Foreigners provide 'better value' than Englishmen

symyjym · Jul 1, 2015

Brighton's chief executive believes foreign players provide better value for money than homegrown signings.

"We do bring in foreign players because they do tend to be better value for money overall.

"The challenge for us is to develop our own players through our academy and bring them into the first team, which is one of our big objectives."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33333486

Icy Gull · Jul 1, 2015

Amazing, first time I've ever heard this theory.

shaolinpunk · Jul 1, 2015

It's definitely the case. It's very rare to sign an English player for less, or even just the same, as a player of the same standard from abroad.

We'd never have been able to afford Ulloa if he'd been an Englishman at a Championship side.

It's one of the reasons that having a top quality training facility is such an important move for the club long term.

Doc Lynam · Jul 1, 2015

Barber says they still have "a lot of work to do" before the transfer window closes.

daveinprague · Jul 1, 2015

Can imagine some frothing from some here on the basis of the thread title :lolol:

greyseagull · Jul 1, 2015

In other news, Matt Lucas has no hair

Stat Brother · Jul 1, 2015

Totally agree.

Footballer shopping in England is just for lazy teams who have to much money (debt).

Buzzer · Jul 1, 2015

When you pay Johnny Foreigner less than you do someone born here for the same job then it's always better value for money, doesn't matter if it's football or shelf-stacking at Lidl. Does it make it right though?

And I don't think our foreign scouting has been a great success either. We've had loads of dodgy signings recently: Toko, Bergkamp, that Latvian, Adgestein, Colunga, Rodriguez....we didn't get much value out of those.

Bozza · Jul 1, 2015

They don't offer greater value, they offer greater reward but that comes with greater risk.

Mellor 3 Ward 4 · Jul 1, 2015

Doc Lynam said:
Barber says they still have "a lot of work to do" before the transfer window closes.

I bloody hope so.

Stat Brother · Jul 1, 2015

Buzzer said:
And I don't think our foreign scouting has been a great success either. We've had loads of dodgy signings recently: Toko, Bergkamp, that Latvian, Adgestein, Colunga, Rodriguez....we didn't get much value out of those.

True but combining that lot of imports, Kemy we got from Swansea, probably comes in at the same price as one of Chris Wood's legs.

If one of them 'makes it' as the next Ulloa, surely the ends justify the means.

RexCathedra · Jul 1, 2015

Last time I looked, this was a business. It ain't pub league.

Any business whose bosses aren't paying below the odds for inventory of the same or better quality when they can get it, isn't worth investing in.

Whether that's the lower leagues (no ambition!), PL players either injury-prone, or aging out (too risky!) or loanees (no loyalty!), or players from abroad (not English!) doesn't matter. NSC will always blow a gasket.

England gave the world football, the world's just returning the favor.

Buzzer · Jul 1, 2015

Stat Brother said:
True but combining that lot of imports, Kemy we got from Swansea, probably comes in at the same price as one of Chris Wood's legs.

If one of them 'makes it' as the next Ulloa, surely the ends justify the means.

So you advocate a scatter-gun approach. Get lots of imports in because they're cheaper and hope that one of them pays off. No thanks.

Goldstone1976 · Jul 1, 2015

I wonder how different recruiting footballers is to recruiting in the "real world"?

I'm personally involved in recruiting maybe 50 people a year, and have been so for about 20 years. My experience is roughly: 10% - WTF was I thinking? Get rid asap; 10% - Blimey, s/he's brilliant - let's keep this one as long as we can; and the other 80% on a sliding scale between those two extremes. The trick is not to believe that you can materially alter your success rate at recruiting stunners or that you can materially reduce the number of total losers, because the law of diminishing returns comes into play - the amount of effort required to avoid one loser or hire one more stunner is simply too high. Instead focus on recruiting rather fewer lower quartile folk and rather more upper quartile folk - it's both easier to do and will have a bigger impact overall.

Stat Brother · Jul 1, 2015

Buzzer said:
So you advocate a scatter-gun approach. Get lots of imports in because they're cheaper and hope that one of them pays off. No thanks.

Oh no, in fairness the bulk of our recruitment was scatter-gun.

I don't see the harm in 'taking a punt on a few maybe's', while waiting for the academy.

As said it's not like English talent is an exact science either.
Although Burker did seem to know the English juniors.

perseus · Jul 1, 2015

Doc Lynam said:
Barber says they still have "a lot of work to do" before the transfer window closes.

You can say that again: 21 players including Ankergen and on-loan Colunga, and Chicksen who might not make the grade.

18 players for the squad pick themselves at the moment. No allowance for injuries and suspensions, illness etc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_&_Hove_Albion_F.C.#Current_squad

Cf Sheffield Wednesday only have 19 current squad.

perseus · Jul 1, 2015

Does a journeyman ever really come good?

Goldstone1976 said:
I wonder how different recruiting footballers is to recruiting in the "real world"?

I'm personally involved in recruiting maybe 50 people a year, and have been so for about 20 years. My experience is roughly: 10% - WTF was I thinking? Get rid asap; 10% - Blimey, s/he's brilliant - let's keep this one as long as we can; and the other 80% on a sliding scale between those two extremes. The trick is not to believe that you can materially alter your success rate at recruiting stunners or that you can materially reduce the number of total losers, because the law of diminishing returns comes into play - the amount of effort required to avoid one loser or hire one more stunner is simply too high. Instead focus on recruiting rather fewer lower quartile folk and rather more upper quartile folk - it's both easier to do and will have a bigger impact overall.

One person in recruitment? part of a team? Is there a psychologist? (assuming it is not a selling team)

Do journeymen with a good CV appear better than they really are, and can even be a problem?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Foreigners provide 'better value' than Englishmen

Banned

Back on the rollercoaster

[Insert witty title here]

I hate the Daily Mail

New member

New member

Well-known member

Languidly Clinical

You can change this

Well-known member

Well-known member

Aurea Mediocritas

Languidly Clinical

We Got Calde in!!

Well-known member

Broad Blue & White stripe

Broad Blue & White stripe

Share this page