By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
to Newcastle. Am I the only one who sees no sense in this? Newcastle gain, they get an experienced Premiership International centre back. Fede gains he's playing the standard of football he wishes. Apart from saving Fede's wages, what are Swansea City getting out of this? I can't see anything. Why would we agree to this?
[Post edited 23 Jul 2018 20:01]
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:12 - Jul 25 with 1498 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:03 - Jul 25 by Chief
OK so you do remember such an example of short termisim then. Yes they had Fernandes money but we also didn't buy players as old as the ones they signed or on as much wages. I'm still confused as to what you would have wanted Laurdrup to do? Its not like we signed loads of 30 something's on huge contracts
I remember AN example of short termism yes. Not SUCH an example of short termism no. They aren’t comparable.
With Fernándes’ money they could continue to purchase high earning experienced pros. We couldn’t continue reducing our pot. That’s the difference.
One was set up as a cyclical short term plan (old player comes in, then replaced with another so on and so forth) so it was short termism from Ferdinand’s point of view, not QPR’s - he would just be replaced with the next one, they had the means to do it.
We did not have the means to keep reducing our pot by the managers agent creaming millions off our incomes and outgoings. Not financially viable.
I didn’t want Laudrup to do anything. The era turned out to be excellent for the fan if viewed through a keyhole, and I selfishly wouldn’t change it. But I would be doing my own intelligence a disservice by not noting the absolute intentional lack of foresight that brought it about and the knock on affect that had.
Our ethos was always to buy, develop, sell, regenerate. That is the only way a club like us can survive. After we succumbed to the greed of the Laudrup era, the stench and temptation never really left no matter how hard we tried.
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:12 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
I remember AN example of short termism yes. Not SUCH an example of short termism no. They aren’t comparable.
With Fernándes’ money they could continue to purchase high earning experienced pros. We couldn’t continue reducing our pot. That’s the difference.
One was set up as a cyclical short term plan (old player comes in, then replaced with another so on and so forth) so it was short termism from Ferdinand’s point of view, not QPR’s - he would just be replaced with the next one, they had the means to do it.
We did not have the means to keep reducing our pot by the managers agent creaming millions off our incomes and outgoings. Not financially viable.
I didn’t want Laudrup to do anything. The era turned out to be excellent for the fan if viewed through a keyhole, and I selfishly wouldn’t change it. But I would be doing my own intelligence a disservice by not noting the absolute intentional lack of foresight that brought it about and the knock on affect that had.
Our ethos was always to buy, develop, sell, regenerate. That is the only way a club like us can survive. After we succumbed to the greed of the Laudrup era, the stench and temptation never really left no matter how hard we tried.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 15:15]
With hindsight you say that the Laudrup era was short termist and short sighted. So I ask again, what do you think he should have done differently?
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:16 - Jul 25 by Chief
With hindsight you say that the Laudrup era was short termist and short sighted. So I ask again, what do you think he should have done differently?
You don’t need hindsight for that. It was noted at the time. The deal Tutumlu wanted from the club, the mismanagement of Michus injury for short term gain, Laudrups history, the apparent intention to only sign players represented by Tutumlu and pay themselves extortionate commission and fees.
So again, the above was horrendous short termism, it would never ever last, not feasible, not viable not realistic - and not intended to.
What I would want him to do differently is a moot point. Laudrup is a short term manager. To be anything different would mean he would not have become manager. His tenure brought my the most successful memories I have of the Swans but also started us down the road of the most bitter memories.
So nothing is probably the answer. But that was never my point.
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:21 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
You don’t need hindsight for that. It was noted at the time. The deal Tutumlu wanted from the club, the mismanagement of Michus injury for short term gain, Laudrups history, the apparent intention to only sign players represented by Tutumlu and pay themselves extortionate commission and fees.
So again, the above was horrendous short termism, it would never ever last, not feasible, not viable not realistic - and not intended to.
What I would want him to do differently is a moot point. Laudrup is a short term manager. To be anything different would mean he would not have become manager. His tenure brought my the most successful memories I have of the Swans but also started us down the road of the most bitter memories.
So nothing is probably the answer. But that was never my point.
Posted this in the other thread and this is not about scoring points etc but you need help.
Forget all that nonsense, go for a walk or something, go and speak to people please.
I dont know what goes on or has gone on in your life but you cant carry on like this.
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:21 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
You don’t need hindsight for that. It was noted at the time. The deal Tutumlu wanted from the club, the mismanagement of Michus injury for short term gain, Laudrups history, the apparent intention to only sign players represented by Tutumlu and pay themselves extortionate commission and fees.
So again, the above was horrendous short termism, it would never ever last, not feasible, not viable not realistic - and not intended to.
What I would want him to do differently is a moot point. Laudrup is a short term manager. To be anything different would mean he would not have become manager. His tenure brought my the most successful memories I have of the Swans but also started us down the road of the most bitter memories.
So nothing is probably the answer. But that was never my point.
Yea and I still don't know what your point is. Other players other than Tutus were signed during Laudrups reign. He signed Canas (poor in reality - but that's a different issue), who was an attempt to replace the aging Leon. Pozuelo was a young player who seemingly never settled but has gone onto have a decent career. Hernandez is still playing at decent level now.
Rodgers only ever signed players he knew well and had worked with before. Did you have an issue with that?
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:28 - Jul 25 by Chief
Yea and I still don't know what your point is. Other players other than Tutus were signed during Laudrups reign. He signed Canas (poor in reality - but that's a different issue), who was an attempt to replace the aging Leon. Pozuelo was a young player who seemingly never settled but has gone onto have a decent career. Hernandez is still playing at decent level now.
Rodgers only ever signed players he knew well and had worked with before. Did you have an issue with that?
Well my point is obvious.
It was said that since Laudrup our transfer policy has been terrible. I made the point that Laudrups transfer policy was not viable for the long term so to compare to that is ridiculous really.
You are another getting bogged down in personnel. Who they were is irrelevant. What they represented and why they were brought in is the short termism.
Bringing in players you have worked with previously and bringing in players that your agent represents in order to take millions out of the club and as a result the future regeneration transfer kitty is quite some other. If you can show me Rodgers doing that then the answer is yes, I have a problem with that.
Your examples of Pozuelo and Canas cost the club £4m in agents fees and commissions alone. We did a deal with the devil for short term gain and were taken for a ride.
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:35 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Well my point is obvious.
It was said that since Laudrup our transfer policy has been terrible. I made the point that Laudrups transfer policy was not viable for the long term so to compare to that is ridiculous really.
You are another getting bogged down in personnel. Who they were is irrelevant. What they represented and why they were brought in is the short termism.
Bringing in players you have worked with previously and bringing in players that your agent represents in order to take millions out of the club and as a result the future regeneration transfer kitty is quite some other. If you can show me Rodgers doing that then the answer is yes, I have a problem with that.
Your examples of Pozuelo and Canas cost the club £4m in agents fees and commissions alone. We did a deal with the devil for short term gain and were taken for a ride.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 15:44]
So what did the aforementioned Laudrup represent? And how did they wreak of short termism? Purely because they they were sourced by Tutu? As I said none were 30 yr olds on huge contracts, all could potentially have been sold on at a profit - in fact it would probably have been in Tutu's interest had that happened.
And an agent or tutu type character isnt going to work closely with a club out of the goodness of their heart, they are there to make money.
The proposed loan of Fede on 15:45 - Jul 25 by Chief
So what did the aforementioned Laudrup represent? And how did they wreak of short termism? Purely because they they were sourced by Tutu? As I said none were 30 yr olds on huge contracts, all could potentially have been sold on at a profit - in fact it would probably have been in Tutu's interest had that happened.
And an agent or tutu type character isnt going to work closely with a club out of the goodness of their heart, they are there to make money.
I have explained that extensively.
Tutumlu was not an agent that was impartial. He formed the management team essentially, to the point he had to be banned from the training ground. He had a hold over the club and tried to direct sales as well as purchases, trying to sell players behind the clubs back.
So when the regeneration pot is dwindling with every transaction due to the management team pocketing a slice every time. It doesn’t take Einstein to suggest the long term growth of the club was not really in the thoughts. Instant success and get as much cash as possible.
Are you really telling me you think there was a long term plan put in place by Laudrup and Tutumlu? Honest now.
- The details of Laudrup's transfers don't matter (the fact that he brought in boys in their prime who were successful for Swansea City, who cost f*ck all...bar Bony, who we doubled our money on...and had good resale value. All of that is completely meaningless and irrelevant)
- The fact that the club has spunked 10s of millions on shite since, which ultimately got us relegated, is also irrelevant.
- What is indisputable to Dimi though (because he refuses to take on board any of the detail above) is that Laudrup's tenure was the biggest example of "short termism" he has ever seen. His reasoning for this conclusion seems to be; Laudrup represents short-termism...because I say so.
- ...and he will defend this ludicrous position he has taken for 100+ pages if we wish...because he is insanely insecure and must, MUST, have the last word.
...the thing about dishing out lessons E/Dimi/Chris is that if you deliver them successfully you don't have to point out to others that you have just dished out a lesson, because it should be evident to everybody observing
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:12 - Jul 25 by Kerouac
So to summarise E20/Dimi/Chris' position...
- The details of Laudrup's transfers don't matter (the fact that he brought in boys in their prime who were successful for Swansea City, who cost f*ck all...bar Bony, who we doubled our money on...and had good resale value. All of that is completely meaningless and irrelevant)
- The fact that the club has spunked 10s of millions on shite since, which ultimately got us relegated, is also irrelevant.
- What is indisputable to Dimi though (because he refuses to take on board any of the detail above) is that Laudrup's tenure was the biggest example of "short termism" he has ever seen. His reasoning for this conclusion seems to be; Laudrup represents short-termism...because I say so.
- ...and he will defend this ludicrous position he has taken for 100+ pages if we wish...because he is insanely insecure and must, MUST, have the last word.
...the thing about dishing out lessons E/Dimi/Chris is that if you deliver them successfully you don't have to point out to others that you have just dished out a lesson, because it should be evident to everybody observing
I have already summarised it for you.
- If I won £1m in the lottery, didn’t work so that was my only income and had to make it last my lifetime. I then went and rented a mansion and leased a yacht. The details of how luxurious they were, how new they were - is irrelevant. My short term attitude is what is being scrutinised.
- What the club has done since is a byproduct of the Laudrup era. However since then it has been with a view to re-generate the money instead of syphoning it off into personal pockets. We are discussing intent and policy - not outcome.
- Making up a viewpoint to argue against isn’t really helpful to the debate now is it. Laudrup represents short termism because of the reasons painfully explained. The transfer policy was set and designed that club value would be syphoned into personal pockets being the most obvious of the many points already repeated 109 times.
- lessons are often observed but don’t sink in until the populous catch up. My job is to plant the seed so when it finally does dawn in the slow, it may be easier to understand than if it dawned on you naturally. Hence why teachers often get a hard time by their students, half the time they are too thick to know what they are being told until later life.
Thanks for the input. Although a load of nonsense and clearly misunderstood the concept of the discussion, it at least showed a bit of heart. Much better than a YouTube video nobody clicks on.
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:12 - Jul 25 by Kerouac
So to summarise E20/Dimi/Chris' position...
- The details of Laudrup's transfers don't matter (the fact that he brought in boys in their prime who were successful for Swansea City, who cost f*ck all...bar Bony, who we doubled our money on...and had good resale value. All of that is completely meaningless and irrelevant)
- The fact that the club has spunked 10s of millions on shite since, which ultimately got us relegated, is also irrelevant.
- What is indisputable to Dimi though (because he refuses to take on board any of the detail above) is that Laudrup's tenure was the biggest example of "short termism" he has ever seen. His reasoning for this conclusion seems to be; Laudrup represents short-termism...because I say so.
- ...and he will defend this ludicrous position he has taken for 100+ pages if we wish...because he is insanely insecure and must, MUST, have the last word.
...the thing about dishing out lessons E/Dimi/Chris is that if you deliver them successfully you don't have to point out to others that you have just dished out a lesson, because it should be evident to everybody observing
The only problem with Dim's ex post analysis is the facts.
In Laudrup's only full year the club received precisely £3.3 million more than it spent on investments in player registrations; a surplus.
In the following two years the club spent a total of £51.7 million more than it took in from sales. Deficits.
And by coincidence Jenkins is on record as saying the club backed Monk heavily to the tune of £50 million, which is why the club got itself into serious debt in the first place.
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:45 - Jul 25 by Shaky
The only problem with Dim's ex post analysis is the facts.
In Laudrup's only full year the club received precisely £3.3 million more than it spent on investments in player registrations; a surplus.
In the following two years the club spent a total of £51.7 million more than it took in from sales. Deficits.
And by coincidence Jenkins is on record as saying the club backed Monk heavily to the tune of £50 million, which is why the club got itself into serious debt in the first place.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 16:47]
Well isn’t that a shock. The king of not understanding anything at all. I know you are protective of your Danes that don’t support Swansea and trying to make a quick buck but to be so hap hazard in your approach will be denting the personal yoo are trying to portray.
It really is not that difficult. I will repeat again, slowly. Transfer fees are irrelevant, personnel is irrelevant. We are talking about a transfer system, an ethos.
If a system is designed to take from the common stock, it is not a long term plan with the interests growth of that stock at its core.
Tutumlu was taking from every single sale the club made, whether he represented them or not. He was then creaming millions from the players Laudrup was bringing in. Thus the ethos was not to grow the club but to milk it.
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:50 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Well isn’t that a shock. The king of not understanding anything at all. I know you are protective of your Danes that don’t support Swansea and trying to make a quick buck but to be so hap hazard in your approach will be denting the personal yoo are trying to portray.
It really is not that difficult. I will repeat again, slowly. Transfer fees are irrelevant, personnel is irrelevant. We are talking about a transfer system, an ethos.
If a system is designed to take from the common stock, it is not a long term plan with the interests growth of that stock at its core.
Tutumlu was taking from every single sale the club made, whether he represented them or not. He was then creaming millions from the players Laudrup was bringing in. Thus the ethos was not to grow the club but to milk it.
What is it about the word surplus you fail to understand, Dim?
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:45 - Jul 25 by Shaky
The only problem with Dim's ex post analysis is the facts.
In Laudrup's only full year the club received precisely £3.3 million more than it spent on investments in player registrations; a surplus.
In the following two years the club spent a total of £51.7 million more than it took in from sales. Deficits.
And by coincidence Jenkins is on record as saying the club backed Monk heavily to the tune of £50 million, which is why the club got itself into serious debt in the first place.
[Post edited 25 Jul 2018 16:47]
Backing Monk? Aye if the club employed someone with contacts, a reputation and a 'name' to attract players whom could turn into a future bargain/ great investment a learner like Monk would have be last on any list.
The Premier League is the last place in the world to appoint a 'rookie' because tens of millions can end up being needlessly poured down the drain
Argus!
1
The proposed loan of Fede on 17:00 - Jul 25 with 1222 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:50 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
Well isn’t that a shock. The king of not understanding anything at all. I know you are protective of your Danes that don’t support Swansea and trying to make a quick buck but to be so hap hazard in your approach will be denting the personal yoo are trying to portray.
It really is not that difficult. I will repeat again, slowly. Transfer fees are irrelevant, personnel is irrelevant. We are talking about a transfer system, an ethos.
If a system is designed to take from the common stock, it is not a long term plan with the interests growth of that stock at its core.
Tutumlu was taking from every single sale the club made, whether he represented them or not. He was then creaming millions from the players Laudrup was bringing in. Thus the ethos was not to grow the club but to milk it.
I’m struggling to follow this line of thinking.
Not the bit about milking the club, I understand that. I don’t understand how it is necessarily short term thinking though.
If we bought a player for £5m at age 25 and sold for £10m at age 27, that hasn’t shrunk the pot available for the club whether a percentage is taken off both ends or not. The percentage taken off both ends reduces the profit (it’s an opportunity cost if you like - we’ve not achieved as much as we may have done) but the club still has more than it would have done if the player hadn’t been bought. Plus it’s had use of that player for 2 years.
0
The proposed loan of Fede on 17:07 - Jul 25 with 1187 views
The proposed loan of Fede on 16:24 - Jul 25 by E20Jack
I have already summarised it for you.
- If I won £1m in the lottery, didn’t work so that was my only income and had to make it last my lifetime. I then went and rented a mansion and leased a yacht. The details of how luxurious they were, how new they were - is irrelevant. My short term attitude is what is being scrutinised.
- What the club has done since is a byproduct of the Laudrup era. However since then it has been with a view to re-generate the money instead of syphoning it off into personal pockets. We are discussing intent and policy - not outcome.
- Making up a viewpoint to argue against isn’t really helpful to the debate now is it. Laudrup represents short termism because of the reasons painfully explained. The transfer policy was set and designed that club value would be syphoned into personal pockets being the most obvious of the many points already repeated 109 times.
- lessons are often observed but don’t sink in until the populous catch up. My job is to plant the seed so when it finally does dawn in the slow, it may be easier to understand than if it dawned on you naturally. Hence why teachers often get a hard time by their students, half the time they are too thick to know what they are being told until later life.
Thanks for the input. Although a load of nonsense and clearly misunderstood the concept of the discussion, it at least showed a bit of heart. Much better than a YouTube video nobody clicks on.
The proposed loan of Fede on 17:02 - Jul 25 by Shaky
Right, so your theory is that Laudrup destroyed the ethos of the club by creaming it in the sense he left more money in the kitty than he took out.
'Nuff said.
Well he didn’t for a start.
Secondly it is ethos not outcome, even if what you said was tee (it isn’t, whichbis why you ignored the question) If you think surplus (it wasn’t a surplus) is a metric of a sustainable model then I assume you think if I had 25k to my name and chucked £500 at the lottery every week, won 500k in my first year - then that is a sustainable long term model yes? Or is that methodology the architipical short term strategy?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
you are extra triggered today Daps. Nerve well and truly touched. 
