Business strategy re buying and selling.

Just a personal opinion but...

Does it make more sense if you are replacing an asset (in this case a footballer) to make it common knowledge to competitors that you have a better replacement lined up so that keeping existing player is not a priority, thus 'weakening your hand' during negotiations regarding valuation?.......

OR....

Do you keep negotiations for any replacement secret to secure best possible price for your current asset given if they know you are 'upgrading' they will offer less.

It seems odd that the current management would sell to replace 'like for like' as there is little point especially if the buy/sell margin for the existing asset is minimal (which relative to our turnover, appears to be the case)

I am not saying that this is the case here, as none of us are party to what the management are doing so it is only speculation, but what do others think?

 

I think the strategy works better if you replace people well before this kind of situation crops up. I think that's why we are constantly signing players for the academy and reserves - hoovering up the talent and then letting them step in at times like this. Obviously, we'll sign the odd established player if we can get them under our predicted valuation. E.g. Liam Lindsey, Ethan Pinnock

Just look at Jacob Brown and Victor Adeboyejo - both players who were developed by other teams but spent 12-18 months developing at BFC before transitioning to the first team.

I wonder whether Gauthier's comment about "short-term" might mean that we're going to sign a more established player as a replacement and not simply younger players for 18 months time. If so, they could well be from Europe where the valuations don't seem to be as crazy in January.

 

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t. I’m quite happy with the way things are.