Hob Nob Anyone?

Wycombe Royal wrote:

wolsey wrote:SSN just reported he's about to sign for Bolton for £4.5m

The fee sounds too high to me. However I 'm surprised that Villa are letting him go considering they are now losing Mellberg at the end of the season.

It just shows that they don't rate him at all.

Platypuss wrote:

Wycombe Royal wrote:

wolsey wrote:SSN just reported he's about to sign for Bolton for £4.5m

The fee sounds too high to me. However I 'm surprised that Villa are letting him go considering they are now losing Mellberg at the end of the season.

It just shows that they don't rate him at all.

Not sure what it is with Villa and centre-backs.
They sign one of the worst players around in Zat Knight and yet let Ridgewell and Cahill go.
We'll soon see how good or bad Cahill is next Saturday.

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then it's nothing money.

I think that is one of the most ridiculous theories around and yet it is used so frequently.

So if we were to sign Puncheon from Barnet for £5m and we stayed up and he made a handful of appearances I suppose it would just be "nothing money" that we spent on him if we stay up.

Wycombe Royal wrote:

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then it's nothing money.

I think that is one of the most ridiculous theories around and yet it is used so frequently.

So if we were to sign Puncheon from Barnet for £5m and we stayed up and he made a handful of appearances I suppose it would just be "nothing money" that we spent on him if we stay up.

We wouldn't have to spend £5million on him. But taking your example, if we signed 3players at £3million a piece that all played a worthwhile part in us staying up comfortably then yes of course it would be worth it. TV money the next year would cover those signings about 3 times over so in effect it's nothing money.

Ashley young - £9million LOL'd at on here, whose laughing now?

Cahill comes in and does well, they stay up and collect next years TV money then £4,5million is absolutely nothing, also they have the money from the Anelka sale.

January means you have to spend a bit more than what players are probably worth. If the player can improve your starting 11 then it's well worth doing.

Alan Partridge wrote:

Wycombe Royal wrote:

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then it's nothing money.

I think that is one of the most ridiculous theories around and yet it is used so frequently.

So if we were to sign Puncheon from Barnet for £5m and we stayed up and he made a handful of appearances I suppose it would just be "nothing money" that we spent on him if we stay up.

We wouldn't have to spend £5million on him. But taking your example, if we signed 3players at £3million a piece that all played a worthwhile part in us staying up comfortably then yes of course it would be worth it. TV money the next year would cover those signings about 3 times over so in effect it's nothing money.

Ashley young - £9million LOL'd at on here, whose laughing now?

Cahill comes in and does well, they stay up and collect next years TV money then £4,5million is absolutely nothing, also they have the money from the Anelka sale.

January means you have to spend a bit more than what players are probably worth. If the player can improve your starting 11 then it's well worth doing.

But the fact is you can never say that spending the money on a particular player was the difference between staying up and going down. Cahill could play every game and play crap in all of them and they could still stay up. Next season he is then left in the reserves. Is it still "nothing money" then?

I'm not saying he won't be a good addition to them, I am just saying it is too much money for him. So they have the money from the sale of Anelka - was it part of the deal that they had to agree to spend it this transfer window?

The fact is they need a goalscorer - that is what is going to help keep them up, not a relatively inexperienced Premiership defender for £4.5m.

Wycombe Royal wrote:

Alan Partridge wrote:"]

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then it's nothing money.

I think that around and yet it is used so frequently.is one of the most ridiculous theories

So if we were to sign Puncheon from Barnet for £5m and we stayed up and he made a handful of appearances I suppose it would just be "nothing money" that we spent on him if we stay up.

We wouldn't have to spend £5million on him. But taking your example, if we signed 3players at £3million a piece that all played a worthwhile part in us staying up comfortably then yes of course it would be worth it. TV money the next year would cover those signings about 3 times over so in effect it's nothing money.

Ashley young - £9million LOL'd at on here, whose laughing now?

Cahill comes in and does well, they stay up and collect next years TV money then £4,5million is absolutely nothing, also they have the money from the Anelka sale.

January means you have to spend a bit more than what players are probably worth. If the player can improve your starting 11 then it's well worth doing.

But the fact is you can never say that spending the money on a particular player was the difference between staying up and going down. Cahill could play every game and play crap in all of them and they could still stay up. Next season he is then left in the reserves. Is it still "nothing money" then?

I'm not saying he won't be a good addition to them, I am just saying it is too much money for him. So they have the money from the sale of Anelka - was it part of the deal that they had to agree to spend it this transfer window?

The fact is they need a goalscorer - that is what is going to help keep them up, not a relatively inexperienced Premiership defender for £4.5m.[/quote]

They need both, goals and clean sheets. Every team down the bottom needs that, us included.

Would Bolton have wanted to pay £4.5million for as you correctly say an inexperienced defender? No in all honesty, if we all valued Cahill it would probably be around the £2.5million mark. But the fact is Bolton see him as a present and long term signing. Someone better than their current players in that position and have paid the going January rate. If Bolton stay up then the fee doesn't matter. The income outweighs the expenditure.

They wouldn't spend that money on someone to kick around the reserves, they are signing him because they believe he's better than waht they've got. Fair play to them it doesn't guarantee success but in the words of our manager 'it lessons the risk of the signing'. He'll be a good addition to them.

They'll probably go spend £6-7million on a striker now to make sure they survive.

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then the fee doesn't matter.

Absolute crap.

Wycombe Royal wrote:

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then the fee doesn't matter.

Absolute crap.

Why? They will make a hell of a lot more money than the fee they are paying out now providing they stay up, this signing will give them a much better chance of achieving that. If they go down without spending the money they lose more than they gain.

They are also £15million currently better off due to selling Anelka. £15million originally not on the budget.

Alan Partridge wrote:

Wycombe Royal wrote:

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then the fee doesn't matter.

Absolute crap.

Why? They will make a hell of a lot more money than the fee they are paying out now providing they stay up, this signing will give them a much better chance of achieving that. If they go down without spending the money they lose more than they gain.

They are also £15million currently better off due to selling Anelka. £15million originally not on the budget.

Why? Because saying "the fee doesn't matter" is one step on the way to financial ruin. If the fee doesn't matter, then that leads on to pay extortionate wages that a player also isn't worth, but I suppose "the wages doesn't matter" either.

For example Leeds, probably the highest profile example of this.

Financial control is one of the most important aspects of running a football club, even in the Premiership with all its' millions of TV revenue. Getting value for money is a key part of this.

Wycombe,
I think you have taken this talk of £4.5 million rather too literally when referred to as "nothing".
What the posters are obviously saying is that by spending £4.5 million Bolton consider that they have a better chance of reaping £30million plus next season.
To paraphrase Coppell if you spend more you are likely to get a better player therefore the gamble is not as big as it first appears.
If we have spent £500,000 on Kebe we have taken less of a gamble with current cash but are taking a bigger gamble on our survival chances.
Sometimes it can work in your favour (Doyle,Kitson) but sometimes against you (Fae,Cisse,Convey).
This transfer lark is very much a gamble where some you win,some you lose but you really shouldn't criticise another poster for alluding to £4.5 million as "nothing" because in the big bucks of the Premier League it is nothing whereas if you wanted to buy a house in Stoke Poges it would mean quite a lot.
Why do people ALWAYS quote Leeds?
To me that is worse than calling £4.5 million nothing.

Oooooo i've stumbled upon an argument!

I can see what AP is saying but i also understand what WR is saying....my view is Bolton obviously rate Cahill and £4.5m doesn't put them off, they believe the money they are spending will be worth it in the long run, should he help keep them up. Megson wouldn't just splash out that sort of money for somebody he didn't rate or feel can grow into a top class player.

It makes me laugh how people on an internet forum can slate a player saying he's not worth £Xm when all they see is some highlights on sky or on MOTD - these players are scouted and watched, so the buying club has obviously seen something that we cant.

[quote="Wycombe RoyalWhy?] Because saying "the fee doesn't matter" is one step on the way to financial ruin. If the fee doesn't matter, then that leads on to pay extortionate wages that a player also isn't worth, but I suppose "the wages doesn't matter" either.

For example Leeds, probably the highest profile example of this.

Financial control is one of the most important aspects of running a football club, even in the Premiership with all its' millions of TV revenue. Getting value for money is a key part of this.[/quote]

Amen to that. Are Sunderland and Fulham fans feeling secure because of millions wasted on their transfer/procurement dealings? I think not:

http://www.readytogo.net/smb/showthread.php?t=306389
(comments about Halford are quite funny)

http://www.fulhamfc.com/Club/Messageboa ... icID=35407

Alan Partridge wrote:

Wycombe Royal wrote:

Alan Partridge wrote:If Bolton stay up then the fee doesn't matter.

.

Why? They will make a hell of a lot more money than the fee they are paying out now providing they stay up, this signing will give them a much better chance of achieving that. If they go down without spending the money they lose more than they gain.

They are also £15million currently better off due to selling Anelka. £15million originally not on the budget.

Why? Because saying "the fee doesn't matter" is one step on the way to financial ruin. If the fee doesn't matter, then that leads on to pay extortionate wages that a player also isn't worth, but I suppose "the wages doesn't matter" either.

For example Leeds, probably the highest profile example of this.

Financial control is one of the most important aspects of running a football club, even in the Premiership with all its' millions of TV revenue. Getting value for money is a key part of this.[/quote]

Hardly anyone gets 'value for money' these days. What is value for money?? £2million nowadys is absolutely laughed at at other clubs apart from here. Nicolas Anelka has gone for £80million or something daft, Akinbiyi has gone for over £12million in his career. Even players of moderate ability go for £5-6million these days. As TV money goes up so do players fees, it seems that £3-4million is a basic fee for a British player for a Premiership club.

Bolton didn't spend much in the summer, they are an established club and have been in Europe and in the Prem for numerous years, they have also got £15million into the club in the last week. Spending £5million isn't in any way shape or form going to financially cripple them. I love the fact that everytime a club around us splashes a bit of cash they are compared to 'Leeds and financial mismanagement' as if these clubs haven't carefully thought out the process and implications of anyone they are bringing in. do you honestly think if Bolton thought they'd go under by paying this sort of fee out they would???? Leeds were mismanaged for years, built on hopes and reams of Champs league football, an incredible one off and obscene case of events.

Are we getting value for money spending £x amount on Kebe? or even if he turns out to be hopeless, does it matter because he was 'cheap'? Exactly the same thing but on a smaller scale. All Bolton are doing is increasing their chance of getting a good player by paying the noraml January over inflated price.

BR2 wrote:Wycombe,
I think you have taken this talk of £4.5 million rather too literally when referred to as "nothing".

No I haven't, I have just taken the opportunity to get AP going. It's been a while.

He also needs some practice at getting the quoting system on here correct.

Wycombe Royal wrote:

BR2 wrote:Wycombe,
I think you have taken this talk of £4.5 million rather too literally when referred to as "nothing".

No I haven't, I have just taken the opportunity to get AP going. It's been a while.

He also needs some practice at getting the quoting system on here correct.

LOL!

I can't do it

(see above)

once it says 3 quotes, I'm shafted!

on BBC website saying he signed to Bolton, 5m

Cahill plays an able part in another Bolton clean sheet and their first away win in 10 months. £5m on Cahill will not matter a jot if they stay up.

CahiLOLLOL

Edit - Coppell admits interest in Cahil but decided he was happy with our current centre halves.

Has he seen our goals against column recently?

cahill = best centre back i have seen at united. Ever.

the guy has everything in his game and will only improve.

£5 mill is an absolute bargin.

Future England centre back In my humble opinion. Would have forced his way into villas side sooner rather than later if he has stayed.

blade 1 wrote:cahill = best centre back i have seen at united. Ever.

the guy has everything in his game and will only improve.

£5 mill is an absolute bargin.

Future England centre back In my humble opinion. Would have forced his way into villas side sooner rather than later if he has stayed.

Sounds like Upson when he was here. We didn't pay the fee then, and we didn't now.