PDA

View Full Version : Shane Long 12 million



Notrigsbyscat
13-08-2014, 12:29 PM
Jesus wept!

As I said within a different thread yesterday, the only good news in this madness is that the Tribunal Panel cannot ignore market rate if and when determining the fee for Ings, as crazy as it may be.

Shane Long! Not dissimilar to Ings at all, but with half the skill

The Bedlington Terrier
13-08-2014, 01:50 PM
Hull will now buy Deeney for nine million and bank three. Sounds like great business to me! For the life in me I cannot understand why no-one has banged twelve million into the Dry Powder Room and snapped up Ings. He really is the stand out young striker who can quickly develop into the full England side.

NJclaret
13-08-2014, 02:00 PM
The transfer fees really are just crazy this summer more than previous ones. I guess they knew southampton had lots of extra cash but really, why didn't southampton just offer us $10 for Ings, we would have sold.

I'm actually quite happy with us keeping our cash in our pockets if that's the absurd prices being asked.

edison
13-08-2014, 02:05 PM
"why didn't southampton just offer us $10 for Ings, we would have sold."

That's 5.98

distortiondave
13-08-2014, 02:23 PM
You know what else is 5.98? - view external link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_$5.98_E.P.:_Garage_Days_Re-Revisited)

edison
13-08-2014, 02:25 PM
3.58

roseylee
13-08-2014, 03:15 PM
its a sellers market, because quality players are thin on the ground. if ings starts banging them in for burnley on a regular basis, he will be long gone before the end of the season guaranteed. and burnley will be asking for the same ridiculous price for him, that so many on here seem to deplore.

notnowbernard
13-08-2014, 04:29 PM
12m for Long, decimal point in the wrong place surely? Southampton have been mugged big time.

BobLordsFridge
13-08-2014, 04:49 PM
If McCormack is worth 11m in the market, it's no surprise to see Long go for more than that.

Long is 3 years younger and actually has a reasonable Premier League record.

Bonkers fees of course, but the "going rate" has clearly rocketed.

Notrigsbyscat
13-08-2014, 05:06 PM
If you can take this as any kind of guide, the tribunal has set the following fees today:


LIAM LAWRENCE - Mansfield Town to Sunderland
Fee: 175,000
Plus:
10,000 every 10 appearances up to 50;
100,000 on promotion;
50,000 on first competitive international appearance;
25% sell on

STEPHEN ELLIOTT - Manchester City to Sunderland
Fee: 125,000
Plus:
20,000 every 10 appearances up to 50;
100,000 on promotion;
50,000 on first competitive international appearance;
25% sell on

DEAN WHITEHEAD - Oxford United to Sunderland
Fee: 150,000
Plus:
15,000 every 10 appearances up to 50;
100,000 on promotion;
50,000 on first competitive international appearance;
25% sell on

scorps
13-08-2014, 05:22 PM
"If you can take this as any kind of guide, the tribunal has set the following fees today"

They must all be from 10 years ago at least, what's that got to do with anything?

Notrigsbyscat
13-08-2014, 05:23 PM
lifted directly from the FL site, assumed it current, but now that I see Dean Whitehead XD

roseylee
13-08-2014, 09:55 PM
mcormack is twice the player shane long is, if burnley had him in their team they would be wetting themselves. ;D

the reality is you wont spend anything what is needed to buy quality players. the poster socrates was bang on, he aint saying spend 10 million on a player, but if you sit there waiting for somebody at 3-4 million all season, it will be too late you will go down.

Sidney1st
14-08-2014, 05:14 AM
McCormack is twice the player Long is ??

Of course he is , which is why he is playing in the championship and looked naff when he was playing for Fulham the other day.

Newcastleclaret1993
14-08-2014, 06:33 AM
I doubt McCormack will get to play In the premier league Fulham aren't going up and now they have paid 11 mill for him no one will want to buy him of them

wickdkewlclaret
14-08-2014, 07:05 AM
Haven't the transfer fees gone crazy because of the extra capital clubs receive from broadcast fees?

sheffieldturfite
14-08-2014, 07:23 AM
The trouble with over paying is that the player may go down injured on day 1 (eg Thorne) and there is no cash left for replacements. Go down while over stretched financially and it can be a long fall.

Dyche will have a season long budget. He will need some for January too because inevitably some high profile players will struggle to make the step up, whereas others will.

I think we all agree we need a couple in, and I am sure we will get them eventually, but over paying is not the answer, as some of these other clubs will inevitably find out.

CariocaClaret
14-08-2014, 07:26 AM
12m is a snip for Shane Long if Deeney is supposedly worth 10m and McCormack 11m.

notnowbernard
14-08-2014, 08:21 AM
Long's record is ordinary at best and Southampton don't need ordinary, they need a 20 goals+ striker this year or they are in bother. Just can't see that being Long...imo

CrustyCrouton
14-08-2014, 08:23 AM
If you think 12M for Shane Long is crazy...



Hull are preparing a move for Danny Welbeck as Long's replacement, for a fee of 14,000,000.

If this is true then Ings move surely be worth AT LEAST 1,000,000,000.

notnowbernard
14-08-2014, 08:26 AM
Then Hull are in bother as well XD

LancasterClaret
14-08-2014, 08:27 AM
If Danny Welbeck is worth 14 million then the world is about to end.

Jamb0MackemClaret
14-08-2014, 08:59 AM
Welbeck for 14m sounds pretty reasonable to me actually. If he plays up front, he'll get goals.

LancasterClaret
14-08-2014, 09:08 AM
When has he done that?

He plays for Man United, so plays for England and is worth 14 million.

He's going to be found out big style if he moves

ClaretTony2014
14-08-2014, 09:15 AM
Welbeck at 14 million??????????

Jamb0MackemClaret
14-08-2014, 09:22 AM
He hasn't really had a run up front, that's what I'm saying. Always gets stuck out wide then people moan when he doesn't score enough goals. 8 in 26 for England isn't a bad record considering how he's often been used.

LancasterClaret
14-08-2014, 09:24 AM
Possibly

14 million on a player without a great record and who hasn't really played up front would be a big, big gamble.

What I would say is that if this is the going rate, then we probably got the big lad on the cheap.

Ian_Branfoot
14-08-2014, 09:25 AM
"Long's record is ordinary at best and Southampton don't need ordinary, they need a 20 goals+ striker this year or they are in bother. Just can't see that being Long...imo"

notnowbernard

...

Well that is absolute nonsense!

Last season the only players to score 20 or more goals in the Premier League played for the top 2 team and were...

Suarez
Sturridge
Toure

Southampton came 8th and their top scorer scored 15 goals.

Jamb0MackemClaret
14-08-2014, 09:25 AM
Course it's a gamble, paying that much for anyone is. But Hull can afford it given they've somehow just doubled their money on Long after six months. And in a market where Long is 12m, McCormack is 11m etc, players like Welbeck will obviously go for more. Just like if Rodriguez moves, it'll be for more.

LancasterClaret
14-08-2014, 09:29 AM
The mind does boggle on what Jay could move for.

LincolnClaret
14-08-2014, 09:49 AM
This is the sort of fee that starts to make us look silly as well. We won't get any business done offering a few hundred grand less than the asking price for players. We're playing in a different league now and we've more money than we've ever had before.

Now, I'm not saying we should sign Long for 12 million (I'd be furious if we did actually) but we should be sorting out these deals for 3 and 4 million without too much hassle. We're not going to give ourselves much chance of staying up if we don't at least spend 10 million or so on quality additions.

For example; Dawson, Cork and Lansbury would probably cost around the same money as Shane Long. IMO that would be incredible value in this day and age but we just don't seem to want to get these deals over the line.

ClaretTony2014
14-08-2014, 10:18 AM
"This is the sort of fee that starts to make us look silly as well."

I knew someone, somewhere, would turn this into a negative against us.

LincolnClaret
14-08-2014, 10:49 AM
It's not a negative as such Tony, it's just the more transfers we see like this over the summer, the less likely we are to sign our targets for the money we're offering. It feels like we're missing the boat because we're floundering over a few hundred grand. Prices are going up and up, and the closer we get to the end of August the more we'll need to pay.

The Dawson saga is an absolute joke - we're talking peanuts in the PL scheme of things. Again, I don't think we should be paying 10 million plus for players like Deeney or Long, but these 3 - 4 million deals are basically standard prices now. Same with Lansbury. If we need to shell out 7 million for the pair and we've currently offered up near 5.5 in combined fees then why are we messing around? We are so short of players in ridiculous.

I think we can stay up this year as I believe the core of our team is much stronger than the last time we were up in the PL, but we need depth and we need added quality. We're a couple of inju

ClaretTony2014
14-08-2014, 10:53 AM
" It feels like we're missing the boat because we're floundering over a few hundred grand."

"The Dawson saga is an absolute joke - we're talking peanuts in the PL scheme of things."


If you think it's an absolute joke and that it is about peanuts then so be it.

That sounds like negative to me and without foundation.

lucs86
14-08-2014, 12:06 PM
I'm with Lincolnclaret.

When we get an injury/suspension at CB/CM and our performances drop off a cliff and we start losing points in games where we could have gained them, it'll be weird to know that some Burnley fans will be loving it because that 7m is in the bank and not doing a job on the pitch.

Rileybobs
14-08-2014, 12:13 PM
'When we get an injury/suspension at CB/CM and our performances drop off a cliff and we start losing points in games where we could have gained them, it'll be weird to know that some Burnley fans will be loving it because that 7m is in the bank and not doing a job on the pitch.'

Not as weird as you thinking you can predict the future.

LancasterClaret
14-08-2014, 12:14 PM
Whats even weirder is that you've read the post and come up with that conclusion.

I know its a hard concept for some to grasp but the players we buy have to be affordable and fit into both our pay structure and our team ethic.

BestBlokeInDoncaster
14-08-2014, 12:52 PM
It's not so much hard to grasp as to give a **** about. You follow a team, not a spreadsheet.

lucs86
14-08-2014, 12:58 PM
Considering we'd offered about 5m for Deeney whilst also chasing Dawson and presumably making enquiries at CM you'd assume that the budget stretches far enough to secure both Dawson and Lansbury now that Deeney's off the radar.

I'd be surprised if the pair couldn't be offered acceptable wages given that Dawson was signed from Rochdale and has only played a handful of times since and Lansbury's reportedy on 9k/wk.

I know we're competing with the smallest budget in the league but we're in the Premier League for a season with a very good manager who I think a lot of people round here would say could keep us up. However if we can't adapt our sensible Championship transfer policy for one transfer window to fill some dangerous gaps in the team with a couple of reasonable transfer targets, then for me we're not giving ourselves, or our manager, enough of a chance.

bobcloth1
14-08-2014, 01:01 PM
The idea that there is nobody suitable out there in our price range is a bit far fetched.

Some Burnley fans said the same when we appointed Laws.
I've said this before, if we can't locate suitable improvements with the budget we now have then we need to have a good look at our scouting network and recruitment policy.

LancasterClaret
14-08-2014, 01:02 PM
Thats a very fair point

But its whether or not that actually is true.

I think we are offering fair deals for the players concerned, and certainly in the case of Dawson, its not about the money.

According to a Forest journalist, there is a hefty sell on fee on anything over 1 million for Lansbury, which means they would want a lot more than we value him at.

I reckon they will both be here in time for the Chelsea game.

theclaret57
14-08-2014, 01:08 PM
According to Nicko Lansbury is injured so wouldn't be available for the Chelsea game anyway and he thinks Chelobah is likely to join us after Chelsea.

permafrost
14-08-2014, 01:11 PM
Deeney might think Burnley is not a place he would want to play football at the moment? ever think that might be true? or is that not something you can turn into a negative jibe against the board or lee hoos or whoever.

Watford arent remotely interested in selling him, because he's their best striker and one of the best outside the premier league?
and they don't need the money? and thats not something you can level as a criticism against someone at the cub.

permafrost
14-08-2014, 01:14 PM
Still hopeful about Chalobah and Dawson, so much business done in the last few days and hours of the window, its hard going.

notnowbernard
15-08-2014, 07:33 AM
Mr Branfoot, post 28, congratulations on last season would love us to do something similar but the fact is that was last season so has naff all to do with this, especially given the loss of Lambert & Lallana & with Jay out until later in the year.
Pelle looks decent but if you are banking on the 1 in 4 average from Long I think you are in bother...still imo.

Do you really think Long is worth 12m or would you have spent it elsewhere?