Thirty five million reasons to take a gamble
I don’t think anyone in this parish wants to go around quoting Richard Keys now, but you do have to think, after a day like yesterday, has the world not gone slightly mad? I mean, I thought these were austere times? Not that football has ever really taken much notice of market forces mind. Transfer deadline day by its very nature is a time of certain desperation; desperation to get deals done in time, desperation to get a big name to satisfy the fans, desperation that if you get sell a player then you’ll need to bring one in.
It’s often said that desperate men do desperate things. Liverpool faced with losing their star striker (admittedly one who hasn’t exactly been playing like star) and in the midst of a season where they’ve flirted more with relegation rather than winning trophies that the club have become a bit desperate. You have to think that’s why a club icon that has been out of the game so long was ushered in as manager of the club. With Fernando Torres wanting away, and with the potential of raising around £50 million from his sale, Liverpool needed to act fast. One day to do business and one day to both appease fans and save a season. Is it any wonder people think they might have panicked a bit when making decisions?
Their number 9’s departure for Stamford Bridge left a gaping hole in the Anfield clubs forward line, and to fill it, £35 million (yes that’s THIRTY FIVE MILLION POUND) was outlaid yesterday on Newcastle’s blunderbuss of a young forward, Andy Carroll as well as a further£23 million on diminutive Uruguayan striker Luis Suarez. It’s a little and large combo up front, but there is nothing small about their price tags.
It’s a hefty outlay and a hefty gamble, but such is the hysteria and desperation attached to modern football that clubs almost feel obligated to act in this reckless way. The January window is the ultimate gamble; how far do you speculate to accumulate? Pay now, or risk paying much more later.
Chelsea themselves have acted in desperation. The last couple of years have seen the club aiming to progress away from the superstar signings, moving on those on big wages and looking to young players nurtured from their academy (or nurtured by someone else’s academy...) yet a hint that their season could end trophy less has seen the club splurge heavily with over £70 million spent on Torres and also Benfica defender David Luiz. Austerity is all well and good, but the fact remains that if this might get in the way of on field success then the plan is to spend, spend, spend.
Clubs towards the bottom are even more desperate. Those are the teams that need to take the ultimate gamble – whether to risk spending money because they can't afford to contemplate going down or not to spend money because they can't afford to contemplate the pitfalls of spending money and then losing out on the vast sums of wealth that come from being part of the Premier League. In many ways, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Blackpool have taken the view that keeping Charlie Adam and him keeping them in the league is of more value than the staggering (considering where the player’s reputation was 12 months ago) £10 million Liverpool (who said they were desperate?) were willing to pay for his services. Newcastle on the other hand, clearly felt that a decent start to the season and the sheer size of the sum being offered to them for their talismanic forward was too good to turn down. Aston Villa (having a torrid season) and their manager Gerard Houllier (having a torrid attack on his reputation) clearly decided that they were a bit too close for comfort to the drop and gambled big on Darren Bent. Other clubs spent very little at all. Only the end of the season will tell us who gambled right and who gambled wrong.
It’s the ultimate game of ‘stick or twist’. The gamble often needs to be taken to simply keep your fans onside. Big name departures without big name arrivals means risking the ire of supporters, something, Mike Ashley aside, clubs are unwilling to do. Desperation makes people do some illogical things, only time will tell if the £218,525,000 spent in this window were on gambles worth taking.
I (perhaps naturally) think the Chelsea criticism is a tad unfair. There is, or was, clearly a long term plan to produce talent from the youth team and rely less on big name signings. This has obviously gone slightly by the wayside, although I would point out that the club has been chasing David Luiz for a while, and an injury to Alex forced this through now rather than in the summer, when the signing was inevitable. It was not a panic buy.
ReplyDeleteWhat's happened at Chelsea is that squad players (Benayoun and Zhirkov) and vital first-teamers (Drogba, Alex, Lampard, Terry) have picked up more injuries than would have been planned for. Lampard has been Chelsea's best player for the last five seasons and has also played virtually every game - it's not surprising that most people banked on him being fit. This has left the squad looking a bit thin and obviously Roman Abramovich decided to spend big. There is clearly an aim to bring younger players through, but some were perhaps not as ready as first thought. Plus one or two major signings will always be necessary to carry on competing at the top level in the current climate – no team can rely purely on producing talent of their own. Not even the mighty Barcelona, who have tended to buy at least one major player each season recently.
To say it was desperation is harsh, as Torres (like Luiz) has clearly been targeted for a long time. Ok, £48m is a huge amount of money but he is proven and if Andy Carroll costs £36m and Darren Bent £24m, well...let's just say it wasn't that bad.
Also, every single established Premier League club looks to buy (or steal if we’re calling a spade a spade) young players from other clubs – they’re all at it. To single out Chelsea for this is unfair.
I still believe Chelsea will place more focus on promoting youth over the next few years but there’s also been a need to spend recently, and there can be no doubt that the club is very fortunate that it can splash out £70m in January. The current squad has been hugely successful over the last few years and naturally it is now entering a period of transition as key players start to age. The first half of this season has shown that the transition will be difficult, but the core of the side is beginning to change and don’t be surprised if 17 year old Josh McEachran (with the club since he was eight, and certainly not stolen) is a huge part of that.
Some very worthwhile points, and a bit of a debate – I like it!
ReplyDeleteIf I can (and not to look like I’m backtracking here...) perhaps I can try and come back to a few of the points being made. First off, my use of the word ‘desperation’ in relation to Chelsea was perhaps too strong. Certainly, like you, I believe they still have a strategy of nurturing their own but I do feel that the signing of Torres now (despite as you say, previous interest) has come about because of a certain twitchiness from those who hold the purse strings about how successful the season is going to be. Personally, I don’t feel the outlay would have come about if the club hadn’t suffered those defeats in late autumn. And while, as I say, desperation may have been too strong a word, I do feel that there was a certain amount of worrying about the direction the season might take in the decision to buy him for big money. A gamble Chelsea clearly see as worth taking.
On the Luiz deal, I agree with you. He’s very much a buy for the future as well as the present, and perhaps including him as part of the piece dilutes what I was trying to say about Torres. I hold my hands up there!
As for the line about the academy, that was meant to be a purely throwaway line for a bit of humour...admittedly a bit of a cheap shot. As you say, everyone does it (up and down the footballing pyramid), and it wasn’t meant to be an attack on Chelsea, rather, as I said, a throwaway line. God knows I’ve got worked up enough about that issue in the past so going to stop banging that drum for a little bit – think people are probably a bit bored by now!
Surely the debate gents is how both Carroll and Torres are worth more than Villa. Obviously the fees may have related to the length of contracts the former two were tied down to, but are they worth more than Villa? I disagree, but that is my personal opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe debate there after is that English football obviously has it's very own market rules with it's very own price list, fuelled by aspirations of TV money and Playboy owners with endless pockets.
The market in question, the entire sport, is unsustainable on the grounds that the money is not generated through revenue streams alone, so where does this sometimes reckless speculation leave football?
My concern is the amount of expenditure vastly exceeds the income of the entire sport (£1.2 billion for Europe's top leagues). Measures are taking time to establish, and perhaps don't go far enough to prevent clubs from going under. What sanctions are likely to be imposed on those not affected by European commitments, but still aspire to higher levels.
UEFA's break even legislation has yet to be demonstrated in practice and I don't believe that there will not be loopholes exploited by well versed and well paid accountants in the same way that tax loop holes are exploited by the high earners.
As much fun as deadline day is, surely it adds a premium to the transfer fee, the contract and the agents fee, exacerbating the issue further.
On a side note, is the premium for English players down to the fact that talent sourced from the scouting circles in this country are diminishing in some part due to the number of foreign managers with their own scouting systems spread worldwide? Do young players get the same opportunities now as 16/17 year olds that Giggs and Fabregas got? Is McEchran going to be given the same amount of game time that they were privvy to in order to fufill his potential?
Hypothetical questions and ramlings over.
(I hate Derby!)
Something for Carroll/Liverpool to think about:
ReplyDeleteI scored 24 goals helping my side win promotion back to the Premier League aged just 22.
Then in my first season in the top flight I had bagged an impressive 15 goals by the end of January. Including a goal against the reigning champions, away at Arsenal and in a home win over Liverpool. My form earned me an England call-up and my debut in an international friendly.
My name is Michael Rickets, Feb 2002.
Good to see some debate up and running on CollinsBeans!
ReplyDeleteTo address some of the above:
My comment was clearly more of a rant about general criticism of Chelsea and not really directed at Mr Snelling's article. 'Desperation' is a perfectly justifiable phrase even if I don't necessarily agree with it. Also, I am in no way defending the ludicrous spending, but I wanted to point out that Chelsea are certainly not the only club to blame here.
I agree with your concerns Mr Cowley and it's certainly an interesting issue. I'm not really convinced by any of UEFA's initiatives and ultimately, as the game's governing body, it is up to them to enforce rules despite the power which clubs hold. I know people talk about break-off Super Leagues but I can’t see that happening any time soon. This may be simplifying things a little, but the problem is that while expenditure doesn't match revenue for the top clubs, there will always be a very wealthy enthusiast interested in putting up money (at a loss). Until there is a strict policy on turnover and profitability, this will continue and big clubs will spend cash without much care and other teams trying to emulate this, but who don’t have the backing, will go under.
Mr Rickard – that is absolute genius.