Transfer Talk Topic

[Lump Of Celery]

8 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Everton was worth 100 million in 2008.

Now they are worth 500-600 million.

Have Everton's owners done anything amazing to make a profit?
Are they working some voodoo?

No, they simply exist in a market which is growing massively, has done for years and shows no signs of stopping.

Yes but I wonder what their net transfer spend has been in that time, probably more than the 400m uplift in value

Even the United example, 3.4bn across 20 years is 200m a year before any expenditure. Although they may actually be a profitable company due to the revenue they generate so probably a better example

Creamcakes will need to double our value each year across the min 10 year tenure to see a 10% profit. You don't have billions tied up for 10 years to see such a small profit, banks are offering 5% on a monthly basis on large sums atm, so it would essentially be a 5% profit. That is just to have your money sitting there doing nothing relatively risk free

Edited June 23 by Lump Of Celery

[Mark Kelly]

46 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

That's a very smart investment on their part, unfortunately for us fans they don't need to do anything special to make an absolute shit load of cash.

Other than spend a shed load of money on the playing side and develop the new ground. 

Which unless I am mistaken they've already done one half of that and are looking to do the other half as quickly as possible. 

You're just a spoilt child who wants everything now. 

Many of us supported this club through seasons of mediocrity when a good run in a cup was the most we could hope for. 

The new owners have a plan are sticking to it and are already ahead of where they imagined they'd be. 

We can like it or lump it, that's the choice. 

Pissing and moaning because Twitter says we should be after Mbappe and Musiala otherwise we're not taking things seriously is a fools game. 

If we buy a hundred players for fifty million and sell them all for sixty million I really couldn't care less.  It's not my money. 

[Max Fowler]

15 minutes ago, Lump Of Celery said:

Yes but I wonder what their net transfer spend has been in that time, probably more than the 400m uplift in value

Even the United example, 3.4bn across 20 years is 200m a year before any expenditure. Although they may actually be a profitable company due to the revenue they generate so probably a better example

Creamcakes will need to double our value each year across the min 10 year tenure to see a 10% profit. You don't have billions tied up for 10 years to see such a small profit, banks are offering 5% on a monthly basis on large sums atm, so it would essentially be a 5% profit. That is just to have your money sitting there doing nothing relatively risk free

And the Premier League has grown 8.6% CAGR over the last decade (that's including COVID!) If it continues in that direction, which it will, we will easily double in value over the next decade.

That's before you take into account the stadium, and their transfer strategy which I genuinely think will be successful in making them a lot of money (buy young players cheap on low wage long contracts, sell them at a break even price at least or for profit)

[Max Fowler]

1 minute ago, Mark Kelly said:

Other than spend a shed load of money on the playing side and develop the new ground. 

Which unless I am mistaken they've already done one half of that and are looking to do the other half as quickly as possible. 

You're just a spoilt child who wants everything now. 

Many of us supported this club through seasons of mediocrity when a good run in a cup was the most we could hope for. 

The new owners have a plan are sticking to it and are already ahead of where they imagined they'd be. 

We can like it or lump it, that's the choice. 

Pissing and moaning because Twitter says we should be after Mbappe and Musiala otherwise we're not taking things seriously is a fools game. 

If we buy a hundred players for fifty million and sell them all for sixty million I really couldn't care less.  It's not my money. 

I think you're great Mark but you haven't really engaged with my arguments here, rather looked to mock me and strawman what I am saying.

Suggests you don't have a much of a leg to stand on in this debate 🙂
But I am cool with that.

[Max Fowler]

Revenue Streams and Cost Management

1. Player Development and Transfer Profits

Clearlake’s strategy involves acquiring young talent and developing them through regular playing time and exposure, primarily at Strasbourg. This model focuses on:

• Low Initial Costs: Young players typically have lower transfer fees and wages compared to established stars.
• High Potential Resale Value: Successfully developed players can be sold for significant profits. For example, Chelsea has made substantial profits in recent years from selling academy graduates like Tammy Abraham (£34 million to Roma) and Fikayo Tomori (£25 million to AC Milan) (Archysport) (Football Business ).

Example Clubs: Borussia Dortmund and RB Leipzig have successfully implemented similar strategies, consistently selling developed players for high transfer fees without always competing for top league positions (Bundesliga) (DW).

2. Matchday Revenue

While performance impacts matchday revenue, expansion plans for Stamford Bridge could substantially boost income regardless of league position. Increasing stadium capacity from around 42,000 to 60,000 can significantly enhance matchday revenue:

• Current Limitation: Stamford Bridge’s smaller capacity limits matchday revenue compared to clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal with larger stadiums (The Price of Football).
• Expansion Potential: Increasing capacity can generate additional revenue through ticket sales, hospitality, and stadium naming rights.

Example Clubs: Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium has significantly boosted their matchday revenue, allowing them to remain profitable despite not consistently finishing in the top four (SQaF).

3. Commercial Revenue and Global Branding

Clearlake’s strategy emphasizes leveraging Chelsea’s global brand to secure lucrative sponsorships and commercial deals, independent of consistent top-tier performance:

• Brand Value: Chelsea’s established brand and global following provide opportunities for significant commercial revenue through merchandise sales, sponsorships, and digital engagement.
• Market Expansion: Targeting international markets and enhancing digital presence can further increase revenue streams.

Example Clubs: Manchester United remains one of the highest-earning clubs globally due to its commercial strength, despite fluctuating league performances (Deloitte United States).

Financial Sustainability and Compliance with FFP

Clearlake aims to ensure financial sustainability and compliance with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations by:

• Lower Wage Bills: Investing in young players with lower wage demands reduces the overall wage bill, increasing financial flexibility.
• Reduced Reliance on Debt: By focusing on profitability and sustainable growth, Clearlake reduces the financial risk associated with high debt levels seen during Abramovich’s tenure (Football Benchmark) (Archysport).

Example Clubs: Leicester City and Sevilla have shown that prudent financial management and strategic player sales can maintain financial health without the need for continuous top-four finishes (SQaF).

Conclusion

Clearlake Capital’s strategy does not necessarily depend on Chelsea consistently achieving top-tier finishes to be profitable. By focusing on developing young talent, increasing matchday revenue through stadium expansion, and leveraging global commercial opportunities, Chelsea can generate substantial profits. This approach contrasts with the Abramovich era, which relied heavily on high-cost player acquisitions and on-field success.

While midtable finishes might reduce certain revenue streams, the combined benefits of player sales, expanded matchday income, and robust commercial strategies can sustain profitability. Therefore, Clearlake’s approach can indeed be financially successful without the club needing to win trophies consistently.

References

• Football Transfers
• Archysport
• Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance
• Price of Football
• Bundesliga - RB Leipzig
• DW - RB Leipzig

[Lump Of Celery]

13 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

And the Premier League has grown 8.6% CAGR over the last decade (that's including COVID!) If it continues in that direction, which it will, we will easily double in value over the next decade.

That's before you take into account the stadium, and their transfer strategy which I genuinely think will be successful in making them a lot of money (buy young players cheap on low wage long contracts, sell them at a break even price at least or for profit)

The PL has probably grown that much precisely because of people like Roman and Abu Dhabi pumping billions into it and growing the brand

[Mark Kelly]

8 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Revenue Streams and Cost Management

1. Player Development and Transfer Profits

Clearlake’s strategy involves acquiring young talent and developing them through regular playing time and exposure, primarily at Strasbourg. This model focuses on:

• Low Initial Costs: Young players typically have lower transfer fees and wages compared to established stars.
• High Potential Resale Value: Successfully developed players can be sold for significant profits. For example, Chelsea has made substantial profits in recent years from selling academy graduates like Tammy Abraham (£34 million to Roma) and Fikayo Tomori (£25 million to AC Milan) (Archysport) (Football Business ).

Example Clubs: Borussia Dortmund and RB Leipzig have successfully implemented similar strategies, consistently selling developed players for high transfer fees without always competing for top league positions (Bundesliga) (DW).

2. Matchday Revenue

While performance impacts matchday revenue, expansion plans for Stamford Bridge could substantially boost income regardless of league position. Increasing stadium capacity from around 42,000 to 60,000 can significantly enhance matchday revenue:

• Current Limitation: Stamford Bridge’s smaller capacity limits matchday revenue compared to clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal with larger stadiums (The Price of Football).
• Expansion Potential: Increasing capacity can generate additional revenue through ticket sales, hospitality, and stadium naming rights.

Example Clubs: Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium has significantly boosted their matchday revenue, allowing them to remain profitable despite not consistently finishing in the top four (SQaF).

3. Commercial Revenue and Global Branding

Clearlake’s strategy emphasizes leveraging Chelsea’s global brand to secure lucrative sponsorships and commercial deals, independent of consistent top-tier performance:

• Brand Value: Chelsea’s established brand and global following provide opportunities for significant commercial revenue through merchandise sales, sponsorships, and digital engagement.
• Market Expansion: Targeting international markets and enhancing digital presence can further increase revenue streams.

Example Clubs: Manchester United remains one of the highest-earning clubs globally due to its commercial strength, despite fluctuating league performances (Deloitte United States).

Financial Sustainability and Compliance with FFP

Clearlake aims to ensure financial sustainability and compliance with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations by:

• Lower Wage Bills: Investing in young players with lower wage demands reduces the overall wage bill, increasing financial flexibility.
• Reduced Reliance on Debt: By focusing on profitability and sustainable growth, Clearlake reduces the financial risk associated with high debt levels seen during Abramovich’s tenure (Football Benchmark) (Archysport).

Example Clubs: Leicester City and Sevilla have shown that prudent financial management and strategic player sales can maintain financial health without the need for continuous top-four finishes (SQaF).

Conclusion

Clearlake Capital’s strategy does not necessarily depend on Chelsea consistently achieving top-tier finishes to be profitable. By focusing on developing young talent, increasing matchday revenue through stadium expansion, and leveraging global commercial opportunities, Chelsea can generate substantial profits. This approach contrasts with the Abramovich era, which relied heavily on high-cost player acquisitions and on-field success.

While midtable finishes might reduce certain revenue streams, the combined benefits of player sales, expanded matchday income, and robust commercial strategies can sustain profitability. Therefore, Clearlake’s approach can indeed be financially successful without the club needing to win trophies consistently.

References

• Football Transfers
• Archysport
• Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance
• Price of Football
• Bundesliga - RB Leipzig
• DW - RB Leipzig

So if winning trophies is a mugs game as you don't make any money, and buying players cheap is not the way to do things according to you and our stadium seats less than the teams we are in direct competition with. 

How exactly are we supposed to stay within the arbitrary rules someone pulled out of their arse at the Premier league. 

What is it you want them to do exactly when their hands are tied? 

Sign Mbappe? 

Give all the other players massive pay rises to compensate? 

Explain your vision for a sustainable and profitable club please. 

[Max Fowler]

2 minutes ago, Lump Of Celery said:

The PL has probably grown that much precisely because of people like Roman and Abu Dhabi pumping billions into it and growing the brand

Well that's but partly it but just because Roman's gone doesn't mean it won't continue. In fact, Todd could be instrumental to its expansion in America among other places.

[My Blood Is Blue]

Linked with Nico Williams… presume he’d be one for us to sign cheap and flip for profit in a couple of years as well, seeing as we don’t make any signings to improve the side for the here and now anymore, based on all the deals done so far in this transfer window.

[Bob Singleton]

41 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Revenue Streams and Cost Management

1. Player Development and Transfer Profits

Clearlake’s strategy involves acquiring young talent and developing them through regular playing time and exposure, primarily at Strasbourg.

How many young players have Chelsea bought that have been developed primarily at Strasbourg?

As usual you are projecting what you think will happen and claiming it to be a long determined fact.
 

[Max Fowler]

Just now, Mark Kelly said:

So if winning trophies is a mugs game as you don't make any money, and buying players cheap is not the way to do things according to you and our stadium seats less than the teams we are in direct competition with. 

How exactly are we supposed to stay within the arbitrary rules someone pulled out of their arse at the Premier league. 

What is it you want them to do exactly when their hands are tied? 

Sign Mbappe? 

Give all the other players massive pay rises to compensate? 

Explain your vision for a sustainable and profitable club please. 

As I said, I like the youth policy. If we had a mixed policy of say 60/40 or even 70/30 youth to experienced players I would be right on board. We don't - we effectively have a 95/5 policy and it's only heading further in the wrong direction.

It's still laughable to me that I have to argue that buying better players in key positions will improve, not hurt the squad.

If we signed a player like an Alvarez, as I have said, a smart top-level signing that improves the squad, (doesnt have to cost the earth) another one or two of a similar profile, then I would be happy. I would be happy with Estevao and adding other 20 and 18 year olds as assets.

The problem is, we're only buying 20 and 18 year olds as assets. The idea that Duran is being looked at because he is the best fit for the squad? Come on. Give me a break. He's an asset!

[Ham]

46 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Revenue Streams and Cost Management

1. Player Development and Transfer Profits

Clearlake’s strategy involves acquiring young talent and developing them through regular playing time and exposure, primarily at Strasbourg. This model focuses on:

• Low Initial Costs: Young players typically have lower transfer fees and wages compared to established stars.
• High Potential Resale Value: Successfully developed players can be sold for significant profits. For example, Chelsea has made substantial profits in recent years from selling academy graduates like Tammy Abraham (£34 million to Roma) and Fikayo Tomori (£25 million to AC Milan) (Archysport) (Football Business ).

Example Clubs: Borussia Dortmund and RB Leipzig have successfully implemented similar strategies, consistently selling developed players for high transfer fees without always competing for top league positions (Bundesliga) (DW).

2. Matchday Revenue

While performance impacts matchday revenue, expansion plans for Stamford Bridge could substantially boost income regardless of league position. Increasing stadium capacity from around 42,000 to 60,000 can significantly enhance matchday revenue:

• Current Limitation: Stamford Bridge’s smaller capacity limits matchday revenue compared to clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal with larger stadiums (The Price of Football).
• Expansion Potential: Increasing capacity can generate additional revenue through ticket sales, hospitality, and stadium naming rights.

Example Clubs: Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium has significantly boosted their matchday revenue, allowing them to remain profitable despite not consistently finishing in the top four (SQaF).

3. Commercial Revenue and Global Branding

Clearlake’s strategy emphasizes leveraging Chelsea’s global brand to secure lucrative sponsorships and commercial deals, independent of consistent top-tier performance:

• Brand Value: Chelsea’s established brand and global following provide opportunities for significant commercial revenue through merchandise sales, sponsorships, and digital engagement.
• Market Expansion: Targeting international markets and enhancing digital presence can further increase revenue streams.

Example Clubs: Manchester United remains one of the highest-earning clubs globally due to its commercial strength, despite fluctuating league performances (Deloitte United States).

Financial Sustainability and Compliance with FFP

Clearlake aims to ensure financial sustainability and compliance with Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations by:

• Lower Wage Bills: Investing in young players with lower wage demands reduces the overall wage bill, increasing financial flexibility.
• Reduced Reliance on Debt: By focusing on profitability and sustainable growth, Clearlake reduces the financial risk associated with high debt levels seen during Abramovich’s tenure (Football Benchmark) (Archysport).

Example Clubs: Leicester City and Sevilla have shown that prudent financial management and strategic player sales can maintain financial health without the need for continuous top-four finishes (SQaF).

Conclusion

Clearlake Capital’s strategy does not necessarily depend on Chelsea consistently achieving top-tier finishes to be profitable. By focusing on developing young talent, increasing matchday revenue through stadium expansion, and leveraging global commercial opportunities, Chelsea can generate substantial profits. This approach contrasts with the Abramovich era, which relied heavily on high-cost player acquisitions and on-field success.

While midtable finishes might reduce certain revenue streams, the combined benefits of player sales, expanded matchday income, and robust commercial strategies can sustain profitability. Therefore, Clearlake’s approach can indeed be financially successful without the club needing to win trophies consistently.

References

• Football Transfers
• Archysport
• Deloitte’s Annual Review of Football Finance
• Price of Football
• Bundesliga - RB Leipzig
• DW - RB Leipzig

The more successful we are, the more worldwide fans, merch sales and sponsorships.

The better and bigger the stadium, the more money we make each week to include days when we aren't playing.

Of course the value of the club goes up anyway, regardless of how well we're doing but it's obvious that the more successful we are, the more the club is worth. 

Why are you not listening to me?

[Max Fowler]

Just now, My Blood Is Blue said:

Linked with Nico Williams… presume he’d be one for us to sign cheap and flip for profit in a couple of years as well, seeing as we don’t make any signings to improve the side for the here and now anymore, based on all the deals done so far in this transfer window.

We're not going to sign Nico Williams, like Olise, because we have a wage cap.

The links can be considered nothing but PR.

 

 

 

[Ham]

2 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

 

It's still laughable to me that I have to argue that buying better players in key positions will improve, not hurt the squad.

 

 

Remind us all who was arguing against this?

[Max Fowler]

Just now, Ham said:

The more successful we are, the more worldwide fans, merch sales and sponsorships.

The better and bigger the stadium, the more money we make each week to include days when we aren't playing.

I am listening to you, but you are not making a coherent argument as to how exactly the owners are prioritising on-the-pitch success on the pitch with this model and how exactly being a winning team is high enough on their priority list. Fans, merch sales and sponsorships are great revenue streams, but as I have shown they simply do not need to maximise that by making us the best team in the land.

I agree we should develop the stadium and  happy they are doing it.

[Max Fowler]

12 minutes ago, Ham said:

Remind us all who was arguing against this?

Mark and Celery effectively said that if we sign better players there is no guarantee they will remain better (that is true of any player we sign, we have no guarantee young talents will blossom either) and in response to my original point on this exact topoc, Sam argued that Duran could be the best fit for our squad, how could I know otherwise?

In all three of these cases I call whatabouttery.

Again, I am not saying we should buy "better players" at any cost, or no matter their age etc.

It just really is common sense that if we generally aim to improve the squad with players that are better than our existing crop, we will generally move up in the league table.

I am not getting back into an argument about all the counterexamples. That is a general common sense rule that no amount of whatabboutery disproves. It's just common sense.

Edited June 23 by Max Fowler

[martin1905]

 

 

17 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

We're not going to sign Nico Williams, like Olise, because we have a wage cap.

The links can be considered nothing but PR.

 

 

 

 

Max, wd didn't sign Olise because he went to one of the biggest teams in the world, nothing to do with wages.

Don't believe everything you read on twitter.

[My Blood Is Blue]

7 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

I am listening to you, but you are not making a coherent argument as to how exactly the owners are prioritising on-the-pitch success on the pitch with this model and how exactly being a winning team is high enough on their priority list. Fans, merch sales and sponsorships are great revenue streams, but as I have shown they simply do not need to maximise that by making us the best team in the land.

I agree we should develop the stadium and  happy they are doing it.

Sterling - €56m
Cucurella - €65m
Fofana - €80m
Mudryk - €70m
Enzo - €121m
Gusto - €30m
Madueke - €30m
Badiashile - €38m
Sanchez - €23m
Petrovic - €18m
Disasi - €45m
Palmer - €47m
Nkunku - €60m
Lavia - €62m
Caicedo - €116m

That is quite an outlay on first team players for an ownership that are not prioritising on pitch success.

It’s probably fair that the priority for this window isn’t to go out and buy another 5/6 players for €40m+ because they’ve spent a lot to assemble the squad we currently have and therefore want to prioritise 1 or 2 positions instead.

It’s also possible and in fact incredibly likely that they have multiple strategies running at the same time and one of those is investing in young players and this will likely be for multiple reasons. They will hope some develop into first team players in the future, they will hope some can be integrated and make an impact on the first team in the next year or two and some will be seen as more of an investment for the future that they can make profit from, to help them to continue to fund the investment in the first team with those couple of key signings needed each year.

Max, as a couple of people have now asked, give us your approach, how would you generate the money needed to sign the players you want us to sign and who are these players? How much would these players cost and how can we ensure we stay within the financial rules in place this summer if we sign them?

[Max Fowler]

2 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

 

 

 

Max, wd didn't sign Olise because he went to one of the biggest teams in the world, nothing to do with wages.

Don't believe everything you read on twitter.

If you don't believe we have a wage cap then that's your prerogative, Martin.

See David Ornstein:

"The Stamford Bridge hierarchy are aiming to create a more disciplined wage bill than in the past and if a transfer target does not fit into that they would rather reward existing players who out-perform over time or invest in new elite talent on more reasonable salaries."

If you believe that about Olise, you should then also ask how we stopped being one of the biggest teams in the world who could compete with the likes of Bayern to get Olise.

[My Blood Is Blue]

15 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Mark and Celery effectively said that if we sign better players there is no guarantee they will remain better (that is true of any player we sign, we have no guarantee young talents will blossom either) and in response to my original point on this exact topoc, Sam argued that Duran could be the best fit for our squad, how could I know otherwise?

In all three of these cases I call whatabouttery.

Again, I am not saying we should buy "better players" at any cost, or no matter their age etc.

It just really is common sense that if we generally aim to improve the squad with players that are better than our existing crop, we will generally move up in the league table.

I am not getting back into an argument about all the counterexamples. That is a general common sense rule that no amount of whatabboutery disproves. It's just common sense.

What I was actually saying was that maybe Duran was the best fit based on those available this summer. Duran may be option B or C, but if those options above aren’t available for a fee we’re willing to pay and so rather than just go to another expensive player in that position ‘because they’re good’, we’re going for a different option for a fee we deem acceptable for the return he’ll give us and to ensure we can strengthen adequately this summer in other positions. We then come back to that position next summer if still required and look at options A and B again.

[Max Fowler]

Just now, My Blood Is Blue said:

Sterling - €56m
Cucurella - €65m
Fofana - €80m
Mudryk - €70m
Enzo - €121m
Gusto - €30m
Madueke - €30m
Badiashile - €38m
Sanchez - €23m
Petrovic - €18m
Disasi - €45m
Palmer - €47m
Nkunku - €60m
Lavia - €62m
Caicedo - €116m

That is quite an outlay on first team players for an ownership that are not prioritising on pitch success.

It’s probably fair that the priority for this window isn’t to go out and buy another 5/6 players for €40m+ because they’ve spent a lot to assemble the squad we currently have and therefore want to prioritise 1 or 2 positions instead.

It’s also possible and in fact incredibly likely that they have multiple strategies running at the same time and one of those is investing in young players and this will likely be for multiple reasons. They will hope some develop into first team players in the future, they will hope some can be integrated and make an impact on the first team in the next year or two and some will be seen as more of an investment for the future that they can make profit from, to help them to continue to fund the investment in the first team with those couple of key signings needed each year.

Max, as a couple of people have now asked, give us your approach, how would you generate the money needed to sign the players you want us to sign and who are these players? How much would these players cost and how can we ensure we stay within the financial rules in place this summer if we sign them?

Again, these players were signed as an initial outlay:

a) to set up the model
b) because it was effectively required in the contract

There will be no more signings on the upper end of this price bracket, perhaps unless we sell a big player like Enzo for big money, nor will there be any significant experienced players added.

(we signed Nkunku under RA btw, no way we would sign someone that experienced any more).

I have mentioned the likes of an Alvarez who think could be turned for 60-80 million. Maybe a Marc Guehi. A proper goalkeeper too. I don't know what the exact PSR finances are but if we have 70 million at least to spend on kids, and we will see more, I would redirect that into at least a couple of experienced signings to improve the squad. They don't have to cost the earth.

As others have mentioned, doing much better in the league will improve some revenue streams and keep the fans happy. Importantly, it will allow our current players to flourish, where the likes of an Alvarez would actually help Jackson's growth rather than hinder it.

But this is my point - the owners can make more money out of this venture by not prioritising success on the pitch first and foremost. This is the terrible incentive structure you fail to recognise.

So you can ask me to name what I would do, but what I am pointing out is that my model will get us closer to winning trophies but actually even if it does that may make us less money than our current up-market RB Leipzig / Brighton model.

The point is, there is no future point when the owners switch the model and become more flexible. They are just going to keep doubling, tripling, 10xing down on their current model because it has the highest potential for profit and that is their overrriding motive.

[Max Fowler]

6 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

What I was actually saying was that maybe Duran was the best fit based on those available this summer. Duran may be option B or C, but if those options above aren’t available for a fee we’re willing to pay and so rather than just go to another expensive player in that position ‘because they’re good’, we’re going for a different option for a fee we deem acceptable for the return he’ll give us and to ensure we can strengthen adequately this summer in other positions. We then come back to that position next summer if still required and look at options A and B again.

That's fair enough, Sam. But I don't know on what criteria Duran can possibly be option B or C - those criteria are clearly not "who is the best striker for the job" (i.e. who will improve the team the most). Duran wouldn't even be option Z on best strikers around. 

He is clearly being bought as an investment, as an asset, he's not being bought because he has some specific qualities that complement Nicolas Jackson, other than he is young and won't take his place.

Again, the way you improve squads is by buying better players to compete with the existing players, not by buying young players to avoid taking the places of the existing crop.

Common. Sense.

[My Blood Is Blue]

6 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Again, these players were signed as an initial outlay:

a) to set up the model
b) because it was effectively required in the contract

There will be no more signings on the upper end of this price bracket, perhaps unless we sell a big player like Enzo for big money, nor will there be any significant experienced players added.

(we signed Nkunku under RA btw, no way we would sign someone that experienced any more).

I have mentioned the likes of an Alvarez who think could be turned for 60-80 million. Maybe a Marc Guehi. A proper goalkeeper too. I don't know what the exact PSR finances are but if we have 70 million at least to spend on kids, and we will see more, I would redirect that into at least a couple of experienced signings to improve the squad. They don't have to cost the earth.

As others have mentioned, doing much better in the league will improve some revenue streams and keep the fans happy. Importantly, it will allow our current players to flourish, where the likes of an Alvarez would actually help Jackson's growth rather than hinder it.

But this is my point - the owners can make more money out of this venture by not prioritising success on the pitch first and foremost. This is the terrible incentive structure you fail to recognise.

So you can ask me to name what I would do, but what I am pointing out is that my model will get us closer to winning trophies but actually even if it does that may make us less money than our current up-market RB Leipzig / Brighton model.

The point is, there is no future point when the owners switch the model and become more flexible. They are just going to keep doubling, tripling, 10xing down on their current model because it has the highest potential for profit and that is their overrriding motive.

If the owners sold in 5 years, how much more do you think they’d get for it than what they paid? 

[Max Fowler]

3 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

If the owners sold in 5 years, how much more do you think they’d get for it than what they paid? 

Strange question Sam, why would they possibly sell in 5 years? As shown, they could keep hold of us for 30 years and get an incredible 9% CAGR a year, plus they are clearly implementing a long-term model that will cause short-term pain in order to deliver increasing profits over the coming years.

[My Blood Is Blue]

3 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Strange question Sam, why would they possibly sell in 5 years? As shown, they could keep hold of us for 30 years and get an incredible 9% CAGR a year, plus they are clearly implementing a long-term model that will cause short-term pain in order to deliver increasing profits over the coming years.

Cool, so we’ve got 30 years of them refusing to invest in on the pitch success. Can’t wait.