Our Transfer Strategy for the last 10 years

The football observatory have looked at player trading over the last 10 years and we rank 33rd for transfer losses over that period.

Them down the road rank 45th for most profit aka asset stripping by the yanks if you speak to their fans.

Here's the article - https://football-observatory.com/WeeklyPost448.

What this shows to me is our club isn't run sensibly and sustainably and there's no strategy or a very poor one when it comes to player development either home grown or bought and improved.

This analysis shows relative success of clubs IF their strategy is to buy players and then sell them on. It's a big IF IMHO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

The football observatory have looked at player trading over the last 10 years and we rank 33rd for transfer losses over that period.

Them down the road rank 45th for most profit aka asset stripping by the yanks if you speak to their fans.

Here's the article - https://football-observatory.com/WeeklyPost448.

What this shows to me is our club isn't run sensibly and sustainably and there's no strategy or a very poor one when it comes to player development either home grown or bought and improved.

---

English clubs only Brighton and Brentford are ahead of Swansea, their transfer policy here and we would be an established Premier League team wth Tan's financial backing, it shows how much he's wasted by not getting a football man in and appointing apprentice ex footballer managers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpersforGoalposts

This analysis shows relative success of clubs IF their strategy is to buy players and then sell them on. It's a big IF IMHO!

---

I don't think so, most people think Brentford and Brighton are very well-run clubs and both feature highly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PontBlue

The football observatory have looked at player trading over the last 10 years and we rank 33rd for transfer losses over that period.

Them down the road rank 45th for most profit aka asset stripping by the yanks if you speak to their fans.

Here's the article - https://football-observatory.com/WeeklyPost448.

What this shows to me is our club isn't run sensibly and sustainably and there's no strategy or a very poor one when it comes to player development either home grown or bought and improved.

---

As soon as I saw the title for this post my immediate thought was "have we had a transfer strategy for the last 10 years?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

As soon as I saw the title for this post my immediate thought was "have we had a transfer strategy for the last 10 years?"

---

a few years ago (post Warnock) there was a quote from someone at the club (can't remember who) possibly when we were signing the likes of wintle and Ng that we would be avoiding paying a transfer fee for older players who would have no residual value unless in exceptional circumstances. Older players should be on a free and a fee should only be paid for younger up and coming players who have the chance to increase in value.

to me this sounds eminently sensible, and as far as I can tell we've largely stuck with it for the last couple of seasons (although possibly only because we had an embargo)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

As soon as I saw the title for this post my immediate thought was "have we had a transfer strategy for the last 10 years?"

---

How about buying players represented by an agency with an employee who is related to the manager - is that a strategy ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch Mort

How about buying players represented by an agency with an employee who is related to the manager - is that a strategy ?

---

it's absolutely a strategy, just not one that benefits the club

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

it's absolutely a strategy, just not one that benefits the club

---

Strategy of conspiracy?

Ours club is not the best , however we do very well , being Welsh and geographical based does not appeal to a lot of other English players / clubs , so we lose out and pay more , English based players would naturally pick a club closer to him and his family in England , or we stump up bigger rewards which makes our transfers look poorer in value ..

As for development youngsters we are prone to severe poaching /scouting by the big clubs due to the their monetary power /promises that is flashed under the noses of parents and the players ..

And hey what evil Ingerlunnder want's to play for a club that reminds them which side of the bridge to shit on .

We are and have been for a long time in the second tier of one of the best leagues in the world ,lets just enjoy it for what it is decent footy in a decent league with some decent moments in the last 20 years or so ..

""Nurse please bring the tranquilisers I'm feeling down again ""

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

a few years ago (post Warnock) there was a quote from someone at the club (can't remember who) possibly when we were signing the likes of wintle and Ng that we would be avoiding paying a transfer fee for older players who would have no residual value unless in exceptional circumstances. Older players should be on a free and a fee should only be paid for younger up and coming players who have the chance to increase in value.

to me this sounds eminently sensible, and as far as I can tell we've largely stuck with it for the last couple of seasons (although possibly only because we had an embargo)

---

Might explain the hesitance in signing Kieffer.