Mario Balotelli [On the Road to Ballon d'or)

[kev776]

But how much risk? Everybody knew what we were getting, a lazy selfish half arsed player who does a bit of magic once a year. To City or Chelsea 15m plus (70-90k a week) spent on him is maybe a viable risk but for our club it is not a risk, it is a monumental waste of limited funds.

[red g]

it does make me wonder....Remy was a massive risk to, half the price, half the wage.

The only reason we risked Balotelli and not Remy...Is someone thought with Balotelli's talent if it worked we could double our money.

On the face of it the Remy deal looked a by far far better deal.

[dww]

But how much risk? Everybody knew what we were getting, a lazy selfish half arsed player who does a bit of magic once a year. To City or Chelsea 15m plus (70-90k a week) spent on him is maybe a viable risk but for our club it is not a risk, it is a monumental waste of limited funds.

Until he joined us he has always been a 1 in 3-ish striker with occasional outbreaks of excellence. He also bought in good commercial revenue. I think it was a reasonable assumption was that we would get half a season of solid performances before his discipline became an issue (roughly what happened at his other clubs), both the excellent hoped for/expected by some and the abject uselessness that we actually saw were to my mind not the most likely outcomes (looking at it without hindsight).

[kev776]

Until he joined us he has always been a 1 in 3-ish striker with occasional outbreaks of excellence. He also bought in good commercial revenue. I think it was a reasonable assumption was that we would get half a season of solid performances before his discipline became an issue (roughly what happened at his other clubs), both the excellent hoped for/expected by some and the abject uselessness that we actually saw were to my mind not the most likely outcomes (looking at it without hindsight).

I see what you are saying but going back to risk, could we afford that level of risk? His primary role is to score goals, remembering that our other striker is verging on sicknote status. Half a season and a few extra shirts sold is no way to compensate for what we lost to Barca and to try and consolidate a season like we had.

It was a major mistake, way beyond "Risk" it should never have happened.

[The Birdman]

it does make me wonder....Remy was a massive risk to, half the price, half the wage.

The only reason we risked Balotelli and not Remy...Is someone thought with Balotelli's talent if it worked we could double our money.

On the face of it the Remy deal looked a by far far better deal.

The only reason we didn't take Remy was his medical.
We couldn't insure him or something like that.

[kev776]

The only reason we didn't take Remy was his medical.
We couldn't insure him or something like that.

How come other clubs could?

[Darkon]

I see what you are saying but going back to risk, could we afford that level of risk? His primary role is to score goals, remembering that our other striker is verging on sicknote status. Half a season and a few extra shirts sold is no way to compensate for what we lost to Barca and to try and consolidate a season like we had.

It was a major mistake, way beyond "Risk" it should never have happened.

Hardly anyone (noone) could have anticipated the goalless catastrophe that happened with Balotelli. Granted some said it wouldn't end happy, but I've hardly seen anyone suggest he wouldn't at the very least get some goals. Myabe not a 20+ striker, but surely most people, including those at the club, would reasonably have seen 10 goals in him.

Risk is a very funny concept, and it's a very subjective concept. Some are more risk-adverse than others, risk is percieved differently depending on what factors you incorporate in an analyzis and it weighs up differently for everyone.

I tend to agree with DWW, that as a clear cut investment back in August it looked like a decent chance with fairly little risk involved. Worst case we were likely to get most of the money back for him considering it's "only" 15m. Very little for a known striker in today's game.

That it ended up so incredibly poorly as it did (yes, some did say it was a stupid transfer, but even them...), I don't think the people involved or anyone outside could have forseen. In hindsight we lost out on the investment for sure and I'm excited to see how much we will be able to recuperate. I'm still quite certain the loss will be substantially less than on Carroll

[S-RED]

How come other clubs could?

Abramovich put up the money as a sort of guarantor (as such) to appease the insurers; pretty sure he did the same with torres too

[Darkon]

Abramovich put up the money as a sort of guarantor (as such) to appease the insurers; pretty sure he did the same with torres too

Taking about risks... who would have forseen that, much bigger catastophe than Balotelli but on paper a smaller risk. Just goes to show that you can't really make a formula for this ****.

[dww]

I see what you are saying but going back to risk, could we afford that level of risk? His primary role is to score goals, remembering that our other striker is verging on sicknote status. Half a season and a few extra shirts sold is no way to compensate for what we lost to Barca and to try and consolidate a season like we had.

It was a major mistake, way beyond "Risk" it should never have happened.

It certainly has proved to be so.

I think at the time though it was reasonable to assume that he would contribute on the pitch. He has usually done so short term at other clubs. That said I think if I'd know how Rodgers would use him I would have saved the money and looked for a much cheaper player who fit our style.

For me the club really ****ed up the risk assessment of Sturridge's fitness. The other decisions last summer (possibly bar Lovren) all make sense in isolation, it was the lack of coherent strategy and big picture thinking that made the overall package so poor.

[Rich]

I'm not going to dare suggest Mario has had a good season but we've not exactly played to the lad's strengths either have we?!

He's a better striker than what he's shown for us.

[BigChief]

I'm not going to dare suggest Mario has had a good season but we've not exactly played to the lad's strengths either have we?!

He's a better striker than what he's shown for us.

Only on the principle he couldn't be any stinkingly worse.

If a player requires THAT much adjustment to accommodate then he's simply not good enough. Despite Utd's long balls, even Fellaini didn't need that much adjusting to become half useful.

[BobTheCharmer]

He was played consistently when the team was struggling which in turn took away all his confidence. When it did seem to click of what was required and he had a positive effect for a few games in a row, he was dumped after penalty gate. Then he got limited time after that. In our systems last year hardly any striker would have got into double figures. Costa wouldn't have nor would van persie etc. Suarez would because he could create himself. Balotelli is a much better player than we saw but its easier to say he's **** and doesn't give a ****. I think he does care and is hurt by not playing. Still wonder what might of been had sturridge not got injured so early, it would have meant all the pressure wasn't put on balotelli from the off.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

Worth pointing out perhaps that if you read the first few pages of this thread, the general consensus was that for around £15m the Ballotelli purchase was relatively risk free financially. It wasn't just the transfer committee who thought his value would be pretty insulated, sure there were a few voices *waves* who always thought it would be a disaster on the pitch but even I am not convinced this one should go in the obvious-to-anyone financial ****up category with the Carroll's and Drownings etc.

Over time, even just a year people forget the circumstances around deals and this one is no different really. £16m for a player who has always had a reputation of 'if you can fix him he will be a star' seemed like worthwhile risk when you consider time was running out to bring in a striker and for whatever reason our planning was ****ed the second Sanchez decided against a move here.

The word 'risk' was always attached to this deal and I thought it was pretty much accepted he's a bit of a tit and it could backfire.

[Kenneth]

The consensus was that he was a good player but a tit, hence the acceptable risk at £16m. The consensus was wrong.