Brighton / Tony Bloom

[FarmerTweedy]

9 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Not if he buys shares from Budge and that’s the worry.  If FoH members play silly buggers he just buys Bidco, has 17+%, a seat on the Board and the club gets no financial investment. 

Well, technically speaking, there is that possibility, but the reality is that a 17% shareholding and a seat on the board would actually give him the power to do the square root of sod all, if the rest of the board were against him, and given that FoH have over 75% of shares, they could, if they wanted, ensure that any other board members who sided with Bloom in any dispute or disagreement were swiftly replaced.  Bloom would be wasting his money, and this scenario simply isn't going to happen. 

 

 

[FarmerTweedy]

21 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Christian Salveson died in 1911.  How old are you? 

Genuinely not sure if you're joking or being incredibly stupid here! 🤪

[soonbe110]

1 minute ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Well, technically speaking, there is that possibility, but the reality is that a 17% shareholding and a seat on the board would actually give him the power to do the square root of sod all, if the rest of the board were against him, and given that FoH have over 75% of shares, they could, if they wanted, ensure that any other board members who sided with Bloom in any dispute or disagreement were swiftly replaced.  Bloom would be wasting his money, and this scenario simply isn't going to happen. 

 

 

Given he can’t go above 24.99999999% then the difference between 17 and 24.999 is pretty much irrelevant.   Buying Bidco guarantees him an individual on the Board and given that it’s Anderson that has brought him on board I think between them they would amount to a lot more than the square root of sod all.  Hopefully we have a  right issue that he underwrites and he puts a chunk of cash into the club and Anderson et al also take up their rights.   That would be a significant injection of cash. 

[soonbe110]

3 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Genuinely not sure if you're joking or being incredibly stupid here! 🤪

Mitch said he had been in meetings with Tom Farmer and Christian Salveson.  Christian Salveson, the founder, not the company, died in 1911. 
I was being facetious, maybe a bit humorous, but hey ho, it’s getting late on a Friday so who gives a shit. 

[gjcc]

7 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

Genuinely not sure if you're joking or being incredibly stupid here! 🤪

To be fair it just looks like he’s listing names and companies. 
 

I wouldn’t have clicked it was “person, company that person was in, person, company that person was in” if it wasn’t for Farrmer, Kwik Fit

 

Hope he wasn’t drawing up the contracts. 😉

Edited January 10 by gjcc

[FarmerTweedy]

2 minutes ago, gjcc said:

To be fair it just looks like he’s listing names and companies. 
 

I wouldn’t have clicked it was “person, company that person was in, person, company that person was in” if it wasn’t for Farrmer, Kwik Fit

 

Hope he wasn’t drawing up the contracts. 😉

Tbh, I never twigged the person, company thing at all, just took it as a mix of individuals (Farmer and Mercer) and companies (Sealy, Salvesen, etc)!

 

I suspect the only things mitch was drawing up were teas and coffees! 😉

[FarmerTweedy]

7 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Mitch said he had been in meetings with Tom Farmer and Christian Salveson.  Christian Salveson, the founder, not the company, died in 1911. 
I was being facetious, maybe a bit humorous, but hey ho, it’s getting late on a Friday so who gives a shit. 

I couldn't tell if you thought he meant he'd genuinely met with the man himself or knew he meant the company and were joking!  Thinking about it again though, I couldn't actually blame you if you thought mitch did think he'd met with the man himself!  🤣

[FarmerTweedy]

14 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Given he can’t go above 24.99999999% then the difference between 17 and 24.999 is pretty much irrelevant.   Buying Bidco guarantees him an individual on the Board and given that it’s Anderson that has brought him on board I think between them they would amount to a lot more than the square root of sod all.  Hopefully we have a  right issue that he underwrites and he puts a chunk of cash into the club and Anderson et al also take up their rights.   That would be a significant injection of cash. 

I believe he can go up to 29.99...%.

 

Anderson is, strictly speaking, only a board member at the invitation of other board members and with the approval of shareholders, or has been up to now, anyway. It's possible that the loan facility agreement with him (assuming, of course, that he's the board member providing the loan that pays off Bidco's loan) guarantees him a seat on the board for the duration of the loan, although I think that would have had to be made known to all shareholders.

 

Ultimately, if Bloom isn't accepted and welcomed by FoH, he'll have very limited influence and control if he buys Bidco. It's extremely unlikely he'd see much point in getting involved in that scenario.

 

FWIW, I think a rights issue is very unlikely.  IMO, by far the most likely scenario is a simple issue of new shares directly to Bloom, of a number of shares which gives him an agreed %age of the total shareholding at a price per share which amounts to the total agreed amount that he'll invest.  A rights issue would be unlikely to appeal to Bloom as he wouldn't know what %age shareholding he'd end up with, and wouldn't be likely to raise much from existing shareholders given that over 90% are FoH who don't have money to take up any rights and Ann Budge who seems highly unlikely to want to put any more money in.  Would Anderson even have any rights? I'm not sure if he actually owns any shares.

[soonbe110]

33 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

I couldn't tell if you thought he meant he'd genuinely met with the man himself or knew he meant the company and were joking!  Thinking about it again though, I couldn't actually blame you if you thought mitch did think he'd met with the man himself!  🤣

Who knows what Mitch thinks😂

[soonbe110]

13 minutes ago, FarmerTweedy said:

I believe he can go up to 29.99...%.

 

Anderson is, strictly speaking, only a board member at the invitation of other board members and with the approval of shareholders, or has been up to now, anyway. It's possible that the loan facility agreement with him (assuming, of course, that he's the board member providing the loan that pays off Bidco's loan) guarantees him a seat on the board for the duration of the loan, although I think that would have had to be made known to all shareholders.

 

Ultimately, if Bloom isn't accepted and welcomed by FoH, he'll have very limited influence and control if he buys Bidco. It's extremely unlikely he'd see much point in getting involved in that scenario.

 

FWIW, I think a rights issue is very unlikely.  IMO, by far the most likely scenario is a simple issue of new shares directly to Bloom, of a number of shares which gives him an agreed %age of the total shareholding at a price per share which amounts to the total agreed amount that he'll invest.  A rights issue would be unlikely to appeal to Bloom as he wouldn't know what %age shareholding he'd end up with, and wouldn't be likely to raise much from existing shareholders given that over 90% are FoH who don't have money to take up any rights and Ann Budge who seems highly unlikely to want to put any more money in.  Would Anderson even have any rights? I'm not sure if he actually owns any shares.

Think legally in uk it’s 29.9999 but I believe uefa restricted him to 24.999 when it came to USG also being in Europe with Brighton 

Anderson’s  situation will have been notified to shareholders or FoH reps on Club Board I suspect. In any case I don’t think FoH members would vote Anderson off the Board.  In fact there’s probably a need for him to take an equity stake. 

You could be right about share issue though I’m more inclined to think that a rights issue, with FoH blessing, is the best path.  FoH wouldn’t have the cash to take up their rights. if Bloom underwrites the issue it means he would pick up the FoH shares, Budge would have to take up hers or pass them to someone else (Andersen or Bloom) and the club receives a really significant cash injection which enables funds for JTA player acquisition and the repayment of however much of the Anderson loan facility has been drawn down. 
Could be barking up the wrong tree of course. But that’s for another day, I’m off to bed. 

[mitch41]

3 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Christian Salveson died in 1911.  How old are you? 

Absolute rubbish there offices were at Inverleith till the 1970’s. And Barry Seely  was ceo until they were bought over if I remember rightly.

Edited January 11 by mitch41

[mitch41]

3 hours ago, FarmerTweedy said:

The actual discussions will obviously be a lot more nuanced than this but there's a certain basis of truth in the bit in bold, in bold, in that the fundamentals of discussions will around things like what's in it for Bloom, what's in it for Hearts, and how can any deal be beneficial to both parties and not just one. 

 

The reality is that these discussions will happen (indeed have already been happening) between Bloom and his advisers, and members of the Hearts board, including Gerry Mallon, FoH Chairman and member of the HMFC board.  So the FoH are involved already, but the details won't be going to the general membership, and by extension the general public (because the thousands of FoH members aren't all going to keep it between themselves), until there's a deal to be voted on.  And if you'd ever actually been involved in any sort of significant business deal discussions, you'd know this perfectly well!

You have just not understood what I pointed out in fact your post is similar to mine so cut out the hysterics and stick to the facts.

[Shankland31]

Why would Budge sell her shares now when the clubs value could potentially grow a lot down the line with TB coming in?
Rumoured she will hand the shares over to her grand daughter who loves Hearts and it’s her right to do with them what she pleases after putting in the money to save us in the first place.

Ideally for Hearts she would be selfless as she’s always appeared to be and sell her shares now to TB, still make a good bit of money from Hearts and Hearts would stay in as strong a position as possible. 
It’s up to AB though I’m not sure we should chase her out with pitch forks and I’m not sure it would work if she’s already decided, although I personally hope she does sell now and walks away a legend. 
The main thing is I hope TB brings in his own people to help run the club once he is in. Not sure I trust the staff costs at the moment and there’s definite room for improvement which TB can surely bring to the table. I hope our board would welcome it with open arms and not take any offense because we have a massive opportunity to grow as a club if they are humble enough.

[seagully]

FWIW, Bloom and his people are incredibly tight-lipped and secretive about the real detail of ANYTHING they are working on from a financial perspective and this pervades both Starlizard and BHAFC so I wouldn’t worry too much about an information vacuum while talks are ongoing. A lot of our own lot get frustrated from time to time - as fans we think have a ‘right to know everything’ but fact is we don’t……..even virtually all of our transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’. 

 

 

[soonbe110]

25 minutes ago, seagully said:

FWIW, Bloom and his people are incredibly tight-lipped and secretive about the real detail of ANYTHING they are working on from a financial perspective and this pervades both Starlizard and BHAFC so I wouldn’t worry too much about an information vacuum while talks are ongoing. A lot of our own lot get frustrated from time to time - as fans we think have a ‘right to know everything’ but fact is we don’t……..even virtually all of our transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’. 

 

 

👍

[hughesie27]

27 minutes ago, seagully said:

FWIW, Bloom and his people are incredibly tight-lipped and secretive about the real detail of ANYTHING they are working on from a financial perspective and this pervades both Starlizard and BHAFC so I wouldn’t worry too much about an information vacuum while talks are ongoing. A lot of our own lot get frustrated from time to time - as fans we think have a ‘right to know everything’ but fact is we don’t……..even virtually all of our transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’. 

 

 

Our issue with this is tenfold because we have people paying £10 a month to FOH who think it gives them a right to receive weekly business updates from Budge herself.

[Biffa Bacon]

56 minutes ago, seagully said:

FWIW, Bloom and his people are incredibly tight-lipped and secretive about the real detail of ANYTHING they are working on from a financial perspective and this pervades both Starlizard and BHAFC so I wouldn’t worry too much about an information vacuum while talks are ongoing. A lot of our own lot get frustrated from time to time - as fans we think have a ‘right to know everything’ but fact is we don’t……..even virtually all of our transfer fees are ‘undisclosed’. 

 

 

I would not expect anything less from a well run business. The less competitors (including agents or anyone really) know about potential targets, salaries, the amount of funds available, how much you are prepared to pay for any individual, bonuses paid, wage structures etc.etc. weakens your negotiating position, and could potentially cost more than it should or fail to complete a transfer.

[OTT]

11 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Not if he buys shares from Budge and that’s the worry.  If FoH members play silly buggers he just buys Bidco, has 17+%, a seat on the Board and the club gets no financial investment. 

 

I would have thought refusing to sell him shares from the club would kind of torpedo the whole Jamestown deal. Why would Bloom want to remain involved if there was a feeling that the club/primary shareholder of the club didn't want him?

 

FWIW I had initially assumed this was Budges exit. I.e she would see the Bloom deal over the line, sell her shares and then retire. 

 

But evidently not  

[seagully]

54 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Our issue with this is tenfold because we have people paying £10 a month to FOH who think it gives them a right to receive weekly business updates from Budge herself.

🤣

[Nerja Jambo]

12 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Given he can’t go above 24.99999999% then the difference between 17 and 24.999 is pretty much irrelevant.   Buying Bidco guarantees him an individual on the Board and given that it’s Anderson that has brought him on board I think between them they would amount to a lot more than the square root of sod all.  Hopefully we have a  right issue that he underwrites and he puts a chunk of cash into the club and Anderson et al also take up their rights.   That would be a significant injection of cash. 

Do we know for a fact that it was Anderson who brought him on board?

[Nerja Jambo]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

Our issue with this is tenfold because we have people paying £10 a month to FOH who think it gives them a right to receive weekly business updates from Budge herself.

That's just stupid to say that. All people are looking for is more regular comms. from FoH as at present and for a good few years their comms. are shocking. They represent the members/owners and should remember that. 

Edited January 11 by Nerja Jambo

[GBJambo]

2 minutes ago, Nerja Jambo said:

That's just stupid to say that. All people are looking for is more regular comms. from FoH as at present and for a good few years their comms. are shocking. They represent the members/owners and should remember that. 

Nah we should be lucky we have a team to support. You are not allowed to question anything about the board. 

[usagi]

8 minutes ago, Nerja Jambo said:

Do we know for a fact that it was Anderson who brought him on board?

I was wondering the same thing.

[hughesie27]

44 minutes ago, Nerja Jambo said:

That's just stupid to say that. All people are looking for is more regular comms. from FoH as at present and for a good few years their comms. are shocking. They represent the members/owners and should remember that. 

That's not "All people are looking for" though. 

Recent weeks alone I've seen people claiming we should have been consulted on the design of the new main stand, the captaincy of the club, the appointment of Critchley and the wages offered to other candidates, minutebdetails about how the development of the New Stand was awarded and the costs approved,  and the make up of the board (beyond the FOH ones).

 

 

[Nerja Jambo]

51 minutes ago, GBJambo said:

Nah we should be lucky we have a team to support. You are not allowed to question anything about the board. 

Sad but true.

[Nerja Jambo]

7 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

That's not "All people are looking for" though. 

Recent weeks alone I've seen people claiming we should have been consulted on the design of the new main stand, the captaincy of the club, the appointment of Critchley and the wages offered to other candidates, minutebdetails about how the development of the New Stand was awarded and the costs approved,  and the make up of the board (beyond the FOH ones).

 

 

And what's wrong with questioning how our club is run, how the major decisions are made. That is a far cry from what you are saying that some want a weekly update from Budge.

[hughesie27]

22 minutes ago, Nerja Jambo said:

And what's wrong with questioning how our club is run, how the major decisions are made. That is a far cry from what you are saying that some want a weekly update from Budge.

I was obviously being facetious. My point though is folk think their money equates to a right to influence decision they aren't informed or skilled enough to make. And they take that out on the club because of this.

 

I'm not talking about just "questioning" how the club is run. 

[FarmerTweedy]

1 hour ago, Nerja Jambo said:

That's just stupid to say that. All people are looking for is more regular comms. from FoH as at present and for a good few years their comms. are shocking. They represent the members/owners and should remember that. 

That just isn't remotely true.

[Nerja Jambo]

1 minute ago, FarmerTweedy said:

That just isn't remotely true.

You are joking surely. 

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

46 minutes ago, Nerja Jambo said:

And what's wrong with questioning how our club is run, how the major decisions are made. That is a far cry from what you are saying that some want a weekly update from Budge.

 

Meanwhile, in the previous post you agree with a guy saying you're not allowed to.

It's bullshit, of course you're allowed to. But you seem to think others shouldn't be allowed to disagree.

[Nerja Jambo]

6 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Meanwhile, in the previous post you agree with a guy saying you're not allowed to.

It's bullshit, of course you're allowed to. But you seem to think others shouldn't be allowed to disagree.

I think you should re-read the posts again and think about what is being said.

[hughesie27]

8 minutes ago, ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ said:

 

Meanwhile, in the previous post you agree with a guy saying you're not allowed to.

It's bullshit, of course you're allowed to. But you seem to think others shouldn't be allowed to disagree.

The posts were sarcastic.

[ｕｎｋｎｏｗｎｕｓｅｒ]

26 minutes ago, Nerja Jambo said:

I think you should re-read the posts again and think about what is being said.

 

If you didn't mean what you said, how is someone meant to know?

[Taffin]

2 hours ago, hughesie27 said:

That's not "All people are looking for" though. 

Recent weeks alone I've seen people claiming we should have been consulted on the design of the new main stand, the captaincy of the club, the appointment of Critchley and the wages offered to other candidates, minutebdetails about how the development of the New Stand was awarded and the costs approved,  and the make up of the board (beyond the FOH ones).

 

 

 

Don't see the issues with the ones in bold. Why wouldn't you consult those a product is being designed for? In any business or market that would seem good practice and may have avoided the costly shit shows along the way.

 

As for awards and costs the club chose to bring that scrutiny on themselves and quite easily could have avoided. Seemingly sketchy things (even when totally above board) will draw people to it.

 

As for the make up of the board, why wouldn't the members of a members organisation who owns a business be involved in it?

Edited January 11 by Taffin

[hughesie27]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Don't see the issues with the ones in bold. Why wouldn't you consult those a product is being designed for? In any business or market that would seem good practice and may have avoided the costly shit shows along the way.

 

As for awards and costs the club chose to bring that scrutiny on themselves and quite easily could have avoided. Seemingly sketchy things (even when totally above board) will draw people to it.

 

As for the make up of the board, why wouldn't the members of a members organisation who owns a business be involved in it?

We are involved. We elect 2 Board members to represent us on our behalf. That means we don't need to have a vote every week on what colour to paint the walls.

 

Fan Owned not Fan Run.

[Bill Sikes]

8 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Don't see the issues with the ones in bold. Why wouldn't you consult those a product is being designed for? In any business or market that would seem good practice and may have avoided the costly shit shows along the way.

 

As for awards and costs the club chose to bring that scrutiny on themselves and quite easily could have avoided. Seemingly sketchy things (even when totally above board) will draw people to it.

 

As for the make up of the board, why wouldn't the members of a members organisation who owns a business be involved in it?

 

[Taffin]

Just now, hughesie27 said:

We are involved. We elect 2 Board members to represent us on our behalf. That means we don't need to have a vote every week on what colour to paint the walls.

 

Fan Owned not Fan Run.

 

I didn't suggest any of those things don't happen. That the board decide what colour the walls gets painted probably highlights why people are keen for a bit more clarity on power dynamics at board level.

 

And as for the other two points? Even putting being owners to one side -Consulting customers on a product/service for them seems like common sense. Also in any business, if you appoint a family member to a role or contract and it runs badly, people will pry into it.

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Bill Sikes said:

 

 

Nice pic, did you draw it?

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

38 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Nice pic, did you draw it?

like you said foh aside consulting/engaging with customers on certain things is not a bad practice at times - certain things, at times

 

most questioning met with the tired all inference from the high IQers that you expect to pick the team or even play - was cringey 10 years ago cringey and stale now

 

 

[Stumil]

Appreciate this isnt Brighton, but shows the evolution at Royal USG since they adopted Jamestown Analytics.  Modest transfer fees and a host of free transfers to start with.   

 

https://analyticsfc.co.uk/blog/2024/12/09/transfer-gurus-royale-union-saint-gilloises-chris-oloughlin/#:~:text=The 2023 summer transfer window,raised over €38m altogether.&text=(Union Saint-Gilloise's sales in,the 2023 summer transfer window.)

[chrisyboy7]

30 minutes ago, Stumil said:

Appreciate this isnt Brighton, but shows the evolution at Royal USG since they adopted Jamestown Analytics.  Modest transfer fees and a host of free transfers to start with.   

 

https://analyticsfc.co.uk/blog/2024/12/09/transfer-gurus-royale-union-saint-gilloises-chris-oloughlin/#:~:text=The 2023 summer transfer window,raised over €38m altogether.&text=(Union Saint-Gilloise's sales in,the 2023 summer transfer window.)

It's been a huge success everywhere. We are only just starting. 

[Craig_]

3 hours ago, Stumil said:

Appreciate this isnt Brighton, but shows the evolution at Royal USG since they adopted Jamestown Analytics.  Modest transfer fees and a host of free transfers to start with.   

 

https://analyticsfc.co.uk/blog/2024/12/09/transfer-gurus-royale-union-saint-gilloises-chris-oloughlin/#:~:text=The 2023 summer transfer window,raised over €38m altogether.&text=(Union Saint-Gilloise's sales in,the 2023 summer transfer window.)

 

Fascinating stuff, thanks for posting. Interested by O'Loughlin, sounds similar to our own Graeme Jones to an extent. 

 

The other thing to note is that this place will likely lose its shit every time we sell a top player and their replacement takes a few months to come good. 

[hughesie27]

49 minutes ago, Craig_ said:

 

 

The other thing to note is that this place will likely lose its shit every time we sell a top player and their replacement takes a few months to come good. 

100% 

Money grabbing Budge. Spending transfers on hotel renovations etc etc.

[JayTeeJnr]

4 hours ago, Stumil said:

Appreciate this isnt Brighton, but shows the evolution at Royal USG since they adopted Jamestown Analytics.  Modest transfer fees and a host of free transfers to start with.   

 

https://analyticsfc.co.uk/blog/2024/12/09/transfer-gurus-royale-union-saint-gilloises-chris-oloughlin/#:~:text=The 2023 summer transfer window,raised over €38m altogether.&text=(Union Saint-Gilloise's sales in,the 2023 summer transfer window.)

Thanks for posting - that was a good lunchtime read.

 

Although I was aware of USG's rise, I didn't know anything about the specifics of their trading or managerial roles.  It's good to see that they were initially operating with players that you'd expect Hearts could afford and that they were able to improve fairly quickly.

 

One thing that's crossed my mind is whether selling clubs will inflate the transfer fees when a team who work with Jamestown Analytics (JA) come calling. I know most teams now use data analysis but given the success of JA, clubs may question whether they're losing a player with a lot of potential who, if they improve them themselves, could quickly be worth a lot more.

[Paris 84]

11 minutes ago, JayTeeJnr said:

Thanks for posting - that was a good lunchtime read.

 

Although I was aware of USG's rise, I didn't know anything about the specifics of their trading or managerial roles.  It's good to see that they were initially operating with players that you'd expect Hearts could afford and that they were able to improve fairly quickly.

 

One thing that's crossed my mind is whether selling clubs will inflate the transfer fees when a team who work with Jamestown Analytics (JA) come calling. I know most teams now use data analysis but given the success of JA, clubs may question whether they're losing a player with a lot of potential who, if they improve them themselves, could quickly be worth a lot more.

I’m pretty sure they identify more than one player to fit the position they’re looking to fill. If the club overinflated their asking price above what JA don’t think is value, they’ll simply move on to the next target. 

[JayTeeJnr]

8 minutes ago, Paris 84 said:

I’m pretty sure they identify more than one player to fit the position they’re looking to fill. If the club overinflated their asking price above what JA don’t think is value, they’ll simply move on to the next target. 

Yes, it's been mentioned that JA would provide a list of players who fit the criteria and Hearts wouldn't always get their first/second/third choice for all sorts of reasons.

 

I was thinking more of the general concept that teams will be alerted to their players with an untapped potential that they might not have spotted themselves. They wouldn't have access to the specifics but it could make them more inclined to keep the player or bump up the price. The selling club would be benefitting from a simple but cost free JA 'service' that indicates they have a potentially valuable player on their books.

 

Maybe it doesn't change the overall dynamics of the player transfer world but it feels there's an opportunity for the selling clubs to be a bit cuter in negotiations when a JA associated club wants one of their players. 

[Smithian]

7 hours ago, Stumil said:

Appreciate this isnt Brighton, but shows the evolution at Royal USG since they adopted Jamestown Analytics.  Modest transfer fees and a host of free transfers to start with.   

 

https://analyticsfc.co.uk/blog/2024/12/09/transfer-gurus-royale-union-saint-gilloises-chris-oloughlin/#:~:text=The 2023 summer transfer window,raised over €38m altogether.&text=(Union Saint-Gilloise's sales in,the 2023 summer transfer window.)

If Hearts could bring €38m over a decade I'd be thrilled.

[Lone Striker]

2 hours ago, JayTeeJnr said:

Thanks for posting - that was a good lunchtime read.

 

Although I was aware of USG's rise, I didn't know anything about the specifics of their trading or managerial roles.  It's good to see that they were initially operating with players that you'd expect Hearts could afford and that they were able to improve fairly quickly.

 

One thing that's crossed my mind is whether selling clubs will inflate the transfer fees when a team who work with Jamestown Analytics (JA) come calling. I know most teams now use data analysis but given the success of JA, clubs may question whether they're losing a player with a lot of potential who, if they improve them themselves, could quickly be worth a lot more.

On your last point about selling clubs playing hardball with us, its a possibility,  But my understanding is that the target players are likely to be close to outgrowing the club/league they play in, and have ambition to play in a "better" league.  The SPL is a stepping stone to that.   The player himself and his agent would hopefully put pressure on the selling club to get the deal done. 

 

 It seems the model we're being advised to follow is to give the target player a 4yr contract but be ready to sell him after 2 years (with a replacement target already identified).

Edited January 14 by Lone Striker

[Ricardo Quaresma]

Some posters on here are gelded and practically lobotomised

[Forrest]

4 hours ago, JayTeeJnr said:

Yes, it's been mentioned that JA would provide a list of players who fit the criteria and Hearts wouldn't always get their first/second/third choice for all sorts of reasons.

 

I was thinking more of the general concept that teams will be alerted to their players with an untapped potential that they might not have spotted themselves. They wouldn't have access to the specifics but it could make them more inclined to keep the player or bump up the price. The selling club would be benefitting from a simple but cost free JA 'service' that indicates they have a potentially valuable player on their books.

 

Maybe it doesn't change the overall dynamics of the player transfer world but it feels there's an opportunity for the selling clubs to be a bit cuter in negotiations when a JA associated club wants one of their players. 

Is that not effectively what sell-on clauses are for, though?