[Football] Why clubs shouldn't sell their best players - even in this crazy market

[The Tactician]

I've written another piece, something a bit different this time, relating to the ongoing discussion of Dunk to Leicester City. Transfer strategy, how clubs should look to improve and the state of the financial market all up for discussion. Hope you enjoy.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/cont...-their-best-players-even-in-this-crazy-market

 

[portlock seagull]

Good read that, well done!

 

[Barham's tash]

Was with you until the team upgrade section where you left out Pröpper as a starting XI mainstay

 

[Seasidesage]

Not sure I agree with the basic premise. Other clubs notably Spurs have sold their best players and managed to replace them and strengthen their overall squad incrementally too. It's by no means fool proof of course!
The key to any sale of Dunk would be if it was in the best interests of the club and any sale would allow us to make the first XI better. That would depend upon the recruitment team and Potter and their ability to replace him. I've no idea if that is the right move but for me I'd want around £50m for the player and even in this market I'm not sure we'd get quite that much.

 

[The Tactician]

Was with you until the team upgrade section where you left out Pröpper as a starting XI mainstay

I was tempted to leave him in, as I like him as a player and think he’s a very talented individual. However last year our midfield wasn’t strong enough and Groß is the only player who has consistently delivered attacking returns and given highly influential performances. Pröpper is certainly capable of playing in a top 10 outfit, but based on performances last season I felt that was an area that had to improve.

 

[The Tactician]

Not sure I agree with the basic premise. Other clubs notably Spurs have sold their best players and managed to replace them and strengthen their overall squad incrementally too. It's by no means fool proof of course!
The key to any sale of Dunk would be if it was in the best interests of the club and any sale would allow us to make the first XI better. That would depend upon the recruitment team and Potter and their ability to replace him. I've no idea if that is the right move but for me I'd want around £50m for the player and even in this market I'm not sure we'd get quite that much.

Fair enough to disagree. The whole point of the article I suppose was to argue that given the risks of recruitment, as well as the fact that in the modern game money is plentiful, there is little benefit to the strategy of selling to buy. You cite Spurs, but the vast majority of the Bale money was wasted, and Spurs didn’t improve as a consequence of his sale. It has primarily been the bargain buy of Dele Alli, and Harry Kane coming through the ranks, that has helped the team moved forward, since the Bale spending spree Tottenham has notoriously spent very little, been frugal in the transfer market. Furthermore, the top six often operate primarily under this strategy, as they don’t feel the pressure to sell. They don’t see the need to lose out in a position where they have sufficient quality, as they have always had the means to continue spending to improve. My argument is that increasingly, teams outside the top six can also operate under a similar strategy, if they have the bravery to show ambition on the pitch.

 

[Mr Putdown]

I did raise an eyebrow at this line “Full-backs now regularly go for £50 million”

In the history of football there have only been five defenders who have cost £50m or more.

 

[The Tactician]

I did raise an eyebrow at this line “Full-backs now regularly go for £50 million”

In the history of football there have only been five defenders who have cost £50m or more.

When Man City signed Walker and Mendy (and Danilo!) it was unprecedented. Since then we’ve seen Wan-Bissaka, Ferland Mendy and Hernandez all go for £50 million +. A recent study from the CIES Football Observatory valued Robertson and Alexander-Arnold at £61.35 million and £85.84 million respectively, with various others also coming in at over £50 million. Was just trying to demonstrate how prices have steadily risen over time.

 

[seagull_special]

The ideal is to develop successors as opposed to buy replacements for star players. Matt Clarke should be the heir apparent if Dunk were to leave in 1 or 2 years time, soon as clubs sell their best players replacements prices instantly go up which makes sense. I think in many ways for a club like Brighton it is actually quite important to make big sales occasionally as potential players would see it as a stepping stone to top 6-8 club.

I would hate to see Dunk go and he seems happy and focused but if he felt he wanted to test himself at a bigger club and I would
Include Leicester I would wish him every success. He has been brilliant and I wouldn’t deny him the opportunity to step up a level.

All teams need to keep their squads fresh, teams that do not evolve become complacent and predictable and offer younger players no opportunity to move into the first team. I can’t wait to see one of the U23 make it and that’s why Solly is one of my favourite players.

 

[Mr Putdown]

When Man City signed Walker and Mendy (and Danilo!) it was unprecedented. Since then we’ve seen Wan-Bissaka, Ferland Mendy and Hernandez all go for £50 million +. A recent study from the CIES Football Observatory valued Robertson and Alexander-Arnold at £61.35 million and £85.84 million respectively, with various others also coming in at over £50 million. Was just trying to demonstrate how prices have steadily risen over time.

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, I understand what you are getting at but I’d still question that you could call that “regularly”.

A large chunk of NSC would also question the bits l’ve highlighted.

 

[The Tactician]

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, I understand what you are getting at but I’d still question that you could call that “regularly”.

A large chunk of NSC would also question the bits l’ve highlighted.

Fine not regularly, perhaps I should have said “the going rate for top quality fullbacks is now £50 million plus”
Also but I don’t understand what you mean by the highlighted? Aaron Wan-Bissaka did recently transfer to Manchester United for a fee of £50 million.

 

[Beanstalk]

Fair enough to disagree. The whole point of the article I suppose was to argue that given the risks of recruitment, as well as the fact that in the modern game money is plentiful, there is little benefit to the strategy of selling to buy. You cite Spurs, but the vast majority of the Bale money was wasted, and Spurs didn’t improve as a consequence of his sale. It has primarily been the bargain buy of Dele Alli, and Harry Kane coming through the ranks, that has helped the team moved forward, since the Bale spending spree Tottenham has notoriously spent very little, been frugal in the transfer market. Furthermore, the top six often operate primarily under this strategy, as they don’t feel the pressure to sell. They don’t see the need to lose out in a position where they have sufficient quality, as they have always had the means to continue spending to improve. My argument is that increasingly, teams outside the top six can also operate under a similar strategy, if they have the bravery to show ambition on the pitch.

In fairness to Spurs, if you look at all of those transfers paid for with the Bale money the only player not to have A) fulfilled his potential, and B) not been sold on for a minor loss is Erik Lamela - though I would agree that Soldado, arguably the safest of all of those signings at the time brought about a loss with little return. With the Bale money Spuds did buy (for an unbelievably cheap £11million) Christian Erikson - and with the money that they got back for Soldado and Paulinho, they bought Heung Min Son. Whilst Dele and Kane are great finds, those two players transformed the way in which Spurs played - from 'Arry's 'Oofers to Poch's Passers.

Though they didn't get a team of superstars in immediate return for Bale, it started the process of transforming them into a top four team and perhaps most importantly, brought the average age of the team down (which results in cheaper wages and higher potential sell on).

 

[um bongo molongo]

The ideal is to develop successors as opposed to buy replacements for star players. Matt Clarke should be the heir apparent if Dunk were to leave in 1 or 2 years time, soon as clubs sell their best players replacements prices instantly go up which makes sense. I think in many ways for a club like Brighton it is actually quite important to make big sales occasionally as potential players would see it as a stepping stone to top 6-8 club.

I would hate to see Dunk go and he seems happy and focused but if he felt he wanted to test himself at a bigger club and I would
Include Leicester I would wish him every success. He has been brilliant and I wouldn’t deny him the opportunity to step up a level.

All teams need to keep their squads fresh, teams that do not evolve become complacent and predictable and offer younger players no opportunity to move into the first team. I can’t wait to see one of the U23 make it and that’s why Solly is one of my favourite players.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. Except I find Solly a frustrating watch. Run at them, Solly!

 

[Barham's tash]

I did raise an eyebrow at this line “Full-backs now regularly go for £50 million”

In the history of football there have only been five defenders who have cost £50m or more.

But theyve all been in the last 5 years right? But it's a bit like arguing global warming isn't happening because last year was cooler than the average trend surely? (I know I know, don't let's go there again....)

 

[Beanstalk]

The ideal is to develop successors as opposed to buy replacements for star players. Matt Clarke should be the heir apparent if Dunk were to leave in 1 or 2 years time, soon as clubs sell their best players replacements prices instantly go up which makes sense. I think in many ways for a club like Brighton it is actually quite important to make big sales occasionally as potential players would see it as a stepping stone to top 6-8 club.

I would hate to see Dunk go and he seems happy and focused but if he felt he wanted to test himself at a bigger club and I would
Include Leicester I would wish him every success. He has been brilliant and I wouldn’t deny him the opportunity to step up a level.

All teams need to keep their squads fresh, teams that do not evolve become complacent and predictable and offer younger players no opportunity to move into the first team. I can’t wait to see one of the U23 make it and that’s why Solly is one of my favourite players.

I would 100% agree with this but note that it is unrealistic to consistently produce players who have the ability/potential to play for a top half team. The alternative is the favoured (pretty much across the board outside of the elite clubs) tactic of selling your best players for extraordinary fees and buying replacements with the potential to reach that level.
From a business perspective, no one has done better than Monaco in this sense - buy young and cheap and sell on in a few seasons for a profit. Tielemans was rated as a massive flop in France has just been sold on for double what was paid for him.
We clearly are doing this with our European recruitment with players like Propper, Jahanbakhsh and Trossard. They have aims to play UCL and we get them for under £20mill then sell them on for more than. We will wait to see if this approach works on the pitch but off it, it is a pretty safe bet. With the market ever expanding, it is unlikely we'd have to sell any of those three at a loss. You'd imagine that, if Ajax come in for DP with the money received from de Jong and de Ligt, we will make a healthy profit of around double what we paid for. Even Ali J at £17million is a relative bargain - one good season in the PL and he'll be off for £30-40million.

The business plan for the club is obviously to make a consistent profit. Like you noted, if we produce a player every 2 years that goes on to a PL standard, we are making pure profit on them but it is risky to rely solely on this as a fallow few years will mean a loss of a lot of money. Buying bargains regularly with the intention on selling them on, regardless of their on pitch performance, is a safer way of supplementing the ultimate profit of selling on the youth.

 

[seagull_special]

I would 100% agree with this but note that it is unrealistic to consistently produce players who have the ability/potential to play for a top half team. The alternative is the favoured (pretty much across the board outside of the elite clubs) tactic of selling your best players for extraordinary fees and buying replacements with the potential to reach that level.
From a business perspective, no one has done better than Monaco in this sense - buy young and cheap and sell on in a few seasons for a profit. Tielemans was rated as a massive flop in France has just been sold on for double what was paid for him.
We clearly are doing this with our European recruitment with players like Propper, Jahanbakhsh and Trossard. They have aims to play UCL and we get them for under £20mill then sell them on for more than. We will wait to see if this approach works on the pitch but off it, it is a pretty safe bet. With the market ever expanding, it is unlikely we'd have to sell any of those three at a loss. You'd imagine that, if Ajax come in for DP with the money received from de Jong and de Ligt, we will make a healthy profit of around double what we paid for. Even Ali J at £17million is a relative bargain - one good season in the PL and he'll be off for £30-40million.

The business plan for the club is obviously to make a consistent profit. Like you noted, if we produce a player every 2 years that goes on to a PL standard, we are making pure profit on them but it is risky to rely solely on this as a fallow few years will mean a loss of a lot of money. Buying bargains regularly with the intention on selling them on, regardless of their on pitch performance, is a safer way of supplementing the ultimate profit of selling on the youth.

Great points, the academy is so crucial and TB has put an incredible amount into developing it and there will be some jewels coming through in the near future. Southampton have done very well in producing top players for a considerable amount of time.

 

[Beanstalk]

Great points, the academy is so crucial and TB has put an incredible amount into developing it and there will be some jewels coming through in the near future. Southampton have done very well in producing top players for a considerable amount of time.

Great example. Southampton had a long golden period around the mid 2000s where they produced quite a few top level players (Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Lallana) - I am sure that they will still be benefiting from sell-on-fees etc. However, since 2012 they have only produced 22 players who have gone on to have careers in the professional game. That does include Chambers who was sold for £16million and Matt Targett who has just gone to Villa for £15million but the rest are either out on loan in lower divisions or have left on a free. Despite this, during the same period they had a strategy of buying young, unproven players from outside of the UK and selling them on at highly inflated prices. Namely, Sadio Mané and VIrgil Van Dijk, who had a combined outlay of £24million and brought in a whopping £109million from Liverpool.

What the academy offers is more of a gamble for the club, TB et al invested around £20million up front (according to KSS) for the elite training ground and academy. We may produce a Bale/Walcott, it is highly likely that we won't. I would imagine that if Connolly or Molumby end up fulfilling their potential, they will have paid for the academy themselves. As they haven't actually done anything yet, there is a huge worry that they won't fulfill their potential and the academy will fail to make a profit in comparison to the original outlay. Due to the risky nature of relying on finding world class talent in the youth teams, the club have to continue to rely on top-level bargains who in return for performing for the fans, can use us as a stepping stone a la Southampton.

 

[GOM]

From the article - '...Premier League clubs are rich beyond their fan’s wildest dreams....'

True compared to the EFL, but in the Premier League we are still relative paupers compared to most, even with our riches, and as such our purchasing options are limited in comparison if we do sell.

 

[blue-shifted]

I broadly agree with the article

In the current climate, unless your youth and recruitment set up are very good, it’s best not to sell a first team player, because it will be hard to replace with a player at the same level. Any profit you make will be lessened by agents and signing on fees and dwarfed by the relegation risk.

The only other point that I’d add is that sometimes it’s better to sell a player who has served you well. Not because it makes immediate financial sense, but because the rest of the squad and potential signings need to see that the club will do right by someone who has done their dues with a club.

 

[Seasidesage]

Fair enough to disagree. The whole point of the article I suppose was to argue that given the risks of recruitment, as well as the fact that in the modern game money is plentiful, there is little benefit to the strategy of selling to buy. You cite Spurs, but the vast majority of the Bale money was wasted, and Spurs didn’t improve as a consequence of his sale. It has primarily been the bargain buy of Dele Alli, and Harry Kane coming through the ranks, that has helped the team moved forward, since the Bale spending spree Tottenham has notoriously spent very little, been frugal in the transfer market. Furthermore, the top six often operate primarily under this strategy, as they don’t feel the pressure to sell. They don’t see the need to lose out in a position where they have sufficient quality, as they have always had the means to continue spending to improve. My argument is that increasingly, teams outside the top six can also operate under a similar strategy, if they have the bravery to show ambition on the pitch.

TBH I did think that Bale would come up. It's true their initial spend on Bale didn't work but they recovered most of that money and have sold numerous other players before that in pursuit of reinvesting to gain marginal improvement. Off the top of my head Keane, Berbatov, Carrick all sold at their peak to reinvest in squad improvements. I think that is probably the most sustainable strategy as although income has improved dramatically so have wages and fees plus you would have to factor in player wishes into your plan. It's not to say what you are proposing cannot work just that there are considerable obstacles to overcome. Both formulas have risks, both can work, but for me at least yours has more downsides.