Harry Redknapp: The Aftermath

[braineclipse]

But if you only calculate profit and loss on player trading on the basis of fees paid and fees received, you fail to take into account that a player has provided x number of years of service during his stay at the club.

Signing a player on a contract for a set number of years is like buying a property on a leasehold. Alternatively, it can be likened to a business buying machinery that is subject to depreciation. At the point of sale, the player / property / machinery might not be worth as much as you initially paid but you have to take into account how you have benefited in the meanwhile.

I can still (and do) take that into account.

By the accounting way of looking at it:

We sign player x for ?ú20m on a 3 year deal. It turns out we accidentally signed the twin brother of the player we scouted and after one year we sell him to West Ham for ?ú5m. One out of 3 years gone on his contract so Spurs would value him at 2/3 of ?ú20m = around ?ú13.3m. Sold with a loss of around ?ú8.3m in accounting world.

We sign player y for ?ú20m on a 6 year deal. It turns out the player is a racist and we don't want him around so we sell him to Liverpool for ?ú5m the next summer. One out of 6 years gone on his contract so Spurs would value him at 5/6 of ?ú20m = ?ú16.6m. Sold with a loss of around 11.6m in accounting world.

But those are identical situations in transfer fees, cost and service to the club.

Not to mention what happens when a player like Modric signs a new contract after a couple of years with the club? How do you then talk about his value, and how do you calculate a future profit/loss on a transfer?

To me, just the transfer fees paints a much clearer picture of what has been going on.

 

[braineclipse]

The wiki check: where fiction meets opinion.

Both were under the radar players who came to Europe largely as 'gambles' - especially Valencia. You are 'sure' Falcao was monitored by many yet that is only a speculatiion (to justify your agenda, naturally - fair enough) as to why only Porto took a chance (for example). For example - Falque could be our hidden gem is something comes out of him.

Is your definition of a hidden gem that Mexican immigrant kid who was spotted jamming with his mates in a LA park and taken to Saudi Sportswashing Machine and later Real Madrid to become the next David Beckham?

You want me to use different sources? What sources have you used? If any of that information is incorrect feel free to show me.

Like the quote I posted above said, 2nd division games in France are regularly followed by 15-20 scouts. I have seen for myself a number of scouts regularly in the rather bricky Norwegian league. Why would you think that a player could play 90 games in the Argentinian top division and be "under the radar"? This is not only a "speculation", and I don't have an agenda! My views are based on the information I have read and heard.

They were gambles, I agree. Because I think all transfers are more or less gambles.

Well, that would be one But I'm thinking more of what I imagine the world was like before, when there would be a lot less scouting information available to the clubs and they could "discover" a player already playing in a reasonably good league and be alone, or among a very small number of European clubs to know about the player and then sign him if they felt like it. Like I've said, I don't think this happens much these days and the decision for the clubs is more to choose one or two of the hundreds of potential targets they have scouting reports on.

 

[ArcspacE]

They were gambles, I agree. Because I think all transfers are more or less gambles.

Well, that would be one But I'm thinking more of what I imagine the world was like before, when there would be a lot less scouting information available to the clubs and they could "discover" a player already playing in a reasonably good league and be alone, or among a very small number of European clubs to know about the player and then sign him if they felt like it. Like I've said, I don't think this happens much these days and the decision for the clubs is more to choose one or two of the hundreds of potential targets they have scouting reports on.

Never disagreed about modern scouting network - only about the way in which you seemt to believe they pre-select players

Yes, most transfers are in some way or another gambles but my reference was made to the original point of hidden gems to which you seem to have applied a very finite definition and one which I tend to disagree with.

A hidden gem for me is a cheap player who is largerly uknown by general standards and proves to be a success - doesn't have to be a no-name player from Sweden's 4th tier division. I already gave you Falque as an example.

 

[jimmyb]

Paper profit though. And it is still initial spending that could have been better spent.

The initial money on Wilson could have been better spent? On whom? We were fighting against relegation. We had neither the time nor the luxury to pussyfoot around. We desperately needed a midfield enforcer. Wilson did a brilliant job for us. He also did a brilliant job the following season and, as has been pointed out, he hasn't been the same player since his brother's death. Not Harry's fault. As to "paper profit", please see my reply to braineclipse.

Like with Keane and Defoe, he probably would have come even if we were well clear of trouble. And I think the extent of the threat was always over exaggerated. It was one of our best premier league finishes, up to that point.

I'm pretty sure that Levy would never have sanctioned signing Keane again had we not been in dire straits. We desperately needed a striker. Harry's initial solution to that problem - Defoe - was badly injured in his first (or second?) game back for the club. We had no time to dingdong around as we usually do in the transfer window. Keane knew the club and most of the players and was sure to settle quickly. And I disagree with you......the extent of the threat (of relegation) was not exaggerated. It was very real.

Don't get me wrong, he wasn't a terrible buy by any strech and he did a job but we needed to move on from that type of signing and we haven't really.

If, by "that type of signing", you mean that Wilson was a ready made solution, Harry has always been a pragmatist and concentrated on the here and now. That's not always ideal, perhaps. But there can be no arguing with the results. Harry has given us the best three years supporting Spurs that most of us can remember. A team to be proud of. A team to be reckoned with, in England and abroad. A team that, on its day, is probably the most entertaining in the country. When was the last time that we could claim all of that? Thirty odd years ago? Fifty odd years ago?

But we have undoubtedly had an ordinary few years in the market. It was mentioned earlier that Freidal and Adebayor are just giving us breathing space for more long term signings. But I've heard this every year for about the last three.

I would dispute the claim that we have had an "ordinary" few years in the market. True, we have spent very little - certainly by comparison to our spending prior to Harry's arrival. But more importantly, does it really matter if we don't make eye catching, long term signings if Harry continues to sign the right players for the right roles - all of whom improve the team - and if he has us in the Champions League positions and gets the team playing the kind of football that has made Spurs the neutrals' favourite team to watch?

The feeling remains that the groundwork isn't being done

I get precisely the opposite feeling. Instead of just buying good players willy nilly and hoping that they will fit into the team, as so often happened under Comolli, Harry is buying players with very specific intentions for them.

Getting in the Bale's and Modric's are a different matter.

I wouldn't bracket the Bale and Modric signings together. Modric was already a relatively experienced international player by the time we signed him. Bale was a very young, very green player with great potential.

 

[Harry_Perkins]

A hidden gem for me is a cheap player who is largerly uknown by general standards and proves to be a success - doesn't have to be a no-name player from Sweden's 4th tier division. I already gave you Falque as an example.

Are there many examples like this who've actually been a success though? At least, at the level we're at now anyway? It is ultra rare.

 

[ArcspacE]

Threw a few names out already

Are you referring to Spurs specifically?

 

[totman]

Are there many examples like this who've actually been a success though? At least, at the level we're at now anyway? It is ultra rare.

I think this debate has raised the question that it depends on your idea of "hidden gem".

Hidden from the average fan, doesnt mean that that the player is largely unheard of among scouting networks, and the sports media in the country he comes from.

For example. Some people would count Bale, Lennon, Huddlestone as hidden gems, others might say Berbatov was.

Fact is, that all players are heard of where it matters, and thats in the scouting world. Hernandez was picked up, but Id imagine, at his level, the hype around him was immense.

 

[braineclipse]

Never disagreed about modern scouting network - only about the way in which you seemt to believe they pre-select players

Yes, most transfers are in some way or another gambles but my reference was made to the original point of hidden gems to which you seem to have applied a very finite definition and one which I tend to disagree with.

A hidden gem for me is a cheap player who is largerly uknown by general standards and proves to be a success - doesn't have to be a no-name player from Sweden's 4th tier division. I already gave you Falque as an example.

What are "general standards"?

I just don't see how what the papers, media speculation and knowledge from fans have to do with how well a player is known. None of those people buy footballers, managers and sporting directors buy footballers. And I struggle to see how a player who has 15-20 (or more) scouts watching him every week or every other week can be "largely unknown" just because media and fans in a completely different part of the world or in a different country aren't aware of hos good this player is.

 

[jimmyb]

I can still (and do) take that into account.

By the accounting way of looking at it:

We sign player x for ?ú20m on a 3 year deal. It turns out we accidentally signed the twin brother of the player we scouted and after one year we sell him to West Ham for ?ú5m. One out of 3 years gone on his contract so Spurs would value him at 2/3 of ?ú20m = around ?ú13.3m. Sold with a loss of around ?ú8.3m in accounting world.

We sign player y for ?ú20m on a 6 year deal. It turns out the player is a racist and we don't want him around so we sell him to Liverpool for ?ú5m the next summer. One out of 6 years gone on his contract so Spurs would value him at 5/6 of ?ú20m = ?ú16.6m. Sold with a loss of around 11.6m in accounting world.

But those are identical situations in transfer fees, cost and service to the club.

Not to mention what happens when a player like Modric signs a new contract after a couple of years with the club? How do you then talk about his value, and how do you calculate a future profit/loss on a transfer?

To me, just the transfer fees paints a much clearer picture of what has been going on.

It doesn't paint a clearer (or murkier) picture. It just paints a different picture.

As to players signing new contracts, that isn't considered when it comes to their valuation in the club's accounts. If a player signs for ?ú10 million on a four year deal and then, after two years, signs a new four year contract, he will still be valued at ?ú5 million in the accounts at that time and valued at zero after serving the first two years of the new contract.

 

[colin fishwick]

Well, both Bent and Bentley were players signed by previous reigns, not Harry. And under Comolli we had more the kind of transfer setup you prefer I take it?

Keane didn't work out, I still think he is the one true dud Harry has signed while at Spurs.

You're wrong about Palacios in two ways, one is my opinion, one is a fact.

My opinion: Palacios was very good for us for over a season, he was integral for us getting 4th and played an important part as we developed our squad into what it is today. In the end he wasn't good enough and was rightly sold. However, that was after he experienced the tragedy of his brother being killed. I've always found it difficult to be harsh on Palacios because of that incident. There was a clear drop in performance after that, as one might expect and to this day I still don't think his performances have reached the levels they were at before that. This is also partly why I find it very difficult to be harsh on Harry for signing Palacios. But, the main point is still that Palacios did an important job for us for quite a while.

Where you are factually wrong: Palacios was sold, him and Crouch to Stoke for ?ú20. Around ?ú10m each? And we paid, what? ?ú12m for Palacios when we signed him. Even if the Crouch/Palacios fees were more ?ú12m/?ú8m (although I haven't seen anything indicating that as far as I can remember) the loss would be only ?ú4m. That's not a big loss in football these days by any useful definition of "big loss" I can think of. Most certainly not when compared to what the previous managements have cost us in transfer failures.

I do agree that Harry doesn't deserve most of the credit for assembling our very good squad. I don't see that as a criticism of Harry though.

I did not say Harry signed Bent or Bentley, I was just pointing out that our wost signing have been " proven PL players "and
our best players have not been - Modric, VdV, and Bale .

There was a certain amount of mitigation in the signing of Keane and Palacious, but both were ultiamtely poor. Palacious is just not a very good player and strugles to get into the Stoke side. Liverpool got out of jail , selling Keane to us.

 

[braineclipse]

It doesn't paint a clearer (or murkier) picture. It just paints a different picture.

As to players signing new contracts, that isn't considered when it comes to their valuation in the club's accounts. If a player signs for ?ú10 million on a four year deal and then, after two years, signs a a new four year contract, he will still be valued at ?ú5 million in the accounts at that time and valued at zero after serving the first two years of the new contract.

After another 4 mediocre years Andy Carrol is sold from Liverpool for ?ú5m. Hey, ?ú5m profit! Well done!

After another 4 mediocre years Andy Carrol is sold from Liverpool for ?ú5m. Oh, ?ú30m loss! What a horrendous piece of business.

I think the second one of those is a much clearer, more informative, more accurate representation of the truth. Of course in the first description you get a representation of his contribution across that 5 year span with Liverpool. But it's not a good representation.

8 years from now Aaron Lennon is sold from Spurs to club X because his career is coming to an end. Let's have a look at the representation of his contribution to the club? Oh, 1 million pounds stretched across the 3-4 years his first contract was.

Contribution to the club should be measured based on performance on the pitch. Transfer profit and loss should be measured in pounds paid and received for the player.

 

[braineclipse]

I did not say Harry signed Bent or Bentley, I was just pointing out that our wost signing have been " proven PL players "and
our best players have not been - Modric, VdV, and Bale .

There was a certain amount of mitigation in the signing of Keane and Palacious, but both were ultiamtely poor. Palacious is just not a very good player and strugles to get into the Stoke side. Liverpool got out of jail , selling Keane to us.

But were you saying that you preferred the transfer setup we had under Arnesen and Comolli?

My point was that the system you seem to prefer provided us with similarly disappointing transfers to what Harry did.

 

[colin fishwick]

But were you saying that you preferred the transfer setup we had under Arnesen and Comolli?

My point was that the system you seem to prefer provided us with similarly disappointing transfers to what Harry did.

No , to the first question.

It's all a bit academic because Harry is probably leaving, I would not like Harry have full autonomy with transfers. I think we would be too restricted like that and would end up with too many old pros.

I would like Harry to work with someone .so we get the best of both.

 

[braineclipse]

No , to the first question.

It's all a bit academic because Harry is probably leaving, I would not like Harry have full autonomy with transfers. I think we would be too restricted like that and would end up with too many old pros.

I would like Harry to work with someone .so we get the best of both.

What kind of system would that be?

A system is working with someone on transfers in addition to Levy, but not a DoF system? Any examples of that?

 

[Harry_Perkins]

m

The initial money on Wilson could have been better spent? On whom? We were fighting against relegation. We had neither the time nor the luxury to pussyfoot around. We desperately needed a midfield enforcer. Wilson did a brilliant job for us. He also did a brilliant job the following season and, as has been pointed out, he hasn't been the same player since his brother's death. Not Harry's fault. As to "paper profit", please see my reply to braineclipse

Well I agree we were in some trouble but you've got to draw the line somewhere. You have to balance up the level of the threat versus having the resources available for the following seasons, if you stay up. If we were right down at the foot then it is a different matter. But I think in all honesty we would have been safe had we bought no one and I was saying so at the time. That said, of course, you don't take the risk. But the area in desperate need was really up front. We really only had two senior forwards in Pav and Bent. Even then, our form had been steady enough midtable fare since Redknapp took over. One forward would have compounded that, given it was our weakest area. It was clear the squad had been good enough to be at least in midtable and Ramos position had simply become untenable and was largely the explanation for the results pre-Redknapp. It was not the case that this was a poor squad of players who had been in relegation or near relegation form all season - comparable to a season like 97/98. No major overhaul of the squad was required and indeed didn't happen.

I think all this is evidenced in the fact that we ended with one of our best ever premier league finishes and if the Uefa Cup still had any prestige, we may even have bothered to qualify for it! It is a bit much from there to say that not having Willo for about 10 games would have been the difference between 8th and 18th. In fact, given the final gap, I think we could have lost every game he played in and it still wouldn't have sent us down. I think he was simply available at the time, Harry fancied him, no matter, with the relegation threat being little to do with it. We certainly didn't add anyone else in his position in the summer. And yet he still eased him out over the following season in place of Huddlestone. The same for Defoe and Keane.

If, by "that type of signing", you mean that Wilson was a ready made solution, Harry has always been a pragmatist and concentrated on the here and now. That's not always ideal, perhaps. But there can be no arguing with the results. Harry has given us the best three years supporting Spurs that most of us can remember. A team to be proud of. A team to be reckoned with, in England and abroad. A team that, on its day, is probably the most entertaining in the country. When was the last time that we could claim all of that? Thirty odd years ago? Fifty odd years ago?

I agree on the performance and the style of play but I maintain that this is little to do with our efforts in the market. We were like that from his first full season, with the key and best performing players being the ones already there, not (with all respect to them) the likes of Crouchy, Defoe, Willo, Bassong, Keane etc. This is no disgrace and not to knock them because the level was very, very high. And the key contributors were Modric and Bale... and they still are. You take them out of the equation, along with VDV, and we're not only a much less entertaining side but one that slips down the table considerably.

Redknapp is an excellent man manager, underrated tactically and seems to instinctively know who has the raw talent and how to bring it out of them but I think we'll be waiting a long time for any of these long term targets to actually arrive under him. In fact, I don't think we ever will now. What is more, you have to seriously doubt we'd be any better than 6th-8th over the last three years if it wasn't for the players he inherited. Not just Modric and Bale but BAE, Lennon, Huddlestone, King etc. His signings were among the weaker performers and this is even by his own admission given these are the ones he has chose to move on swiftly himself, while maintaining many of the players he inherited!

I would dispute the claim that we have had an "ordinary" few years in the market. True, we have spent very little - certainly by comparison to our spending prior to Harry's arrival. But more importantly, does it really matter if we don't make eye catching, long term signings if Harry continues to sign the right players for the right roles - all of whom improve the team - and if he has us in the Champions League positions and gets the team playing the kind of football that has made Spurs the neutrals' favourite team to watch?

Not sure I agree on spending little in comparison to the few years before. I think Harry saw a lot of the windfall that came from selling the likes of Berbatov, Keane and Carrick. Some of it had been spent before for sure but the summer window disaster of 2008 actually lead to a very big cash surplus. In part though, he's simply earned that right with the extra revenue raised largely thanks to his performance. But the net spend is probably quite high and much higher than the few years before him. Lots of players coming in around the 8m-15m mark and not many going out for comparable figures.

 

[jimmyb]

I did not say Harry signed Bent or Bentley, I was just pointing out that our wost signing have been " proven PL players "and
our best players have not been - Modric, VdV, and Bale .

If I was to mirror you by writing a list of our worst non Premier League proven signings and then comparing it unfavourably to a list of our best Premier League proven signings, I could make precisely the opposite case that you are trying to make. But it would be fairer and more sensible to compare like for like, don't you think?

Harry bought the likes of Parker, Friedel and Gallas because they were precisely what we needed to take us from a team with potential to a team that can actually achieve things right here, right now.

Besides, it's pretty obvious that Harry is prepared to make precisely the kind of signings that you clearly want since it is an open secret that he is very interested in the likes of Hazard, Remy, Vertonghen, Giroud etc. And that's because they too would be precisely the kind of players that can help us to progress even further.

There was a certain amount of mitigation in the signing of Keane and Palacious, but both were ultiamtely poor. Palacious is just not a very good player and strugles to get into the Stoke side. Liverpool got out of jail , selling Keane to us.

Palacios (no "u") was a very good player of his type prior to his brother's murder. He hasn't been the same player since. Very sad. But not Harry's fault. And, to repeat, Keane was only signed as emergency cover because of the dire straits that we found ourselves in.

 

[jimmyb]

After another 4 mediocre years Andy Carrol is sold from Liverpool for ?ú5m. Hey, ?ú5m profit! Well done!

After another 4 mediocre years Andy Carrol is sold from Liverpool for ?ú5m. Oh, ?ú30m loss! What a horrendous piece of business.

I think the second one of those is a much clearer, more informative, more accurate representation of the truth. Of course in the first description you get a representation of his contribution across that 5 year span with Liverpool. But it's not a good representation.

8 years from now Aaron Lennon is sold from Spurs to club X because his career is coming to an end. Let's have a look at the representation of his contribution to the club? Oh, 1 million pounds stretched across the 3-4 years his first contract was.

Contribution to the club should be measured based on performance on the pitch. Transfer profit and loss should be measured in pounds paid and received for the player.

Well, of course it's possible to dream up scenarios which make the book valuation of a player seem ridiculous.

But it's equally possible to make your method of valuing players seem ridiculous. A club could sign a player for ?ú20 million. That player gives ten wonderful years service to the club, helping it to trophy after trophy. Finally, his career nearing its end, he leaves on a free transfer. You would say that the club made a ?ú20 million loss on that player - which, while factually correct, would fail utterly to tell the true story.

There is no one way of valuing players. I merely remarked that, as far as Spurs were concerned, they wouldn't have viewed selling Palacios for ?ú8 million as selling him for a loss.

 

[braineclipse]

Well, of course it's possible to dream up scenarios which make the book valuation of a player seem ridiculous.

But it's equally possible to make your method of valuing players seem ridiculous. A club could sign a player for ?ú20 million. That player gives ten wonderful years service to the club, helping it to trophy after trophy. Finally, his career nearing its end, he leaves on a free transfer. You would say that the club made a ?ú20 million loss on that player - which, while factually correct, would fail utterly to tell the true story.

There is no one way of valuing players. I merely remarked that, as far as Spurs were concerned, they wouldn't have viewed selling Palacios for ?ú8 million as selling him for a loss.

I don't think that is ridiculous. That player would have cost the player ?ú20 million + wages, but given brilliant service for years on the pitch. That seems like a good representation.

I'm not sure how Spurs, and by Spurs here I mean Levy think about transfers, all we know is how they handle it financially with the books. Doesn't mean that's how they think about transfers in general.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't think that is ridiculous. That player would have cost the player ?ú20 million + wages, but given brilliant service for years on the pitch. That seems like a good representation.

I'm not sure how Spurs, and by Spurs here I mean Levy think about transfers, all we know is how they handle it financially with the books. Doesn't mean that's how they think about transfers in general.

Edit: And actually, I don't see how that situation is any different if you use one way of looking at it or the other? In "your way" the player cost 5 million each year for the first 4 years, in "my way" the player cost 20 million in total for the 10 years.

 

[jimmyb]

I don't think that is ridiculous. That player would have cost the player ?ú20 million + wages, but given brilliant service for years on the pitch. That seems like a good representation.

In the context of the example that I gave, it would be ridiculous to think of having made a loss of ?ú20 million on a player who gave the club ten years of outstanding service. And yet that is the conclusion that your method of evaluating profit and loss leads us to.

Imagine that you bought a great pair of shoes that cost you ?ú100, that you wore every day and that lasted you for five years. When their time is finally up and you throw them away, do you say that you made a loss of ?ú100 on those shoes? Of course not. The word "loss" doesn't enter the equation. The pair of shoes was a great purchase.

I'm not saying that your method for evaluating profit and loss has no place. It's just that it isn't the only way. And nor is it necessarily, as you claim, the clearest way.

I'm not sure how Spurs, and by Spurs here I mean Levy think about transfers, all we know is how they handle it financially with the books. Doesn't mean that's how they think about transfers in general.

I very much doubt that their way of evaluating a player's worth to the club is merely to look at the price paid for him against the price received for him. There will inevitably be a multitude of other factors taken into account - not least his service to the club.