Camara made available for transfer | Page 12 | PASOTI
  • Welcome to PASOTI. Sponsored by Lang & Potter

Camara made available for transfer

Jan 27, 2006
625
854
So you dont think £1m would 'make a difference'?
I did place a rather large subjectivity caveat in what I posted. My feel is that Pan playing for Argyle for a year would make more difference than £1m.

Putting it in another (very simplistic) way £1m represents 10 games of 5,000 people paying £20. That to me feels like a reasonable difference in gate between a mid table season and a playoff season. And then there is the potential reward of the Championship.

So no. For me £1m doesn’t make a difference. Selling Pan for £1m has the potential to cost in the order of £1m over that last year of his deal.
 

fawlty

♣️ PASALB Member
Feb 1, 2012
286
161
That’s the big unknown isn’t it and the test to see if this version of Argyle is as impressive as it has appeared up to now.

I believe Pan and Coops are the two players that make the most difference between us being top half and top six. So what number do Argyle put on that? Entirely subjective on my part but I’d rather keep Pan for a year and lose him for nothing if we didn‘t get an offer in the region of £2m.

If the money isn’t substantial enough to make a difference to Argyle then I fail to see the value in doing a deal at this time.
Tim, haven’t you described the situation that Argyle are in. The player and his agent have turned away an improved offer (money and time) but Pan still has a year on his contract to play for us if Argyle doesn’t receive an acceptable offer.
In that scenario, we, the fans and the club, would expect Pan to play with the same passion (and celebrate goals with limbs and legs) and unique skill as he has to date because he would want to and also for him to attract a good contract offer from another club when he walks away from Argyle.
I think Argyle still have some control of the situation they find themselves in.
COYGs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macleanie
Nov 18, 2011
1,966
1,307
If we receive some offers for Pan which his agent and Pan himself are keen on and think is a decent fee, a possible scenario is that he could down tools and refuse to continue playing for Argyle until the offer has been accepted.
Not much point trying to hold onto a player who doesn't want to play for us anymore.

It's clear that Pan's agent is working hard to get the most for themselves and their client.
 

fawlty

♣️ PASALB Member
Feb 1, 2012
286
161
Totally agree, but other players like that do exist. In the same way that (a slightly more raw) Pan himself was available.

Everything about this decision points to the club knowing exactly what they're doing. Getting a big profit on a player where previously we wouldn't, being confident we have a list of replacements where previously we wouldn't, and being confident enough to be the ones cutting loose and not the other way around.
I have faith in the recruitment team at Argyle and it would not surprise me if, as a result of Pan’s delay in responding to Argyle’s offer, they haven’t already earmarked someone to replace him.
COYGs.
 

NLG

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✅ Evergreen
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🍌 Bomber Harris.
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Jan 16, 2006
2,060
2,199
As I think they will get a percentage of the transfer fee, I would imagine they will want this to be as high as possible.
 
Sep 6, 2006
16,422
3,959
I did place a rather large subjectivity caveat in what I posted. My feel is that Pan playing for Argyle for a year would make more difference than £1m.

Putting it in another (very simplistic) way £1m represents 10 games of 5,000 people paying £20. That to me feels like a reasonable difference in gate between a mid table season and a playoff season. And then there is the potential reward of the Championship.

So no. For me £1m doesn’t make a difference. Selling Pan for £1m has the potential to cost in the order of £1m over that last year of his deal.
So according to your back of the fag packet maths one player will make the difference between mid table and play offs! I don't think so.
 

MGM

✨Pasoti Donor✨
Dec 7, 2021
2,638
3,840
I get your point that finances are important and that the more you spend the better the quality of the player you can get. But the ironic thing is that many of the best signings at Argyle have arrived unheralded, and on free transfers ( or else for little money).

I think there is an untold story about pre-season 2018-2019, and I wonder whether James Brent or Derek Adams will ever tell it? On the one hand I find it difficult to believe that ASB and Tafari Moore weren’t scouted prior to signing, but on the other hand I find it impossible to believe that they were.

I saw the two players in pre-season games at Tavistock and Yeovil.......and on the evidence of those games, I wouldn’t have signed either of them.....

I understand. And your right. But circumstances meant because we haven’t spent significant money on transfers that we would pull a few rabbits out of the hat.

I look back at the Shilton era though. Some of the money we paid for players, which was a lot for us then in the 90’s, meant we did see quality on the pitch. Steve Castle springs to mind.

Obviously football has changed with the bosman ruling but players still expect a decent signing on fee when going on a free transfer.

So far the transfer have been decent. I still never understood the George Cooper one as where in our system was he suppose to play?

If you keep losing your best players, it’s very hard to keep replacing and moving forward.

People mention Brentford but their owner has significant wealth behind him. He has helped to build a brand new stadium. When they lost players for decent money they replaced them with players they brought for significant transfer fees. So for example in 14/15 (their first season in the championship) they sold Adam Forshaw to Wigan for 3.4 million. They brought 3 players with 3 seperate fees over a million and two other players who’s fees were both over half a million.

Does this sound something like Argyle’s going to do? Especially when Hallett explains he wants to spend money on things that make money. And says we won’t be paying significant transfer fees.

Brentford model is great one to aspire to. But they re-invested some big sums of money on transfer fees. Here is where our model and Brentford’s is different.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Railway sleeper

NLG

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✅ Evergreen
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🍌 Bomber Harris.
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Jan 16, 2006
2,060
2,199
I understand. And your right. But circumstances meant because we haven’t spent significant money on transfers that we would pull a few rabbits out of the hat.

I look back at the Shilton era though. Some of the money we paid for players, which was a lot for us then in the 90’s, meant we did see quality on the pitch. Steve Castle springs to mind.

Obviously football has changed with the bosman ruling but players still expect a decent signing on fee when going on a free transfer.

So far the transfer have been decent. I still never understood the George Cooper one as where in our system was he suppose to play?

If you keep losing your best players, it’s very hard to keep replacing and moving forward.

People mention Brentford but their owner has significant wealth behind him. He has helped to build a brand new stadium. When they lost players for decent money they replaced them with players they brought for significant transfer fees. So for example in 14/15 (their first season in the championship) they sold Adam Forshaw to Wigan for 3.4 million. They brought 3 players with 3 seperate fees over a million and two other players who’s fees were both over half a million.

Does this sound something like Argyle’s going to do? Especially when Hallett explains he wants to spend money on things that make money. And says we won’t be paying significant transfer fees.

Brentford model is great one to aspire to. But they re-invested some big sums of money on transfer fees. Here is where our model and Brentford’s is different.
Maybe it's where your understanding of our model falls down. I don't think it's been said that we wouldn't re-invest in players in the future, once we have the much needed infrastructure upgrades done. Just priorities are elsewhere due to a long time without any reinvestment anywhere.
 

MGM

✨Pasoti Donor✨
Dec 7, 2021
2,638
3,840
Maybe it's where your understanding of our model falls down. I don't think it's been said that we wouldn't re-invest in the future, once we have the much needed infrastructure upgrades done. Just priorities are elsewhere due to a long time without any reinvestment anywhere.

He said this in 2019.

The significant line is the last paragraph in this article. His words, not mine. And that what l based my opinion on tbh.

If he thought it was a gamble then, he won’t think any differently about it now.

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sp...s/plymouth-argyle-simon-hallett-money-3367067


“But we are not going to go out and spend a lot of money in the transfer market, we are not going to go out and spend a lot of money trying to buy our way to promotion.

“But when you a buy a player in the transfer window it is, quite literally, a gamble, and I like investing not gambling.”

The Brentford model is about reinvesting some of those transfer fees and taking a gamble. Its not like their model is about rising up through the leagues on free transfer
 
Last edited:

The Doctor

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✨Pasoti Donor✨
Sep 15, 2003
8,892
4,296
Plymouth
andapoet.blog
I understand. And your right. But circumstances meant because we haven’t spent significant money on transfers that we would pull a few rabbits out of the hat.

I look back at the Shilton era though. Some of the money we paid for players, which was a lot for us then in the 90’s, meant we did see quality on the pitch. Steve Castle springs to mind.

Obviously football has changed with the bosman ruling but players still expect a decent signing on fee when going on a free transfer.

So far the transfer have been decent. I still never understood the George Cooper one as where in our system was he suppose to play?

If you keep losing your best players, it’s very hard to keep replacing and moving forward.

People mention Brentford but their owner has significant wealth behind him. He has helped to build a brand new stadium. When they lost players for decent money they replaced them with players they brought for significant transfer fees. So for example in 14/15 (their first season in the championship) they sold Adam Forshaw to Wigan for 3.4 million. They brought 3 players with 3 seperate fees over a million and two other players who’s fees were both over half a million.

Does this sound something like Argyle’s going to do? Especially when Hallett explains he wants to spend money on things that make money. And says we won’t be paying significant transfer fees.

Brentford model is great one to aspire to. But they re-invested some big sums of money on transfer fees. Here is where our model and Brentford’s is different.
It’s not different though, it’s just that we are at different stages/levels. The £ numbers in Brentford’s transfers have gone up over time, their earlier transfers were for lower amounts of money and netted smaller profits. It was only after a few years that the typical purchase amounts moved into the multiple millions (and perhaps ours will never reach that level). To use your example, they would have paid a lot less than £3.4m for Forshaw but by doing that deal and others they worked themselves into a position whereby they could start to afford million pound players and then multimillion pound players etc.

I wish I could remember some more examples but I’ve given the book back to the person who lent it to me (come on Joe, help me out here…!)
 

MGM

✨Pasoti Donor✨
Dec 7, 2021
2,638
3,840
It’s not different though, it’s just that we are at different stages/levels. The £ numbers in Brentford’s transfers have gone up over time, their earlier transfers were for lower amounts of money and netted smaller profits. It was only after a few years that the typical purchase amounts moved into the multiple millions (and perhaps ours will never reach that level). To use your example, they would have paid a lot less than £3.4m for Forshaw but by doing that deal and others they worked themselves into a position whereby they could start to afford million pound players and then multimillion pound players etc.

I wish I could remember some more examples but I’ve given the book back to the person who lent it to me (come on Joe, help me out here…!)

But Hallett has stated he sees paying transfer fees as a gamble. He doesn’t like gambling, but re-investing.

You honestly think if we sell Cooper for 7-8 million that Argyle will pay transfer fees in excess of half a million? Unless Simon Hallett is changing his stance to what he said a few years back.

He will use money like the sale of Cooper to reinvest off the pitch. Yes there may be an increase in player budget but that will be in terms of salaries.

Brentford spent significant transfer fees and that how’s they reinvested in their squad along with other free transfer options.
 

The Doctor

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✨Pasoti Donor✨
Sep 15, 2003
8,892
4,296
Plymouth
andapoet.blog
I did place a rather large subjectivity caveat in what I posted. My feel is that Pan playing for Argyle for a year would make more difference than £1m.

Putting it in another (very simplistic) way £1m represents 10 games of 5,000 people paying £20. That to me feels like a reasonable difference in gate between a mid table season and a playoff season. And then there is the potential reward of the Championship.

So no. For me £1m doesn’t make a difference. Selling Pan for £1m has the potential to cost in the order of £1m over that last year of his deal.
But again, like Justin, you seem to be comparing Argyle with Camara against Argyle without Camara, whereas the correct comparison is Argyle 2021-22 with Camara against Argyle 2022-23 without Camara but with whichever new player(s) they bring in over the summer.

We might sell Camara for £1m, sign new players, end up with a more competitive squad, finish higher in the league and have bigger crowds than this year, and so even higher income, as a result.
 
Jan 30, 2016
459
410
I am sorry to hear that Pan has been put on the transfer list. I had hoped that he would stay as I felt that he had such a good rapport with the fans (his sheer joy as shown when we scored). He will be hard to replace. However, I hope that Argyle makes a good profit from his sale, if it happens.
 

The Doctor

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✨Pasoti Donor✨
Sep 15, 2003
8,892
4,296
Plymouth
andapoet.blog
But Hallett has stated he sees paying transfer fees as a gamble. He doesn’t like gambling, but re-investing.

You honestly think if we sell Cooper for 7-8 million that Argyle will pay transfer fees in excess of half a million? Unless Simon Hallett is changing his stance here to what he said a few years back.
I think Simon Hallett is clever enough to realise that as you move up the leagues you inevitably have to pay something to get players of the correct level in and so yes, I think we will pay transfer fees where necessary (as we did with G Cooper). That’s obvious surely. But it doesn’t mean that we suddenly start paying large transfer fees. In fact I think that initially it would be much more effective to pay smaller/zero fees but more in wages or via longer contracts. That way you can persuade the very best players with potential to join the club when they are available without transfer fees rather than losing out to other clubs who will pay them more. Longer contracts also means that your assets remain valuable for longer which is, I think, a vital part of the strategy.
 

NLG

🏆 Callum Wright 23/24
✅ Evergreen
🎫 S.T. Donor 🎫
🍌 Bomber Harris.
🌟Sparksy Mural🌟
Jan 16, 2006
2,060
2,199
But Hallett has stated he sees paying transfer fees as a gamble. He doesn’t like gambling, but re-investing.

You honestly think if we sell Cooper for 7-8 million that Argyle will pay transfer fees in excess of half a million? Unless Simon Hallett is changing his stance to what he said a few years back.

He will use money like the sale of Cooper to reinvest off the pitch. Yes there may be an increase in player budget but that will be in terms of salaries.

Brentford spent significant transfer fees and that how’s they reinvested in their squad along with other free transfer options.
It's all about being sustainable, if we have done everything we can infrastructure wise, and our salary bill is covered by planned income, what will be done with any cash resulting from a transfer fee where we have lost a good player. Investment in replacement players is a valid approach at this point aka Brentford.
 
Last edited: