New Scouts to be appointed

[Vermilion]

And now I will contradict myself. Newcastle benefited massively by selling Andy Carroll!

In the short term maybe, but when all the non Geordies have long gone, because regardless of what Ashley pays them..they will show no loyalty and go off to bigger clubs, whereas if they had paid AC what he wanted or near enough...then he would have stayed regardless of which club came in for him, he'd have been a Newcastle player probably for all his career, and if he really turns into a top player, it will be Newcastles loss.

But yeah, for now..they benefitted.

[Neil Young]

That's kind of missing the point. A club benefits far more from an asset (be it player or manager) whilst they are at the club than the one off fee they recieve when they are gone. It's simple economics - ROI ! A prime example was the sale of Alonso - we got good money for him but have failed to qualify for the Champions league losing out on revenue (around £80m) and we have never recovered since he left.

Ok, I'll see your Alonso and raise you Torres. How much did we get for a sulky player who didn't want to play for the club and was out of form?

The basic problem is that your first statement - "the only beneficiary of [contracts] is the individual and not the club - is demonstrably wrong. It only takes one example to disprove it.

[saj]

Ok, I'll see your Alonso and raise you Torres. How much did we get for a sulky player who didn't want to play for the club and was out of form?

The basic problem is that your first statement - "the only beneficiary of [contracts] is the individual and not the club - is demonstrably wrong. It only takes one example to disprove it.

OK I will raise Torres back at you. How exactly have we benefited from selling him?

At the time we sold him, he had scored 9 goals in 23 games. Most of those were under Uncle Roy. When Dalglish came in, his strike rate and performances improved vastly. He smacked in 4 goals I think. In any case his strike rate was still 0.4 goals per game which is far better than any of our forwards from last season. Since he left, we have struggled for goals. Did we not have the lowest conversion rate in the premier ship? Had we converted more chances would have finished higher up the league? In fact there was a stat flying around that if we had converted JUST the chances that hit the bar/post, we would have finished 3rd (but this fact is irrelevant as the bar/post was not hit by 1 player) and therefore generated more money from Champions League money as well a further £3m from the premier league by finishing higher in the league? And how did we benefit financially from his sale? We didn't as the money was poorly invested (as per the some of the money invested after the Alonso sale).

Yes he was sulky but Suarez is far worse than him - it's called desire to succeed. Yes he didn't want to play for the club and this backs up my initial point about contracts that when a player decides he wants to leave and the club do not want to sell him, it's only the player that benefits. And if you have noticed when players state they want to leave, their value becomes lower. Torres (Rafa even said this) was being valued at around £70m and Rafa said he was surprised he was sold for "only" £50m. Mascherano only went for £22m even though he was worth £30m. So the benefit of a a contract to the player is:

- guarantees a player will get paid vast sums of money even if they are ****

- a player can leave whenever they want even though they are under contract

Benefits to the club - **** all other than a one off fee which is irrelevant if they are still wanted by the club and seen as an asset. Oh and don't forget about revenue generated by shirt sales too. I can pretty much guarantee not many LFC supporters wanted to see him sold. Yes he has struggled since but you don't become bad player over night - he could quite easily bang in 30+ goals next season. I suppose a club only benefits if they want rid of the player and they get a good fee which is rare. Ryan Babel is an example. Aquilani is another

[Charly]

OK I will raise Torres back at you. How exactly have we benefited from selling him?

To be fair, we were £50m better off.

It no one elses fault that we spent it poorly. That is a completely different arguement, on how you replace the asset you have sold. The fact is, contracts protect the club as well as the player.

[Neil Young]

The balance of who benefits between the player and the club also changes according to the size of the club. Bigger clubs tend to pay high and sell low. Contracts are of greater benefit to smaller clubs.

The real meaning underlying saj's view is that selling a player when a club doesn't want to usually isn't to the benefit of the club. Which is presumably why they don't want to sell him.

So he's wrong to say the club don't benefit at all and it's a tautology to say the club would be better off keeping a player they want to keep.

[saj]

To be fair, we were £50m better off.

It no one elses fault that we spent it poorly. That is a completely different arguement, on how you replace the asset you have sold. The fact is, contracts protect the club as well as the player.

Yes. But what about revenue lost from finishing lower in the league that COULD have been prevented if the player was still at the club?

My argument is that contracts protect the player more than the club, far more. From a cash flow as well as team performance perspective a club benefits much more from a valuable player than a one off fee and this is largely down to TV money from Champions league as if you have the better players your team will perform better well as shirt sales etc. Clubs could benefit more from contracts if they inserted release clauses. The Portuguese teams have demonstrated this

[Neil Young]

Yes. But what about revenue lost from finishing lower in the league that COULD have been prevented if the player was still at the club?

My argument is that contracts protect the player more than the club, far more. From a cash flow as well as team performance perspective a club benefits much more from a valuable player than a one off fee and this is largely down to TV money from Champions league as if you have the better players your team will perform better well as shirt sales etc. Clubs could benefit more from contracts if they inserted release clauses. The Portuguese teams have demonstrated this

Shifting your ground.

You had said the clubs don't benefit and that's why I disagreed, and probably why Charly did too. Now you're saying the players benefit more, which is probably true in most cases. But then, they're the talent.

[saj]

The balance of who benefits most also changes according to the size of the club. Bigger clubs tend to pay high and sell low. Contracts are of greater benefit to smaller clubs.

The real meaning underlying saj's view is that selling a player when a club doesn't want to usually isn't to the benefit of the club. Which is presumably why they don't want to sell him.

So he's wrong to say the club don't benefit at all and it's a tautology to say the club would be better off keeping a player they want to keep.

I fully agree with that point as certain clubs are known as "selling clubs" and their business model is based around the sale of players.

But IMO big clubs do not benefit at all as the income generated from a sale of a player is not really significant when you look at all other factors. For us it has caused our downfall and the sale of players such as Alonso and Torres proved this. But then you look at teams like Arsenal and even the scum and they don't seem to been affected too much by losing players over the years

[saj]

Shifting your ground.

You had said the clubs don't benefit and that's why I disagreed, and probably why Charly did too. Now you're saying the players benefit more, which is probably true in most cases. But then, they're the talent.

I did not literally mean the Club loses out completely and gets nothing! My argument is they don't get much when you look at the long term benefits a player can bring to a club.

[Neil Young]

Ok, ignoring your first comment where that's exactly what you said...

At the risk of repeating myself, all you're really saying is that clubs lose out when a player wants to leave and they don't want to sell him.

And, in that situation, it's better to sell an unhappy player than to keep him to the terms of his contract. That's why they sell them.

In short, clubs act in what they perceive to be their own interest in whatever situation they find themselves in.

I know, it's almost impossible to believe...