Cost to buy Giles, Archer and Ramsay?

[Ash88]

Think I tried to post the same about the same time as you - think you probably explained the point better!

I think it's possible in the championship, and we can do it, but it needs to be on a smaller scale - like what we're trying to do with the likes of Silvera, Rogers, Van Den Berg, etc...

Unfortunately for us, loads of other championship teams (Sunderland, Stoke, etc...) are joining the moneyball party too.

 

[BoroMart]

I agree with this, and it's why we can't just jump in the ring with the likes of Brentford and Brighton - We need the PL money to be able to do that.

They did sign Ulloa when in the championship for £1.5 million and sold him for £10 million a few years later, but other than that they hardly made any profit on anyone.

Brightons model was frugality. Until their promotion season, they spent very little on players, they signed lots of free transfers, and youth players. They had a high player turn over, and lots of small profits, like Grant Hall came through youth system and was sold for 1.5m to Spurs, Liam Bridcutt signed for free, sold for 3m, Will Buckley signed for 1m sold for 3m.

Our model seems more Brentford than Brighton to be honest. But signing players like Nkrumah and Agyemang could be seen as the Brighton model.

 

[Ash88]

Brightons model was frugality. Until their promotion season, they spent very little on players, they signed lots of free transfers, and youth players. They had a high player turn over, and lots of small profits, like Grant Hall came through youth system and was sold for 1.5m to Spurs, Liam Bridcutt signed for free, sold for 3m, Will Buckley signed for 1m sold for 3m.

Our model seems more Brentford than Brighton to be honest. But signing players like Nkrumah and Agyemang could be seen as the Brighton model.

I think the Brentford model is the dream - but the Brighton championship model is more realistic/reality.

 

[BoroMart]

I think the Brentford model is the dream - but the Brighton championship model is more realistic/reality.

Bit of both mate.

We're clearly going for the following:

a - talented young players to build up into first teamers
b - youngish players that we can turn from 3-15m
c - prem loanees to add a bit of class
d - youth players to underpin our squad and create a pathway

It's certainly better than spending vast amounts on proven championship players who flatter to deceive (Flint, Saville, Britt spring to mind) before leaving for a fraction of what we paid, or free. We are trying to be sustainable and create a healthy ffp surplus. I guess that is what the common thread is for Brighton and Brentford. Then they both splashed out on that year they got promoted and it worked.

We might need a couple of cycles of selling our best player to give us a 30-40m FFP surplus over a three year window. Then we go for it.

 

[Bruce]

Bit of both mate.

We're clearly going for the following:

a - talented young players to build up into first teamers
b - youngish players that we can turn from 3-15m
c - prem loanees to add a bit of class
d - youth players to underpin our squad and create a pathway

It's certainly better than spending vast amounts on proven championship players who flatter to deceive (Flint, Saville, Britt spring to mind) before leaving for a fraction of what we paid, or free. We are trying to be sustainable and create a healthy ffp surplus. I guess that is what the common thread is for Brighton and Brentford. Then they both splashed out on that year they got promoted and it worked.

We might need a couple of cycles of selling our best player to give us a 30-40m FFP surplus over a three year window. Then we go for it.

I worry that the impact of parachute payments and increasing reliance on premier league loans means that the Brentford/Brighton model no longer works. The financial landscape has changed since Covid.

We're like poker players who don't have a meaningful stake to bid and even if we get a windfall, it's immediately draining away.
If Gibson runs the club to break even through player sales for 2 years in order to clear the decks, that gives him about £40m to spend on a one-shot. Any more than that and we're screwed through FFP if we don't get promoted.

A relegated club right now will have around £300m in player assets and can sell a few of them and £40m in parachute payments. Even if everything goes to plan, we still can't compete financially without taking a massive risk.

I don't know what the answer is. We can't afford to compete with the parachute clubs so we have to hope that the players we recruit get toughened up in the Championship and we sneak up one year when two or more of the parachute clubs implode.

 

[changingman]

Fascinating thread, I like the discussion of commercial/recruitment strategy almost as much as the game itself ha! Football has really progressed in the last 15 years with teams looking for an edge off the pitch.

Van Den Berg is the one for me, there were some serious hitters sniffing around him this Summer. Hopefully he can start sooner rather than later to boost that value. Wouldn't even surprise me if we had a sell-on clause in place with another team in a couple of seasons or so.

 

[BoroMart]

I worry that the impact of parachute payments and increasing reliance on premier league loans means that the Brentford/Brighton model no longer works. The financial landscape has changed since Covid.

It's a fair concern, but then if Luton can get it right and get promoted, then anyone can. It's probably significantly harder than 10-15 years ago though.

We're like poker players who don't have a meaningful stake to bid and even if we get a windfall, it's immediately draining away.

Good analogy, we've got to bluff someone into a big loss, then rinse and repeat for three or four hands. I guess Akpom was the start of that, upto x5 return on that gamble, despite just holding a pair of 10s due to his contract situation. Who knows maybe we'll all be gutted at Rogers leaving for 14m next summer, and Latte Lath for 20 the year after. Then we get promoted off the profits.

But at least we have a system, and are sticking to the system, rather than randomly throwing money on the table and watch someone else walk away with it.

 

[indeedido]

Interesting - Brighton and Brentford models have really only born fruit financially following promotion. This makes sense, as big clubs will never spend a significant amount on players who haven't done it in the Premier League, hence why your looking at £10m for Archer, Akpom and Tavernier and not what some of our fans would hope. Conclusion, apologies as this is teaching most to suck eggs, is you have to get promoted by hook or by crook. Even if successful the current Boro model only helps alleviate losses in the Championship or below.

This absolutely.

You don't gradually build in the Championship. There just isn't the contract security; quality is either promoted with you, or snapped up. You don't get to iteratively build. There is always huge turnover of squads. (Brighton and Brentford always had that).
Go up when you can. Hire in to supplement quality you have, if you can't afford to buy it.
Everything else is noise and offsetting inevitable Championship losses.

 

[Blf]

Piece on News now today saying that Sheff U have been quoted £20 million for Archer by villa.

 

[Redwurzel]

I agree its getting tougher to compete with parachute payments, but I do think the loan market is getting a bit more interesting. Its harder for young players to get experience in the Premier league and PL clubs have so much cash. The logic analysis of this, is Boro could pick up year loans very cheaply of quality young Premier league players, as we did with Archer, Ramsey, Giles, Muniz. Villa for example made a lot of money fron us last season (in added values for their players £10m?) and we got 16 goals from 2 players in effectively 15 different games. Getting experience is much more important to a PL Club than receiving loan wages for a young Premier League player.