• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Agger don't don't don't

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy Heaton @Andrew_HeatonOr more specifically, Darren Lewis' story in the Mirror this morning which we've been reliably informed is absolute rubbish.
It's been pretty obvious that Agger doesn't want out that's not what concerns me, much more so the flattery from Barca and now their players in Masher.

He really shouldn't go down that road after the way he left us in the first place.
 
Well they first started with Overmars back in, what, 99 was it? And you have to ask yourself, 'compared to what?'

They've had fuck all net spend for 10 years, maybe more, and yet have *always* qualified for the CL and occasionally challenged for the title and CL. I think Wenger's excellent policy isn't the reason having no money to spend has produced 'fuck all' trophies, but the reason they haven't finished mid-table, lost out on much-needed CL revenues, and really felt the burden of the massive stadium debt.

I have no idea what your first sentence means.

As for the next, it is simply changing the parameters of the debate. Have Arsenal done well to cling onto CL qualification thus far? Sure. But they started out from a position far exceeding our own - they were arguably the best team in the country by a distance when the dismantling truly started.

Which direction are they moving in? Down. Inexorably. Last season they scraped CL. Without Van Persie next year they are far from a safe bet for top 4.

Has Wenger replaced big players with cheaper equivalents each year without detrimentally affecting the teams performance as you suggested? No.

The idea that the team of Gibbs, Koscielny, Arteta, Ramsey, Gervinho et all is anything more than a pale shadow of the team that went unbeaten for a season is ludicrous.
 
I have no idea what your first sentence means.

As for the next, it is simply changing the parameters of the debate. Have Arsenal done well to cling onto CL qualification thus far? Sure. But they started out from a position far exceeding our own - they were arguably the best team in the country by a distance when the dismantling truly started.

Which direction are they moving in? Down. Inexorably. Last season they scraped CL. Without Van Persie next year they are far from a safe bet for top 4.

Has Wenger replaced big players with cheaper equivalents each year without detrimentally affecting the teams performance as you suggested? No.

The idea that the team of Gibbs, Koscielny, Arteta, Ramsey, Gervinho et all is anything more than a pale shadow of the team that went unbeaten for a season is ludicrous.

1. First sentence. Part one: They've been doing it since they sold Overmars 12 years ago, and have had success since, winning the title in 2002 and 2004. So it's not true that a policy of selling has always led to a lack of trophies. Part two: You need to compare how the policy of selling has worked compared to how they'd have done by spending no money net AND not selling players like Henry (30 years old, sold for £20m) and Vieira (29 years old, sold for £15m).

2. I'm not 'changing the parameters of the debate'. If you think I am you need to make an argument to back up the assertion.

3. They's moving down? Compared to what? Compared to where they'd be if they *hadn't* made certain sales necessary to balance the books and instead had to replace players like Henry and Vieira with £0 instead of £35m? I think that is by no means certain. In fact I think it's highly dubious. I think you take a lot for granted.

4. I'm not sure if I did directly suggest that Wenger has always replaced players with quality alternatives. More likely I suggested he often did that. More likely still I suggested I'd like to see us do that. But, anyway, this is almost irrelevant to crucial point, which is that buying poor replacements is not an inevitable and exclusive danger of selling players when they attract a premium. Just such a danger exists when replacing them with much less money having let them go on a free at age 32 or whatever. I don't see that how you earn the money affects how you spend it. A certain amount will always be spent well, a certain amount badly.

5. The thing about Gibbs, Koscielny et al is a total straw man. Yeh, the idea is ludicrous, but then I never made such an argument, so big fucking deal.
 
When they sold Overmars they bought Pires, they don't do that these days when they sell. They didn't replace Fabregas with a like for like (for example).
 
They're both two very good but very different defenders who compliment each other. There are things skrtel and do that agger can't and vica versa, why the need for bitching about it?
 
1. First sentence. Part one: They've been doing it since they sold Overmars 12 years ago, and have had success since, winning the title in 2002 and 2004. So it's not true that a policy of selling has always led to a lack of trophies. Part two: You need to compare how the policy of selling has worked compared to how they'd have done by spending no money net AND not selling players like Henry (30 years old, sold for £20m) and Vieira (29 years old, sold for £15m).

2. I'm not 'changing the parameters of the debate'. If you think I am you need to make an argument to back up the assertion.

3. They's moving down? Compared to what? Compared to where they'd be if they *hadn't* made certain sales necessary to balance the books and instead had to replace players like Henry and Vieira with £0 instead of £35m? I think that is by no means certain. In fact I think it's highly dubious. I think you take a lot for granted.

4. I'm not sure if I did directly suggest that Wenger has always replaced players with quality alternatives. More likely I suggested he often did that. More likely still I suggested I'd like to see us do that. But, anyway, this is almost irrelevant to crucial point, which is that buying poor replacements is not an inevitable and exclusive danger of selling players when they attract a premium. Just such a danger exists when replacing them with much less money having let them go on a free at age 32 or whatever. I don't see that how you earn the money affects how you spend it. A certain amount will always be spent well, a certain amount badly.

5. The thing about Gibbs, Koscielny et al is a total straw man. Yeh, the idea is ludicrous, but then I never made such an argument, so big fucking deal.

1. They certainly did have success. In 2004. And no, I don't need to start speculating about how they'd have done by not selling players, because I have no evidence to support such bollocks. I do have evidence that Arsenal have gone from winning titles to winning fuck all, and that the selling of those players did not lead to success, but to failure.

2. Actually, that'll do, because the rest of your post is just face-saving nonsense. Arsenal's policy has failed. I don't need to argue the point any further. Just go and ask an Arsenal fan.
 
1. They certainly did have success. In 2004. And no, I don't need to start speculating about how they'd have done by not selling players, because I have no evidence to support such bollocks. I do have evidence that Arsenal have gone from winning titles to winning fuck all, and that the selling of those players did not lead to success, but to failure.

2. Actually, that'll do, because the rest of your post is just face-saving nonsense. Arsenal's policy has failed. I don't need to argue the point any further. Just go and ask an Arsenal fan.

Face-saving nonsense?! Should be easy enough to refute then - if you weren't such a fucking plank, of course.
 
There a big elephant in the room in the Arsenal debate, or a big stadium more correctly. The Arsenal 'policy' was forced upon them to fund the stadium. They've stayed in the top four while building a stadium. It was a survival strategy rather than a strategy to win trophies.

By not going all in with any of their teams they avoided any big drops, consequently they didn't anything. But theyre in prime position to take advantage of FFP
 
I;m with KHL on this...Sorry Jules.

We can debate about this when the likes of Barca or Real come for Skittles.

Agger is by far the better defender and footballer.....
 
Skrtel's heading has been a weak point for some time, but last season he was a beast in the air. That's something no-one will ever say about your poster boy.

Skrtel has scored a couple of goals.....

But defensively, i would like you to point out a couple of time when Agger cost us a goal.....they have been equally good at the back aerially. I don't see how one is definitely better than the other...
 
There a big elephant in the room in the Arsenal debate, or a big stadium more correctly. The Arsenal 'policy' was forced upon them to fund the stadium. They've stayed in the top four while building a stadium. It was a survival strategy rather than a strategy to win trophies.

By not going all in with any of their teams they avoided any big drops, consequently they didn't anything. But theyre in prime position to take advantage of FFP

Well quite, that's why I cited the Overmars example, before the stadium was an issue.

But the real point that I'm making and that grumpymonkey so completely fails to understand is that *holding all other things constant* Arsenal have done better from funding what squad regeneration they've been able to afford from selling older star players than they'd have done by not making any signings at all and just ekeing out a few extra years from those players and then not being able to replace them when they got too old.

Note I *don't* include the likes of Fabregas and Nasri in this argument. They were sales I don't think Wenger wanted to make but which were forced upon him by other factors, mainly the straitened circumstances resulting from the stadium debt meaning the club could no longer compete at the top level.
 
Well quite, that's why I cited the Overmars example, before the stadium was an issue.

But the real point that I'm making and that grumpymonkey so completely fails to understand is that *holding all other things constant* Arsenal have done better from funding what squad regeneration they've been able to afford from selling older star players than they'd have done by not making any signings at all and just ekeing out a few extra years from those players and then not being able to replace them when they got too old.

Note I *don't* include the likes of Fabregas and Nasri in this argument. They were sales I don't think Wenger wanted to make but which were forced upon him by other factors, mainly the straitened circumstances resulting from the stadium debt meaning the club could no longer compete at the top level.


So, with a caveat here, a bit of pure conjecture there, and a dash of admitting that you have left crucial factors out of your argument based on some more pure conjecture, you finally assert that Arsenal can 'no longer compete at the top level'.

Yay. Let's adopt their transfer policy eh?

Right. I'm out. I shouldn't even have bothered with this post to be honest, but bleating to Rosco about my failure to understand something dragged me back in. In truth though, the debate was over when you resorted to namecalling wasn't it?
 
So, with a caveat here, a bit of pure conjecture there, and a dash of admitting that you have left crucial factors out of your argument based on some more pure conjecture, you finally assert that Arsenal can 'no longer compete at the top level'.

Yay. Let's adopt their transfer policy eh?

Right. I'm out. I shouldn't even have bothered with this post to be honest, but bleating to Rosco about my failure to understand something dragged me back in. In truth though, the debate was over when you resorted to namecalling wasn't it?

No, the debate was over when you refused to or couldn't respond to the arguments. That's how arguments are always lost. Difficult concept, I know.
 
If you lose your best players consistently, it's a policy that will see you, more often than not, on the decline, unless you can continuously reinvest in the same level of player. So that's assuming you maintain all of the resources from the sales AND maintain the attraction of your club, hardgoing when the bottom line is you have an attainable point that sees you selling players continuously if the price is right. It's stupid, and flawed.
 
I've always been a huge Skrtel fan. Still am, never going to stop. Want him to stay. Think it may be crazy to sell him for anything under 30 million which is what he is worth to the top 3 teams in the world. Especially right now because I think we are seeing the "in his prime" Skrtel. He seems to fit Rodgers style very well. Nice mazy run and a good shot against Tottenham. He's become very good going forward as well and I can't help but feel the confidence to do that has something to do with watching Agger stride forward for years.

Now that we have Brendan Rodgers, a manager who desires Tiki Taka football. Daniel Agger cannot leave either. He wasn't as injured last year. Dagger suits possession football at all times. He is definitely not a weakness in our team.

If we had sold Gerrard for 20m in summer of 04 cause it made sense we may have been trophy-less since 2003.

They are both contracted for two years. Keep them this year try and get into the top four. If we do they'll stay. If we don't they won't and we'll make similar money because teams won't want to lose out on them to their rivals.

I doubt Rodgers is really considering losing these two. Not after he's seen his attack in "action".

The major flaw in that idea is it only works as long as other big clubs carry on paying premiums for 27-30 year olds who'll be worth nothing in 5 years - if enough clubs see the folly in that then the price of older and younger players will adjust accordingly and there's no longer any way to beat the market. But while it's still going on, we should exploit it.


Of course there is a way to beat the market at that point. You buy great old players for cheap and win the fucking league every year. Thats what you want to do IMO.
 
If you lose your best players consistently, it's a policy that will see you, more often than not, on the decline, unless you can continuously reinvest in the same level of player. So that's assuming you maintain all of the resources from the sales AND maintain the attraction of your club, hardgoing when the bottom line is you have an attainable point that sees you selling players continuously if the price is right. It's stupid, and flawed.

But I'm not advocating a policy of selling our best players, but of selling them when we've had most of what they can offer but still have a high value, ie around 27-29. The idea is that you'd generate so much in sales of those players that you could afford to invest in only the best youngsters (like a Hazard or a Lucas Moura) and the success rate would therefore be pretty high. Obviously it wouldn't be automatic: you might decide that some players are worth keeping around for various reasons, despite the high cost. The key thing is to use the logic to analyse each decision for what it is, and that every million you turn down is a million you can't spend, and potentially more economically.
 
I've always been a huge Skrtel fan. Still am, never going to stop. Want him to stay. Think it may be crazy to sell him for anything under 30 million which is what he is worth to the top 3 teams in the world. Especially right now because I think we are seeing the "in his prime" Skrtel. He seems to fit Rodgers style very well. Nice mazy run and a good shot against Tottenham. He's become very good going forward as well and I can't help but feel the confidence to do that has something to do with watching Agger stride forward for years.

Now that we have Brendan Rodgers, a manager who desires Liverpool Groove football. Daniel Agger cannot leave either. He wasn't as injured last year. Dagger suits possession football at all times. He is definitely not a weakness in our team.

If we had sold Gerrard for 20m in summer of 04 cause it made sense we may have been trophy-less since 2003.

They are both contracted for two years. Keep them this year try and get into the top four. If we do they'll stay. If we don't they won't and we'll make similar money because teams won't want to lose out on them to their rivals.

I doubt Rodgers is really considering losing these two. Not after he's seen his attack in "action".




Of course there is a way to beat the market at that point. You buy great old players for cheap and win the fucking league every year. Thats what you want to do IMO.

No, because that assumes a swing from an overvaluation of older players to an undervaluation. That's possible of course, but unlikely, because IMO the current situation is a result of a shortage of economic thinking about all transfers by clubs. Once they start to analyse things and realise that young players are undervalued then I think it's very unlikely they wouldn't apply the same reasoning to all players and attach similarly realistic values to them.
 
It's a fine line though Peter. Regards the Arsenal comparison, Wenger got rid of Overmars and Petit when both were on the decline, and it was proven by them not doing anything near what they did at Arsenal once they left - Fergie applauded this and said it was the sign that Wenger was a top manager, because he sold them when he knew they'd hit their peak and were on the wain.

Their policy in recent years has been different. They've had their hands tied financially, so they have lost their top players consistently. Wenger is a specialist case because of his scouting skills and ability to spot a player, it's a policy sustained well in that sense by his own strengths, rather than the strength of the policy. Like David Moyes doing well on a shoestring with Everton, the policy of them spending next to fuck all each year and eventually losing what good players they have is a poor one, the strength of their manager's ability to work within that structure goes someway to counteract that, but it's never given the benefit of being used in tandem with building and investing, so it's a policy that's essentially in place to help balance the books without any 'actual' success in terms of silverware. That might be of benefit further down the years, by providing the foundations when they might be on a better footing, but in the meantime...

Back to selling players at their most profitable stage - at the end of the day, you have to be shrewd enough to accept that selling players at peak age and bringing in top quality youngsters is a system you can rely upon - it rarely is, because selling is always a gamble, as is buying, as we well know. People advocating this are the same ones who are unhappy with us losing Masher, Torres, Alonso and replacing them with players like Henderson. In turn, you have a Fernando Torres in your team, at his peak. A Ronaldo wants to join you, wants to join up with such players and then finds out your selling the Torres to fund their move. Happy? I'd doubt it. I know it doesn't always happen that way, but it's a factor, you sell your best players enough times then you start to get the tag of being a selling club, no matter how many good players consistently go through your books. We've seen it with us. We lost Macca and Owen, we nearly lost Gerrard, then it really started with us losing Alonso, Mascherano and Torres, we became a club that was easy fodder for the Madrids and Chelsea's of this World.

Every player has their price, you just don't say it and you certainly don't get to a point where everytime a team offers to buy your player at your 'head' price, you say "ahh well, that's good money that". Good money can be wasted in one fell swoop. Meanwhile you've created another fucking big hole in your team that needs filling, and the never ending jigsaw scenario continues.
 
I generally tend to agree with the general practices Ross is arguing for (which is essentially common sense) but not always the detail. I feel that often "the rules" are being taken too literally without enough room for flexibility.

The idea of building a young team that can challenge in a few years time and limiting the number of unnecessary expensive short-term investments is a sound one in theory. In reality it's hugely difficult and there are very few success stories that we can point to as a reference.

The only example I can think of right now is Dortmund who have managed to build a fantastic team full of young players capable of challenging for and winning the title. The Bundesliga is a far more competitive league than the Premiership however - probably top of the table in terms of striking a balance between quality and competitiveness.

Typically however, the type of clubs that profit the most from this type of strategy are:

- Top 8 sides in the top three leagues (e.g. Udinese, Fiorentina, Sevilla) - these clubs operate on an understanding that a domestic title is an impossibility instead focusing on challenging for European places and doing so by giving well sourced talented young players a competitive environment to improve. Experienced journeymen and club stalwarts provide a balance and a higher turnover of players is expected. As are volatile seasons.

- The more attractive sides in the lesser leagues (e.g. Porto, PSG, Ajax) - these clubs are a lot like the ones described above only can offer domestic success due to playing in less competitive leagues. Also carries the glamour of playing for a top side competing in the CL regularly (even if they are a rung below the true European elite).

In both cases these clubs / leagues / countries are set up to get young talent in. In England it's harder to get work permits, the footballing philosophy is probably furthest removed in Europe to what they're used to, attitudes are harder to change and on top of that you have the culture, weather food and so forth.

And then there is Liverpool. A club that managed to spend 20M on Keane a player it didn't really need or want. A club that managed to replace one of the worlds best midfielders with an injured Aquilani who seemingly had to be offered a kings ransom in order to come here against his will. A club that saw it fit to spend the best part of 70M on Carroll, Henderson and Downing. And it just goes on.

If there is any club that lacks the infrastructure, management and vision to implement the kind of strategy that benefits from selling it's best players are peak prices and reinvesting that money wisely it's got to be us.

That said it is a strategy we do need to take on board. We need a bit of a mixed approach though. We don't fit into either of the two categories above. We're in the unfortunate position of wanting and needing to compete for the title in what is one of the most difficult leagues to win (unless you're prepared to invest half a billion quid). If we start to continually sell our best players we'll very quickly be further demoted into the sort of club players see as a springboard to success and nothing more. It's all about finding a balance that enables us to stay competitive and build for the future.
 
It's a fine line though Peter. Regards the Arsenal comparison, Wenger got rid of Overmars and Petit when both were on the decline, and it was proven by them not doing anything near what they did at Arsenal once they left - Fergie applauded this and said it was the sign that Wenger was a top manager, because he sold them when he knew they'd hit their peak and were on the wain.

Their policy in recent years has been different. They've had their hands tied financially, so they have lost their top players consistently. Wenger is a specialist case because of his scouting skills and ability to spot a player, it's a policy sustained well in that sense by his own strengths, rather than the strength of the policy. Like David Moyes doing well on a shoestring with Everton, the policy of them spending next to fuck all each year and eventually losing what good players they have is a poor one, the strength of their manager's ability to work within that structure goes someway to counteract that, but it's never given the benefit of being used in tandem with building and investing, so it's a policy that's essentially in place to help balance the books without any 'actual' success in terms of silverware. That might be of benefit further down the years, by providing the foundations when they might be on a better footing, but in the meantime...

Back to selling players at their most profitable stage - at the end of the day, you have to be shrewd enough to accept that selling players at peak age and bringing in top quality youngsters is a system you can rely upon - it rarely is, because selling is always a gamble, as is buying, as we well know. People advocating this are the same ones who are unhappy with us losing Masher, Torres, Alonso and replacing them with players like Henderson. In turn, you have a Fernando Torres in your team, at his peak. A Ronaldo wants to join you, wants to join up with such players and then finds out your selling the Torres to fund their move. Happy? I'd doubt it. I know it doesn't always happen that way, but it's a factor, you sell your best players enough times then you start to get the tag of being a selling club, no matter how many good players consistently go through your books. We've seen it with us. We lost Macca and Owen, we nearly lost Gerrard, then it really started with us losing Alonso, Mascherano and Torres, we became a club that was easy fodder for the Madrids and Chelsea's of this World.

Every player has their price, you just don't say it and you certainly don't get to a point where everytime a team offers to buy your player at your 'head' price, you say "ahh well, that's good money that". Good money can be wasted in one fell swoop. Meanwhile you've created another fucking big hole in your team that needs filling, and the never ending jigsaw scenario continues.


1. The Overmars/Petit thing is what I'm referring to. We're agreed that's good then, sound.

2. You seem to be saying a policy of selling at a good time is only suitable when you've got something of a specialist like Wenger in charge to reinvest the funds. I think that's avoiding the fundamental issue. *Obviously* you'd be better off with someone in charge who's very shrewd in the transfer market. Clearly if the people making the transfers are totally incompetent then you want to avoid them, but that's not a sensible solution to the problem!!! For a start it's only going to work so long as the good players you currently have are still playing. Once they finish then you're hit with a bigger problem than ever: a whole squad to replace and very little money to do it with. The obvious thing to do is to get rid of the people making poor transfers.

3. I think there's a possibility of getting a 'selling club' tag. The thing has to be carefully managed. But don't forget that the negative associations of selling big players would be offset by the positive of buying top class young players.
 
Gerrard, Carragher and Reina?

Heh not wishing to answer for Ross but he's made it clear over the last couple years that he'd happily sell them all.

I think we could replace Carra and Reina. Not Gerrard though.
 
Heh not wishing to answer for Ross but he's made it clear over the last couple years that he'd happily sell them all.

I think we could replace Carra and Reina. Not Gerrard though.

Well yeah, we could replace them (Carra and Reina) football-wise but perhaps they contribute with something more and my guess would be that we wouldn't get much for them...not enough to replace them anyway.
 
1. The Overmars/Petit thing is what I'm referring to. We're agreed that's good then, sound.

2. You seem to be saying a policy of selling at a good time is only suitable when you've got something of a specialist like Wenger in charge to reinvest the funds. I think that's avoiding the fundamental issue. *Obviously* you'd be better off with someone in charge who's very shrewd in the transfer market. Clearly if the people making the transfers are totally incompetent then you want to avoid them, but that's not a sensible solution to the problem!!! For a start it's only going to work so long as the good players you currently have are still playing. Once they finish then you're hit with a bigger problem than ever: a whole squad to replace and very little money to do it with. The obvious thing to do is to get rid of the people making poor transfers.

3. I think there's a possibility of getting a 'selling club' tag. The thing has to be carefully managed. But don't forget that the negative associations of selling big players would be offset by the positive of buying top class young players.

So you agree we're not in a stable enough position (yet) to be able to do this? And I'm not doubting Rodgers, I'm doubting managers in general, because in the last two decades we've had managers who've lost good players and failed to replace them with the same or better. The same can argualby be said of Wenger, despite his ability to add promising youngsters and develop the odd star, they're nowhere near what they were when they added the likes of Overmars, Pires, Petit, Vieira, Henry etc on a relatively modest budget.

The point Ross is trying to make is that it should be a sustainable setup, where we sell players at their peak, where we get the best money and reinvest in quality. That's the ideal on paper. As far as Wenger goes, he's a good manager at spotting players but not necessarily proven in the longterm at being a manager who can sustain success, and that's not just been down to their financial predicament, it's been down to stubborness as much as anything. It's the system, you have to be shrewd enough to invest and shrewd enough to decide that players should go. While ideally another manager might just work with players at peak age and get the very best from them, and then gradually keep adding quantity rather than quality.

I don't think buying quality young players can always offset the inevitable bad press that comes with selling established stars, because the player who is walking out the door is having an impact now, the player coming in might be a few years from nearing that level of consistency and success. And we know how short lived footballers are and how impatient we can be.
 
Well yeah, we could replace them (Carra and Reina) football-wise but perhaps they contribute with something more and my guess would be that we wouldn't get much for them...not enough to replace them anyway.

That's a key point. The decision whether or not to move a player on shouldn't be determined just by his sell-on value or lack of it.
 
The point anyway, going back to Agger, or Skrtel, we are talking about selling one of them for around £15m-£20m and reinvesting that in the team. That means for starters you have to bring in a centre back and develop a partnership and arguably have it working from the off. A BIG ask. You have to do that for a modest price AND leave enough over to add another quality player. So for £20m you have to add two players of the same or better quality, for modest fees, modest wages that will be both a success and have an immediate impact. It's not impossible but it's difficult. Whereas we can just keep all the quality players we have, and I'd say that's probably Reina, Johnson, Agger, Skrtel, Lucas, Gerrard and Suarez, and just add to that. Spot the positions that need strengthening most, identify the players you can cull and then earn your money and show how shrewd you really are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom