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

[Not Andy Naylor]

I wonder what Leicester are up to. In one sense they were the PL version of Monaco for a couple of seasons, buying low and selling high (Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez and now Maguire) but paying £30m for Perez seems to have blown a big hole in that theory. Perhaps it's a result of having a new man at the top who is desperate to build on his father's legacy at any cost. Of course, you could say that their record of spending big money isn't as impressive as their bargain-hunting in any case.

 

[Stat Brother]

I wonder what Leicester are up to. In one sense they were the PL version of Monaco for a couple of seasons, buying low and selling high (Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez and now Maguire) but paying £30m for Perez seems to have blown a big hole in that theory. Perhaps it's a result of having a new man at the top who is desperate to build on his father's legacy at any cost. Of course, you could say that their record of spending big money isn't as impressive as their bargain-hunting in any case.

Quite probably it's the 'new man at the helm', chasing former glories.
But if you're gonna go for it, this season has to be THE season to try.

Leicester aren't going to get relegated, so money is no object.
They have a recent top 10 base on which to build.

3 of the 'big 6' are in a state of flux, so what the hell, get you're cheque book out and go for it.

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

I agree pretty much with all of that, and would add that -- probably -- I'd go with the six players you've identified as our most important. The hope is that Trossard/Izquierdo will seal the left wing and that at least one out of Propper, Stephens and Bissouma excel next season. That would leave us needing a RB and CF, and perhaps another midfielder for a promising first 11.
Arguably, the most controversial in there is March, a player I rate highly (although I really want him to kick on in terms of goals, assists, and belief in his ability -- perhaps Potter might help with this last aspect which, in turn, will have a positive effect on the first two). Care to explain why you did include him and, not Knockaert, for instance (who had a slightly better goal and assist return last season)?

 

[Machiavelli]

I wonder what Leicester are up to. In one sense they were the PL version of Monaco for a couple of seasons, buying low and selling high (Kante, Drinkwater, Mahrez and now Maguire) but paying £30m for Perez seems to have blown a big hole in that theory. Perhaps it's a result of having a new man at the top who is desperate to build on his father's legacy at any cost. Of course, you could say that their record of spending big money isn't as impressive as their bargain-hunting in any case.

Leicester currently have a very young, talented squad in my book -- Maguire, Chilwell, Ricardo, Ndidi, Maddison, Tielemans, Gray. This means that they have a solid foundation for the future, and can be more ambitious in who they sign. They've been very reliant on Vardy and, although his pace hasn't really diminished, he's now in his 30s and won't keep it up for much longer.

 

[Stat Brother]

Leicester currently have a very young, talented squad in my book -- Maguire, Chilwell, Ricardo, Ndidi, Maddison, Tielemans, Gray. This means that they have a solid foundation for the future, and can be more ambitious in who they sign. They've been very reliant on Vardy and, although his pace hasn't really diminished, he's now in his 30s and won't keep it up for much longer.

Ha - are you sure you wanted to write that on here.

 

[pishhead]

Leicester currently have a very young, talented squad in my book -- Maguire, Chilwell, Ricardo, Ndidi, Maddison, Tielemans, Gray. This means that they have a solid foundation for the future, and can be more ambitious in who they sign. They've been very reliant on Vardy and, although his pace hasn't really diminished, he's now in his 30s and won't keep it up for much longer.

Leicester generally speaking do very well with their transfer spending, Ricardo, Ndidi, Gray, Madison and Maguire could all be sold on for huge profits. They also have Choudry and Harvey Barnes coming through. I can see them being one of a group of teams looking to break into the top 6.

 

[Machiavelli]

Leicester generally speaking do very well with their transfer spending, Ricardo, Ndidi, Gray, Madison and Maguire could all be sold on for huge profits. They also have Choudry and Harvey Barnes coming through. I can see them being one of a group of teams looking to break into the top 6.

Yes, I had thought about Choudry (to me, he's still a bit raw), but forgot about Barnes who looks quite a player. They look in a better position than Everton, for instance, although if Richarlison really fulfills his potential, I might have to shift that view.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

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.

Exactly. West Ham was another good example of an academy that produced so much talent in a very short time (Cole, Carrick, Ferdinand, Defoe) that people assumed they had found some sort of magic formula. In fact they'd partly been lucky and partly benefited from luring Jimmy Hampson and his excellent contacts south of the Thames from Charlton. Mark Noble and the massively overrated (imho) Declan Rice are the only present first-team regulars to have come through.

But people still seem to think of Southampton's academy as a production line of young talent. Perception is weird. Some people have seriously said to me that it is a waste of time and money for Arsenal to bother with their academy because they prefer to buy big names. Seriously? Fabrice Muamba, Jack Wilshere, Wojciech Szczesny, Kieron Gibbs, Alex Iwobi, Francis Coquelin, Cesc Fabregas, Ashley Cole, Hector Bellerin, and now Ainsley Maitland-Niles, Reiss Nelson, Eddie Nketian and Joe Willock ...

 

[CheeseRolls]

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

All sound arguments and good principles. The counter argument is that we are dealing with people. If a player wants to go, it can cause a lot of resentment to hold them to their contract. Conversely if a club wants to change the dynamics or style and a certain player isn't best suited, or doesn't think he is playing to his strengths, a change may be necessary. This is usually more apparent in relegated clubs, who want to both cut wages and get players better suited to the slog of the Championship. This season is going to be a massive one for Nathan Jones, who has made a large number of fairly low key signings, with what looks like a pattern of play in mind.

 

[Braggfan]

When the Albion sold Bobby Zamora, Steve Coppell said, “No team ever sells their best player and becomes a better team for it”. The argument against selling your better players isn’t a new argument for the current climate, it’s not a transfer strategy, it’s just a statement of the obvious.
The problem though isn’t about us keeping players or lacking the ambition to build a better side, it’s always been about the players and who they want to play for. If players want to leave, for either more money, European football or just to play at a bigger club, but we refuse the transfer, we will gain the benefit of their talent for another season or so, but we run the risk of leaving the player disgruntled. If that player then refuses to sign a new contract then the benefit of refusing to sell will have a shelf life. Furthermore we might not get them performing at the same level they had previously, they might disrupt the rest of the team, other players will take note of the clubs position and that might affect their decision to sign a new contract, it might also affect signing new players in terms of whether they sign for us or someone else if they know we’ll stand in the way of their development. And ultimately we run the risk of letting players run their contracts down and leaving for nothing, even worse a combination of all of those things.
On the other end of the spectrum, if we develop a player and then let them leave when the time comes, it might increase our ability to sign better quality prospects because they see us as a club that’s good for their careers, because we improve them as players and are progressive enough to let them move when an opportunity arises. It’s interesting to hear Trossard say that his decision to join us, despite other interest in him, was based on the fact he was promised game time. He clearly saw us as a club where he can develop as a player.
It doesn’t mean we let ourselves get ripped off or asset stripped, but sometimes you have to be realistic.

 

[The Tactician]

I agree pretty much with all of that, and would add that -- probably -- I'd go with the six players you've identified as our most important. The hope is that Trossard/Izquierdo will seal the left wing and that at least one out of Propper, Stephens and Bissouma excel next season. That would leave us needing a RB and CF, and perhaps another midfielder for a promising first 11.
Arguably, the most controversial in there is March, a player I rate highly (although I really want him to kick on in terms of goals, assists, and belief in his ability -- perhaps Potter might help with this last aspect which, in turn, will have a positive effect on the first two). Care to explain why you did include him and, not Knockaert, for instance (who had a slightly better goal and assist return last season)?

Agree with all of this, Trossard hasn’t kicked a ball for us yet so I couldn’t include him. Solly is still one who hasn’t quite hit the heights he is capable of, but given his age and reputation I felt he was the most likely out of our current crop of wingers to nail down one of the starting wide positions. Bruno, Murray and others have all consistently said how frustrating he is, as in training he can beat 2 or 3 and put the ball in the top corner. He’s rated as one of the most technically gifted players the team, so I felt he was worth including. In some senses, the same logic could have afforded Pröpper a spot - but I felt there was only room for one.

 

[The Tactician]

All sound arguments and good principles. The counter argument is that we are dealing with people. If a player wants to go, it can cause a lot of resentment to hold them to their contract. Conversely if a club wants to change the dynamics or style and a certain player isn't best suited, or doesn't think he is playing to his strengths, a change may be necessary. This is usually more apparent in relegated clubs, who want to both cut wages and get players better suited to the slog of the Championship. This season is going to be a massive one for Nathan Jones, who has made a large number of fairly low key signings, with what looks like a pattern of play in mind.

Exactly this, with all the details you’ve mentioned (change in playing style, attitude etc) there is a point where I player no longer becomes an asset, but either a detriment to the team ethos or less important player who you’d feel more comfortable selling. Your reference to Jones is interesting, as not only has he looked to bring in a specific kind of player rather than high profile or tried and tested individuals, but he has also left big names out of his plans. As you rightly point out, it looks to be to implement a dramatic shift in style and ensure the right personalities are at the football club.

 

[The Tactician]

When the Albion sold Bobby Zamora, Steve Coppell said, “No team ever sells their best player and becomes a better team for it”. The argument against selling your better players isn’t a new argument for the current climate, it’s not a transfer strategy, it’s just a statement of the obvious.
The problem though isn’t about us keeping players or lacking the ambition to build a better side, it’s always been about the players and who they want to play for. If players want to leave, for either more money, European football or just to play at a bigger club, but we refuse the transfer, we will gain the benefit of their talent for another season or so, but we run the risk of leaving the player disgruntled. If that player then refuses to sign a new contract then the benefit of refusing to sell will have a shelf life. Furthermore we might not get them performing at the same level they had previously, they might disrupt the rest of the team, other players will take note of the clubs position and that might affect their decision to sign a new contract, it might also affect signing new players in terms of whether they sign for us or someone else if they know we’ll stand in the way of their development. And ultimately we run the risk of letting players run their contracts down and leaving for nothing, even worse a combination of all of those things.
On the other end of the spectrum, if we develop a player and then let them leave when the time comes, it might increase our ability to sign better quality prospects because they see us as a club that’s good for their careers, because we improve them as players and are progressive enough to let them move when an opportunity arises. It’s interesting to hear Trossard say that his decision to join us, despite other interest in him, was based on the fact he was promised game time. He clearly saw us as a club where he can develop as a player.
It doesn’t mean we let ourselves get ripped off or asset stripped, but sometimes you have to be realistic.

You raise some interesting points, and I would say that a lot of what you discuss fits into the wider module if you agree that at the point that players want to leave/outgrow the club, they become less of an asset to the team as a whole, and therefore warrant or require selling. It can still be amicable, but had Chelsea refused to let Hazard go to Real Madrid , even if his contract situation was not as it was and he had several years left, it is likely that would not have been to Chelsea’s benefit.

I will question your assumption that this is a clear and obvious reality, and that there is no room for more nuanced debate on the subject relating to the changes of modern football. Whilst I agree with the notion that selling your best players does not help ( as after all, that’s what I wrote the article on!) there has been lots of developments over the last few years that have persuaded some that clubs are all overpaying. This isn’t necessarily true, as I attempted to illustrate with my examples that prices for each position have steadily risen, clubs just now have to pay extremely high sums as ‘the going rate’. Though clubs may receive huge fees when they sell their stars, it has become increasingly difficult to find value in the market, and utilise the fee received to the benefit of the club.

Furthermore, whilst I’d still agree with Coppell’s quote - if your goal is to consistently improve on the pitch, keeping your best players is highly important - he was speaking at a time where transfer fees was a much higher slice of a clubs income. Now, the TV Goliaths plunge crazy amounts of money into PL clubs for their troubles, and so teams outside the top six can look to this income to help fund their transfer exploits. Selling Bobby Zamora was a more significant injection of cash, because at the time it was money from player sales that generated cash to reinvest.