The problem with selling before buying

[basskadet]

Having to "sell before we buy" has seemingly become the new catchphrase over recent transfer windows. I understand why clubs feel this way, especially whilst trying to operate in this weakened economy of the past couple years, but I genuinely feel that this stance causes more problems than its worth.

I guess clubs believe that, in order to add to their squad, they have to free up space in that squad first. Harry more or less said exactly that the other day when he rhetorically asked what he could possibly want with 5 strikers. There is also the financial side of the argument that, if we want to pay £10-£15m on a player, then we need to bring in as much of that money before we can spend it, and we do that by selling players who no longer feature in our future plans.

However, I have a MAJOR issue with the whole "sell before you buy" stance, & the rumour that Jenas has refused a move to Stoke City because he would prefer to stay and fight for his place is evidence of those issues I have (even if it is true or not, it still illustrates the point I'm making nicely).

What this stance does is put all the cards into the player's hand. The club think they are covering their back but actually they are making things much harder for themselves. "Selling before you buy" strikes me as very shallow solution to protecting a club's position. Basically, it makes it far too easy for your players to dig their heels in and the Jenas rumour shows exactly how it can work against a us. With squads limited to 25 players, and with a "sell before you buy" policy, a transfer-listed player knows that all he has to do is refuse any offers & he can stay at his club. He might not be currently in that club's plans but, if he refuses to leave, he forces himself into consideration. However, if we had bought first & got exactly who we wanted in, then the transfer-listed player would HAVE to consider other options as he would become the 26th player in a 25-man squad.

you can also then focus all your attention on selling that player for the best price without having to force yourself into doing it quickly to allow yourself enough time to replace him. The only problem is with the wages, but it would only mean paying an extra player for a few weeks and I guarantee that, if a player is not in that 25-man squad, he will be itching to get out the club as fast as possible, rather than happily playing silly-buggrs by refusing to leave.

I don't understand why money in regards to the transfer fees should even come into it either. You will still get the money whether you sell the player before you buy another or after, it makes no difference. Besides, we should have PLENTY of cash in our coffers for us not to have to scrape £5m from here & £4m from here just so that we can spend £15m over there.

Tbh, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the prudent tippy-toeing with which we have approached the last 2 transfer windows. I know we've spent lots of money with little reward in the past but that should not mean that we never spend again. In fact, it should only show that we should spend it more wisely but not more penuriously. If we could justify spending over £16m on flipping Darren Bent how are we possibly umming & ahhing over spending a similar amount on Luis Fabiano or our other supposed striking targets? I know Harry says he is happy with his squad but even Alex Ferguson strengthened his team after he won the treble, Harry cannot seriously expect me to buy that we don't need to because we finished 4th last year and qualified for Europe. We simply do not have the calibre of players to succeed on 2 fronts and I am pretty distraught that we have, so far, failed to really push on. EVERYONE could see that we desperately need a player who can make us more ruthless in the final 3rd, whether that is a striker or an AM or both, and who do we bring in? Another DM & an ageing central defender . . .

[Rev John Ripsher]

I hear you loud and clear Bass , but clubs are going through a shocked-into-reality phase which means that they are exercising good husbandry apropos financing and everyone apart from the obvious 5 or 6 super rich clubs are being ultra cautious . This is no bad thing and will hopefully mean that less clubs will get into trouble by providing a working model for survival .

( Damn it , I do wish we'd buy someone really big !! )

[USpur]

We aren't exactly poor and are one of the few well run clubs in the world. Spending some of the CL money wouldn't put us at risk to pull a Leeds.

[1990Hotspur]

Having to "sell before we buy" has seemingly become the new catchphrase over recent transfer windows. I understand why clubs feel this way, especially whilst trying to operate in this weakened economy of the past couple years, but I genuinely feel that this stance causes more problems than its worth.

I guess clubs believe that, in order to add to their squad, they have to free up space in that squad first. Harry more or less said exactly that the other day when he rhetorically asked what he could possibly want with 5 strikers. There is also the financial side of the argument that, if we want to pay £10-£15m on a player, then we need to bring in as much of that money before we can spend it, and we do that by selling players who no longer feature in our future plans.

However, I have a MAJOR issue with the whole "sell before you buy" stance, & the rumour that Jenas has refused a move to Stoke City because he would prefer to stay and fight for his place is evidence of those issues I have (even if it is true or not, it still illustrates the point I'm making nicely).

What this stance does is put all the cards into the player's hand. The club think they are covering their back but actually they are making things much harder for themselves. "Selling before you buy" strikes me as very shallow solution to protecting a club's position. Basically, it makes it far too easy for your players to dig their heels in and the Jenas rumour shows exactly how it can work against a us. With squads limited to 25 players, and with a "sell before you buy" policy, a transfer-listed player knows that all he has to do is refuse any offers & he can stay at his club. He might not be currently in that club's plans but, if he refuses to leave, he forces himself into consideration. However, if we had bought first & got exactly who we wanted in, then the transfer-listed player would HAVE to consider other options as he would become the 26th player in a 25-man squad.

you can also then focus all your attention on selling that player for the best price without having to force yourself into doing it quickly to allow yourself enough time to replace him. The only problem is with the wages, but it would only mean paying an extra player for a few weeks and I guarantee that, if a player is not in that 25-man squad, he will be itching to get out the club as fast as possible, rather than happily playing silly-buggrs by refusing to leave.

I don't understand why money in regards to the transfer fees should even come into it either. You will still get the money whether you sell the player before you buy another or after, it makes no difference. Besides, we should have PLENTY of cash in our coffers for us not to have to scrape £5m from here & £4m from here just so that we can spend £15m over there.

Tbh, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the prudent tippy-toeing with which we have approached the last 2 transfer windows. I know we've spent lots of money with little reward in the past but that should not mean that we never spend again. In fact, it should only show that we should spend it more wisely but not more penuriously. If we could justify spending over £16m on flipping Darren Bent how are we possibly umming & ahhing over spending a similar amount on Luis Fabiano or our other supposed striking targets? I know Harry says he is happy with his squad but even Alex Ferguson strengthened his team after he won the treble, Harry cannot seriously expect me to buy that we don't need to because we finished 4th last year and qualified for Europe. We simply do not have the calibre of players to succeed on 2 fronts and I am pretty distraught that we have, so far, failed to really push on. EVERYONE could see that we desperately need a player who can make us more ruthless in the final 3rd, whether that is a striker or an AM or both, and who do we bring in? Another DM & an ageing central defender . . .

Exactly, I have never understood that either. If the club wants to run within their means, then as long as the net spend overall in the window is at a suitable level for the club, then the order that this is done shouldn't matter. It seems to create more issues per transfer.

I would also add to you point about what we need, that we also know that with our current group of players, that we can not play any other formation other than 4-4-2, which make us very predictable......

[basskadet]

I hear you loud and clear Bass , but clubs are going through a shocked-into-reality phase which means that they are exercising good husbandry apropos financing and everyone apart from the obvious 5 or 6 super rich clubs are being ultra cautious . This is no bad thing and will hopefully mean that less clubs will get into trouble by providing a working model for survival .

( Damn it , I do wish we'd buy someone really big !! )

Yeah, I get that, but I see the whole "sell before you buy" as a very short-sighted approach to being cautious. In my opinion it actually could be more harmful because if you get the players you want & you improve the squad then you finish higher up the rLeague go further in competitions & all that = mo' money!

If we have a player, who we deem not good enough, able to force himself to remain at the club then we don't get the money in from selling him and the club doesn't perform as well as it otherwise could. If we want to sell a player it actually serves us better to bring another player in first because that way the club holds all the cards. We can take our time better and really focus on the sale & the player will be urging us on too, rather than trying to be difficult & picky. Beggars can't be choosers, as they say.

I know that, in the real world, it is always much tougher to sell than it is to buy but football seems to exist in another universe & that theory, in my opinion, is almost flipped on its head - its easier to sell than it is to buy. If you have decent players, like we do (& yes Jenas is decent, even if he ain't right for us anymore), then you will always find a club that will buy him. The only hard part is getting the value that you want for that player but if you are able to oncentrate fully on the sale you are much more likely to get closer to your actual valuation. However, if you want a top, top quality player it is much harder to convince his current club to sell him. They will ask for top dollar & play hardball, as Seville did with Fabiano.

I would also add to you point about what we need, that we also know that with our current group of players, that we can not play any other formation other than 4-4-2, which make us very predictable......

Yeah, I agree & was going to go into more detail but I waffle on too much as it is I felt that I was deviating from the point I was really trying to make. However, getting a player in who helps play a 433 or a 451 is essential and a new central defender, a DM now a goalkeeper doesn't really help us. I guess Sandro probably does a little bit as we can now play 2 ball-winners in the middle but what we really need is an attacker who can unlock defences in the final 3rd & someone who can finish properly in order to take some of the pressure off of Defoe.

I seriously cannot believe Jenas, Hutton & Keane are (currently) still at this football club.