Christian Crapsen

[mark1975]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192150#msg1192150 date=1286651734]
alright mate, i can't argue with much of what you said, and i don't have a problem with people criticising rafa either, it's just a matter of opinion. i just think a lot of stuff in the media, and on here at times as well, is weirdly harsh - as if people really do have an agenda, as paranoid asthat sounds.
[/quote]

I don't think many have an agenda against Rafa. I think it's fair to say his record in the transfer market was 'ok', but his last two seasons saw £80m more or less wasted on poor buys and bad priorities.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=42097.msg1192303#msg1192303 date=1286707354]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192150#msg1192150 date=1286651734]
alright mate, i can't argue with much of what you said, and i don't have a problem with people criticising rafa either, it's just a matter of opinion. i just think a lot of stuff in the media, and on here at times as well, is weirdly harsh - as if people really do have an agenda, as paranoid asthat sounds.
[/quote]

I don't think many have an agenda against Rafa. I think it's fair to say his record in the transfer market was 'ok', but his last two seasons saw £80m more or less wasted on poor buys and bad priorities.
[/quote]


i don't think there's an agenda either, what i meant was that his fiercest critics are so ill-informed or stupid as to make it look like that.

e.g. £80m wasted. where do i start? how was £19m 'wasted' on keane when we got AT LEAST £12m (i don't know what takes it to £16m, but i'd bet that spurs' CL qualificaton would be part of it) back 6 months later? the projected fee for aquilani is £16m, recouping nearly all of the £18m paid out.

i know a lot of people disapprove of this thinking, but to me money isn't wasted if it can be recouped in short order. i can see that it wastes time, and that the resources could have been better employed for the period until they're liquidised, but wasted? no, not for me. wasted is spending £20m on diouf, diao, and cheyrou. or £5m on poulsen, if ever there's a player we'll have to fucking give away, he's one. i wouldn't be surprised if we lost more on him than we do on either keane or aquilani.

 

[Halmeister]

An under-performing Alonso was still better than an older, more expensive Gareth Barry. The fact he was willing to sell Alonso for about £14mil and buy Barry for £18mil was unforgettable. It would have been a disaster. Not as bad as the Aquilani replacement, obviously.

And in any case, it's not like Alonso was shit for two years. He was still a better player than Barry and still one of the best centre midfielders in the world.

 

[Squiggles]

Barry was better for at least one season.

 

[manwithnoname]

If we'd got Barry we'd have been better off in the long run, given that he's better than Lucarse, The Shithouse and Crapsen.

As for claiming that money wasn't 'wasted' on Keane and Aquilani, simply because we might get about half back vs what we spent; fuck *off*.

They were bought for huge sums, didn't play, and quicklt jettisoned. Who gives a *fuck* what we recouped? They were disastrous, wasteful signings for whatever reason, and were two of the main reasons Benitez isn't here anymore

 

[Squiggles]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192339#msg1192339 date=1286716438]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=42097.msg1192303#msg1192303 date=1286707354]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192150#msg1192150 date=1286651734]
alright mate, i can't argue with much of what you said, and i don't have a problem with people criticising rafa either, it's just a matter of opinion. i just think a lot of stuff in the media, and on here at times as well, is weirdly harsh - as if people really do have an agenda, as paranoid asthat sounds.
[/quote]

I don't think many have an agenda against Rafa. I think it's fair to say his record in the transfer market was 'ok', but his last two seasons saw £80m more or less wasted on poor buys and bad priorities.
[/quote]


i don't think there's an agenda either, what i meant was that his fiercest critics are so ill-informed or stupid as to make it look like that.

e.g. £80m wasted. where do i start? how was £19m 'wasted' on keane when we got AT LEAST £12m (i don't know what takes it to £16m, but i'd bet that spurs' CL qualificaton would be part of it) back 6 months later? the projected fee for aquilani is £16m, recouping nearly all of the £18m paid out.

i know a lot of people disapprove of this thinking, but to me money isn't wasted if it can be recouped in short order. i can see that it wastes time, and that the resources could have been better employed for the period until they're liquidised, but wasted? no, not for me. wasted is spending £20m on diouf, diao, and cheyrou. or £5m on poulsen, if ever there's a player we'll have to fucking give away, he's one. i wouldn't be surprised if we lost more on him than we do on either keane or aquilani.
[/quote]

That's just silly.

We haven't been able to spend the money we recouped, so it was totally wasted. We had one shot at it, and Rafa blew it.

 

[peterhague]

money isn't 'wasted' if it's recouped, that's just a fucking fact, undeniable - that's why i don't like people putting a figure of £80m or whatever on what he wasted. they were wasteful in other ways, absolutely, and definitely brought doubt on rafa's judgement, so that's a valid criticism.

but money recouped is absolutely important in analysing overall how bad a signing is: take aquilani, if we do manage to get £16m back (big if, yes) then that tells us that he's basically a quality player who wasn't suited to the english game. signing diouf and flogging him for what, £3m was it, tells us he was just a shit player full stop, ditto with cheyrou and diao.

clearly neither are the sort of signings we want, but it's much better to make recoverable mistakes on a player's suitability/adaptability/whatever, than on his absolute quality.

basically i think it's misleading to say he wasted £80m. it implies we're out of pocket to that tune, which just isn't true.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=42097.msg1192348#msg1192348 date=1286718566]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192339#msg1192339 date=1286716438]
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=42097.msg1192303#msg1192303 date=1286707354]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192150#msg1192150 date=1286651734]
alright mate, i can't argue with much of what you said, and i don't have a problem with people criticising rafa either, it's just a matter of opinion. i just think a lot of stuff in the media, and on here at times as well, is weirdly harsh - as if people really do have an agenda, as paranoid asthat sounds.
[/quote]

I don't think many have an agenda against Rafa. I think it's fair to say his record in the transfer market was 'ok', but his last two seasons saw £80m more or less wasted on poor buys and bad priorities.
[/quote]


i don't think there's an agenda either, what i meant was that his fiercest critics are so ill-informed or stupid as to make it look like that.

e.g. £80m wasted. where do i start? how was £19m 'wasted' on keane when we got AT LEAST £12m (i don't know what takes it to £16m, but i'd bet that spurs' CL qualificaton would be part of it) back 6 months later? the projected fee for aquilani is £16m, recouping nearly all of the £18m paid out.

i know a lot of people disapprove of this thinking, but to me money isn't wasted if it can be recouped in short order. i can see that it wastes time, and that the resources could have been better employed for the period until they're liquidised, but wasted? no, not for me. wasted is spending £20m on diouf, diao, and cheyrou. or £5m on poulsen, if ever there's a player we'll have to fucking give away, he's one. i wouldn't be surprised if we lost more on him than we do on either keane or aquilani.
[/quote]

That's just silly.

We haven't been able to spend the money we recouped, so it was totally wasted. We had one shot at it, and Rafa blew it.
[/quote]

what do you mean, we haven't spent the money we recouped? the keane money was spent. the aquilani money will be spent if/when we get it. why did we have one shot at it? was the money no good the second time around? if you're referring to the owners switching off the tap then that's their fault and absolutely fuck all to do with rafa.

 

[manwithnoname]

OK, so how would you describe the signing of Aquilani if 'wasteful' offends your literary sensibilities?

'Shite'?
'Fucking retarded'?

Much better. At least we didn't 'waste' all the money and he's now on-loan at Juve. Yep. Great.

 

[peterhague]

i told you: i didn't like the line that he wasted £80m, because i don't think it's true.

i've got no problem with calling aquilani's signing 'shite' or maybe even 'fucking retarded', although i might change my mind if we do end up getting £16m back in the summer. that'll make me feel a fair bit better about it than i did in the summer, when frankly i thought it was the worst signings i'd ever seen us make, and a big reason was that i didn't think a crock was worth anything in the market.

 

[monsieurdantes]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192360#msg1192360 date=1286720424]
i told you: i didn't like the line that he wasted £80m, because i don't think it's true.

i've got no problem with calling aquilani's signing 'shite' or maybe even 'fucking retarded', although i might change my mind if we do end up getting £16m back in the summer. that'll make me feel a fair bit better about it than i did in the summer, when frankly i thought it was the worst signings i'd ever seen us make, and a big reason was that i didn't think a crock was worth anything in the market.
[/quote]

if you were to stab me. then sponged up my blood off the floor and gave it to some sick child. i don't think my reaction would be to say you know what, its ok cos you didn't waste my blood. if you did that you'd pay the price just like benitez would do

 

[Paddy]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192360#msg1192360 date=1286720424]
i told you: i didn't like the line that he wasted £80m, because i don't think it's true.

i've got no problem with calling aquilani's signing 'shite' or maybe even 'fucking retarded', although i might change my mind if we do end up getting £16m back in the summer. that'll make me feel a fair bit better about it than i did in the summer, when frankly i thought it was the worst signings i'd ever seen us make, and a big reason was that i didn't think a crock was worth anything in the market.
[/quote]

Whereas if Benitez had to have made a better signing, we might not find ourselves without Champions League football, and in the relegation zone.

Conclusion been , he threw away money, it doesn't matter if we get it back when you take in to consideration what effect it had on the pitch.

 

[Buddha]

[quote author=monsieurdantes link=topic=42097.msg1192381#msg1192381 date=1286727573]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192360#msg1192360 date=1286720424]
i told you: i didn't like the line that he wasted £80m, because i don't think it's true.

i've got no problem with calling aquilani's signing 'shite' or maybe even 'fucking retarded', although i might change my mind if we do end up getting £16m back in the summer. that'll make me feel a fair bit better about it than i did in the summer, when frankly i thought it was the worst signings i'd ever seen us make, and a big reason was that i didn't think a crock was worth anything in the market.
[/quote]

if you were to stab me. then sponged up my blood off the floor and gave it to some sick child. i don't think my reaction would be to say you know what, its ok cos you didn't waste my blood. if you did that you'd pay the price just like benitez would do
[/quote]

I don't think that quite encapsulates what PH is saying eh?

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192351#msg1192351 date=1286719200]
money isn't 'wasted' if it's recouped, that's just a fucking fact, undeniable - that's why i don't like people putting a figure of £80m or whatever on what he wasted. they were wasteful in other ways, absolutely, and definitely brought doubt on rafa's judgement, so that's a valid criticism.

but money recouped is absolutely important in analysing overall how bad a signing is: take aquilani, if we do manage to get £16m back (big if, yes) then that tells us that he's basically a quality player who wasn't suited to the english game. signing diouf and flogging him for what, £3m was it, tells us he was just a shit player full stop, ditto with cheyrou and diao.

clearly neither are the sort of signings we want, but it's much better to make recoverable mistakes on a player's suitability/adaptability/whatever, than on his absolute quality.

basically i think it's misleading to say he wasted £80m. it implies we're out of pocket to that tune, which just isn't true.
[/quote]

Peter, this argument is fucking ridiculous. Of course it was wasted because the money was there to spend on the team and improve us, and ultimately it failed, so of course it was 'wasted'. We recouped just over half on Keane and were denied the chance to reinvest it in the squad. If he'd got it right in the first place we would have been better positioned and he might have kept his job. Really, as Brendan said, who gives a fuck whether we got money back? Ultimately over the course of two Summers we invested £80m in players and only Johnson is anything approaching a success (and even that is debatable).

It's not like the point is that he threw £80m away, that's not the point at all, the point is he had £80m to invest and he fucked it up.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=42097.msg1192411#msg1192411 date=1286737847]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192351#msg1192351 date=1286719200]
money isn't 'wasted' if it's recouped, that's just a fucking fact, undeniable - that's why i don't like people putting a figure of £80m or whatever on what he wasted. they were wasteful in other ways, absolutely, and definitely brought doubt on rafa's judgement, so that's a valid criticism.

but money recouped is absolutely important in analysing overall how bad a signing is: take aquilani, if we do manage to get £16m back (big if, yes) then that tells us that he's basically a quality player who wasn't suited to the english game. signing diouf and flogging him for what, £3m was it, tells us he was just a shit player full stop, ditto with cheyrou and diao.

clearly neither are the sort of signings we want, but it's much better to make recoverable mistakes on a player's suitability/adaptability/whatever, than on his absolute quality.

basically i think it's misleading to say he wasted £80m. it implies we're out of pocket to that tune, which just isn't true.
[/quote]

Peter, this argument is fucking ridiculous. Of course it was wasted because the money was there to spend on the team and improve us, and ultimately it failed, so of course it was 'wasted'. We recouped just over half on Keane and were denied the chance to reinvest it in the squad. If he'd got it right in the first place we would have been better positioned and he might have kept his job. Really, as Brendan said, who gives a fuck whether we got money back? Ultimately over the course of two Summers we invested £80m in players and only Johnson is anything approaching a success (and even that is debatable).

It's not like the point is that he threw £80m away, that's not the point at all, the point is he had £80m to invest and he fucked it up.
[/quote]


right, i'm not suggesting he didn't fuck up to whatever extent, just that there's 'fucking up' and fucking up. you can't seriously deny it's better to make a bad signing of a good player you can sell on at a small loss, than to make a bad signing of a bad player you make a huge loss on, can you?

just to prove my point's valid - say in theory a player was signed one day for £20m, and over the next day the manager got cold feet and managed to sell hm back for £20m, would you then say 'he wasted £20m'? or would it be more like 'well that was a fucking mess, but at least we didn't lose any money'?

to blame benitez that we were unable to spend the money from the sale is wrong. that is a separate issue, and the fault of the owners. oh, and from what i can gather, the fee for keane was expected to rise to £16m very quickly, so that's probably a more accurate estimate than £12m. that would mean we got 84% of the keane fee back, rather than just over half as you claimed.

as for who gives a fuck whether we got the money back - i do, and you can bet the club do as well.

 

[Farkmaster]

There's an opportunity cost for spending money and not having it be effective for an entire year. That's wasting it, whether you recoup it or not.

Especially when you have 0 net spend, any poor purchase is a waste.

 

[peterhague]

well, i briefly referred to the opportunity cost issue above, but that wastes opportunity, not money.

 

[Fabio]

Rafa wasted a skip-load of opportunity then

 

[Avmenon]

It's a valid point,pete..but The habit of continuously praising Rafa for getting some of the money back and moving on his shite as quickly as he can wore a little thin when it kept happening, unfortunately.

As for the possibility that we're gong to lose more money on 4.5 million Poulsen than we will on 19 million Keane (with 12 million recouped and a potential 4 milion extra) and 20 million Euro Aquilani (with a potential 16 million Euro recouped assuming Juventus exercises the option with 5% going to Roma) ,I highly doubt it..but we'll know for sure next season.

 

[Farkmaster]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192454#msg1192454 date=1286744525]
well, i briefly referred to the opportunity cost issue above, but that wastes opportunity, not money.
[/quote]

Awesome, you'll be happy to loan me several thousand pounds. I plan to invest it at a known interest rate, but I'm going to only pay you back the inflation-adjusted initial loan. I'll keep the interest I earn. After all, you won't have wasted anything.

 

[peterhague]

heh, the poulsen point was only half-serious, i doubt we'll lose more on him than we do on aquilani - but what i was getting at is that in some ways he's a worse signing than someone like keane because he's just patently shit and past it, and possibly reflects just as badly on hodgson as the aquilani debacle does on benitez. the likelihood that we get a decent amount back for aquilani at least attests that he's a good player, who might have worked out, and that there was some logic in going for him, something not true of the likes of poulsen, diouf, diao, and probably even paul konchesky.

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=42097.msg1192465#msg1192465 date=1286747464]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192454#msg1192454 date=1286744525]
well, i briefly referred to the opportunity cost issue above, but that wastes opportunity, not money.
[/quote]

Of [quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192454#msg1192454 date=1286744525]
well, i briefly referred to the opportunity cost issue above, but that wastes opportunity, not money.
[/quote]

Awesome, you'll be happy to loan me several thousand pounds. I plan to invest it at a known interest rate, but I'm going to only pay you back the inflation-adjusted initial loan. I'll keep the interest I earn. After all, you won't have wasted anything.
[/quote]


i'm not sure you understand the concept of opportunity cost. a decision's opportunity cost is the next most desirable course of action lost by taking the original decision. the opportunity cost of using transfer funds to sign robbie keane was the signing of the next-targeted player - handily in this instance we happen to know with some certainty that that player ws gareth barry.

so the financial cost of the keane fee was £19m less the amount recouped.

the opportunity cost was gareth barry. money doesn't come into the opp cost scenario.

 

[Farkmaster]

I do understand opportunity cost.

The most desirable course of action which is given up is often times more profitable. Finishing fourth based on not having a better suited player would represent a significant amount more money. Having the wrong players and having to wait a couple years to attempt to get the right ones is wasteful, on every single level.

It's hard to actually monetize what the knock on loss is, but to think it's not there beyond the basic accounting is a bit silly.

 

[peterhague]

we seem to be going round in cirlces. i'll stick with the keane example: firstly you said that the fact that an opportunity cost existed means the money was wasted. it doesn't. it means the opportunity to put that money to its alternative use is wasted: the signing of gareth barry - and, of course, everything that goes with that, whether that was winning the league, winning the CL, or any number of things we can never know.

is there something in that you disagree with? because, honestly, i feel like we're talking at cross purposes, and that ultimately all you've said is that the money could've been better spent. well, obviously.

 

[Fabio]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192541#msg1192541 date=1286789981]
we seem to be going round in cirlces. i'll stick with the keane example: firstly you said that the fact that an opportunity cost existed means the money was wasted. it doesn't. it means the opportunity to put that money to its alternative use is wasted: the signing of gareth barry - and, of course, everything that goes with that, whether that was winning the league, winning the CL, or any number of things we can never know.

is there something in that you disagree with? because, honestly, i feel like we're talking at cross purposes, and that ultimately all you've said is that the money could've been better spent. well, obviously.
[/quote]
but isn't that the key issue? With rafa in charge we had owners who were gradually slashing our transfer budget and slashing our options for replacements. If the money wasn't adequately spent initially, then surely it is classed as a waste?

 

[peterhague]

well yeah, but i blame the owners for that. i suppose you could say that rafa should've known he wouldn't get a second chance and that might possibly be true, but i still think it's a bit harsh to push that problem onto him.

i'd like to think he'd try to get all his deals right, whether they were one shot chances or not.

 

[Fabio]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192552#msg1192552 date=1286791281]
well yeah, but i blame the owners for that. i suppose you could say that rafa should've known he wouldn't get a second chance and that might possibly be true, but i still think it's a bit harsh to push that problem onto him.

i'd like to think he'd try to get all his deals right, whether they were one shot chances or not.
[/quote]
It would be harsh to blame rafa if it was a couple of purchases over the years (like what happened in his initial 4), however nearly all of his purchase in the last 2 seasons were atrocious (some debatable, granted). This is the reason he gets the bulk of the blame for me.

 

[Avmenon]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192552#msg1192552 date=1286791281]
well yeah, but i blame the owners for that. i suppose you could say that rafa should've known he wouldn't get a second chance and that might possibly be true, but i still think it's a bit harsh to push that problem onto him.

i'd like to think he'd try to get all his deals right, whether they were one shot chances or not.
[/quote]

I think you and Fark are talking about slightly different issues, though.

Say a manager spends 90 million pounds on rubbish transfers over 3 seasons; but manages to re-sell that lot for 50 million pounds.

The total loss looks like 40 million, but that has to be added to the costs of miserable performances over those 3 seasons ie no CL, finishing outside top places, poor Cup performances, less interest by sponsors perhaps..and these are all certain events when you have a squad full of poor players.

I think this is the opportunity cost Fark is talking about, not just the chance to better utilise the wasted funds.

 

[peterhague]

right, whatever. i'm sure we're boring everyone to tears by this stage. all i'll say is that you're right, obviously there are those negative impacts to spending money poorly - i never tried to deny that - but my point was that the ability to recoup money at least mitigates against those losses. if those issues you raised didn't exist then the only way of analysing a transfer would be sell-on value: i wasn't trying to suggest it was some sort of commodity trading!

 

[Fabio]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42097.msg1192566#msg1192566 date=1286793691]
right, whatever. i'm sure we're boring everyone to tears by this stage. all i'll say is that you're right, obviously there are those negative impacts to spending money poorly - i never tried to deny that - but my point was that the ability to recoup money at least mitigates against those losses. if those issues you raised didn't exist then the only way of analysing a transfer would be sell-on value: i wasn't trying to suggest it was some sort of commodity trading!
[/quote]

*gives thumbs up to peter*