Wishlist and General Juve mercato talk (2014-15) (30 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
- Status
I think this mercato can already be evaluated. We ended last season with a few priorities and glaring needs in the squad.
My rating of the mercato so far is based on fulfilling of priorities and analysing some important deals separately.
These 8 priorities, in order of importance, with the first one being the most important, the next 4 being equally important and the last 3 being the least important, were IMO:
1 -keep our 2 best players, Vidal and Pogba. - OK so far. 10/10 (x3) = 30/30
2- offload unused old players who make a lot of money - 7/10 (x2) = 14/20 - good job on Vucinic (6M upfront is good); average on Quag (sold only for 3.5M in 3 years, but at least was offloaded); let Osvaldo go; good on Peluso (4.5M); bad on Isla and Fausto Rossi (should be sold instead of loaned); average on Immobile (we got 8M upfront, not bad, but Torino made from 10-12M - not fair). Didn't offload Giovinco, Motta, Padoin, De Ceglie yet.
3 -make the squad younger - OK so far - 3 very young guys + Romulo 27yr old and Evra) - 7/10 (x2) = 14/20
4 -Get a LB who may allow us to play with a 4 back; - OK with Evra - 8/10 (x2) = 16/20
5 -Get 2 fast dribbling wingers/Second strikers who may allow us to vary the formation - only got Coman who is a project. 3/10 (x2) = 6/20
6 - Sell Bonucci in order to sign a young CB capable of playing in a 4men defence: 0/10 (x1)
7- Get a creative AM who can offer something different from the bench - nothing. 0/10 (x1)
8- have another CM option for rotation purposes; -Pereyra. 10/10 (x1)
So, out of (30 + 80 + 30) 140, the score is 90. 90/140 = 0.64.
It's a 6,4 out of 10 for fulfilling our priorities. I'd call it as the least possible acceptable mercato, considering merely the satisfaction of the priorities. It wasn't good, it wasn't horrible. Just average.
Now, in a less objective evaluation, considering the 20M invested on Morata, who plays in a position which is far from being a priority, or commited to spend:
- Morata for 20M (3x 6.8M) - overpayed for great potential, but also not one of the priorities. He's a backup CF. Also a very high risk transfer with the buyback clause.
So, we had 3 big money spending transfers, where we commited to spend 45M spread till 2017. Morata, Pereyra, Romulo. 3 guys who will improve the bench, but none of them was meant to fill in for glaring needs of the squad.
I'd rather pay 22M + 3M bonus for 70% of Iturbe, with his agent keeping his 30%. It's also overpaying, as we did with both Morata and Pereyra, but for a kind of player we desperately need.
Also would rather use the money commited to spend in Romulo and Pereyra (24M) to try to get Keita from Lazio, or a similar player from overseas.
If we paid 50M to be spread in 4 years for Iturbe and Keita, instead of 45M for Romulo, Pereyra and Morata, it would be much better IMO.
So we ended up commiting to pay a lot of money for players in positions we are not dying to fill in. Even though the transfers made do fulfill other requirements as youth, it was a clear mistake strategy wise.
So I'll give in the end a 5/10 mercato. Wrong strategy, even though some priorities were fulfilled, like offloading the biggest part of the deadweight, making the squad younger, keeping Vidal and Pogba, finding a LB. But we spend our money where we didn't need it, with some crucial problems in the squad. That's why I qualify it as poor mercato.
If they leave, it makes for a disastrous mercato. Marotta's biggest error was compromising the money we have for the next years on players for the wrong positions.
My rating of the mercato so far is based on fulfilling of priorities and analysing some important deals separately.
These 8 priorities, in order of importance, with the first one being the most important, the next 4 being equally important and the last 3 being the least important, were IMO:
1 -keep our 2 best players, Vidal and Pogba. - OK so far. 10/10 (x3) = 30/30
2- offload unused old players who make a lot of money - 7/10 (x2) = 14/20 - good job on Vucinic (6M upfront is good); average on Quag (sold only for 3.5M in 3 years, but at least was offloaded); let Osvaldo go; good on Peluso (4.5M); bad on Isla and Fausto Rossi (should be sold instead of loaned); average on Immobile (we got 8M upfront, not bad, but Torino made from 10-12M - not fair). Didn't offload Giovinco, Motta, Padoin, De Ceglie yet.
3 -make the squad younger - OK so far - 3 very young guys + Romulo 27yr old and Evra) - 7/10 (x2) = 14/20
4 -Get a LB who may allow us to play with a 4 back; - OK with Evra - 8/10 (x2) = 16/20
5 -Get 2 fast dribbling wingers/Second strikers who may allow us to vary the formation - only got Coman who is a project. 3/10 (x2) = 6/20
6 - Sell Bonucci in order to sign a young CB capable of playing in a 4men defence: 0/10 (x1)
7- Get a creative AM who can offer something different from the bench - nothing. 0/10 (x1)
8- have another CM option for rotation purposes; -Pereyra. 10/10 (x1)
So, out of (30 + 80 + 30) 140, the score is 90. 90/140 = 0.64.
It's a 6,4 out of 10 for fulfilling our priorities. I'd call it as the least possible acceptable mercato, considering merely the satisfaction of the priorities. It wasn't good, it wasn't horrible. Just average.
Now, in a less objective evaluation, considering the 20M invested on Morata, who plays in a position which is far from being a priority, or commited to spend:
- Morata for 20M (3x 6.8M) - overpayed for great potential, but also not one of the priorities. He's a backup CF. Also a very high risk transfer with the buyback clause.
So, we had 3 big money spending transfers, where we commited to spend 45M spread till 2017. Morata, Pereyra, Romulo. 3 guys who will improve the bench, but none of them was meant to fill in for glaring needs of the squad.
I'd rather pay 22M + 3M bonus for 70% of Iturbe, with his agent keeping his 30%. It's also overpaying, as we did with both Morata and Pereyra, but for a kind of player we desperately need.
Also would rather use the money commited to spend in Romulo and Pereyra (24M) to try to get Keita from Lazio, or a similar player from overseas.
If we paid 50M to be spread in 4 years for Iturbe and Keita, instead of 45M for Romulo, Pereyra and Morata, it would be much better IMO.
So we ended up commiting to pay a lot of money for players in positions we are not dying to fill in. Even though the transfers made do fulfill other requirements as youth, it was a clear mistake strategy wise.
So I'll give in the end a 5/10 mercato. Wrong strategy, even though some priorities were fulfilled, like offloading the biggest part of the deadweight, making the squad younger, keeping Vidal and Pogba, finding a LB. But we spend our money where we didn't need it, with some crucial problems in the squad. That's why I qualify it as poor mercato.
If they leave, it makes for a disastrous mercato. Marotta's biggest error was compromising the money we have for the next years on players for the wrong positions.
Sorry tmw.com says this:
16:30 - TIFOSI CHIEDONO A VIDAL DI RESTARE, MA LUI TACE - Massimiliano e la squadra si sono concessi ai tifosi all'esterno dell'hotel che ospita la squadra. Quando il pullman bianconero è rientrato alla base dopo l'allenamento a Vinovo, i bianconeri hanno firmato autografi e posato per le foto di rito con i numerosi sostenitori che li attendevano dietro le transenne. "Rimani con noi Arturo", gli hanno chiesto i tifosi. Lui ha sorriso, ma è rimasto in silenzio.
Tmw.com
So i know another thing. I hope it's like you say :wink:
Also, given the financial possibilities of the club, considering the moves made, to me the best possible and also realistic mercato would be:
Player sales:
- Bonucci for 14M to be received in 4 installments; (1.8M salary net)
- Immobile and get 10M for him;
- Isla and get 8M in 3 installments for him; (1.4M salary net)
- Zaza for 7.5M in 3 installments (like it really happened);
- Vucinic for 6.25M upfront - actually happened; (3M salary net)
- Peluso for 5M in 3 years - actually happened; (0.8M salary net)
- Padoin for 2M in 2 years; (0.7M salary net)
- Fausto Rossi for 2M in 2 years;
- Motta loaned out (impossible to sell); (0.6M salary net)
- De Ceglie loaned out (impossible to sell); (1.3M salary net)
- Osvaldo returning to England; (2.5M salary net)
- Giovinco involved in a transfer for another player in Italy (1.4M salary net)
Quagliarella to remain till the end of his contract in 2015.
Total money to be received in the next 3/4 years from these transfers: around 55M. Salary shed: 13.5M net. Totally realistic, considering the values and transfers that were made.
I think this would be the absolutely best offloading mercato we could have.
Oh and I just remembered about Sturaro. We commited at least 5.5M to pay for him + 5.5M bonus.
Now, regarding signings, considering we really did commit almost 55M to be payed in the next 2 and 3 years, and considering that this is most accepted within Italy:
- Iturbe for 22M + 2.5M bonus in 3 installments (with 30% remaining with Mascardi) - 1.5M salary net - this is the exact deal Roma made - I'd rather overpay for him than for Pereyra.
- Keita Balde 22M + 3M bonus + Giovinco to Lazio (total value around 32/33M - Lazio could definitely take this) - 1.2M salary net;
- Coman on a free (1M salary net);
- Evra for 1.5M; (3.5M salary net);
- Menez on a free (2.5M salary net);
- Sorensen back (0.5M salary net);
- Young CB for 10/12M (from South America, like Doria, for example, or from Germany) - (0.7M salary net)
In the end, we'd commit to receive and spend, in the next 3 or 4 years, basically the same amount - around 55M. Iturbe's agent would receive 30% of his value when sold. We'd shed out salary of a total 13.5M net; and bring in around 12M in salaries, actually reducing the salary scale in 1.5M.
433:
Buffon - Licht, Barzagli, Chiellini, Evra; Asamoah, Pogba, Vidal; Tevez, Iturbe, Llorente.
Bench: Storari; Caceres, Sorensen, Doria, Ogbonna; Pirlo, Marchisio, Coman; Menez, Keita, Quagliarella.
We'd spend so much wiser, having a team with so much more swag, options, youth. And in the end, commiting to spend and receive roughly the same amount, also matching the salaries issue. That would be, realistically, one of the best possible mercato IMO, considering the resources we have now.
- - - Updated - - -
I really think he's undecided on this.
Marotta will have a very important role. If he's firm, Vidal just won't leave. If he hints that if Vidal wants to leave it's his sole decision (which actually is not), than he might go.
This is on Marotta IMO.
Player sales:
- Bonucci for 14M to be received in 4 installments; (1.8M salary net)
- Immobile and get 10M for him;
- Isla and get 8M in 3 installments for him; (1.4M salary net)
- Zaza for 7.5M in 3 installments (like it really happened);
- Vucinic for 6.25M upfront - actually happened; (3M salary net)
- Peluso for 5M in 3 years - actually happened; (0.8M salary net)
- Padoin for 2M in 2 years; (0.7M salary net)
- Fausto Rossi for 2M in 2 years;
- Motta loaned out (impossible to sell); (0.6M salary net)
- De Ceglie loaned out (impossible to sell); (1.3M salary net)
- Osvaldo returning to England; (2.5M salary net)
- Giovinco involved in a transfer for another player in Italy (1.4M salary net)
Quagliarella to remain till the end of his contract in 2015.
Total money to be received in the next 3/4 years from these transfers: around 55M. Salary shed: 13.5M net. Totally realistic, considering the values and transfers that were made.
I think this would be the absolutely best offloading mercato we could have.
Oh and I just remembered about Sturaro. We commited at least 5.5M to pay for him + 5.5M bonus.
Now, regarding signings, considering we really did commit almost 55M to be payed in the next 2 and 3 years, and considering that this is most accepted within Italy:
- Iturbe for 22M + 2.5M bonus in 3 installments (with 30% remaining with Mascardi) - 1.5M salary net - this is the exact deal Roma made - I'd rather overpay for him than for Pereyra.
- Keita Balde 22M + 3M bonus + Giovinco to Lazio (total value around 32/33M - Lazio could definitely take this) - 1.2M salary net;
- Coman on a free (1M salary net);
- Evra for 1.5M; (3.5M salary net);
- Menez on a free (2.5M salary net);
- Sorensen back (0.5M salary net);
- Young CB for 10/12M (from South America, like Doria, for example, or from Germany) - (0.7M salary net)
In the end, we'd commit to receive and spend, in the next 3 or 4 years, basically the same amount - around 55M. Iturbe's agent would receive 30% of his value when sold. We'd shed out salary of a total 13.5M net; and bring in around 12M in salaries, actually reducing the salary scale in 1.5M.
433:
Buffon - Licht, Barzagli, Chiellini, Evra; Asamoah, Pogba, Vidal; Tevez, Iturbe, Llorente.
Bench: Storari; Caceres, Sorensen, Doria, Ogbonna; Pirlo, Marchisio, Coman; Menez, Keita, Quagliarella.
We'd spend so much wiser, having a team with so much more swag, options, youth. And in the end, commiting to spend and receive roughly the same amount, also matching the salaries issue. That would be, realistically, one of the best possible mercato IMO, considering the resources we have now.
- - - Updated - - -
I really think he's undecided on this.
Marotta will have a very important role. If he's firm, Vidal just won't leave. If he hints that if Vidal wants to leave it's his sole decision (which actually is not), than he might go.
This is on Marotta IMO.
This is not football manager, it's easy to write as you did. But the reality is way different. I will give you one example. If we sell Isla for less then 10 million euros, it will have a negative on our budget.
So when you guys see that we loan him out so we don't need to pay him salary you think in the football manager way.
But when you understand the reality that nobody wants to pay 10 million euros for isla ( the minimum so it doesen't becomes a negative effect on the budget) So if we sell Isla for 7 million euros, we don't have 7 million euros to spend, instead we have a negative effect on 3 million euros? Sounds good?
- - - Updated - - -
To give you an another example Pereyra and Romulo will cost us around 7 million per year of our budget. We have a budget to fallow, and a deal for a player with transfer cost and salary is divided on his contract.
Example we buy Shaqiri for 20 million euros, we give him a salary of 3 million euros for 5 years= 35 milion euros/5 year= 7 milion euros per season on the budget.
We buy Robben for 25 million euros and give him a salary of 4,5 milllion per season and a 3 year contract= 12,88 per season
I read that Pereyra and Romulo together will cost us 7 million per season. 2 players who together cost us 16+8 milion euros in transfers= 24 million euros will together be less expensive then Robben.
But here people would think why diden't we buy Robben for 25 instead of Pereyra and Romulo for 24. Get a start rather then benchplayers. If it's was that easy
So when you guys see that we loan him out so we don't need to pay him salary you think in the football manager way.
But when you understand the reality that nobody wants to pay 10 million euros for isla ( the minimum so it doesen't becomes a negative effect on the budget) So if we sell Isla for 7 million euros, we don't have 7 million euros to spend, instead we have a negative effect on 3 million euros? Sounds good?
- - - Updated - - -
To give you an another example Pereyra and Romulo will cost us around 7 million per year of our budget. We have a budget to fallow, and a deal for a player with transfer cost and salary is divided on his contract.
Example we buy Shaqiri for 20 million euros, we give him a salary of 3 million euros for 5 years= 35 milion euros/5 year= 7 milion euros per season on the budget.
We buy Robben for 25 million euros and give him a salary of 4,5 milllion per season and a 3 year contract= 12,88 per season
I read that Pereyra and Romulo together will cost us 7 million per season. 2 players who together cost us 16+8 milion euros in transfers= 24 million euros will together be less expensive then Robben.
But here people would think why diden't we buy Robben for 25 instead of Pereyra and Romulo for 24. Get a start rather then benchplayers. If it's was that easy
When we loan out Isla, his value will decrease aswell (depreciation of assets), so we might just take that little loss now, instead of getting continual losses each year untill his contract runs out. Your argument is invalid.
I'm not saying we should sell Isla. It depends on the situation, which none of us really know. Hopefully he will do well in QPR
I'm not saying we should sell Isla. It depends on the situation, which none of us really know. Hopefully he will do well in QPR
Let's explain it another way so you understand. The salary + transfer is divided on year. Isla cost us 5 million euros per season with salary and transfer with two years contract left that 10 million total for the two seasons.
So instead of selling him this season for 7 million and have a negative effect, who not loan him out and we make 2 million euros for his salarys ( 2 million +) and next season his total effect on the budget in total ar just 5 million left, and we can sell him for minimum 5 million euros and it don't have a negative impact on the budget.
So instead of selling him this season for 7 million and have a negative effect, who not loan him out and we make 2 million euros for his salarys ( 2 million +) and next season his total effect on the budget in total ar just 5 million left, and we can sell him for minimum 5 million euros and it don't have a negative impact on the budget.
I know how the financials work. I just pointed out, that your example was wrong. Taking a loss on say 3 million (like you suggested) now by selling him for less than his book value, will be just as good as loaning him out for a year, where his contract right depreciate..
Make 2 million on his salary? What? His future salary is not an asset, it's only a cost, and we save that cost, no matter wheter we loan him out or sell him, so his wages doesn't matter here. Only if we kept him or loaned him out to a club that couldn't pay his whole salary, then we would have a cost that would add a loss. But we don't make any money by having someone else pay his wages, we only save that cost ourselves, still loosing money by depreciation though.
Besides, if we can't sell him for 10 million with two years left of contract, how come we can sell him for 5 with one year left? That will only happen if he perfomes, thus his value will increase and be higher than the book value of him, which we don't know for sure.
Make 2 million on his salary? What? His future salary is not an asset, it's only a cost, and we save that cost, no matter wheter we loan him out or sell him, so his wages doesn't matter here. Only if we kept him or loaned him out to a club that couldn't pay his whole salary, then we would have a cost that would add a loss. But we don't make any money by having someone else pay his wages, we only save that cost ourselves, still loosing money by depreciation though.
Besides, if we can't sell him for 10 million with two years left of contract, how come we can sell him for 5 with one year left? That will only happen if he perfomes, thus his value will increase and be higher than the book value of him, which we don't know for sure.
Gianluca Di Marzio @DiMarzio · 55s
Qpr, chieste informazioni su Giovinco http://fb.me/3kDy0IWYL
Sell
Qpr, chieste informazioni su Giovinco http://fb.me/3kDy0IWYL
Sell
I mean that we don't need to pay him his salary so we can use it on something else this season. His value surely won't increase here, so it's better to take a risk and send him to another club, maby he performs maby not. It's a risk yes but a better risk then keeping him in Juventus. With Romulo coming, we don't need him
Probably not, the classic Trequartista role died a long time ago. A modern number 10 uses the same principles but play in a different way and no, we're far from having anyone good at that role.
Personally i don't think Conte was an idiot for playing Marchisio as one, i understand where he's coming from since Marchisio is all he had. But a big no for him being the guy who pulls the strings. Marchisio lacks everything a Trequartista needs to be one. He's a hard worker, a good passer and in the right circumstances can show to have some good vision but only here and there at lower level Serie A Football.
We either find a proper playmaker or stick to 3-5-2 and rely on Pirlo all over again.
Personally i don't think Conte was an idiot for playing Marchisio as one, i understand where he's coming from since Marchisio is all he had. But a big no for him being the guy who pulls the strings. Marchisio lacks everything a Trequartista needs to be one. He's a hard worker, a good passer and in the right circumstances can show to have some good vision but only here and there at lower level Serie A Football.
We either find a proper playmaker or stick to 3-5-2 and rely on Pirlo all over again.
- Status