Our losses on transfers

Just come across this on Instagram.

If you thought our losses on transfers were bad - Glatzel being the prime example - then just check out Huddersfield and their transfer losses over the last 3 or so years

Adama Diakhaby - Bought for £9m sold for £0
Alex Pritchard - Bought for £11.1m sold for £0
Isaac Mbenza - Bought for £11.2m sold for £0
Steve Mounie - Bought for £12m sold for £4.2m
Terence Kongolo - Bought for £18m sold for £4m

Always someone worse than somebody else when it comes to football matters..

To be fair, there are a number of ways to view any transfer in or out

The simplest way of looking at it is to think of every incoming as another brick in the wall of building a competitive squad/team at a price you were prepared to pay for that player's (anticipated) contribution, i.e. the better or more impacting the player, the more you will pay

For me, you cannot buy a player with one eye on his future value, so the money spent is effectively written off in the hope of on-field, therefore club, success

Any monies received when any player leaves should be considered a bonus, even when there is a loss between purchase and sale; sometimes we will win and sometimes we will lose overall on a player coming in and subsequently going out

Two good examples of opposite ends of the scale are Kenneth Zohore, who came in cheap, did well (for us) and went out for a big profit; and ACorn, who came in big, did nothing and went back out very much at his real market value, which cost our club big and doesn't seem to have been forgotten by the owner

Interesting OP though, as I feel sure there will be a variety of (mainly) valid opinions...

To be fair, there are a number of ways to view any transfer in or out

The simplest way of looking at it is to think of every incoming as another brick in the wall of building a competitive squad/team at a price you were prepared to pay for that player's (anticipated) contribution, i.e. the better or more impacting the player, the more you will pay

For me, you cannot buy a player with one eye on his future value, so the money spent is effectively written off in the hope of on-field, therefore club, success

Any monies received when any player leaves should be considered a bonus, even when there is a loss between purchase and sale; sometimes we will win and sometimes we will lose overall on a player coming in and subsequently going out

Two good examples of opposite ends of the scale are Kenneth Zohore, who came in cheap, did well (for us) and went out for a big profit; and ACorn, who came in big, did nothing and went back out very much at his real market value, which cost our club big and doesn't seem to have been forgotten by the owner

Interesting OP though, as I feel sure there will be a variety of (mainly) valid opinions...

But if the club arnt successful how is that sustainable? Definitely unrealistic to expect every player to sell for a profit or to even recoup the majority of the original transfer. But if the club are going to become a sustainably run club, player sales is the only way to achieve that - without promotion. To do that then at least some of the transfers need to be made considering future sell on value.

To be fair, there are a number of ways to view any transfer in or out

The simplest way of looking at it is to think of every incoming as another brick in the wall of building a competitive squad/team at a price you were prepared to pay for that player's (anticipated) contribution, i.e. the better or more impacting the player, the more you will pay

For me, you cannot buy a player with one eye on his future value, so the money spent is effectively written off in the hope of on-field, therefore club, success

Any monies received when any player leaves should be considered a bonus, even when there is a loss between purchase and sale; sometimes we will win and sometimes we will lose overall on a player coming in and subsequently going out

Two good examples of opposite ends of the scale are Kenneth Zohore, who came in cheap, did well (for us) and went out for a big profit; and ACorn, who came in big, did nothing and went back out very much at his real market value, which cost our club big and doesn't seem to have been forgotten by the owner

Interesting OP though, as I feel sure there will be a variety of (mainly) valid opinions...

But if the club arnt successful how is that sustainable? Definitely unrealistic to expect every player to sell for a profit or to even recoup the majority of the original transfer. But if the club are going to become a sustainably run club, player sales is the only way to achieve that - without promotion. To do that then at least some of the transfers need to be made considering future sell on value.

Surely in that case the player should come through the Academy or (at worst) be a good value purchase of a young player with potential?

Our 'losses' appear to have been on some poor 'big' signings; but I do agree the buying policy of recent managers has been poor where decent money has bern paid out

Are our losses even that bad over the past few years? We've made decent profit on a few players. Etheridge came in on a free and went for 2mil, Joe Mason was 200/300k and sold for 3mil, Zohore was 1mil and sold for 8mil.

Since Malky left we're probably close to breaking even I would've thought. Nothing to shout home about but better off than a lot of clubs

I agree with Sven (Chris) that there are many ways to view a transfer fee.

For example Peter Whittingham. Apparently we paid £350,000 for him and received nothing when he moved onto Blackburn.

But in between that he gave 10 years great service, scored and created a sack full of goals and was our class act by a country mile.

£350,000 was the bargain of the decade when you think of his contribution over those years.

I agree with Sven (Chris) that there are many ways to view a transfer fee.

For example Peter Whittingham. Apparently we paid £350,000 for him and received nothing when he moved onto Blackburn.

But in between that he gave 10 years great service, scored and created a sack full of goals and was our class act by a country mile.

£350,000 was the bargain of the decade when you think of his contribution over those years.

I couldn't think of a better example, Tony...

A class act and ambassador for all that was good/positive about this club on and off the field in recent years...

I'd actually forgotten his fee (probably a big outlay for us at that time) but boy, what VFM we got for our $buck in real terms...

RIP, Whitts; a proper Bluebird legend...

To be fair, there are a number of ways to view any transfer in or out

The simplest way of looking at it is to think of every incoming as another brick in the wall of building a competitive squad/team at a price you were prepared to pay for that player's (anticipated) contribution, i.e. the better or more impacting the player, the more you will pay

For me, you cannot buy a player with one eye on his future value, so the money spent is effectively written off in the hope of on-field, therefore club, success

Any monies received when any player leaves should be considered a bonus, even when there is a loss between purchase and sale; sometimes we will win and sometimes we will lose overall on a player coming in and subsequently going out

Two good examples of opposite ends of the scale are Kenneth Zohore, who came in cheap, did well (for us) and went out for a big profit; and ACorn, who came in big, did nothing and went back out very much at his real market value, which cost our club big and doesn't seem to have been forgotten by the owner

Interesting OP though, as I feel sure there will be a variety of (mainly) valid opinions...

But if the club arnt successful how is that sustainable? Definitely unrealistic to expect every player to sell for a profit or to even recoup the majority of the original transfer. But if the club are going to become a sustainably run club, player sales is the only way to achieve that - without promotion. To do that then at least some of the transfers need to be made considering future sell on value.

Surely in that case the player should come through the Academy or (at worst) be a good value purchase of a young player with potential?

Our 'losses' appear to have been on some poor 'big' signings; but I do agree the buying policy of recent managers has been poor where decent money has bern paid out

I did say some of the transfers. You'll never get enough youngsters coming through to fill the squad - championship standard anyway. You still need experienced players to plug gaps. Collins for example. Perfect signing on a free. Id be dissapointed if we paid a few mill for him though.

The club have wasted a lot of money. But they seem to be doing things better though, trying at least.

I believe the championship may have changed, with far fewer transfers and a lot of free agents.

If you are a club in need of a combative preferably left-footed midfielder then you inquire to Joe Ralls agent what's happening at Cardiff and how much do they want as a signing on fee and salary, come the summer he signs a 3 year deal with you. We may be happy to let Joe go as we need a different option and he takes a biggish chunk of your budgeted salary and your new guy may come in for less.

Its the short-termism that causes inflated transfers. Kylian Mbappe blows my mind. At the moment he is "worth" 130 million but in 9 months he is a free agent, how do you write off a £130 million pound asset on your books ?

I think we may be on the right track. Hopefully, one or four youngsters graduating with solid championship performers slowly building into a strong club. I can't see us spending more than 2 million for a few seasons