former group consists of happier people. | | | |
| Waghorn on 11:00 - Jun 30 with 4157 views | HennikerBlu |
What do you mean by THAT good?
It is the Championship and we have little money to invest, so a mid to lower financial ranking team. On that basis he has been outstanding. Good strikers are hard to come by, which has cost them up the rud, I suspect a Waghorn in their side would have made a big difference to their last season. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Waghorn on 11:01 - Jun 30 with 4153 views | connorscontract |
| Waghorn on 10:51 - Jun 30 by chicoazul |
People saying "Id take this much for so and so" or similar on the basis that that would represent a fair fee are completely deluded and simply havent been paying attention to anything Evans either says or does. You can talk all you like about transfer fees but there will be either zero or pretty close to zero of those fees received spent on fees going out. Evans even told us exactly this in his interview so many people were messing themselves over.
We are at a point in our history when transfer fees received are irrelevant to our investments in players. Monies received are used to subsidise the club and replace Evans usual outlay of roughly 6.5m/year and the wage bill does not go up by anything other than a usual modest inflationary amount. So everyone should hope one of two things; that we keep our best players or can somehow replace them with players who are free or very cheap. Mick had a good history of doing the latter. There is no point thinking that if we got 8m for Waghorn or Bart that we would suddenly sign 4 or 5 players for 1m each. This will not happen.
This public service broadcast brought to you by your misanthrope (or is it realist?) in chief Chico. |
And Evans the businessman will also see that money invested in Webster and Mings, and potentially Jonas and Waghorn, has produced a very good return.
It's more likely to be "No more Chopra, Bowyer and Bullard type signings" with budget saved for bringing in players identified by the Scouts he should have faith in from the lower Leagues. The recruitment of Hurst suggests that this will be exactly how we go.
Buy Webster for a million. Sell him for 3.5 to 8. Buy two new players for a million each from the lower leagues. Play them for a couple of seasons. Sell at a profit. Repeat.
That is a sustainable model a long way away from the Jewell days. | | | |
| Waghorn on 11:02 - Jun 30 with 4147 views | textbackup |
id say, personally, hes a very good player and surrounded by a load of sht he managed to still bag 16 goals |  |
| |
| Waghorn on 11:03 - Jun 30 with 4146 views | chicoazul |
| Waghorn on 11:01 - Jun 30 by connorscontract |
And Evans the businessman will also see that money invested in Webster and Mings, and potentially Jonas and Waghorn, has produced a very good return.
It's more likely to be "No more Chopra, Bowyer and Bullard type signings" with budget saved for bringing in players identified by the Scouts he should have faith in from the lower Leagues. The recruitment of Hurst suggests that this will be exactly how we go.
Buy Webster for a million. Sell him for 3.5 to 8. Buy two new players for a million each from the lower leagues. Play them for a couple of seasons. Sell at a profit. Repeat.
That is a sustainable model a long way away from the Jewell days. |
Buy two new players for a million each from the lower leagues
No offence but did you read what I posted? This will not happen, | |
| |
| Waghorn on 11:07 - Jun 30 with 4124 views | BackToRussia |
He was by one obvious metric the best player in the league last season, so he should by rights be the highest transfer fee paid this summer, if he goes. |  |
| |
| Waghorn on 11:10 - Jun 30 with 4110 views | connorscontract |
| Waghorn on 11:03 - Jun 30 by chicoazul |
Buy two new players for a million each from the lower leagues
No offence but did you read what I posted? This will not happen, |
Why not? This is the new model. Webster, Waghorn and Garner came in on this model, and it is already paying off. Why wouldn't Evans continue to back this approach? | | | |
| Waghorn on 11:14 - Jun 30 with 4085 views | Guthrum |
| Waghorn on 10:51 - Jun 30 by chicoazul |
People saying "Id take this much for so and so" or similar on the basis that that would represent a fair fee are completely deluded and simply havent been paying attention to anything Evans either says or does. You can talk all you like about transfer fees but there will be either zero or pretty close to zero of those fees received spent on fees going out. Evans even told us exactly this in his interview so many people were messing themselves over.
We are at a point in our history when transfer fees received are irrelevant to our investments in players. Monies received are used to subsidise the club and replace Evans usual outlay of roughly 6.5m/year and the wage bill does not go up by anything other than a usual modest inflationary amount. So everyone should hope one of two things; that we keep our best players or can somehow replace them with players who are free or very cheap. Mick had a good history of doing the latter. There is no point thinking that if we got 8m for Waghorn or Bart that we would suddenly sign 4 or 5 players for 1m each. This will not happen.
This public service broadcast brought to you by your misanthrope (or is it realist?) in chief Chico. |
On that point, my thoughts are that if a large chunk (or, ideally, all) of the loss-covering financial input is replaced by income from sales, so Evans is not having to foot the bill every season, that will enable and encourage him to release slightly more funds for transfer fees.
I'm not talking large sums. Maybe up to a couple of million in total. But at least that will give the club a bit of extra leverage when trying to buy in. | |
| |
| Waghorn on 11:21 - Jun 30 with 4071 views | Steve_M |
| Waghorn on 10:51 - Jun 30 by chicoazul |
People saying "Id take this much for so and so" or similar on the basis that that would represent a fair fee are completely deluded and simply havent been paying attention to anything Evans either says or does. You can talk all you like about transfer fees but there will be either zero or pretty close to zero of those fees received spent on fees going out. Evans even told us exactly this in his interview so many people were messing themselves over.
We are at a point in our history when transfer fees received are irrelevant to our investments in players. Monies received are used to subsidise the club and replace Evans usual outlay of roughly 6.5m/year and the wage bill does not go up by anything other than a usual modest inflationary amount. So everyone should hope one of two things; that we keep our best players or can somehow replace them with players who are free or very cheap. Mick had a good history of doing the latter. There is no point thinking that if we got 8m for Waghorn or Bart that we would suddenly sign 4 or 5 players for 1m each. This will not happen.
This public service broadcast brought to you by your misanthrope (or is it realist?) in chief Chico. |
I broadly agree with you here but suspect Hurst will get a little bit more to spend than you think if we sell someone else. The idea that it would be all of it is, as you say, ludicrous, but the first transfer window has been the one where Evans has been most generous with each manager.
I doubt it will be enough to make a real difference to overall league position though, unless the sports science stuff has any effect, particularly in reducing injuries which is what really knocked last season off course. |  |
| |
| Waghorn on 12:11 - Jun 30 with 3940 views | nshearman1 |
| Waghorn on 11:21 - Jun 30 by Steve_M |
I broadly agree with you here but suspect Hurst will get a little bit more to spend than you think if we sell someone else. The idea that it would be all of it is, as you say, ludicrous, but the first transfer window has been the one where Evans has been most generous with each manager.
I doubt it will be enough to make a real difference to overall league position though, unless the sports science stuff has any effect, particularly in reducing injuries which is what really knocked last season off course. |
Agreed. Until Evans wakes up and smells the coffee, we will continue to lose our best players to clubs who appear more ambitious financially, which is I'm sure why Webster made it clear he wanted to go to Brizzle City. 'A little bit more' will not be enough to reach the Promised Land. We are a club whose strategy continues to be freebies from the likes of Crawley. Hurst is good news, Evans is not. | | | |
| Waghorn on 13:05 - Jun 30 with 3838 views | southnorfolkblue |
| Waghorn on 10:43 - Jun 30 by Garv |
Last point is a good one. Of course the counter argument is that in a better team (we hope) he will do even better. |
And where would we have finished last season without him?
Quality Championship strikers go for 10-15 mill in the current market. I don’t see any reason why we should not be looking for a figure in that bracket. | |
| |
| Waghorn on 13:18 - Jun 30 with 3806 views | crazyblue68 |
| Waghorn on 11:01 - Jun 30 by connorscontract |
And Evans the businessman will also see that money invested in Webster and Mings, and potentially Jonas and Waghorn, has produced a very good return.
It's more likely to be "No more Chopra, Bowyer and Bullard type signings" with budget saved for bringing in players identified by the Scouts he should have faith in from the lower Leagues. The recruitment of Hurst suggests that this will be exactly how we go.
Buy Webster for a million. Sell him for 3.5 to 8. Buy two new players for a million each from the lower leagues. Play them for a couple of seasons. Sell at a profit. Repeat.
That is a sustainable model a long way away from the Jewell days. |
You are deluded if you think we will spend a million on a player. Freebies and loans all the way. Same old Bollox! | | | |
| Waghorn on 14:20 - Jun 30 with 3736 views | connorscontract |
| Waghorn on 13:18 - Jun 30 by crazyblue68 |
You are deluded if you think we will spend a million on a player. Freebies and loans all the way. Same old Bollox! |
But we spent around a million on Webster and bid over £2 million for Hugill. | | | |
| Waghorn on 14:22 - Jun 30 with 3736 views | Garv |
| Waghorn on 11:00 - Jun 30 by HennikerBlu |
What do you mean by THAT good?
It is the Championship and we have little money to invest, so a mid to lower financial ranking team. On that basis he has been outstanding. Good strikers are hard to come by, which has cost them up the rud, I suspect a Waghorn in their side would have made a big difference to their last season. |
Well, I guess by saying that I mean maybe we overrate him a tad. Please don't misconstrue that as negativity as some numpties will.
I think he is replaceable, but it wouldn't be easy. That's why I'd only take silly money, and again it's dependent on how much of it was put back in. | |
| |
| Waghorn on 14:29 - Jun 30 with 3710 views | BlueBadger |
Let's face it, he's no Paul Taylor or Andy Drury. |  |
| |
| Waghorn on 14:35 - Jun 30 with 3694 views | BlueNomad |
“Not THAT good “ but far more productive than £15m Assombalonga in terms of goals and assists. Of course Waghorn is good. |  | | |
| Waghorn on 14:38 - Jun 30 with 3670 views | StokieBlue |
| Waghorn on 10:51 - Jun 30 by chicoazul |
People saying "Id take this much for so and so" or similar on the basis that that would represent a fair fee are completely deluded and simply havent been paying attention to anything Evans either says or does. You can talk all you like about transfer fees but there will be either zero or pretty close to zero of those fees received spent on fees going out. Evans even told us exactly this in his interview so many people were messing themselves over.
We are at a point in our history when transfer fees received are irrelevant to our investments in players. Monies received are used to subsidise the club and replace Evans usual outlay of roughly 6.5m/year and the wage bill does not go up by anything other than a usual modest inflationary amount. So everyone should hope one of two things; that we keep our best players or can somehow replace them with players who are free or very cheap. Mick had a good history of doing the latter. There is no point thinking that if we got 8m for Waghorn or Bart that we would suddenly sign 4 or 5 players for 1m each. This will not happen.
This public service broadcast brought to you by your misanthrope (or is it realist?) in chief Chico. |
ME made a statement two days ago saying Hurst would get the money raised from transfers.
Whether you believe him or not is a different matter.
SB [Post edited 30 Jun 2018 14:44]
|  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Waghorn on 14:46 - Jun 30 with 3648 views | jpring89 |
| Waghorn on 11:02 - Jun 30 by textbackup |
id say, personally, hes a very good player and surrounded by a load of sht he managed to still bag 16 goals |
Imagine what he could do with good players around him. So we need to keep him. | |
| |
| Waghorn on 14:49 - Jun 30 with 3641 views | Mullet |
| Waghorn on 14:38 - Jun 30 by StokieBlue |
ME made a statement two days ago saying Hurst would get the money raised from transfers.
Whether you believe him or not is a different matter.
SB [Post edited 30 Jun 2018 14:44]
|
100%? 10%? 50%? etc.
That's the issue. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
