04 Oct 2013 11:20:01
Levy has often said that Tottenham should only buy players with resale value. With a few exceptions (Scott Parker) that is what he has done. I have been trying to measure the success of this policy, but it has only raised a more fundamental question.

Does the policy make any sense?

In the past 7 years we have bought and then sold 36 players. 22 were sold for a loss. This could be seen as failure, but this measure is misleading. Seven of these players had given us years of good service and were over 30 when we finally let them go. Of course they were sold at a loss. They account for 38% of all our 'losses' on players.

Another 6 were young players who we bought as an investment to see how they would develop. They didn't make the grade and were sold for a small average loss of £1.75m. But we also bought Walker, Rose and Bale as an investment and their success covers these small failures many times over. You can't expect to win the lottery every time you buy a ticket.

That leaves 9 players who were bought and sold while still in their prime; for an average loss of £4.5m. In most cases, they were good squad players who were replaced by better ones. The main exception was Bentley. He cost £16m but we soon found we couldn't play him and couldn't sell him. But one inexplicable disaster proves nothing either way.

The other side of the coin is the group of 14 players who were sold for an average profit of £10.5m. Are they a success story?

I don't think so: Bale, Berbatov, Modric and Carrick all generated huge profits, but in an ideal world we wouldn't have sold them at any price.

These 36 players cost £245.4m and were sold for an overall profit of £69m. A 28% return on investment would be outstanding if our core business was buying and selling players: but it isn't.

We should buy players to win matches. The more successful they are, the longer they will stay and the less we will get for them when they eventually go. For a club like Tottenham (and Arsenal, for that matter) a profit on sales is as much a measure of failure as of success.

Our only transfer policy should be to buy the right players at the right price in order to bring success to the club, whatever age they are.

Resale value is irrelevant.

I sorta agree to this.

But.

In this industry, which these days is all about money, it'll be a losing battle to convince many.

Money talks. Sadly, loyalty doesn't. That's just the generalisation of modern day football.

It's sad, really.

After we finish building the stadium and pay it off. let's not get ahead of ourselves here

Otherwise I agree with you KM

I just want to clarify my post.

I started out being sceptical about whether Levy had been successful in his policy. It was my impression that we have been buying large numbers of medium-priced players and quickly selling them on for a loss. I tried to gather data on transfers to see what had really happened.

It was only when I looked at the data that I realised didn't know what analysis I should be doing. I finally concluded that the problem was the policy itself.

You should buy a player to do a job in the team. If he is relatively young, he might solve a problem for years to come, so this can be reflected in the price you are prepared to pay. On the other hand, a player at the end of his career will only be short-term stop gap so this should also be reflected in the price.

In neither case is resale value a factor.

We paid £6m for a teenage Gareth Bale because we thought he would be a good player for many years to come. He turned out to be so good we couldn't hang on to him, but that was not a factor when we decided how much to pay him

I recognise the financial realities of modern football and I am not saying we should be financially reckless.

For example I was very worried when we offered £10m for a 31 year-old Davis Villa. But this was not because he had no resale value. I felt he was just to much of a risk at that price. At his age, he would probably have his biggest impact in his first year or so and be a rapidly declining asset after that. If he took time to settle in, or picked up a serious injury, we might not get very much return for that £10m.

I am also worried by how much we paid for Soldado and Lamela.

I don't think Soldado's record justified a £25.8m fee. The £17m Levy originally tabled seemed about right. If he really makes a difference it won't matter that we paid too much, but if he doesn't, then it could cripple us.

With Lamela, we were just buying promise, but paying the price of that promise already fulfilled.

Whether these turn out to be good or bad decisions, resale value will have very little to do with it.