Fosters Improvement

[Goliath]

Hojlund is younger, bigger (and the trend is moving back towards big strikers to counter the trend towards smaller quicker defenders), had a nearly 1 in 1 record for Denmark, bagge 5 goes in Europe (Europa Conference but still Europe) aged 18, and while his Atalanta record was only 1 in 3, conventional footballing wisdom (rightly or wrongly) says that the Italian league is very hard to score in and much more defensively focused. Hojlund also had the advantage of being branded as a doppelganger of Erling Haaland due to numerous superficial similarities, again might not be based in reality but the branding was in your face.

I love Lyle and he's got tons of great attributes, but he's older and his best record before this season was 1 in 3 in Belgium, a weaker league than Serie A. His pedigree prior to this season was way below Hojlund's, that's why he cost us far less. We'd absolutely turn a profit on him but I'd be shocked if we got £40m, especially as a player's injury record often factors into their valuation and, I'm saying this as someone who has depression himself so knows how cruel and unfair as it is, I'd expect negotiators to look at his depression as a risk factor.




But it was a loan they took out, to buy the club, because they had no money. So it's money that has gone OUT of the club, in service of THEIR debts, that THEY accrued and loaded onto the club so they could buy it. So again- they factually have taken money out, for various reasons.

I think you (and United) are overvaluing some of those stats. He should never have cost £60m imo but if we use that as a benchmark and then compare Fosters PL record this season to Hjolunds which is the first time they can really be directly compared, then £40m seems absolutely fair.

But really its about more than just stats, just watching his performances against world class defenders, they just cant cope with him. City, Villa and Chelsea have all struggled to contain him.

Just as another example, I think Solanke cost about £20 mill and he'd done absolutely nothing at that point in his career, that fee was based on pure potentional. Foster has the potential combined with performances at Premier League level

[CoolClaret]

Only because the premature time circumstances haven't allowed full player development or nobody's offered anything. How many so called bids have been resisted also?

No idea Jakub -

They have been here since 2021 though haven’t they so it’s been enough time.

I just think some are getting way ahead of themselves.

Even with a player like Koleosho who started doing really well for us, some posters going on about potentially selling selling him for 50 million quid I mean crikey.

Let’s just relax a bit

[Jakubclaret]

No idea Jakub -

They have been here since 2021 though haven’t they so it’s been enough time.

I just think some are getting way ahead of themselves.

Even with a player like Koleosho who started doing really well for us, some posters going on about potentially selling selling him for 50 million quid I mean crikey.

Let’s just relax a bit

To be honest nobody's really done anything substantial in terms of the PL yet, give it time. it's not necessarily a good thing the players aren't generating any outside interest it's more indicative of them playing poorly & not being wanted, although as of late with the emergence of a few showing promising form all hope isn't lost on that front.

[spt_claret]

I think you (and United) are overvaluing some of those stats. He should never have cost £60m imo but if we use that as a benchmark and then compare Fosters PL record this season to Hjolunds which is the first time they can really be directly compared, then £40m seems absolutely fair.

But really its about more than just stats, just watching his performances against world class defenders, they just cant cope with him. City, Villa and Chelsea have all struggled to contain him.

Just as another example, I think Solanke cost about £20 mill and he'd done absolutely nothing at that point in his career, that fee was based on pure potentional. Foster has the potential combined with performances at Premier League level

I think Foster's turned absolutely class this year. He's got so many attributes. He's fast, strong, he's got sharp clever movement where he can drop deep or drift wide which would have me as a manager thinking he could play in a number of different systems, possibly as a wide forward or a supporting striker/deep forward/false 9 also. He's got good touch and technique. He's a sharp finisher. Reasonably two footed. Hard worker.

I don't think transfer valuations always work as straightforward as that. I think we'd be exceptionally lucky to get 40m for him. If he was 2 years younger, 2 inches taller, and had 2 more goals in 2 less games at international level? We'd probably get it. If we qualified for Europe? We'd get it, even if in this hypothetical scenario, Foster's performance for us qualifying for Europe vs not qualifying is exactly the same.

Chris Wood was one of the most prolific strikers outside of a big club in the Prem. We all felt £25m was good business.

Cornet was Foster's age, also versatile at positions, bagged plenty of goals including a few stunners in quite limited matchtime given injuries. Even without the release clause, I doubt we'd have got above 20, maybe 25 if lucky.

So much more is in play when it comes to valuing a player, than their actual ability, or indeed their age. Eg. If Burnley and Everton had the exact same squads, I'd bet Everton would always get a good 10-20% more for the player in a sale, at a minimum.

[Newcastleclaret93]

Andy Carroll?
Ollie Watkins was about £30 mill and he'd never played in the Premier League I dont think

Andy Carroll scored over ten goals.

Watkins just got sold of the back of a 30 Gc season. I appreciate that’s in the league below.

But the fact is I still can’t find a single striker that has moved between premier league clubs for 40m plus based on a ten goal season

[Goliath]

I think Foster's turned absolutely class this year. He's got so many attributes. He's fast, strong, he's got sharp clever movement where he can drop deep or drift wide which would have me as a manager thinking he could play in a number of different systems, possibly as a wide forward or a supporting striker/deep forward/false 9 also. He's got good touch and technique. He's a sharp finisher. Reasonably two footed. Hard worker.

I don't think transfer valuations always work as straightforward as that. I think we'd be exceptionally lucky to get 40m for him. If he was 2 years younger, 2 inches taller, and had 2 more goals in 2 less games at international level? We'd probably get it. If we qualified for Europe? We'd get it, even if in this hypothetical scenario, Foster's performance for us qualifying for Europe vs not qualifying is exactly the same.

Chris Wood was one of the most prolific strikers outside of a big club in the Prem. We all felt £25m was good business.

Cornet was Foster's age, also versatile at positions, bagged plenty of goals including a few stunners in quite limited matchtime given injuries. Even without the release clause, I doubt we'd have got above 20, maybe 25 if lucky.

So much more is in play when it comes to valuing a player, than their actual ability, or indeed their age. Eg. If Burnley and Everton had the exact same squads, I'd bet Everton would always get a good 10-20% more for the player in a sale, at a minimum.

Cornet was 25 no?
The Chris Wood comparison is silly, he was already past his peak and was in the middle of his worst season he'd had for us and was clearly limited as a player

But yes they aren't straightforward, the value is really dependent on the number of teams that come in for him and if he carries on in this type of form then there's going to be clubs all over Europe fighting for him, plus about half of the Premier league if not more which puts us in a great position to hold out for a good fee

[spt_claret]

Cornet was 25 no?
The Chris Wood comparison is silly, he was already past his peak and was in the middle of his worst season he'd had for us and was clearly limited as a player

But yes they aren't straightforward, the value is really dependent on the number of teams that come in for him and if he carries on in this type of form then there's going to be clubs all over Europe fighting for him, plus about half of the Premier league if not more which puts us in a great position to hold out for a good fee

I thought we got whatever we paid for Cornet which I believe was somewhere in the 15-18m range.
And he was and is an yet is on 1 in 2 for a dire Notts Forest, at the grand age of 32. He's an incredibly effective productive goalscorer when used right, one of the cheapest around in terms of price per goal based on what we got for him, is my only point.
I'd HOPE we got 40-50m for Foster. I think we'd peak at 20-25.

[Goliath]

I thought we got whatever we paid for Cornet which I believe was somewhere in the 15-18m range.
And he was and is an yet is on 1 in 2 for a dire Notts Forest, at the grand age of 32. He's an incredibly effective productive goalscorer when used right, one of the cheapest around in terms of price per goal based on what we got for him, is my only point.
I'd HOPE we got 40-50m for Foster. I think we'd peak at 20-25.

Sorry i meant he was 25 years old when he played for us, not his fee.
Yep Wood was a decent reliable goalscorer at this level at his best but he was in his late 20's and had very few other attributes.

If we only got 25 mill i think itd be very disappointing and possibly worth the risk of keeping him for another year at least.

[warksclaret]

Players values can drop drastically. I am sure we can all remember the stories about Dwight McNeil after several seasons with us being valued at around £40m. Believe after a bad last season with us when we got relegated,we sold him for £20m to Everton

[Cooclaret]

Hojlund is younger, bigger (and the trend is moving back towards big strikers to counter the trend towards smaller quicker defenders), had a nearly 1 in 1 record for Denmark, bagge 5 goes in Europe (Europa Conference but still Europe) aged 18, and while his Atalanta record was only 1 in 3, conventional footballing wisdom (rightly or wrongly) says that the Italian league is very hard to score in and much more defensively focused. Hojlund also had the advantage of being branded as a doppelganger of Erling Haaland due to numerous superficial similarities, again might not be based in reality but the branding was in your face.

I love Lyle and he's got tons of great attributes, but he's older and his best record before this season was 1 in 3 in Belgium, a weaker league than Serie A. His pedigree prior to this season was way below Hojlund's, that's why he cost us far less. We'd absolutely turn a profit on him but I'd be shocked if we got £40m, especially as a player's injury record often factors into their valuation and, I'm saying this as someone who has depression himself so knows how cruel and unfair as it is, I'd expect negotiators to look at his depression as a risk factor.




But it was a loan they took out, to buy the club, because they had no money. So it's money that has gone OUT of the club, in service of THEIR debts, that THEY accrued and loaded onto the club so they could buy it. So again- they factually have taken money out, for various reasons.

But, and this is important, as it was the accusation; have player sales been directly taken out of the club and into the owners pockets?

Have they not paid the loan taken to buy the club off? Chester would know…

[Cooclaret]

Even better to not take one out in the first place id say.

Though we’ve taken plenty of those out under the new lot.

And we didn’t under the previous owners, and owners before then?

All good business runs on debt.

[spt_claret]

But, and this is important, as it was the accusation; have player sales been directly taken out of the club and into the owners pockets?

Have they not paid the loan taken to buy the club off? Chester would know…

That's the same thing with an intermediary step.
Man buys club with money he doesn't have.
Man takes out loan to fund purchase.
Man sells club asset to pay off loan.
Man has effectively gained an asset without cost to himself, which he will then be able to sell for money to himself or use to generate more money for himself.
I tend to believe that if you want to buy something you should pay for it with your money. That's the way it works for everyone except the super rich or people connected in finance.

It's interesting how many financiers oppose socialism and claim to like capitalism when their favourite tricks are paying for stuff with other people's money and socialising their losses with state bailouts. Not very capitalist to me.

And we didn’t under the previous owners, and owners before then?

All good business runs on debt.

Your idea of good and mine differ. Huge risk huge profit businesses may run on debt but I see that more as a sign of sickness in modern economics than a sign of responsible stewardship. The average person has to pay their credit card off or incur exorbitant interest which can cost them everything. The average financier can incur far more debt and if it all goes pear shaped someone else ends up on the hook or the business gets liquidated and it's written off. Except in this case that would mean the end of a 141 year old football club that is a pillar of the town's community.

[Big Vinny K]

Some crazy comments and lack of understanding on this thread.

spt_claret’s post above is an exception to this though as a lot of what he says is an accurate assessment.

How people can believe that the structure of takeovers like ALK, the Glazers at United and what has happened at many other clubs is a better way for a club to operate than being debt free or those lucky enough to be subsidised by rich owners like Brighton (and Jack Walker previously at Blackburn)……is completely beyond me.

But unfortunately it is the way of the world and as fans there’s nowt we can do….other than pray your club does not end up the next financial basket case

[Cooclaret]

That's the same thing with an intermediary step.
Man buys club with money he doesn't have.
Man takes out loan to fund purchase.
Man sells club asset to pay off loan.
Man has effectively gained an asset without cost to himself, which he will then be able to sell for money to himself or use to generate more money for himself.
I tend to believe that if you want to buy something you should pay for it with your money. That's the way it works for everyone except the super rich or people connected in finance.

It's interesting how many financiers oppose socialism and claim to like capitalism when their favourite tricks are paying for stuff with other people's money and socialising their losses with state bailouts. Not very capitalist to me.


Your idea of good and mine differ. Huge risk huge profit businesses may run on debt but I see that more as a sign of sickness in modern economics than a sign of responsible stewardship. The average person has to pay their credit card off or incur exorbitant interest which can cost them everything. The average financier can incur far more debt and if it all goes pear shaped someone else ends up on the hook or the business gets liquidated and it's written off. Except in this case that would mean the end of a 141 year old football club that is a pillar of the town's community.

IMO, you’re letting other issues cloud your judgement. The statement about financiers shows that.

I’m not as bright as some on here, but I have been part of our family businesses that have been sold, and have my own business so do understand the basics. But we do have much brighter accountants and banks that do the heavy lifting!

To run a company/business successfully debt is a part of the process and funds cash flow, expansion and so on.

You can leverage debt against your assets, the greater the asset the greater the debt you can raise. Yes you’re protected by your business but it’s the same principles as the average person. Don’t borrow more than you can afford.

I don’t see any problem with the ALK model, I think they’re pushing to a debt free (might be already) position, are investing in the club, and have a clear plan to maximise their return.

Thats business isn’t it? I’m sure, like me there’s more than a few who have benefited or do benefit from that model with their own business.

I don’t see any evidence to suggest that ALK and the owners don’t have BFC at the heart of everything they do. They’ve attracted new investors, are setting about modernising Turf Moor, have given us an international platform, and so on.

I think the old guard don’t like it, they hanker for the old days, some even say they prefer the Championship!

Change isn’t easy, but these guys aren’t the Glazers!

[Big Vinny K]

IMO, you’re letting other issues cloud your judgement. The statement about financiers shows that.

I’m not as bright as some on here, but I have been part of our family businesses that have been sold, and have my own business so do understand the basics. But we do have much brighter accountants and banks that do the heavy lifting!

To run a company/business successfully debt is a part of the process and funds cash flow, expansion and so on.

You can leverage debt against your assets, the greater the asset the greater the debt you can raise. Yes you’re protected by your business but it’s the same principles as the average person. Don’t borrow more than you can afford.

I don’t see any problem with the ALK model, I think they’re pushing to a debt free (might be already) position, are investing in the club, and have a clear plan to maximise their return.

Thats business isn’t it? I’m sure, like me there’s more than a few who have benefited or do benefit from that model with their own business.

I don’t see any evidence to suggest that ALK and the owners don’t have BFC at the heart of everything they do. They’ve attracted new investors, are setting about modernising Turf Moor, have given us an international platform, and so on.

I think the old guard don’t like it, they hanker for the old days, some even say they prefer the Championship!

Change isn’t easy, but these guys aren’t the Glazers!

What makes you think we could be debt free ?
To clear our debt and spend what we did in the summer on new players would have meant a hell of a lot of new investment. Also why would we be doing the factoring deals we have been ?

You cannot compare running a “normal” business to running a football club. There is a reason why so many banks in this country have withdrawn from lending to football clubs.
Go down the list of clubs in the top 4 leagues and look at how many have gone into administration - if there was a similar percentage of normal businesses going into administration that would be carnage.

We know that when football clubs go into debt that often the sensible affordability rules go out of the window - and the biggest factor which is unique to football is the impact of relegation.

Would your business take on debt if you had the very real prospect of your revenue being massively cut the following year ? (not that anybody would lend you the money in that scenario)

[Newcastleclaret93]

IMO, you’re letting other issues cloud your judgement. The statement about financiers shows that.

I’m not as bright as some on here, but I have been part of our family businesses that have been sold, and have my own business so do understand the basics. But we do have much brighter accountants and banks that do the heavy lifting!

To run a company/business successfully debt is a part of the process and funds cash flow, expansion and so on.

You can leverage debt against your assets, the greater the asset the greater the debt you can raise. Yes you’re protected by your business but it’s the same principles as the average person. Don’t borrow more than you can afford.

I don’t see any problem with the ALK model, I think they’re pushing to a debt free (might be already) position, are investing in the club, and have a clear plan to maximise their return.

Thats business isn’t it? I’m sure, like me there’s more than a few who have benefited or do benefit from that model with their own business.

I don’t see any evidence to suggest that ALK and the owners don’t have BFC at the heart of everything they do. They’ve attracted new investors, are setting about modernising Turf Moor, have given us an international platform, and so on.

I think the old guard don’t like it, they hanker for the old days, some even say they prefer the Championship!

Change isn’t easy, but these guys aren’t the Glazers!

You have a lot of faith in them. I hope your faith is well guided.

I just can’t see anyway this model works out for us fans long term. We will have some short term successes like winning the championship, but i think ultimately this model won’t be successful in the league we need to be in and will end in tears.

At the end of the day none of us can affect anything so we just have to hope for the best

[Benson]

IMO, you’re letting other issues cloud your judgement. The statement about financiers shows that.

I’m not as bright as some on here, but I have been part of our family businesses that have been sold, and have my own business so do understand the basics. But we do have much brighter accountants and banks that do the heavy lifting!

To run a company/business successfully debt is a part of the process and funds cash flow, expansion and so on.

You can leverage debt against your assets, the greater the asset the greater the debt you can raise. Yes you’re protected by your business but it’s the same principles as the average person. Don’t borrow more than you can afford.

I don’t see any problem with the ALK model, I think they’re pushing to a debt free (might be already) position, are investing in the club, and have a clear plan to maximise their return.

Thats business isn’t it? I’m sure, like me there’s more than a few who have benefited or do benefit from that model with their own business.

I don’t see any evidence to suggest that ALK and the owners don’t have BFC at the heart of everything they do. They’ve attracted new investors, are setting about modernising Turf Moor, have given us an international platform, and so on.

I think the old guard don’t like it, they hanker for the old days, some even say they prefer the Championship!

Change isn’t easy, but these guys aren’t the Glazers!

Do you factor your invoices?

[Cooclaret]

You have a lot of faith in them. I hope your faith is well guided.

I just can’t see anyway this model works out for us fans long term. We will have some short term successes like winning the championship, but i think ultimately this model won’t be successful in the league we need to be in and will end in tears.

At the end of the day none of us can affect anything so we just have to hope for the best

Why don’t you think this model will work in the long term?

I do have a lot of faith, and I’ve taken some fair and some unfair abuse from posters around this.

Too many people are happy with, and hanker for the good old days. Without a modern push from within the football club I feel that we would’ve sunk without trace in the next five years.

We need to be at the top table, that’s the only way you survive in football.

[Cooclaret]

What makes you think we could be debt free ?
To clear our debt and spend what we did in the summer on new players would have meant a hell of a lot of new investment. Also why would we be doing the factoring deals we have been ?

You cannot compare running a “normal” business to running a football club. There is a reason why so many banks in this country have withdrawn from lending to football clubs.
Go down the list of clubs in the top 4 leagues and look at how many have gone into administration - if there was a similar percentage of normal businesses going into administration that would be carnage.

We know that when football clubs go into debt that often the sensible affordability rules go out of the window - and the biggest factor which is unique to football is the impact of relegation.

Would your business take on debt if you had the very real prospect of your revenue being massively cut the following year ? (not that anybody would lend you the money in that scenario)

I’d suggest a lot more ‘normal’ business go into administration or voluntary close than football clubs do. The only difference is the ‘following’ of those businesses.

I feel that there’s some big business that are going to fail in the next two to three years. That will have a larger impact on people than a football club going under.

Absolutely agree that sound financial sense goes out the window in football. I don’t feel that ALK are throwing anything out the window.

I think their model is to build the club up and use it as a vehicle to expand their business and businesses in the North West, UK, Europe and internationally.

I don’t see them selling in three years time.

[Big Vinny K]

I’d suggest a lot more ‘normal’ business go into administration or voluntary close than football clubs do. The only difference is the ‘following’ of those businesses.

I feel that there’s some big business that are going to fail in the next two to three years. That will have a larger impact on people than a football club going under.

Absolutely agree that sound financial sense goes out the window in football. I don’t feel that ALK are throwing anything out the window.

I think their model is to build the club up and use it as a vehicle to expand their business and businesses in the North West, UK, Europe and internationally.

I don’t see them selling in three years time.

Of course a lot more business go into administration given there’s over 4 million SMEs in the UK.

I am talking that as a percentage of the 100 or so professional football clubs if as many SMEs went into administration as there has been football clubs there would be carnage.

Voluntary closure is completely differently - last time I looked 1 in 3 of all new business start ups close in 12 months.

My general point is that very few (if any) businesses would run their companies like a football club does.