John souttar

[Bazzas right boot]

30 minutes ago, Rick Sanchez said:

 

Would you give him a bumper contract if he's out long term again? I'd imagine it's in the back of our minds in the deal we've offered.

 

Don't know if bumper contract is the term I'd use but if he got injured I'd offer him a deal, just as we are now. 

Not sure I'd " hope" we release him. 

 

Details of the deal and injury would be important tho. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

32 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

you didn’t explain it very well and this aside and your logic is fundamentally wrong.  We won’t end up in debt if we invest in the right players, and those assets generate a return
 

Maybe the limit now is £10k, and we secure fees commensurate with £10k per week players to reinvest in the squad .. in 5 years time, if we have managed it well  maybe it’s £15k

 

got to speculate to accumulate.  This is exactly the business model celtic have adopted for the last decade or so and it’s generate huge returns 

 

 

Sorry, but you’re living in a fantasy world!  These are the kind of crazy decisions by previous boards that got us up shit creek - paying wages we couldn’t afford.  If it was that simple,  just treble everyone’s wages and watch the multi million pound bids come in.  Scottish football doesn’t work like that.  Gordon is the only huge transfer fee we’ve ever had. 
 

Glad you’re not responsible for these decisions,  we’d be bust by the end of the season!

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

Nope, no one said that. 

 

**** knows what your last rants are about. 

Clearly a logical counter argument has triggered you. 

 

Gather yourself and stay on point or you will risk becoming a slavering mess. 

Your “counter argument” was that we shouldn’t invest in the right players, that it didn’t make logical sense! 
 

but in the above post your saying you didn’t say that? And I’m a slavering mess? 😆

 

So which is it ! should we twist and try to capitalise on our assets or stick and accept losing them weakly whenever a bigger club asks..

 

I think you agree with me. 

[upgotheheads]

There will be various ways of framing a contract offer. If, say, a Championship side offers 15,000 a week on a two year deal Hearts could trump that with 8k over four years, given his history of injuries that might be more attractive to him. Many clubs will baulk at giving high cost contracts over long periods to players with a history of injury. An offer which includes a bonus if another club comes in later with a high offer for a player on a long contract, who has played without injury for a couple of seasons, might also be a possibility. 

Like most of us on here I know next to nowt about how these thins work but there's more than one way of skinning a cat.

 

Whatever happens life will go on if Souttar leaves.

[Bazzas right boot]

33 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

you didn’t explain it very well and this aside and your logic is fundamentally wrong.  We won’t end up in debt if we invest in the right players, and those assets generate a return
 

Maybe the limit now is £10k, and we secure fees commensurate with £10k per week players to reinvest in the squad .. in 5 years time, if we have managed it well  maybe it’s £15k

 

got to speculate to accumulate.  This is exactly the business model celtic have adopted for the last decade or so and it’s generate huge returns 

 

 

 

 

I did. You just didn't grasp it. 

 

Tbh You are doing the football  manager model not the celtic one. 

 

Celtic do not speculate to accumulate, rangers do. 

 

Celtic have a very rigid financial model which seem them build up large reserves and it taken from Fergus Mcanns time to about 2010 to get there. 

 

They have a plan backed up by the guarentee of at least Europa league football which gives them a safety net. 

It's more complicated than that but it is not speculate to accumulate. 

Speculate to accumulate is the exact opposite of the celtic model. 

 

 

 

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

15 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Craig Gordon was on more than that 

Iirc he was on £15k a week, not more than that, when Sunderland signed him.  So it worked for one player - it’s hardly a sustainable business model is it?  Loads of these players in that team were on wages we couldn’t afford, what big transfer fees did we get for them?  About £1.5m maybe for Skacel and Bedbar, Berra?  It was a policy that nearly lost us our club.  Let’s not go there again. 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Your “counter argument” was that we shouldn’t invest in the right players, that it didn’t make logical sense! 
 

but in the above post your saying you didn’t say that? And I’m a slavering mess? 😆

 

So which is it ! should we twist and try to capitalise on our assets or stick and accept losing them weakly whenever a bigger club asks..

 

I think you agree with me. 

 

 

I never said that, nor hinted at that. 

I never said we shouldn't invest in players. I don't think anyone ever has said that, ever. 

 

You're giving me a sore head now. 

 

You sound like another poster that bounces all over the place. 

There is no debate, just rants and made up pish. 

 

Enjoy your day. 

 

 

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Sorry, but you’re living in a fantasy world!  These are the kind of crazy decisions by previous boards that got us up shit creek - paying wages we couldn’t afford.  If it was that simple,  just treble everyone’s wages and watch the multi million pound bids come in.  Scottish football doesn’t work like that.  Gordon is the only huge transfer fee we’ve ever had. 
 

Glad you’re not responsible for these decisions,  we’d be bust by the end of the season!

I wouldn’t trebles everyone’s wages, and I wouldn’t pay wages we can’t afford. I would invest in assets who believe would generate significant income.  That should be part of Joe Savages job.  Those are the decisions for a DOF. 
 

Yes we’ve only sold Craig Gordon for a great fee, I’d argue we have rarely invested in the right players.  Aberdeen recently sold Scott McKenna for £5million. Scott McKenna couldn’t  lace John souttars boots.. 

[Bull's-eye]

He's a decent professional who's been blighted by injuries, immense credit to him for coming back to something resembling his previous form. 

Does he owe us anything, of course he doesn't. We pays our money we takes our chances.

This is professional sport and I'd fully expect any player to look after themselves no matter what anybody thinks or believes. 

 

It's much better to be grizzling about keeping players now rather than driving them to the airport as is the normal chat on here, so the club must be doing something right for a change. 

 

If he goes, he easily replaced imo.

[Fozzyonthefence]

27 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

It won’t  fail as a strategy if you invest in the right players and the right assets.. it needs to be done with certainty and confidence and only with player who merit it.
 

Of course - like every business some investments some will still not work out.. but it’s the clubs job to maximise the successes and minimise the failures.. 

 

not all clubs do it no, they also lack confidence and ambition.  The successful clubs however do.

 

Just as an example we could give Souttar, Beni and Devlin £10k per week contracts.. if they accepted and I’m sure they would it would cost circa £1.5m a year.. but I’m also certain we’d would be able to recoup well in excess of £10m for those 3 players.. 

 

 

Why not just sell them for £10m in January then if they’re worth that, save paying the wages?   They play in Scotland though and don’t play for either of the arse cheeks, we won’t get anything like that kind of money. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Fozzyonthefence

[Bazzas right boot]

6 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Sorry, but you’re living in a fantasy world!  These are the kind of crazy decisions by previous boards that got us up shit creek - paying wages we couldn’t afford.  If it was that simple,  just treble everyone’s wages and watch the multi million pound bids come in.  Scottish football doesn’t work like that.  Gordon is the only huge transfer fee we’ve ever had. 
 

Glad you’re not responsible for these decisions,  we’d be bust by the end of the season!

 

 

If we get into Europe regularly then we can "push the boat" out a bit more, but we aren't there yet and no matter what- if Blackburn and the likes of Stoke are interested we aren't competing with them, they'll offer £20k plus no bother. 

 

Like you say We can't pay players that. 

 

If the difference was £1 or £2k then we could compete but it's £10's of thousands. 

 

 

[Boyces beard]

1 minute ago, Bull's-eye said:

He's a decent professional who's been blighted by injuries, immense credit to him for coming back to something resembling his previous form. 

Does he owe us anything, of course he doesn't. We pays our money we takes our chances.

This is professional sport and I'd fully expect any player to look after themselves no matter what anybody thinks or believes. 

 

It's much better to be grizzling about keeping players now rather than driving them to the airport as is the normal chat on here, so the club must be doing something right for a change. 

 

If he goes, he easily replaced imo.

Agree with everything you say mate except the last sentence. To replace Soapy with a player of a simillar calibre within our wage structure would be near impossible imo.

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

I never said that, nor hinted at that. 

I never said we shouldn't invest in players. I don't think anyone ever has said that, ever. 

 

You're giving me a sore head now. 

 

You sound like another poster that bounces all over the place. 

There is no debate, just rants and made up pish. 

 

Enjoy your day. 

 

 

You’ll have to explain where I’ve bounced, ranted it made up pish.  Be explicit please or stop deflecting. 
 

John Souttar is an asset who we should invest in, because he will make us money, and that money will help us grow as a club and secure better players for longer. At this time there are 2 other players who fall Into that category.. Beni and Devlin.. we can afford to push the boat out for all three. 

 

you seem to be of the view that Stoke will just blow us out of the water no matter what we offer!  You know know that, and if that is the case we should move on to securing Beni and Devlin whoever else we believe in.

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Why not just sell them for £10m in January then if they’re worth that, save paying the wages?   They play in Scotland though and don’t play for either of the arse cheeks, we won’t get anything like that kind of money. 

we couldn’t get £3.5 million for those players??

 

See Scott McKenna example above

[Mikey1874]

12 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Iirc he was on £15k a week, not more than that, when Sunderland signed him.  So it worked for one player - it’s hardly a sustainable business model is it?  Loads of these players in that team were on wages we couldn’t afford, what big transfer fees did we get for them?  About £1.5m maybe for Skacel and Bedbar, Berra?  It was a policy that nearly lost us our club.  Let’s not go there again. 

 

£10k a week for Ibrahim Tall

[JimmyCant]

4 minutes ago, Boyces beard said:

Agree with everything you say mate except the last sentence. To replace Soapy with a player of a simillar calibre within our wage structure would be near impossible imo.

We have Taylor Moore on loan with every chance of convincing him to sign full time after his contract. He’s a perfectly adequate ready made replacement for Souttar IMO.

[kingantti1874]

Just now, JimmyCant said:

We have Taylor Moore on loan with every chance of convincing him to sign full time after his contract. He’s a perfectly adequate ready made replacement for Souttar IMO.

careful, we’d have to push the boat out.. currently salary £7k.  Other players would maybe be unhappy and leave 

[Bull's-eye]

Just now, Boyces beard said:

Agree with everything you say mate except the last sentence. To replace Soapy with a player of a simillar calibre within our wage structure would be near impossible imo.

 

We need 2 centre halfs in my mind because Halkett doesn't cut the mustard for me, he's good enough with Soapy beside him but will still cost us goals. If Soapy goes 2 decent centre halfs that compliment each other will work just as well. We should always be looking to strengthen, looks like that's Savages philosophy anyway.

 

Our new found recruitment dept hasn't let us down so far, so I'm confident they can pull off another masterstroke.

[JimmyCant]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

You’ll have to explain where I’ve bounced, ranted it made up pish.  Be explicit please or stop deflecting. 
 

John Souttar is an asset who we should invest in, because he will make us money, and that money will help us grow as a club and secure better players for longer. At this time there are 2 other players who fall Into that category.. Beni and Devlin.. we can afford to push the boat out for all three. 

 

you seem to be of the view that Stoke will just blow us out of the water no matter what we offer!  You know know that, and if that is the case we should move on to securing Beni and Devlin whoever else we believe in.

We’re not going to pay an injury prone centre half £10-£12 k a week in the hope that he stays fit and a Stoke type club cough up millions for him. That’s just daft and that sort of daftness is what took us into admin not so long ago. The club have already said this week that we’re not doing it

[JimmyCant]

6 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

careful, we’d have to push the boat out.. currently salary £7k.  Other players would maybe be unhappy and leave 

I’ve no idea what his current salary is but we wouldn’t be paying him anything like that so he’ll have a decision to make if he has other options

[Boyces beard]

1 minute ago, Bull's-eye said:

 

We need 2 centre halfs in my mind because Halkett doesn't cut the mustard for me, he's good enough with Soapy beside him but will still cost us goals. If Soapy goes 2 decent centre halfs that compliment each other will work just as well. We should always be looking to strengthen, looks like that's Savages philosophy anyway.

 

Our new found recruitment dept hasn't let us down so far, so I'm confident they can pull off another masterstroke.

Yip i agree, but we actually need at least 3 if Souttar leaves because Kingsley will go back to left wing back when Cochrane goes back down the road and Smith is getting on a bit although could still do a job as centre half, not so sure he could go another season after this one as a wing back though. We could be left with just Halkett as our only recognised centre half, but like you say Savage will sort out whatever is needed and has not let us down yet. the future is bright, thats for sure.

[FarmerTweedy]

7 hours ago, Paulp74 said:

We gave Gordon a similar deal! 

 

It's not fantasy land - its basic mathematics! We pay out even the £900k you're talking about but get 4 times that as a transfer fee. Gordon was apparently on £18k a week/£1m a year but we received £9m. 

 

Clubs have income protection plans in place so if he gets injured, they pay his wages. 

 

You speculate to accumulate and its a no brainer for me. Plus we get the benefit of him for this season 

It is fantasy land.

 

'No brain' is the only part of your post that's relevant, quite frankly.  You're absolutely clueless if you think we can just stick Souttar on that sort of money without everyone else we ever try to get to sign a contract in the future setting their demands and expectations based on what we're then paying Souttar. Want to try to get Cochrane, Woodburn or Moore to join us permanently after their loans? They'll all be expecting the same deal as Souttar. And Bristol City's expectations for a transfer fee will for Moore will go up significantly if they think we've that sort of money. Want a new striker in January or next summer? They'll be demanding the same, if not more (strikers tend to be expensive). Beni or Devlin to sign an extension at any point? Same sort of demands. We can't afford that sort of wage bill.

 

And back to the injury point, I don't believe clubs have cover for every single injury absence a player could have, rather there's cover for if a player has to give up their career, but even if I'm wrong, so what?  If Souttar got an injury that put him out for a few months, and he then came back not the same player, but still able to play football (like Berra, for instance), we'd be stuck paying his unaffordable wages for years, and there'd be nothing we could do about it.

 

And finally, if you think we should be following Romanov's business plan again (which is what you're basically arguing for when you start talking about Gordon's deal), then any sane Hearts fan can only hope you're never anywhere near being in the running for a FoH board seat!

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

We’re not going to pay an injury prone centre half £10-£12 k a week in the hope that he stays fit and a Stoke type club cough up millions for him. That’s just daft and that sort of daftness is what took us into admin not so long ago. The club have already said this week that we’re not doing it

It’s the principle I’m arguing for not a specific number..

 

But I am interested - what is the theoretical cutoff for Souttar. £3k? 5k? £7k?
 

If we have offered him something like £3k then we deserve to lose him for nothing! Injuries or not he is worth in this market far more than that..

 

 

[Psychicjambo]

On 12/11/2021 at 09:05, Pap said:

 

It doesnt matter where he ends up.

 

The point is that what the poster heard was in part correct.

Thank u. I only cane on to say what the guy said   and seemed quite an honest guy.  I'd be happy to be wrong. And soapy stayed   mate 

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

I’ve no idea what his current salary is but we wouldn’t be paying him anything like that so he’ll have a decision to make if he has other options

then we will lose (or fail to secure) another great asset who could make the club millions.
 

I’m not advocating for wild spending. I’m advocating for controlled and studied investment which will help the club build. 
 

we should be looking to increase our maximum wages year on year

[FarmerTweedy]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

that couldn’t be more wrong. That’s exactly how it works for every business which aims to succeed

Rubbish. Well run businesses pay folk at a level they can actually afford. They don't pay at a level miles above what they can afford and then cross their fingers that a windfall comes along.

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

1 hour ago, jr ewing said:

How much is Kingsley worth a week?

Funny thing is on current form Kingsley is almost the LCB equivalent of Souttar. Bothe defending well, both can bring the ball forward into attack, both scoring goals. 
 

As left sided players tend to be more difficult to replace it is arguable that we should be trying harder to keep Kingsley, or at least just as hard, as Souttar.

[FarmerTweedy]

53 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

It won’t  fail as a strategy if you invest in the right players and the right assets.. it needs to be done with certainty and confidence and only with player who merit it.
 

Of course - like every business some investments some will still not work out.. but it’s the clubs job to maximise the successes and minimise the failures.. 

 

not all clubs do it no, they also lack confidence and ambition.  The successful clubs however do.

 

Just as an example we could give Souttar, Beni and Devlin £10k per week contracts.. if they accepted and I’m sure they would it would cost circa £1.5m a year.. but I’m also certain we’d would be able to recoup well in excess of £10m for those 3 players.. 

 

 

You're making the fatal mistake of just ignoring the things that can go wrong, and only looking at the possible positives.

[kingantti1874]

1 minute ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Rubbish. Well run businesses pay folk at a level they can actually afford. They don't pay at a level miles above what they can afford and then cross their fingers that a windfall comes along.

 Well run business les take on debt they can safely afford to generate a return. It’s a principle at the very heart of capitalism.

 

we could safely afford to push the boat out for 2/3 players.. FOH contributions would cover a wee top up 

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Funny thing is on current form Kingsley is almost the LCB equivalent of Souttar. Bothe defending well, both can bring the ball forward into attack, both scoring goals. 
 

As left sided players tend to be more difficult to replace it is arguable that we should be trying harder to keep Kingsley, or at least just as hard, as Souttar.

good point

[kingantti1874]

2 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

You're making the fatal mistake of just ignoring the things that can go wrong, and only looking at the possible positives.

No im not, this is a hypothetical discussion.
 

If it were a real discussion then obviously you would need to consider the risks.  

 

As I said above, we would no matter how diligent we are mistakes would be made and investments would fail for whatever reason..

 

but if the person making those decisions does their job competently the success would outweigh the failures

[Bazzas right boot]

4 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

I wouldn’t trebles everyone’s wages, and I wouldn’t pay wages we can’t afford. I would invest in assets who believe would generate significant income.  That should be part of Joe Savages job.  Those are the decisions for a DOF. 
 

Yes we’ve only sold Craig Gordon for a great fee, I’d argue we have rarely invested in the right players.  Aberdeen recently sold Scott McKenna for £5million. Scott McKenna couldn’t  lace John souttars boots.. 

 

 

 

McKenna was playing for a club regularly at the top end of the league and in Europe. 

 

He signed an extension. 

Aberdeen got a decent fee. 

 

Souttar has been with Hearts in the championship and injured. 

He's got 6 months left with other possible employers offering far more. 

 

 

It's not the same. 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

38 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

You’ll have to explain where I’ve bounced, ranted it made up pish.  Be explicit please or stop deflecting. 
 

John Souttar is an asset who we should invest in, because he will make us money, and that money will help us grow as a club and secure better players for longer. At this time there are 2 other players who fall Into that category.. Beni and Devlin.. we can afford to push the boat out for all three. 

 

you seem to be of the view that Stoke will just blow us out of the water no matter what we offer!  You know know that, and if that is the case we should move on to securing Beni and Devlin whoever else we believe in.

 

 

Jesus. 

You don't know he "will" make us money. 

 

We can't force him to sign an extension. 

 

Stoke or the likes will offer far money. 

We cannot match that. 

If they don't, then he may will sign an extension with us. 

 

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. 

 

 

We won't speculate to accumulate and put the club at risk. 

As for bouncing about - you've just thrown things about like what I've said ( which I didn't) and said celtic have a speculate to accumulate policy which as well as being irrelevant is incorrect 

 

You also keep going on about assets to make yourself sound clever, it's not working. 

 

You've also not set a limit on how far we should go or adressed how giving one player far more than the rest will effect the team and future signings. 

 

Budge and Savage will do all they can. 

 

We then move forward either way. 

 

 

 

[WageThief]

16 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

 Well run businesses take on debt they can safely afford to generate a return. It’s a principle at the very heart of capitalism.

 

we could safely afford to push the boat out for 2/3 players.. FOH contributions would cover a wee top up 

 

Capitalists call this "leverage" and it indeed increases your profits, or it leaves you saddled with massive debt.

 

The businesses that fail then go out of business.  It's a principle at the very heart of capitalism.

 

Borrowing money to fund one off projects like a training ground or stadium expansion is one thing.  Doing it every year as part of how the club is run is suicide.  How exactly do you hold out for high fees when the buying club knows you need to sell as part of your business model?

[kingantti1874]

6 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

 

McKenna was playing for a club regularly at the top end of the league and in Europe. 

 

He signed an extension. 

Aberdeen got a decent fee. 

 

Souttar has been with Hearts in the championship and injured. 

He's got 6 months left with other possible employers offering far more. 

 

 

It's not the same. 

 

We don’t know the values.. 
 

It’s as simple as this we either believe in the guy and have pushed the boat out as far as is possible!

Or we don’t believe in him and have held back.

[FarmerTweedy]

59 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Fair enough. Has anyone ever been on £15k/week at hearts? Even during the batshit Vlad era? Doubt it. 

Craig Gordon was widely reported to be on £12k per week basic with a £6k appearance bonus on top. Looked at in isolation, that deal worked out well for us, as the transfer fee we received was well in excess of what we paid him over the period of the deal that he was actually at Hearts, but of course, as any sensible person knows, that deal didn't happen in a vacuum. Giving him that deal could only happen as part of giving lots of other players expensive deals, most of which ended up yielding no return, for various reasons. You won't hear anyone saying we should give John Souttar a big money deal like we did with Andy Driver though, because that doesn't suit the 'speculate to accumulate' narrative! 

[kingantti1874]

6 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

Jesus. 

You don't know he "will" make us money. 

 

We can't force him to sign an extension. 

 

Stoke or the likes will offer far money. 

We cannot match that. 

If they don't, then he may will sign an extension with us. 

 

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. 

 

 

We won't speculate to accumulate and put the club at risk. 

As for bouncing about - you've just thrown things about like what I've said ( which I didn't) and said celtic have a speculate to accumulate policy which as well as being irrelevant is incorrect 

 

You also keep going on about assets to make yourself sound clever, it's not working. 

 

You've also not set a limit on how far we should go or adressed how giving one player far more than the rest will effect the team and future signings. 

 

Budge and Savage will do all they can. 

 

We then move forward either way. 

 

 

 

Jesus Christ. My 12 year old daughter understands the concept assets and liabilities - it wasn’t an effort to sound clever!! Players are assets - it’s just a statement of fact but I will be sure to make an effort dumb it down for you going forward. 

 

Ps. my point on Celtic was neither irrelevant or incorrect and you have also not set a limit have you. 
 

  
 

 

[OTT]

1 hour ago, upgotheheads said:

There will be various ways of framing a contract offer. If, say, a Championship side offers 15,000 a week on a two year deal Hearts could trump that with 8k over four years, given his history of injuries that might be more attractive to him. Many clubs will baulk at giving high cost contracts over long periods to players with a history of injury. An offer which includes a bonus if another club comes in later with a high offer for a player on a long contract, who has played without injury for a couple of seasons, might also be a possibility. 

Like most of us on here I know next to nowt about how these thins work but there's more than one way of skinning a cat.

 

Whatever happens life will go on if Souttar leaves.

Wouldnt be against that. Could always try something along those lines and stick a release clause that they’re happy with into the deal.

 

Gutted we’re in this situation again. 

[kingantti1874]

13 minutes ago, WageThief said:

 

Capitalists call this "leverage" and it indeed increases your profits, or it leaves you saddled with massive debt.

 

The businesses that fail then go out of business.  It's a principle at the very heart of capitalism.

 

Borrowing money to fund one off projects like a training ground or stadium expansion is one thing.  Doing it every year as part of how the club is run is suicide.  How exactly do you hold out for high fees when the buying club knows you need to sell as part of your business model?

where have I said we should saddle ourselves with debt. 

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Jesus Christ. My 12 year old daughter understands the concept assets and liabilities - it wasn’t an effort to sound clever!! Players are assets - it’s just a statement of fact but I will be sure to make an effort dumb it down for you going forward. 

 

Ps. my point on Celtic was neither irrelevant or incorrect and you have also not set a limit have you. 
 

  
 

 

 

Nah, not playing anymore. 

Fans always call players assets. 

It's common. 

 

Thankfully your not in charge of Hearts business model or plan. 

 

Most other posters have also covered what is wrong with your ideas. 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Smith's right boot

[Bazzas right boot]

3 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

where have I said we should saddle ourselves with debt. 

 

 

Speculate to accumalte comes with that risk. 

A very high risk in football. 

 

You've not even thought your own policy through. 

 

Cracking. 

 

 

 

[FarmerTweedy]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

It won’t  fail as a strategy if you invest in the right players and the right assets.. it needs to be done with certainty and confidence and only with player who merit it.
 

Of course - like every business some investments some will still not work out.. but it’s the clubs job to maximise the successes and minimise the failures.. 

 

not all clubs do it no, they also lack confidence and ambition.  The successful clubs however do.

 

Just as an example we could give Souttar, Beni and Devlin £10k per week contracts.. if they accepted and I’m sure they would it would cost circa £1.5m a year.. but I’m also certain we’d would be able to recoup well in excess of £10m for those 3 players.. 

 

 

That certainly exists only in your own head, and nowhere else in the universe. 

 

Souttar could get another serious injury, and this time not come back the same player, if he's able to come back at all.  The other two could suffer serious injuries too, or in time it could turn out that they've just had excellent spells at the starts of their Hearts careers, but aren't able to sustain that level in the long term. Before this season, Beni had never played regular first team football and Devlin had never played at this sort of level. They're both doing really well so far but there's no guarantee that either of them will maintain the level they've shown so far in the longer term.  They've probably both attracted some attention and will probably have some bigger clubs keeping an eye on them, but there's far from any guarantee that a club is going to come in with a big money offer for either of them, regardless of what deals we put them on. 

 

The thing is, you're looking at one of many potential future outcomes, deciding you like the look of that potential outcome, and then deciding to completely ignore all the other potential outcomes and arguing that the club should ignore them too.  Thankfully, the people running the club are likely to be far more sensible! 

[JimmyCant]

54 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

then we will lose (or fail to secure) another great asset who could make the club millions.
 

I’m not advocating for wild spending. I’m advocating for controlled and studied investment which will help the club build. 
 

we should be looking to increase our maximum wages year on year

When have we EVER in our recent history been able to keep an asset and realise what we thought they were worth, apart from Craig Gordon obviously. We just can’t afford the type of risk we took with Gordon’s wage.

 

you’ll just need to accept that in the grand scheme of UK football we are a relatively small club with feck all money and our best players will usually leave for more money and next to nothing for us

Edited November 13, 2021 by JimmyCant

[FarmerTweedy]

1 hour ago, Tom Hardy’s Dug said:

Souttar could ask any new club to insert a sell on fee for us like Patterson did.

And?

 

How much have we raked in from Paterson's sell on clause?

[Bazzas right boot]

52 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

then we will lose (or fail to secure) another great asset who could make the club millions.
 

I’m not advocating for wild spending. I’m advocating for controlled and studied investment which will help the club build. 
 

we should be looking to increase our maximum wages year on year

 

 

You said we should "speculate to accumulate". 

 

That's not a controlled and studied approach to build. 

 

It's the exact opposite. 

You're all over the place. 

 

Do you even know what your original point was or did you just trigger and melt all over JKB? 

 

[kingantti1874]

3 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Nah, not playing anymore. 

Fans always call players assets. 

It's common. 

 

Thankfully your not in charge of Hearts business model or plan. 

 

Most other posters have also covered what is wrong with your ideas. 

 

So if fans always call players assets, how am I trying to make myself sound clever.  🤦‍♂️ 
 

I think everyone agrees with me in all honesty, they just disagree with the hypothetical values we have set.  if I said we should offer £4k per week to John Souttar, Beni and Devlin would anyone actually disagree with that?

 

 

[The White Cockade]

I’ll be gutted if the big man goes he has the potential to be the best centre back in Scotland 

but I’m just as worried about losing Kingsley and the loan boys Cochrane, Moore and Woodburn as that leaves a huge hole in the team 

I’m hoping we win the Cup and get into Europe which will be a huge inventive to these guys to stay but no way we will hold on to all of them

Problem with loaning quality players is there is little chance of holding on to them 

[kingantti1874]

5 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

Speculate to accumalte comes with that risk. 

A very high risk in football. 

 

You've not even thought your own policy through. 

 

Cracking. 

 

 

 

Policy - that’s a big word tosh? Are you trying to make yourself sound clever. 😆

 

Speculation and debt are 2 different things..

 

for example we - the fans - invest c£150k per month into the club. I wouldn’t be averse to a small slice of that being used to secure our top players . 

[FarmerTweedy]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

I wouldn’t trebles everyone’s wages, and I wouldn’t pay wages we can’t afford. I would invest in assets who believe would generate significant income.  That should be part of Joe Savages job.  Those are the decisions for a DOF. 
 

Yes we’ve only sold Craig Gordon for a great fee, I’d argue we have rarely invested in the right players.  Aberdeen recently sold Scott McKenna for £5million. Scott McKenna couldn’t  lace John souttars boots.. 

You're arguing to do exactly that. Pay wages we can't afford and hope a big transfer fee comes along in the future to get us out of trouble is exactly what you're arguing for!

 

Ach, carry on, nobody at the club will be remotely stupid enough to be thinking along similar lines, so just you enjoy your demented rambling!

[Nookie Bear]

Just now, FarmerTweedy said:

You're arguing to do exactly that. Pay wages we can't afford and hope a big transfer fee comes along in the future to get us out of trouble is exactly what you're arguing for!

 

Ach, carry on, nobody at the club will be remotely stupid enough to be thinking along similar lines, so just you enjoy your demented rambling!

But we are ploughing £150k/month. 
 

An old question but what is that money going to be used for?