Dale Stephens

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:50 pm

Rileybobs wrote:Hopefully, although as I've said in another thread it might not be a bad idea to pursue a striker on a permanent deal in the summer and get a loan signing in for the rest of the season.

We're practically safe already, I'd rather we got in loans this month and got in permanent deals in the summer because we'd have more pulling power to attract better players than we currently can, probably at cheaper prices too.

Reecey1987 · Post by **Reecey1987** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:52 pm

Brighton turned an 8 millon bid down from villa other day . There determined to keep him . Even if he leaves on a free come end of the season . If they wasnt anywere near top 6 they would cash in on him . But there 2nd in the table so i think we should forget about this one

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:53 pm

Before we kicked a ball this season I really wanted us to sign Stephens. Now I don't tbh, we can get better than him if we stay up.

Yearofthefox · Post by **Yearofthefox** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:54 am

If we did bag Stephens on a free in the summer this would be a good signing.

I'm still staying with my Brighton will blow it prediction!

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:08 am

I'm surprised more clubs dont bring in players on free transfers to sell them instantly, We could sign Stephens and flog him for a cut down price of £6M instantly.

turfytopper · Post by **turfytopper** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:35 am

FactualFrank wrote:That will mean Leeds go up instead. Not sure which is worse, they're as bad as each other.

That is one to wrestle with.... My sleepless nights used to be when i was wrangling over whether i disliked wovers more than dirty Leeds.

Note wovers are an irrelevance my thoughts have turned to the Albion v D. Leeds debate.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:29 am

Vegas Claret wrote:Before we kicked a ball this season I really wanted us to sign Stephens. Now I don't tbh, we can get better than him if we stay up.

Interested - who do you think we could realistically sign at that sort of fee (and on the sort of wages that we could offer) who would be better?
(Bearing in mind as well, that he is just recently 27, so he would have a potential resale value, as opposed to an established PL or European player who might see it as a last payday.)

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:43 am

nil_desperandum wrote: Interested - who do you think we could realistically sign at that sort of fee (and on the sort of wages that we could offer) who would be better?
(Bearing in mind as well, that he is just recently 27, so he would have a potential resale value, as opposed to an established PL or European player who might see it as a last payday.)

In all fairness it depends Wether you consider Stephens to be a starter or not. Will we sign many players with better ability than our current starting crop for his price? I doubt it, but in my opinion he isn't going to be a starter anyway, so for a squad player he is quite expensive.

We bought two central midfielders ahead of him at the beginning of the season and we have just signed free cover in the form of Barton.

I'm against the Stephens signing for the reason that he doesn't offer an improvement in quality which at this stage I think is what we need. If we're signing squad players I'd rather look at youngsters who will develop rather than a player with no Prem experience who is in his late twenties. Signing Stephens is moving backwards in my book when you compare him to Hendrick and Defour. If we want to stay in the division we want premier league quality, that won't happen over night but there is no point stocking up on championship players when we have a squad full of them.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:50 am

Stephens has consistently been amongst the top Championship midfielders for the past couple of seasons. If he isn't capable of making the step up to PL level, then I can't think of many others who are.
I might be wrong, but my feeling is that if there had been a poll on here at the end of last season, the majority would have favored signing Stephens ahead of Hendrick.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:27 pm

If you'd have asked me at the beginning of the summer transfer window I myself would have definitely taken Stephens, but that was based on a number of things which have now changed.

We now have a very realistic scenario where we could stay up and have added significant quality to our team (Defour/Hendrick). The only player I can see Stephens replacing is now Marney, but as I've said before I don't believe he is any better and is not what I would describe as significantly younger. For me it seems a big waste to spend over 5 million for a player who offers no real improvement, but is only slightly younger. Especially with his lack of top flight experience. I'd rather see us sign first team quality which relegates the older/less capable players to the bench and squad ensuring that we are improving at every opportunity.

If we got Stephens on a contract expiry then great news, but spending a decent sum on him at this point is not somthing I view as worthwhile. We still have a majority squad filled with championship players, and whilst they are serving us well we will need to slowly phase these out and replace with better players to move forwards. All in all it shows just how far we've come in a short space if time.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:58 pm

Dale Stephens is 6 years younger than Dean Marney, in footballing terms that's a significant amount of time.

We need younger players who have decent experience, Stephens has that, and is playing for a team that have consistently challenged at the top end of the EFL for a few years.

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:59 pm

KRBFC wrote:I'm surprised more clubs dont bring in players on free transfers to sell them instantly, We could sign Stephens and flog him for a cut down price of £6M instantly.

Speaks volumes about you, KRBFC.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:03 pm

scouseclaret wrote:Speaks volumes about you, KRBFC.

Why does it? If we signed him on a free transfer and sold him instantly for £6M, that would be probably £5M profit in the bank after signing on fees and agent fees at a guess.

scouseclaret · Post by **scouseclaret** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:17 pm

Do you think it is ethical to sign a player with that intention? What do you think that would do to our reputation in the market and our ability to attract players in future?

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:18 pm

KRBFC isn't suggesting we do it, he's suggesting his surprise that more clubs don't do it.

Financially it makes sense, but there's probably some law that stops it happening.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:18 pm

scouseclaret wrote:Do you think it is ethical to sign a player with that intention? What do you think that would do to our reputation in the market and our ability to attract players in future?

I didn't say ''I'm surprised Burnley don't do this''
I was talking more about sides who actually need the funds.
Players these days have the clubs by the balls, it's about time the clubs stood up and ran the show.
I doubt the players would be too unhappy receiving 2 signing on fees in a matter of weeks.

boyyanno · Post by **boyyanno** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:25 pm

"We need players that have decent experience".

That's exactly why I wouldn't sign Stephens.

He's 27 and has no top flight experience at all. He's also not better than what we currently have. How can anyone justify paying 5 million plus for him?

If you're looking for experience you sign an older pro who is used to the division. Not an older one from the division below.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:29 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Interested - who do you think we could realistically sign at that sort of fee (and on the sort of wages that we could offer) who would be better?
(Bearing in mind as well, that he is just recently 27, so he would have a potential resale value, as opposed to an established PL or European player who might see it as a last payday.)

I don't know, I'm not a scout for Burnley Football club, but the fact that no other PL teams are seemingly in for him would indicate where his talents could be (championship). Not saying I'm right btw, Hendrick has been a surprising improvement and there is nothing to indicate either way that Stephens would or wouldn't be. Dyche knows what he's doing and what is required so I'll gladly go with what he decides

Let me put it this way, in our current position I would have taken Barton over Stephens for experience alone

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:23 pm

KRBFC wrote:I'm surprised more clubs dont bring in players on free transfers to sell them instantly, We could sign Stephens and flog him for a cut down price of £6M instantly.

Why would Stephens agree to that? And perhaps more pertinently, why would the next free transfer signing want to come to us?

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:28 pm

You might struggle to move 'free' transfers on given that you would be paying a premium in wages instead of a transfer fee. Players run down their contracts to maximise earnings.

UTC!

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:28 pm

KRBFC wrote:I'm surprised more clubs dont bring in players on free transfers to sell them instantly, We could sign Stephens and flog him for a cut down price of £6M instantly.

Even if this did happen it wouldn't really change the pecking order ....as soon as two or more clubs cottoned on to the idea the players concerned would get them to bid against each other with signing on fees. The richest clubs would win out in the end just as they do in all financial dealings.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:30 pm

dsr wrote:Why would Stephens agree to that? And perhaps more pertinently, why would the next free transfer signing want to come to us?

I was talking more about clubs who need the money, I used us as an example.
A player would receive 2 signing on fees in a matter of weeks, what's not to like about receiving 2 lump sums of cash.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:31 pm

Duffer_ wrote:You might struggle to move 'free' transfers on given that you would be paying a premium in wages instead of a transfer fee. Players run down their contracts to maximise earnings.

UTC!

That's where stacking the signing on fee to reduce wages comes into effect.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:31 pm

KRBFC wrote:I was talking more about clubs who need the money, I used us as an example.
A player would receive 2 signing on fees in a matter of weeks, what's not to like about receiving 2 lump sums of cash.

If there's a club willing to pay £6m transfer fee, then the hypothetical player would sign for them straight up and negotiate a share of the £6m. He wouldn't agree to go round the houses.

When planning these miraculous money-raising schemes, you need to remember that real people are involved. You can't just assume that, like pawns on a chess board, they do exactly what you want. They will tend to act in their own best interest.

Just as an example - when Danny Ings was available on a free, why didn't Blackburn Rovers (in need of cash) sign him and then sell him to Liverpool for £4m? I suspect it's because Ings wouldn't agree to the deal.

willsclarets · Post by **willsclarets** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:36 pm

In terms of using loans now rather than getting permanent signings in over the summer, it has to be dependent on who's available. If we can get Brady in, we do it. Sitting in 10th spot, our stock is high and we might catch the eye of players who can improve us heading into next season. Would it not be great to be sitting on a starting 11 we're already fairly happy with, having been bedded in over half a season. Compare that to the "there's only x weeks left and we've still no wide players in" scenario.
It might cost a tad more, but if we can improve our starting 11 in January, we should pull the trigger.

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:08 pm

ClaretAndJew wrote:KRBFC isn't suggesting we do it, he's suggesting his surprise that more clubs don't do it.

Financially it makes sense, but there's probably some law that stops it happening.

2 clubs in 2 windows would fill that criteria.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:12 pm

dsr wrote:If there's a club willing to pay £6m transfer fee, then the hypothetical player would sign for them straight up and negotiate a share of the £6m. He wouldn't agree to go round the houses.

When planning these miraculous money-raising schemes, you need to remember that real people are involved. You can't just assume that, like pawns on a chess board, they do exactly what you want. They will tend to act in their own best interest.

Just as an example - when Danny Ings was available on a free, why didn't Blackburn Rovers (in need of cash) sign him and then sell him to Liverpool for £4m? I suspect it's because Ings wouldn't agree to the deal.

Why would Ings sign for Blackburn and risk his career that way? i'm talking about clubs in need of cash lower down the leagues picking up free transfers and selling them for a fee. ''They will tend to act in their own best interest'' You do realise that a footballers best interest financially is to move clubs? why do you think agents are mostly the ones wanting to drum up interest in their player. The agent and player get paid massively when they join a new team, financially the players best interest would be too pick up as many big signing on fees as possible throughout their career.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:28 pm

KRBFC wrote:Why would Ings sign for Blackburn and risk his career that way? i'm talking about clubs in need of cash lower down the leagues picking up free transfers and selling them for a fee. ''They will tend to act in their own best interest'' You do realise that a footballers best interest financially is to move clubs? why do you think agents are mostly the ones wanting to drum up interest in their player. The agent and player get paid massively when they join a new team, financially the players best interest would be too pick up as many big signing on fees as possible throughout their career.

Now you've stopped making any sense at all. You agree that for a player like Ings, it would be nonsense to sign for a lower league club and risk his career. Which we can both agree on. But you still want lower league clubs to sign players on free transfers and sell them for £6m? Can you give me a single example of any player, ever, who might have agreed to sign for a lower league club on a free transfer if he was worth £6m on a sale under contract?

Players who are worth £6m will not sign for lower league clubs on free transfers just to help those lower league clubs out. This isn't a computer game.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:35 pm

dsr wrote:Now you've stopped making any sense at all. You agree that for a player like Ings, it would be nonsense to sign for a lower league club and risk his career. Which we can both agree on. But you still want lower league clubs to sign players on free transfers and sell them for £6m? Can you give me a single example of any player, ever, who might have agreed to sign for a lower league club on a free transfer if he was worth £6m on a sale under contract?

Players who are worth £6m will not sign for lower league clubs on free transfers just to help those lower league clubs out. This isn't a computer game.

Sorry you've lost me, who mentioned £6M? Or did you take the example I made using the player in question to fabricate your point?

Cleveleys_claret · Post by **Cleveleys_claret** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:42 pm

minnieclaret wrote:2 clubs in 2 windows would fill that criteria.

Although it's a nonsense argument......the two club rule only applies if you have played a competitive match. In this instance of just signing to move again to generate profit for the club buying then selling no game would of been played.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:45 pm

KRBFC wrote:I'm surprised more clubs dont bring in players on free transfers to sell them instantly, We could sign Stephens and flog him for a cut down price of £6M instantly.

Who mentioned £6m? Cast your mind back not all that far. Correct - it was you!

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:48 pm

dsr wrote:Who mentioned £6m? Cast your mind back not all that far. Correct - it was you!

I made an example using Stephens and Burnley, if you could actually read I'd already cleared that up further up the thread. I was talking about teams strapped for cash in League One/Two and obviously wasn't talking about players of the quality of Stephens/Ings signing for clubs like Accy Stanley.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:50 pm

KRBFC wrote:I made an example using Stephens and Burnley, if you could actually read I'd already cleared that up further up the thread. I was talking about teams strapped for cash in League One/Two and obviously wasn't talking about players of the quality of Stephens/Ings signing for clubs like Accy Stanley.

Obvious in your own mind, not obvious in print. Anyway, the idea is still a failure. Players who are worth money will not sign on free transfers for teams they don't want to play for.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:02 pm

dsr wrote:Obvious in your own mind, not obvious in print. Anyway, the idea is still a failure. Players who are worth money will not sign on free transfers for teams they don't want to play for.

I printed it for the less intelligent bunch but even that wasn't good enough. It's obviously a theory and unlikely to ever happen, I just wondered why it had never been done. Players aren't worth money when they don't have a contract with a club hence why they sign on free transfers (A free transfer is where the player doesn't have a contract with a club so no transfer fee is needed). I think you need an explanation on what a signing on fee is, it's pretty explanatory but I'll let you work it out for yourself.

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:04 pm

This thread is suffering from a lack of people reading each others replies.

Sidney1st · Post by **Sidney1st** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 10:04 pm

There will be a number of players being shifted off the bench at the top 6/7 clubs to make way for more expensive signings and they'll end up trickling down the league and the players they displace will also be available etc.

We've had a crack at buying from Europe again, let's have another look for others.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:17 pm

KRBFC wrote:I printed it for the less intelligent bunch but even that wasn't good enough. It's obviously a theory and unlikely to ever happen, I just wondered why it had never been done. Players aren't worth money when they don't have a contract with a club hence why they sign on free transfers (A free transfer is where the player doesn't have a contract with a club so no transfer fee is needed). I think you need an explanation on what a signing on fee is, it's pretty explanatory but I'll let you work it out for yourself.

Hi KRBFC, so, you can't work out why Player A (out of contract) doesn't agree to sign for Club X for Wages - plus a signing-on fee (in lieu of transfer fee) and then Club X sells on Player A for a transfer fee to Club Y (and Player A received a second signing-on fee). And, we've got to assume that agent fees come into this somewhere....

Yes, it can happen if Club Y offer more than Club X paid out - AND, Player A wants to play for Club Y (and decided not to play for Club X) - or Club X decides that the signing was a mistake. Didn't Burnley do this at the start of 2015/16 - the guy didn't stay long.

But, it can't be a money making strategy; would Player A risk signing for Club X unless the wages are at the level he requires? Would he risk signing and there is no Club Y to make a second offer? So, you've got to assume that Club X is at the level that Player A wants to play for. And, you've got to assume that Club Y is so eager for the deal that they pay a premium (and offer Club X can't turn down)..

So, unlikely to be a "money making scheme" for clubs that are "short of money..."

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:45 pm

I think it was Man Utd that got Antwerp to sign a player so they could sign him from memory, can't for the life of me remember said player name though

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:47 pm

Paul Waine wrote:Hi KRBFC, so, you can't work out why Player A (out of contract) doesn't agree to sign for Club X for Wages - plus a signing-on fee (in lieu of transfer fee) and then Club X sells on Player A for a transfer fee to Club Y (and Player A received a second signing-on fee). And, we've got to assume that agent fees come into this somewhere....

Yes, it can happen if Club Y offer more than Club X paid out - AND, Player A wants to play for Club Y (and decided not to play for Club X) - or Club X decides that the signing was a mistake. Didn't Burnley do this at the start of 2015/16 - the guy didn't stay long.

But, it can't be a money making strategy; would Player A risk signing for Club X unless the wages are at the level he requires? Would he risk signing and there is no Club Y to make a second offer? So, you've got to assume that Club X is at the level that Player A wants to play for. And, you've got to assume that Club Y is so eager for the deal that they pay a premium (and offer Club X can't turn down)..

So, unlikely to be a "money making scheme" for clubs that are "short of money..."

Jelle Vossen is the player you're referring too, I've seen others on here claim he was signed to be sold to his old clubs rivals. Club Y wouldn't have to offer that big of a wage increase on Club X's wage. Club X would offer a bigger signing on fee to lower wages to make the player easier to shift. Club Y wouldn't have to pay a premium because all money Club X would receive in transfer fees would be profit (after deducting agent fees and signing on fee). It's just a theory and a thought, would make sense from a business sense.

box_of_frogs · Post by **box_of_frogs** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:58 am

When we get to page 3, can it go vaguely back on topic rather than drug altered, mind bending fantasy.