[Albion] The right time for major investment in the team?

[GT49er]

What, apart from the £2 or £3 hundred million that TB has already donated, you mean.........................






...........good luck with that - but don't expect much support.

 

[Pavilionaire]

To me investment means spending money over and above what you receive from player sales but I can't see that happening. Potter is improving players so they double in value; I think he gets a kick out of that, and will back himself to do that with Caicedo and Mwepu too.

Indeed, unlike the Big 6 managers he's never had to manage a big money, big expectation signing and I suspect he will remain happy developing players provided we continue moving up the table and/or reaching Wembley via a cup run.

I think the starting point is that we managed to sell Ben White for £50 million and still finish 7 places higher than last season. This happened because we had quality cover and because we bought wisely (Cucurella, Mwepu improved 1st XI)

Logic dictates we should try and do the same again, i.e. sell Bissouma. We have good cover in the central area, especially as Gross is set to sign a new deal, and the £30-£35 mill being talked about will enable us to make a couple of decent signings like a Joe Rodon and Julio Cesar Enciso. That money will get spent regardless.

I expect Van Hecke will replace Duffy, Undav will replace Connolly, Mitoma will give us a different option wide left. I think it would make sense to bring Cochrane back as you don't know what might happen with Cucurella.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hold up your hand if you have the skill set (and the cash).

I'd no more poke our ownership and arrangements with a pointed stick than I'd lower my undercarriage into a nest of wasps.

 

[JBizzle]

Undav a gamble IMO - still need another striker

All strikers are a gamble and buying a second one just means that we've taken 2x gambles rather than one. Lukaku scored a billion goals before moving back to the Premier League, Werner was the same, even Messi has struggled to find the net in France... The best we can hope for given our budget is a striker that's scored loads of goals that's less "in demand" by the big clubs. That's Undav.

 

[MJsGhost]

I always struggle with the use of the word investment to describe someone looking to buy or fund a football club. Mainly I think because usually there is an inference that the money and a profit could at some point be recouped

Think of it as going on Dragon's Den and basically saying, you want X million quid, but that "investor" would have no say in how this money was spent, and, oh the business and all similar businesses only ever make massive losses and this is forecast to continue indefinitely, especially as the purpose of this "investment" is to run up a bigger loss by increasing wage bills.

No, there's no investing in football. All who get involved will make eye watering (and some make catastrophic) losses. In return, you get to sportswash / money launder / ego trip / relieve boredom .... delete as appropriate. But you don't invest

There's one very obvious example to counter your argument. The Glazers.

They 'spent' £800m to buy the club, with the loans raised against the club as collateral and the subsequent interest being paid by the club. If Chelsea is worth £2.5bn as a distressed asset, Man U has got to be worth somewhere in the region of £4bn? (probably minus whatever is outstanding on the loans used to buy the club). They have also taken about £130m out of the club in dividends over the years.

A DULLARD may well be along shortly to p|ss all over my uneducated guesswork, but I'd say the Glazers could be about £3bn better off from their investment, were they to sell up now.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

There's one very obvious example to counter your argument. The Glazers.

They 'spent' £800m to buy the club, with the loans raised against the club as collateral and the subsequent interest being paid by the club. If Chelsea is worth £2.5bn as a distressed asset, Man U has got to be worth somewhere in the region of £4bn? (probably minus whatever is outstanding on the loans used to buy the club). They have also taken about £130m out of the club in dividends over the years.

A DULLARD may well be along shortly to p|ss all over my uneducated guesswork, but I'd say the Glazers could be about £3bn better off from their investment, were they to sell up now.

Your comment is fair. Ok, you might get away with doing it at Man U, where they can monetise literally everything at the club at the cost of being widely despised. I can't think of any other examples though, even at clubs with world famous brands.

To invest in Brighton, ie to put money in with the aim of at one point getting more out, still seems inconceivable.

 

[MJsGhost]

Your comment is fair. Ok, you might get away with doing it at Man U, where they can monetise literally everything at the club at the cost of being widely despised. I can't think of any other examples though, even at clubs with world famous brands.

To invest in Brighton, ie to put money in with the aim of at one point getting more out, still seems inconceivable.

I could be wrong, but I think Mike Ashley has made money on Newcastle. He sold for about £170m more than he paid.

It's hard to find a number for his total investment, but Joe Lewis paid something like £22m for nearly 30% of Spurs initially and now owns c 70%. Spurs, despite being in debt to finance the stadium (very long-term and serviceable), have got to be 'worth' roughly the same as Chelsea (maybe more with the earning potential of their stadium compared to Stamford Bridge), so it's hard to imagine that Joe Lewis hasn't made a significant paper profit on his investment.

FSG bought Liverpool for £300m. I can't see them being worth much / any less than Chelsea and FSG have definitely not put £2bn into the club, so IMO are currently sitting on a tidy paper profit.

Whilst I generally agree with your point (about the Albion anyway, as the fanbase / global appeal isn't there, yet, to provide the platform for enough revenue to recoup a big further outlay without great risk), there are definitely examples of clubs being run by serious business people who seek (and could get if they chose it) to make a profit on their (long-term) investment.

The basket cases get all the headlines, but there is profit to be made for the shrewd.

 

[aolstudios]

I do hope we invest in a decent known striker - Undav may turn out ok but he we need another IMO. So splash the cash this way please

Who, for instance?

 

[durrington gull]

Who, for instance?

Over to the Recruitment team …… , would also listen to offers for Maupay to help fund

 

[schmunk]

https://www.skysports.com/football/...mmer-transfer-window-and-what-they-need-to-do

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Over to the Recruitment team …… , would also listen to offers for Maupay to help fund

Find a striker who will improve us, we can afford and wants to come .... OK fella's off you go

I personally think that we will only be in the market for a senior striker if Maupay and Trossard go. Even then we may well just choose to promote one of our existing punts like Sima

 

[CHAPPERS]

Find a striker who will improve us, we can afford and wants to come .... OK fella's off you go

I personally think that we will only be in the market for a senior striker if Maupay and Trossard go. Even then we may well just choose to promote one of our existing punts like Sima

Sarmiento is next in line.

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Who, for instance?

Well, this might all be something about nothing, but Michael Owen has just been spotted walking along the prom in front of the Grand with Tony Bloom...

 

[dazzer6666]

There's one very obvious example to counter your argument. The Glazers.

They 'spent' £800m to buy the club, with the loans raised against the club as collateral and the subsequent interest being paid by the club. If Chelsea is worth £2.5bn as a distressed asset, Man U has got to be worth somewhere in the region of £4bn? (probably minus whatever is outstanding on the loans used to buy the club). They have also taken about £130m out of the club in dividends over the years.

A DULLARD may well be along shortly to p|ss all over my uneducated guesswork, but I'd say the Glazers could be about £3bn better off from their investment, were they to sell up now.

As well as the divi, they have received about 800m in interest haven’t they ?

 

[MJsGhost]

As well as the divi, they have received about 800m in interest haven’t they ?

I think ManU has spent about that in interest payments, but it has gone to the 3rd party/parties that financed the leveraged buyout rather than to the Glazers themselves. It's still money that has gone out of the club because of the Glazers (and ultimately for their benefit), so is quoted by some ManU fans as a further reason to hate the Glazers.

 

[Acker79]

Depends on what you want.

If you want to improve your chances of regularly finishing in the top 10, yes. Finishing over and above your wage bill is not something you can do on a consistent basis - players proving their top ten quality will want the wages to match it and leave if you're not willing to pay them what they've shown they're worth, or they'll be unable to keep playing above themselves as they see their team mates go off earning more money elsewhere.

If you want a sustainable club and are happy to not consistently get top 10, even if that means a barren year where you are at real risk of relegation, no. Yes, players will move on, but we are a more appealing option - look at what we've achieved and how we've allowed our players to show what they can do and earn those big contracts at higher paying clubs. Who wouldn't see that as a good option, thus bringing in a higher quality who are willing to give it a year or two at lower wages to earn that big money deal.

 

[Machiavelli]

https://www.skysports.com/football/...mmer-transfer-window-and-what-they-need-to-do

That article seems to answer the question they pose with 'not very much'.

 

[southstandandy]

I would stick largely with what we've got and continue with the conveyor belt approach.

We've got £120m of debt from the previous 2 years to clear, so still feel with have to be prudent with our activities.

 

[Pavilionaire]

That article seems to answer the question they pose with 'not very much'.

Bizarrely, they state: Since his transfer to Brighton in August 2019, Neal Maupay is in the top 10 for xG. However, he has scored 26 goals with an xG differential of 36.68 - the highest for any player in that time period.

Then they state: Tying down the likes of Leandro Trossard, top scorer Neal Maupay, Alexis Mac Allister and Yves Bissouma will be top of the agenda with their contracts set to expire in June 2023.

If you look at the xG stats of the main strikers over the last 3 prem seasons in the bottom half of the table it makes for grim reading for Neal:

Danny Ings: xG = 31, actual goals = 41 +10
Wilf Zaha: xG = 24, actual goals = 29 +5
Emmanuel Dennis: xG = 7, actual goals = 10 +3
Teemu Pukki: xG = 23, actual goals = 22 -1
Patrick Bamford: xG =21, actual goals = 19 -2
Callum Wilson: xG = 31, actual goals = 28 -3
Che Adams: xG = 26, actual goals = 20 -6
Dominic Calvert-Lewin: xG = 41, actual goals = 34 -7
Chris Wood: xG = 38, actual goals = 31 -7
Neal Maupay: xG = 36, actual goals = 26 -10

 

[Jeremiah]

Who, for instance?

I'd prefer us to do our striker shopping in the Championship rather than europe. Most strikers who can score in the Championship can make the step up - Brereton-Diaz, Piroe, Grant ?