Bidwell (2 Viewers)

[Ccfcisparks]

I could see the logic in signing Walker. No complaints there. I can see the thought behind signing Reese Allasani, Bouwe Bosma, Dexter Walters etc. a couple of years back, even that These type of punts sometimes work out, like it did with Sam Mc.

Waghorn and Bidwell are just Beavon and Junior Brown all over again.

Junior Brown, that everyone was buzzing with at the time of signing as he had just finished in the play offs with Shrewsbury and was attracting champ attention.

 

---

[The Philosopher]

I agree on Waghorn, but at 28 when he didn't cost a fee Bidwell still fits for me. It may not have worked (yet) but to have someone hopefully ready for the level with some valuable needed experience will always carry a certain level of risk on our budget. We've not fished the same pools as Brentford and their model for reinvestment is much more refined than ours with more calculated numbers in the background (hence why Warburton was moved on). I still believe with a full pre season that if he's injury free, Bidwell will be a huge asset next season.

If he was 28, then maybe, just maybe, on a free? Maybe. Derby paid £5m for him at 28 and then got FA for him at 31.

There. Just there. There is a perfect point to my theory. I don’t suggest anyone follows the Derby model.

He is 32 now. Not club will sign him and I’ll wager that we are stuck with him else we pay him off. He’s a negative asset. Not his fault, I’d see out my contract if I were in his shoes.

 

[Grendel]

If he was 28, then maybe, just maybe, on a free? Maybe. Derby paid £5m for him at 28 and then got FA for him at 31.

There. Just there. There is a perfect point to my theory. I don’t suggest anyone follows the Derby model.

He is 32 now. Not club will sign him and I’ll wager that we are stuck with him else we pay him off. He’s a negative asset. Not his fault, I’d see out my contract if I were in his shoes.

You would never have signed McFazdean then?

 

[The Philosopher]

Junior Brown, that everyone was buzzing with at the time of signing as he had just finished in the play offs with Shrewsbury and was attracting champ attention.

Junior Brown was 29 when we signed him.

I’ll stick to my guns on that.

 

[The Philosopher]

You would never have signed McFazdean then?

As said before, exceptions to model:

Midfield generals.

Players who spent several years part time early 20’s. For some reason they play on longer.

Fadz worked out well but now his age and lack of pace is showing.

 

[David O'Day]

Junior Brown, that everyone was buzzing with at the time of signing as he had just finished in the play offs with Shrewsbury and was attracting champ attention.

Wasn't he coming off a nasty ACL injury as Shrewsbury had a CB at LB for most of the season?

 

[Grendel]

As said before, exceptions to model:

Midfield generals.

Players who spent several years part time early 20’s. For some reason they play on longer.

Fadz worked out well but now his age and lack of pace is showing.

Liam Kelly
Simon Moore
Maxime Biamou

How many players have the club made profit on if you exclude Acadamy developed players regardless of age in the last say 5 years?

 

[The Philosopher]

Liam Kelly
Simon Moore
Maxime Biamou

How many players have the club made profit on if you exclude Acadamy developed players regardless of age in the last say 5 years?

Kelly is / was a general. Moore a GK (see above) Max - late to pro game.

Profits on

Sam Mc
Mark Mc

Both within model.

I’ll stick to my guns.

 

[fernandopartridge]

I could see the logic in signing Walker. No complaints there. I can see the thought behind signing Reese Allasani, Bouwe Bosma, Dexter Walters etc. a couple of years back, even that These type of punts sometimes work out, like it did with Sam Mc.

Waghorn and Bidwell are just Beavon and Junior Brown all over again.

Only because you've assumed that there is a "model like Brentford" rather than what in reality is just pragmatic use of the budget which might some times result in selling players on at profit. You can't recruit players solely on the basis of whether or not you are going to be able to sell them on in future.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Liam Kelly
Simon Moore
Maxime Biamou

How many players have the club made profit on if you exclude Acadamy developed players regardless of age in the last say 5 years?

Spot on, smart arse Philosopher goes on about a 'model' which doesn't exist and then uses it to critique the reaction of others to certain signings.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

The only concern for me is when the “model” (Brentford Model for the sake of argument) isn’t followed.

- Young players we can develop and potentially sell on to reinvest / improve

- avoid over 28’s where their contract will expire past 30 (unless GK) or a savvy midfield General / skipper where nous is more important than stamina or pace.

- If we need experience then choose wisely and on shorter contract or loan (eg M James). Extend if they prove themselves.

- foreign players by all means but make sure the scouting is done well.

It’s fairly straightforward.

Walker, Gyok, Hamer, Sheaf etc fit the model. We paid hefty fees (3m? Combined) but they are (combined) worth more now.

O’Hare, etc are worth fees, possibly cost a decent signing on fee, but follow the model.

Moore is a GK and different rules apply.

Waghorn, Bidwell don’t follow the model and are imo poor signings.

I was given dogs abuse at the start of the season when I said Waghorn was a strange signing when we had just released our only other strikers over 5 foot 10 (Biamou, Baka).

I suggested that we needed height and was given pelters when I suggested some huge 21 year old unit from down the road who Man City, Celtic and SWFC were apparently looking at. As it happens, said 21 year old hasn’t set the world alight.

My belief stays the same:

Stick to the model. No 31 year olds on big deals.

21 year olds locally need monitoring instead.

Make sure we have cover for our only big centre forward.

I’ll continue to ignore the drivel from the whoppers on here.

Brentford's model is primarily based on investing significantly into prized young talent from both home soil and aboard in order to re-sell for maximum value. We don't do that. We try and recruit young talent where possible granted, with the end goal of making a significant profit on them, but in the grand scheme of things the fees are usually inexpensive and we can only usually afford one or two purchases per season along with a mix of freebees and hail mary's.

Equally, our aspiration is primarily based on trying to unearth talent no one has really heard of/aren't actively pursuing, rather than Brentford who, especially in their Championship days, would pretty much just actively target the best young talent in the EFL season after season. Due to how restricted we are in our budget we just can't do that. Hence why I think we've tried our hand at targeting unwanted young players from PL clubs - E.g. Gyokeres, Sheaf, Dabo, and O'Hare etc. As either we are able to get them on frees or the fees paid are often inexpensive in the grand scheme of things.

So it's not really all that similar at all to be honest. I think as well, in order for our 'model', if you even want to call it that, to work we need to ensure we bring in experienced talent alongside the younger players in order to provide a solid balance in the team.

 

[stupot07]

You would never have signed McFazdean then?

Godden was 28 when we signed him.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[The Philosopher]

Godden was 28 when we signed him.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

See above. Spent several years non-league and I think will play longer into his 30’s.

He’s been a good-ish player when fit but at 30 what’s his market value?

I still think that unless we get some mad billionaire to invest we need to play the transfer market. Each time we chuck £750k (say £7/k week, 2 year deal, plus sign on for example) of our budget on a player it makes sense if there is a potential that we could recoup / sell on if need be.

29/30/31 year olds? No.

 

[Sky Blue Harry H]

You can't recruit players solely on the basis of whether or not you are going to be able to sell them on in future.

That's pretty much Bristol City's excuse for flouting/failing FFP !

 

[The Philosopher]

Brentford's model is primarily based on investing significantly into prized young talent from both home soil and aboard in order to re-sell for maximum value. We don't do that. We try and recruit young talent where possible granted, with the end goal of making a significant profit on them, but in the grand scheme of things the fees are usually inexpensive and we can only usually afford one or two purchases per season.

Equally, our aspiration is primarily based on trying to unearth talent no one has really heard of/aren't actively pursuing, rather than Brentford who, especially in their Championship days, would pretty much just actively target the best young talent in the EFL season after season. Due to how restricted we are in our budget we just can't do that. Hence why I think we've tried our hand at targeting unwanted young players from PL clubs - E.g. Gyokeres, Sheaf, Dabo, and O'Hare etc. As either we are able to get them on frees or the fees paid are often inexpensive in the grand scheme of things.

So it's not really all that similar at all to be honest. I think as well, in order for our 'model', if you even want to call it that, to work we need to ensure we bring in experienced talent alongside the younger players in order to provide a solid balance in the team.

Don’t disagree.

I suppose in a way the McA fee covered Walker - which is in line with above.

I hope that if we sell Gus / Gyok / Cal we follow what Brentford did and sign the best young players from L1/2 and not a load of older players.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Don’t disagree.

I suppose in a way the McA fee covered Walker - which is in line with above.

I hope that if we sell Gus / Gyok / Cal we follow what Brentford did and sign the best young players from L1/2 and not a load of older players.

We won't be able to bring in the best young talent in L1/L2. Those markets are now being more actively pursued by Championship clubs, meaning we'd struggle to compete as even if we matched a transfer fee we'd almost certainly be beaten to the signing due to wages offered.

Equally the demanded fees quoted for many top players in both leagues are far out of reach for us. It's quickly becoming an inflated market, not helped by the fact clubs can't really sign players from the European lower divisions anymore.

 

[The Philosopher]

[QUOTE="KenilworthSkyBlue, post: 2485579, member: 10968"It's quickly becoming an inflated market, not helped by the fact clubs can't really sign players from the European lower divisions anymore.
[/QUOTE]
That’s true. Brexit means we have to concentrate on developing in our own academies. Pros and cons to that.

Bizarrely, the new visa rules means that a Ukrainian player can sign. I’m not advocating we do so and thoughts and prayers to Ukraine and all that; it was just something that came to mind as a technicality.

 

[The Philosopher]

[QUOTE="KenilworthSkyBlue, post: 2485579, member: 10968"It's quickly becoming an inflated market, not helped by the fact clubs can't really sign players from the European lower divisions anymore.

That’s true. Brexit means we have to concentrate on developing in our own academies. Pros and cons to that.

Bizarrely, the new visa rules means that a Ukrainian player can sign. I’m not advocating we do so and thoughts and prayers to Ukraine and all that; it was just something that came to mind as a technicality.
[/QUOTE]
And before I get more pelters I’d happily advocate the Ukrainian U18 boys and Girls teams coming to Cov to train at Ryton.

Pelt away.

 

[rob9872]

If he was 28, then maybe, just maybe, on a free? Maybe. Derby paid £5m for him at 28 and then got FA for him at 31.

There. Just there. There is a perfect point to my theory. I don’t suggest anyone follows the Derby model.

He is 32 now. Not club will sign him and I’ll wager that we are stuck with him else we pay him off. He’s a negative asset. Not his fault, I’d see out my contract if I were in his shoes.

Why have you responded about Waghorn who I said I agreed on and went on to say why I thought Bidwell was ok but you ignored that? Bidwell is 28 and was on a free!

 

[Grendel]

Kelly is / was a general. Moore a GK (see above) Max - late to pro game.

Profits on

Sam Mc
Mark Mc

Both within model.

I’ll stick to my guns.

Two in 10 years wow

 

[Ccfcisparks]

Two in 10 years wow

In the last 10 years ive got Juke, Keogh, Mcnulty, McCallum, Chaplin,

 

[higgs]

A new set of pads and he will be motoring just fine

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[The Philosopher]

Spot on, smart arse Philosopher goes on about a 'model' which doesn't exist and then uses it to critique the reaction of others to certain signings.

Dave Boddy podcast, 57 mins onwards.



Specifically talks about following the Brentford model.

“Smart Arse Philosopher”. Yep that be me.

Get back in your pear tree and wipe your face down. Egg on it.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Dave Boddy podcast, 57 mins onwards.



Specifically talks about following the Brentford model.

“Smart Arse Philosopher”. Yep that be me.

Get back in your pear tree and wipe your face down. Egg on it.

Regardless of what he said we don't.

Finding young players to sell on for profit isn't a model invented by Brentford. I don't really get what's so difficult to understand about that.

We aspire to find young promising players to sell on for profit where we can but the bulk of our recruitment is built upon finding decent free agents and to fill gaps with loans. Essentially we do the best we can with what's available.

We don't follow the Brentford model and we couldn't even if we wanted to due to lack of resources available and probably more crucially how the club operates.

 

[The Philosopher]

Regardless of what he said we don't.

Finding young players to sell on for profit isn't a model invented by Brentford. I don't really get what's so difficult to understand about that.

We aspire to find young promising players to sell on for profit where we can but the bulk of our recruitment is built upon finding decent free agents and to fill gaps with loans. Essentially we do the best we can with what's available.

We don't follow the Brentford model and we couldn't even if we wanted to due to lack of resources available and probably more crucially how the club operates.

Dave Boddy says that we are looking to follow the Brentford model.

You know better than Dave Boddy.

Ok.

Right ho.

My personal thought, clearly, repeatedly and in line to a degree with what you say, is that the signing of Waghorn didn’t fit the “model”. Hence my initial and continuous pointing out that I thought it strange and a bad bit of business.

I’m sticking to my guns because:

I’m right.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Dave Boddy says that we are looking to follow the Brentford model.

You know better than Dave Boddy.

Ok.

Right ho.

My personal thought, clearly, repeatedly and in line to a degree with what you say, is that the signing of Waghorn didn’t fit the “model”. Hence my initial and continuous pointing out that I thought it strange and a bad but of business.

I’m sticking to my guns because:

I’m right.

I'm not saying I know more than Dave Boddy, I've said I disagree with his view that we follow the Brentford model.

We may well aspire to follow it but that's quite a bit different than actually following it.

Over the past 5 years look at how much they've invested and re-invested into players. Equally look at the type of player they've gone for. It's completely different to our transfer dealings.

The fact we signed a player like Waghorn pretty much proves that we don't follow their model.

Do you really think signing Fabio Tavares for a pittance for instance is the same as spending nearly £2m on Ollie Watkins from Exeter?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Dave Boddy says that we are looking to follow the Brentford model.

You know better than Dave Boddy.

Ok.

Right ho.

My personal thought, clearly, repeatedly and in line to a degree with what you say, is that the signing of Waghorn didn’t fit the “model”. Hence my initial and continuous pointing out that I thought it strange and a bad bit of business.

I’m sticking to my guns because:

I’m right.

It's because "the model" isn't there, there is no model. Some of the signings made might appear to be aligned to a model but it is not by any real design.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Two in 10 years wow

McNulty was 24/25 when he signed

 

[Grendel]

In the last 10 years ive got Juke, Keogh, Mcnulty, McCallum, Chaplin,

Chaplin made very little profit did he? So its not much of a model in reality

 

[Grendel]

Dave Boddy says that we are looking to follow the Brentford model.

You know better than Dave Boddy.

Ok.

Right ho.

My personal thought, clearly, repeatedly and in line to a degree with what you say, is that the signing of Waghorn didn’t fit the “model”. Hence my initial and continuous pointing out that I thought it strange and a bad bit of business.

I’m sticking to my guns because:

I’m right.

Its a great model - the owner lent them over £100m on low interest loans so I am pleased that SISU have changed the approach and I look forward to seeing the evidence in the next set of accounts

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Only because you've assumed that there is a "model like Brentford" rather than what in reality is just pragmatic use of the budget which might some times result in selling players on at profit. You can't recruit players solely on the basis of whether or not you are going to be able to sell them on in future.

Experienced players can probably help bring on the younger ones too, make them more likely to be sold at profit.

 

[KenilworthSkyBlue]

Chaplin made very little profit did he? So its not much of a model in reality

You can't really count Chaplin anyway as I think luck had a lot to do with money being made on his sale.

Again, isn't really synonymous with a carefully thought out strategic model.

 

[The Philosopher]

Chaplin made very little profit did he? So its not much of a model in reality

Problem with undisclosed fees is that we don’t know.

Boddy in his podcast specifically mentions that we made “substantial profit” on Chaplin and placed emphasis on that.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Grendel]

Problem with undisclosed fees is that we don’t know.

Boddy in his podcast specifically mentions that we made “substantial profit” on Chaplin and placed emphasis on that.

Make of that what you will.

It was about £200,000 from memory when you look at the accounts

 

[The Philosopher]

Experienced players can probably help bring on the younger ones too, make them more likely to be sold at profit.

That’s the job of specific development coaches but I get your point.