NFR: WHU v Liverpool (Fredericks)

[toshes mate]

We did try to keep him though - he was out of contract and wanted a new one on a 70k pw basic .... sorry but as much as I liked him and he is better than Christie by a mile - he's no 70k pw player.

There are a lot of £70,000s in £30,000,000, over eight years worth when paid on a weekly basis, just to put what you have suggested he was asking into perspective....

So, since I am fairly dense what is the perspective really, in regards to whether or not Fredericks was or is worth that kind of money?

I simply cannot help your density if you cannot.

[Sting of the North]

We did try to keep him though - he was out of contract and wanted a new one on a 70k pw basic .... sorry but as much as I liked him and he is better than Christie by a mile - he's no 70k pw player.

There are a lot of £70,000s in £30,000,000, over eight years worth when paid on a weekly basis, just to put what you have suggested he was asking into perspective....

So, since I am fairly dense what is the perspective really, in regards to whether or not Fredericks was or is worth that kind of money?

I simply cannot help your density if you cannot.

Great explanation, thanks for taking the time and not being rude.

So, should I assume this was just another dig on what we spent on another player that people are not happy with, and as such has nothing to do with the decision on matching Fredericks wage demands? If Fredericks demanded such a wage (mind you likely at a time when we were very far from certain that we would be playing PL football), then it would have been criminal to give in to those demands. Especially bearing in mind that the player in question has not shown himself to be of PL quality as of yet (regardless of whether or not he played well yesterday, didn't see the game).

Or is the perspective only that we have made more costly decisions than this? If so, don't really see what that has to do with Fredericks. He was never, and will likely never be worth those numbers (in the context of our wage structure). And management therefore made the correct decision. In my opinion that is.

Of course, we don't even know if the demands are reported correctly, or whether or not we really tried to keep him.

What is more concerning is that we failed miserably to replace him, even though TFM on paper appeared at least as good. The reality so far though...

[Statto]

So, should I assume this was just another dig on what we spent on another player that people are not happy with, and as such has nothing to do with the decision on matching Fredericks wage demands? If Fredericks demanded such a wage (mind you likely at a time when we were very far from certain that we would be playing PL football), then it would have been criminal to give in to those demands. Especially bearing in mind that the player in question has not shown himself to be of PL quality as of yet (regardless of whether or not he played well yesterday, didn't see the game).

Or is the perspective only that we have made more costly decisions than this? If so, don't really see what that has to do with Fredericks. He was never, and will likely never be worth those numbers (in the context of our wage structure). And management therefore made the correct decision. In my opinion that is.

Of course, we don't even know if the demands are reported correctly, or whether or not we really tried to keep him.

What is more concerning is that we failed miserably to replace him, even though TFM on paper appeared at least as good. The reality so far though...

I don't think TM is being unreasonable to make a connection between us declining to give Fredericks the money he wanted and then gambling (ultimately unsuccessfully) many multiples of that on Anguissa. I agree that Fredericks isn't worth £70k/week, and also at the time I thought another problem was that it would lead to the rest of the team asking for a £10k-£20k to pay rise. And yes Anguissa was a separate, largely unconnected decision. But the money we spent on Anguissa would literally have funded £20k+ pay rises for every member of the team.

There's also a sense here IMO (and before you ask, yes this is just personal speculation) that Tony Khan would prefer spending £30m on some exotic name with "great data" to spending a fraction of that on someone Mike Rigg bought for £200k from Bristol.

[Sting of the North]

So, should I assume this was just another dig on what we spent on another player that people are not happy with, and as such has nothing to do with the decision on matching Fredericks wage demands? If Fredericks demanded such a wage (mind you likely at a time when we were very far from certain that we would be playing PL football), then it would have been criminal to give in to those demands. Especially bearing in mind that the player in question has not shown himself to be of PL quality as of yet (regardless of whether or not he played well yesterday, didn't see the game).

Or is the perspective only that we have made more costly decisions than this? If so, don't really see what that has to do with Fredericks. He was never, and will likely never be worth those numbers (in the context of our wage structure). And management therefore made the correct decision. In my opinion that is.

Of course, we don't even know if the demands are reported correctly, or whether or not we really tried to keep him.

What is more concerning is that we failed miserably to replace him, even though TFM on paper appeared at least as good. The reality so far though...

I don't think TM is being unreasonable to make a connection between us declining to give Fredericks the money he wanted and then gambling (ultimately unsuccessfully) many multiples of that on Anguissa. I agree that Fredericks isn't worth £70k/week, and also at the time I thought another problem was that it would lead to the rest of the team asking for a £10k-£20k to pay rise. And yes Anguissa was a separate, largely unconnected decision. But the money we spent on Anguissa would literally have funded £20k+ pay rises for every member of the team.

There's also a sense here IMO (and before you ask, yes this is just personal speculation) that Tony Khan would prefer spending £30m on some exotic name with "great data" to spending a fraction of that on someone Mike Rigg bought for £200k from Bristol.

I understand what you are saying, and in a broad scope yes TK doesn't seem to spend the money in the wisest way. I maintain however than in no reasonable scenario that I can think of would it have been wise paying Fredericks that kind of money, for many reasons of which upsetting the squad in general is a good example. It was a wise decision, unfortunately not followed by a suitable solution to the RB spot. How much we spent on other unfortunate business wouldn't impact my assessment on the Fredericks case, and I rather then be assessing those transfers. I assume some wouldn't agree, and that is fine with me.

[ffcne]

and still a red card waiting to happen

No different to Odoi or Christie then.

[KJS]

and still a red card waiting to happen

No different to Odoi or Christie then.

True but then again he won't get a Red Card for FFC as he has moved on, so why doesn't everyone else

[Sting of the North]

and still a red card waiting to happen

As far as I can see from Transfermarkt, he's had 1 red card in 140 odd games in his senior career. So you may have to wait a while.

[toshes mate]

Great explanation, thanks for taking the time and not being rude.

So, should I assume this was just another dig on what we spent on another player that people are not happy with, and as such has nothing to do with the decision on matching Fredericks wage demands? If Fredericks demanded such a wage (mind you likely at a time when we were very far from certain that we would be playing PL football), then it would have been criminal to give in to those demands. Especially bearing in mind that the player in question has not shown himself to be of PL quality as of yet (regardless of whether or not he played well yesterday, didn't see the game).

Or is the perspective only that we have made more costly decisions than this? If so, don't really see what that has to do with Fredericks. He was never, and will likely never be worth those numbers (in the context of our wage structure). And management therefore made the correct decision. In my opinion that is.

Of course, we don't even know if the demands are reported correctly, or whether or not we really tried to keep him.

What is more concerning is that we failed miserably to replace him, even though TFM on paper appeared at least as good. The reality so far though...

Thank you for being gracious about my awful quip....  When I was at school I had a teacher who used to say 'I don't mind how dense you are so long as your additional mass is a result of grey matter growth'.  He would call me dense on so many occasions I knew he was not being complimentary about my grey matter.

As Stato sussed I was talking about the use of money and what is possible when large sums are available.  My quibble about Fredericks is two fold.  His contract was messed up (no option clause); he worked in a very good side.  The first part was unforgiveable, and the second part could be torn to shreds by saying the promotion team was never going top play together again and so why worry about players who once fitted but are no more.  Of course, I'd counter that counter by saying, well, why chase Targett and Mitro then?  And that really leads me to my main point, that, when you have a bag full of money, you really know the true value of that bag full in terms of spend, and, sadly, I don't think TK understands that even now and I doubt he ever will, but surely someone like AM would understand.

We could have had the promotion team and up to five remarkably good add ons for a lot less than £100m.  It's just the density of the recruitment team that worries me because it isn't grey matter.

[Sting of the North]

Toshes Mate, thanks for the lengthy explanation. I agree with your points regarding spending wisely. I would assume however that TK tried to keep Fredericks. Just like he tried to get Targett and Kalas (if reports were true at the time). So the intention was likely to keep most of the squad that got us promoted. Should he have paid way over the odds for those players? Not in my opinion, but if the alternative was players like TFM and Bryan, then maybe he should have spent more on tried and tested alternatives. However, there is likely always a big risk that Freddo would have left anyway.

As for the lack of a clause in the contract, maybe Frederick's side didn't want it, since otherwise it seem like our preferred way of doing business is to include a club option. It is always tough to lose a player for nothing though and agree it is a real shame.

I am not saying that TK is not to blame, just that it is rarely as one sided as it may appear.

[toshes mate]

The lack of inclusion of an option clause was a mistake (it's a standard addition in a model contract) which may have been because the 'rescue' of Fredericks from Bristol C was rushed, who knows.  My point about the bag of money is the forethought about what you could actually spend it on and the many ways it could be utilised to get better value.  I don't blame TK alone.  I blame his father downwards in the upper echelons of FFC, too.  The one person who I think escapes blame is SJ who made it clear from the very moment he was told so that he was not involved in recruitment, period.  He was a model professional and I'll always respect him for that, and I do not believe he kept anything from us other than those things he was instructed he couldn't share with us without losing his job.