Summer 24 Transfers - Vargas signs 5 year deal ( updated/merged )

[Hansel]

50 minutes ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Just saw his profile at blackpool in league 1

 

Remember the hype

Is that the wee fella who made his debut vs us at parkhead?

[milky_26]

33 minutes ago, Hansel said:

Is that the wee fella who made his debut vs us at parkhead?

yes

[Ricardo Quaresma]

48 minutes ago, Hansel said:

Is that the wee fella who made his debut vs us at parkhead?

 

Believe so, yes, when RN got us 3rd

[FarmerTweedy]

4 hours ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

Please stop being a dingle.

 

They’d be making a profit on the fee so they won’t be losing…..they just won’t be gaining as much.

Not being a dingle, whatever that is.  Adding a sell-on clause would cost the buying club whatever they'd have to pay us due to the sell-on clause.  That much is completely obvious. Let's say we were to sell Cochrane for a £2m transfer fee.  Let's say he then does really well at the buying club and attracts a £10m offer which they accept.  If there's no sell-on clause, they've made an £8m net profit on him.  If there's a sell-on clause which entitles us to, say, 30% of any profit they make on him, they'd have to pay us another £2.4m.  The sell-on clause will have lost them £2.4m.  That's a fact, whether or not you wish to pretend it isn't! 

 

The consequence of that is that if we demand a sell-on clause when we sell a player, we're almost certainly going to have to accept a lower initial transfer fee. Buying clubs aren't going to agree a fee and then say "sure, why not" if we then say "oh, and we want an xx% sell-on clause on top of the fee we've agreed".

 

I'm not arguing against including sell-on clauses in any deals, but bringing a bit of realism around the idea that buying clubs will quite happily agree to such clauses as if they don't have any consequence for them!

[FarmerTweedy]

On 25/03/2024 at 12:18, Fozzyonthefence said:

You mentioned in another post about fantasists of fans of other clubs over valuing their players by over 5 times their real value.  But if you think we’re getting over £1m for Atkinson for example then you’re guilty of exactly the same thing!

 

Footballers are like houses / they’re only worth what someone is prepared to pay and we don’t exactly have a good track record in player sales.  I might normally be on the pessimistic side of valuations but a lot of that is based on previous transactions.  If we can only get £1.5m for Hickey with a year left on his contract I’m struggling to see on what basis people think we can get more for a lesser and older player in Cochrane (someone said only a year left too?) or how we can get north of £5m for a much older Shankland. 🤷‍♂️

Well it helps that we're not in the middle of a pandemic, demoted from the Premiership, not even sure whether the Championship season will start never mind be played to a finish or close enough to it that there'll be any promotion at the end of it, and knowing that we'll be playing in empty grounds for quite some time if and when it does get started!

 

I really struggle sometimes to get why so many people quote the Hickey deal while completely ignoring the obvious extremely difficult and unusual circumstances surrounding it!

[TheBigO]

6 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Well it helps that we're not in the middle of a pandemic, demoted from the Premiership, not even sure whether the Championship season will start never mind be played to a finish or close enough to it that there'll be any promotion at the end of it, and knowing that we'll be playing in empty grounds for quite some time if and when it does get started!

 

I really struggle sometimes to get why so many people quote the Hickey deal while completely ignoring the obvious extremely difficult and unusual circumstances surrounding it!

Cos it suits their narrow perspective. Obvs!

[Dazo]

7 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Well it helps that we're not in the middle of a pandemic, demoted from the Premiership, not even sure whether the Championship season will start never mind be played to a finish or close enough to it that there'll be any promotion at the end of it, and knowing that we'll be playing in empty grounds for quite some time if and when it does get started!

 

I really struggle sometimes to get why so many people quote the Hickey deal while completely ignoring the obvious extremely difficult and unusual circumstances surrounding it!

Let me help you with your last sentence FarmerTweedy. Some people just need to find an angle to have a go at the club. The mental gymnastics they go through to have a go is quite breathtaking. Everything is either very bad or on the rare occasion good. Narrow mindedness, No middle ground, context or caveats. 

[Bazzas right boot]

8 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Well it helps that we're not in the middle of a pandemic, demoted from the Premiership, not even sure whether the Championship season will start never mind be played to a finish or close enough to it that there'll be any promotion at the end of it, and knowing that we'll be playing in empty grounds for quite some time if and when it does get started!

 

I really struggle sometimes to get why so many people quote the Hickey deal while completely ignoring the obvious extremely difficult and unusual circumstances surrounding it!

 

Agreed.

Also on top of that, although Hickey was a great player and professional he was just that, he never really cared about Hearts ( why should he), we served our purpose and he made it clear what he wanted.

 

Completely different global and domestic market, club and personal situation now v when Hickey was sold.

 

 

Edited March 28 by Bazzas right boot

[Drylaw Hearts]

8 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Not being a dingle, whatever that is.  Adding a sell-on clause would cost the buying club whatever they'd have to pay us due to the sell-on clause.  That much is completely obvious. Let's say we were to sell Cochrane for a £2m transfer fee.  Let's say he then does really well at the buying club and attracts a £10m offer which they accept.  If there's no sell-on clause, they've made an £8m net profit on him.  If there's a sell-on clause which entitles us to, say, 30% of any profit they make on him, they'd have to pay us another £2.4m.  The sell-on clause will have lost them £2.4m.  That's a fact, whether or not you wish to pretend it isn't! 

 

The consequence of that is that if we demand a sell-on clause when we sell a player, we're almost certainly going to have to accept a lower initial transfer fee. Buying clubs aren't going to agree a fee and then say "sure, why not" if we then say "oh, and we want an xx% sell-on clause on top of the fee we've agreed".

 

I'm not arguing against including sell-on clauses in any deals, but bringing a bit of realism around the idea that buying clubs will quite happily agree to such clauses as if they don't have any consequence for them!

 

The selling club still aren’t losing though………

 

 

[Sooks]

Cant believe it took until today for me to realise that the prices of players that people quote on here with such confidence are from that Transfermarkt site . I always thought it was Football Manager  

 

Puts things in a whole different perspective now . Would be interested to know how often their quoted values and what a player eventually sells for are are aligned though 

[davemclaren]

32 minutes ago, Drylaw Hearts said:

 

The selling club still aren’t losing though………

 

 

Future profit is still profit. 

[kingantti1874]

14 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Cant believe it took until today for me to realise that the prices of players that people quote on here with such confidence are from that Transfermarkt site . I always thought it was Football Manager  

 

Puts things in a whole different perspective now . Would be interested to know how often their quoted values and what a player eventually sells for are are aligned though 

Virtually never.  Same as people of who quote sites which state players salaries.  Which are entirely made up and in no way correlate to accounts.

 

good way to get hits though 

[Sooks]

6 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Virtually never.  Same as people of who quote sites which state players salaries.  Which are entirely made up and in no way correlate to accounts.

 

good way to get hits though 

Makes sense now though . All these posts about how we would be lucky to get a million for player x or whatever , lifted straight from that site ?  

[johnking123]

22 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Cant believe it took until today for me to realise that the prices of players that people quote on here with such confidence are from that Transfermarkt site . I always thought it was Football Manager  

 

Puts things in a whole different perspective now . Would be interested to know how often their quoted values and what a player eventually sells for are are aligned though 

Transfermarkt is awful for valuing players for anyone but the bigger teams.

[Sooks]

Just now, johnking123 said:

Transfermarkt is awful for valuing players for anyone but the bigger teams.

Good , but not exactly unexpected  

 

Imagine having the value of your players set by a third party website with no affiliation to your club ? How open to manipulation would that be . It would be complete and utter madness . I could imagine some dimwit like Mick McCarthy or the likes using it however 

[Sooks]

On a related note , when people give vague wee hints about potential signings and they want to appear ITK, do they just look at that site and see who is available in a price range that they suggest and then hope to get a 50 % hit rate with caveats about how deals can breakdown for the ones that do not materialise ? Cant believe I am only realising this now  

[kingantti1874]

33 minutes ago, Sooks said:

Makes sense now though . All these posts about how we would be lucky to get a million for player x or whatever , lifted straight from that site ?  

Probably that and we have a core group of supporters who are stuck in the 1990’s still think £1m is a material sum of money for a player.

 

 

[kingantti1874]

4 minutes ago, Sooks said:

On a related note , when people give vague wee hints about potential signings and they want to appear ITK, do they just look at that site and see who is available in a price range that they suggest and then hope to get a 50 % hit rate with caveats about how deals can breakdown for the ones that do not materialise ? Cant believe I am only realising this now  

there are a couple on here who are particularly shocking for that.  you can almost guarantee you will find their random football by playing with the filters 
 

Though don’t believe it applies to all. 

[Sooks]

Just now, kingantti1874 said:

there are a couple on here who are particularly shocking for that.  you can almost guarantee you will find their random football by playing with the filters 
 

Though don’t believe it applies to all. 

I just feel very gullible for never realising this before , but after a quick play about on that site it suddenly all makes sense  

[Batistuta87]

11 hours ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Just saw his profile at blackpool in league 1

 

Remember the hype

He ran us ragged as a 16yo as well didn't he. We genuinely struggled to deal with him and every single time he got the ball into his feet he just turned towards the goal and ran with it. I thought he was going to be an exceptional player but I think he sees himself as a bit of a ticket and also got a really bad injury a couple of years ago which has obviously effected him. Strange that he chose to leave Celtic. Don't know if he thought he could do better or whatever by going to Europe but aye, Blackpool 😳

 

[Sooks]

4 minutes ago, Batistuta87 said:

He ran us ragged as a 16yo as well didn't he. We genuinely struggled to deal with him and every single time he got the ball into his feet he just turned towards the goal and ran with it. I thought he was going to be an exceptional player but I think he sees himself as a bit of a ticket and also got a really bad injury a couple of years ago which has obviously effected him. Strange that he chose to leave Celtic. Don't know if he thought he could do better or whatever by going to Europe but aye, Blackpool 😳

 

He caused us problems for about ten minutes at the start of the first half until Hickey got the measure of him and then he never got a sniff . The guy was fast and skilful running g with the ball . Hickey was a couple of levels above even at that age though 

 

 

 

Edited March 28 by Sooks

[JamboAl]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

Probably that and we have a core group of supporters who are stuck in the 1990’s still think £1m is a material sum of money for a player.

 

 

A club's bank balance will help them to decide whether £1m is a material sum of money, not the decade we live in.

[Ricardo Quaresma]

1 minute ago, Batistuta87 said:

He ran us ragged as a 16yo as well didn't he. We genuinely struggled to deal with him and every single time he got the ball into his feet he just turned towards the goal and ran with it. I thought he was going to be an exceptional player but I think he sees himself as a bit of a ticket and also got a really bad injury a couple of years ago which has obviously effected him. Strange that he chose to leave Celtic. Don't know if he thought he could do better or whatever by going to Europe but aye, Blackpool 😳

 

Some players just want the money mate, become content / lethargic because of it, at least for a while, even if it's not massive sums by today's levels

 

I think some of those guys need a medical investigation, maybe something wrong there, but I'll wager poor diet, or they have a problem with someone they worked with, or some other political thing in Football

 

They can't all be wage thieves

[HopeDiouf]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

A club's bank balance will help them to decide whether £1m is a material sum of money, not the decade we live in.

£1m these days is our share of ticket sales from a single semi-final.  Not the case back then.  Inflation is a real thing

[Sub4TiddlerMurray]

Wee Everton loan deal/transfer next season?

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nathan-patterson-returns-familiar-rangers-32458450

 

Edited March 28 by Sub4TiddlerMurray

[Batistuta87]

5 minutes ago, Sooks said:

He caused us problems for about ten minutes at the start of the first half until Hickey got the measure of him and then he never got a sniff . The guy was fast and skilful running g with the ball . Hickey was a couple of levels above even at that age though 

 

 

 

 

He didn't come on until the 2nd half in the game I'm thinking about and Hickey certainly didn't keep him from getting a sniff, that's for sure. He was on his arse trying (unsuccessfully) to foul him a couple of times. 

 

[Sooks]

3 minutes ago, Batistuta87 said:

 

He didn't come on until the 2nd half in the game I'm thinking about and Hickey certainly didn't keep him from getting a sniff, that's for sure. He was on his arse trying (unsuccessfully) to foul him a couple of times. 

 

Must be a different game then . Unless my memory is playing tricks on me and it was the first ten minutes of the second half . As I remember it , the first couple of attacks Dembele got the better of him and then after that Hickey had him in his back pocket 

 

 

Edited March 28 by Sooks

[kingantti1874]

18 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

A club's bank balance will help them to decide whether £1m is a material sum of money, not the decade we live in.

This is a world where it would buy you 1/10th of a Ross Stewart. Where it’s a couple of weeks wages for a top player.

 

some people haven’t grasped that Scottish football is utterly tinpot.

[JamboAl]

20 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

£1m these days is our share of ticket sales from a single semi-final.  Not the case back then.  Inflation is a real thing

Not sure about that.  Don't the SFA take a whack of receipts from the semi and the final?

Not that that matters.  £1m is an awful lot of money if you can't afford it and the club have indicated they are running it in a fiscally responsible manner.

[HopeDiouf]

Just now, JamboAl said:

Not sure about that.  Don't the SFA take a whack of receipts from the semi and the final?

Not that that matters.  £1m is an awful lot of money if you can't afford it and the club have indicated they are running it in a fiscally responsible manner.

receipts split 4 ways between the semi finalists.  will be close to £1m for the upcoming game.

[JamboAl]

8 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

This is a world where it would buy you 1/10th of a Ross Stewart. Where it’s a couple of weeks wages for a top player.

 

some people haven’t grasped that Scottish football is utterly tinpot.

If 1/10 th of a Ross Stewart is all you can afford, then c'est la vie.

[JamboAl]

1 minute ago, HopeDiouf said:

receipts split 4 ways between the semi finalists.  will be close to £1m for the upcoming game.

Don't SFA take a big share before the 4 way split?

[HopeDiouf]

8 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Don't SFA take a big share before the 4 way split?

there will be costs e.g stewards etc, but don't think SFA take a cut.  

 

edit: found this - bit old but suggests 10%

Statement on Scottish Cup ticket pricing (scottishfa.co.uk)

Edited March 28 by HopeDiouf

[Ricardo Quaresma]

25 minutes ago, Batistuta87 said:

He didn't come on until the 2nd half in the game I'm thinking about and Hickey certainly didn't keep him from getting a sniff, that's for sure. He was on his arse trying (unsuccessfully) to foul him a couple of times.

 

Sure I got the wrong game earlier and I think you're on about this one?🤔

 

https://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2019/05/19/scotland/premier-league/celtic-fc/heart-of-midlothian-fc/3005754/

 

Edit: 👇

 

 

Edited March 28 by Ricardo Quaresma

[Luckies1874]

12 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

receipts split 4 ways between the semi finalists.  will be close to £1m for the upcoming game.

 

How are you getting that figure? It's nowhere near as much as £1 million per team for the semi final. Probably around that amount for the semi and final after costs. 

 

Even if 100,00 tickets were sold, combined, for the 2 semi finals, which they won't be, (it will be more like 85,000) at an average of £30 a head that's only £3 million (and 85k bums on seats is only £2.55 million) and there are significant costs to deduct and the SFA do make money from the likes of debentures and corporate so much closer to £500k per club. 

Edited March 28 by Luckies1874

[pettigrewsstylist]

23 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

This is a world where it would buy you 1/10th of a Ross Stewart. Where it’s a couple of weeks wages for a top player.

 

some people haven’t grasped that Scottish football is utterly tinpot.

Unless you are one of the only 2 clubs that matter, have a say.

[JamboAl]

5 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

there will be costs e.g stewards etc, but don't think SFA take a cut.  

Rightly or wrongly...

I have it in mind that the semis and the final are staged by the SFA and they take a 25% cut of receipts before club distribution.  What happens with programme sales and other merchandise receipts, I don't know.

That, however, is incidental to the point I was making which is that £1m is a lot of money if you don't have it or if your finances are otherwise committed - and that doesn't change whether it's 1990 or 2024

[HopeDiouf]

1 minute ago, Luckies1874 said:

 

How are you getting that figure? It's nowhere near as much as £1 million per team for the semi final. Probably around that amount for the semi and final after costs. 

 

Even if 100,00 tickets were sold, combined, for the 2 semi finals, which they won't be, (it will be more like 85,000) at an average of £30 a head that's only £3 million (and 85 k bus on seats is only £2.55 million) and there are significant costs and the SFA do make money from the likes of debentures and corporate so much closer to £500k per club. 

I was doing my sums on back of a fag packet .  ok won't reach 1 million, but will be getting there.  Which it certainly wasn't back in the 90's.

[HopeDiouf]

2 minutes ago, JamboAl said:

Rightly or wrongly...

I have it in mind that the semis and the final are staged by the SFA and they take a 25% cut of receipts before club distribution.  What happens with programme sales and other merchandise receipts, I don't know.

That, however, is incidental to the point I was making which is that £1m is a lot of money if you don't have it or if your finances are otherwise committed - and that doesn't change whether it's 1990 or 2024

it does though.  £1 million is a fixed sum.  inflation means that £1m is a lot less now than it was then, related to everything else (e.g. ticket income/ revenue of club).  There will come a day at some point in the future (prob after we're both deid) when £1 million is considered a nominal fee.

also did link to SFA site above - as of 2015 they were taking 10%.

Edited March 28 by HopeDiouf

[JamboAl]

10 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

it does though.  £1 million is a fixed sum.  inflation means that £1m is a lot less now than it was then, related to everything else (e.g. ticket income/ revenue of club).  There will come a day at some point in the future (prob after we're both deid) when £1 million is considered a nominal fee.

also did link to SFA site above - as of 2015 they were taking 10%.

I understand that but if you don't have it, or you have alternative commitments, it is a lot of money: eg (to emphasise the point) while it is chicken feed to the OF, Albion Rovers would be ecstatic if such a sum landed in their lap.

[HopeDiouf]

1 minute ago, JamboAl said:

I understand that but if you don't have it, or you have alternative commitments, it is a lot of money: eg (to emphasise the point) while it is chicken feed to the OF, Albion Rovers would be ecstatic if such a sum landed in their lap.

it doesn't seem that way given you keep suggesting it's the same in 1990 as it was in 2024.  Yes, it's a lot of money still.  But in 2024, is not as big a lot of money as it was in 1990

[kingantti1874]

17 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

it does though.  £1 million is a fixed sum.  inflation means that £1m is a lot less now than it was then, related to everything else (e.g. ticket income/ revenue of club).  There will come a day at some point in the future (prob after we're both deid) when £1 million is considered a nominal fee.

also did link to SFA site above - as of 2015 they were taking 10%.

in football terms, for nearly every significant league in Europe it’s a nominal fee right now.

 

we received £2m for Alan McLaren in the 1990’s, and some think £1m for Cochrane is decent now? In football terms £2m in the 1990’s is more like £30m todays 

 

we’ve been left behind, tinpot league, tinpot clubs and tinpot mentality from some.

[Sooks]

1 minute ago, kingantti1874 said:

in football terms, for nearly every significant league in Europe it’s a nominal fee right now.

 

we received £2m for Alan McLaren in the 1990’s, and some think £1m for Cochrane is decent now? In football terms £2m in the 1990’s is more like £30m todays 

 

we’ve been left behind, tinpot league, tinpot clubs and tinpot mentality from some.

I agree with this in spades . There is a bit of a reluctance among many of our supporters to acknowledge that we get utterly shite bids for our players , and a sort of acceptance of it . Out come the laughing emojis when someone dares to suggest we look for a fair price . It is like a sort of cringe 

[Fozzyonthefence]

10 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Well it helps that we're not in the middle of a pandemic, demoted from the Premiership, not even sure whether the Championship season will start never mind be played to a finish or close enough to it that there'll be any promotion at the end of it, and knowing that we'll be playing in empty grounds for quite some time if and when it does get started!

 

I really struggle sometimes to get why so many people quote the Hickey deal while completely ignoring the obvious extremely difficult and unusual circumstances surrounding it!

I don’t know, just a hunch that maybe it’s because he’s the biggest talent we’ve had in decades. To be honest, probably the worst part of that deal was only getting a 6 figure fee sell on clause, that was criminal.  Even an extremely modest 15% (which iirc is what an out of contract Callum Paterson managed to negotiate for us when he had no obligation to do so) would have netted us a further £2.5m.   Yes, there were unusual circumstances and you can butter it up all you want but there’s no getting away from it, that was a horrific piece of business from a Hearts perspective.
 

Take Hickey and Covid out of it if you want but we’re shit at player trading compared to Hibs and Aberdeen who seem to manage to get millions for average players or just good young, unproven prospects.  Time we started to do the same and the club has acknowledged this is their aim. 

[JamboAl]

35 minutes ago, HopeDiouf said:

it doesn't seem that way given you keep suggesting it's the same in 1990 as it was in 2024.  Yes, it's a lot of money still.  But in 2024, is not as big a lot of money as it was in 1990

 

OK; to clarify it for you

£1m is the same figure today as in 1990 but inflation has reduced the purchasing power.  I think we can agree on that.

BUT

if you don't have have £1m today, or it is otherwise committed, it becomes  a huge sum and still represents a large percentage of our turnover, let alone any profit forecast which could change with a few players leaving for fees or even the consequent wage bill reduction  if they go free.

[Batistuta87]

1 hour ago, Ricardo Quaresma said:

 

Sure I got the wrong game earlier and I think you're on about this one?🤔

 

https://uk.soccerway.com/matches/2019/05/19/scotland/premier-league/celtic-fc/heart-of-midlothian-fc/3005754/

 

Edit: 👇

 

 

 

That's the one aye - Hickey trying and failing to trip him up is what I'm remembering. 

Looked very very good here for a 16yo. 

Now Hickey is light years ahead of him lol, 

 

 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

2 minutes ago, Batistuta87 said:

 

That's the one aye - Hickey trying and failing to trip him up is what I'm remembering. 

Looked very very good here for a 16yo. 

Now Hickey is light years ahead of him lol, 

 

 

 

Aye, he kept his nose clean after marking the wee guy's card, after which, he rode the challenge too

[Sooks]

5 minutes ago, Batistuta87 said:

 

That's the one aye - Hickey trying and failing to trip him up is what I'm remembering. 

Looked very very good here for a 16yo. 

Now Hickey is light years ahead of him lol, 

 

 

That was the stand out memory for most . After that he never got a sniff

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, kingantti1874 said:

in football terms, for nearly every significant league in Europe it’s a nominal fee right now.

 

we received £2m for Alan McLaren in the 1990’s, and some think £1m for Cochrane is decent now? In football terms £2m in the 1990’s is more like £30m todays 

 

we’ve been left behind, tinpot league, tinpot clubs and tinpot mentality from some.

We have been left behind in terms of transfer fees, although Rangers and Celtic are able to command much higher fees (and not always because it is a much higher calibre of player - take Nathan Paterson - £12m for a player who was sitting on the bench every week at Rangers, and still would be, who is now sitting on the bench every week at Everton, I’ve come to the conclusion that it must have been some sort of money laundering or FFP type thing!). 
 

It’s a point I’ve made before about us getting around £2m for McLaren and not much less for McCann and Cameron (all in the 1990’s I think).  But they were also a higher calibre of player than we have now (possibly Shanks excepted).   Cameron went on to have a good career in the English Premier and Championship.  McLaren and McCann went to a very good Rangers team and didn’t sit on the bench, they both actually strengthened it. 
 

Shouldn’t be too long before we are paying £1m for players ourselves and you can probably argue we should be there already (that’s a lot less in real terms than the £400k / £500k fees we were paying in the 1990s.

Edited March 28 by Fozzyonthefence

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, HopeDiouf said:

receipts split 4 ways between the semi finalists.  will be close to £1m for the upcoming game.

Financially both OF teams in the draw and kept apart is a winner