Richard Hughes

Neil Dawson said:
Solanke, Ibe and Smith and Wilson’s loan fee were the best part of 50m.
Click to expand...

Even if you took the highest reported figures for them all - £19m for Solanke, £15m for Ibe, £6m for Smith and £2.5m for Wilson it still only comes to £42.5million. Why do you always inflate everything so highly? It diminishes any sort of argument you’re trying to make.

When you then consider Solanke as the only one who would have triggered all the add on fees, Ibe probably cost the lower end of the £13m, most reports on Smith were £3m (and that also supposedly covered the Clyne loan deal as well) and then the Wilson loan fee it drops down to £37.5million and includes an extra player.

Solanke has more than recouped that entire total himself with his performances and could well end up being sold for well over that amount in the future.

So if the whole premise of Richard Hughes being a failure is based on an overall profit regarding his transfer dealings with Liverpool, I’d politely suggest that its foundations are weaker than a cocktail bar built on a beach.
 
DJ said:
Even if you took the highest reported figures for them all - £19m for Solanke, £15m for Ibe, £6m for Smith and £2.5m for Wilson it still only comes to £42.5million. Why do you always inflate everything so highly? It diminishes any sort of argument you’re trying to make.

When you then consider Solanke as the only one who would have triggered all the add on fees, Ibe probably cost the lower end of the £13m, most reports on Smith were £3m (and that also supposedly covered the Clyne loan deal as well) and then the Wilson loan fee it drops down to £37.5million and includes an extra player.

Solanke has more than recouped that entire total himself with his performances and could well end up being sold for well over that amount in the future.

So if the whole premise of Richard Hughes being a failure is based on an overall profit regarding his transfer dealings with Liverpool, I’d politely suggest that its foundations are weaker than a cocktail bar built on a beach.
Click to expand...
I think taken in context as well:

-Smith was a low cost/low risk signing who was always coming in to be a squad player/a player who could develop over time. There are countless signings of this nature made across the league every season that don’t pay off.

-Wilson more than served his purpose, individually seven goals is a very good return for a wide player. Just unfortunate he joined at a time where everything was going against us.

-Ibe is the only one you can really label as a real failure in the market for me. Highly rated player at the time but as a club we did get that one badly wrong, both in terms of the players ability and mentality.

But every single technical director will have signed the odd dud, so it’s not entirely rational to use the signing of Ibe to argue that Hughes isn’t good at his job.

Don’t think anyone can argue that Solanke hasn’t been good value for money.
 
DJ said:
Even if you took the highest reported figures for them all - £19m for Solanke, £15m for Ibe, £6m for Smith and £2.5m for Wilson it still only comes to £42.5million. Why do you always inflate everything so highly? It diminishes any sort of argument you’re trying to make.

When you then consider Solanke as the only one who would have triggered all the add on fees, Ibe probably cost the lower end of the £13m, most reports on Smith were £3m (and that also supposedly covered the Clyne loan deal as well) and then the Wilson loan fee it drops down to £37.5million and includes an extra player.

Solanke has more than recouped that entire total himself with his performances and could well end up being sold for well over that amount in the future.

So if the whole premise of Richard Hughes being a failure is based on an overall profit regarding his transfer dealings with Liverpool, I’d politely suggest that its foundations are weaker than a cocktail bar built on a beach.
Click to expand...
A very in depth analysis of what I said some scousers were saying on Twitter … not me. I even said we know what we paid so you can differentiate. You want to go on some red men websites and do this analysis there.

To repeat… we know what we paid
 
Neil Dawson said:
A very in depth analysis of what I said some scousers were saying on Twitter … not me. I even said we know what we paid so you can differentiate. You want to go on some red men websites and do this analysis there.

To repeat… we know what we paid
Click to expand...

You only posted one side of the argument though didn't you.
 
Neil Dawson said:
A very in depth analysis of what I said some scousers were saying on Twitter … not me. I even said we know what we paid so you can differentiate. You want to go on some red men websites and do this analysis there.

To repeat… we know what we paid
Click to expand...
I could say on twitter we signed all 3 on frees, doesn't make it true. But could support an argument that they were excellent signings
 
Waz afcb said:
I think taken in context as well:

-Smith was a low cost/low risk signing who was always coming in to be a squad player/a player who could develop over time. There are countless signings of this nature made across the league every season that don’t pay off.
Click to expand...

When you consider he also had loan deals with both Seattle and Cardiff, which with both extended, the likelihood is there would also have been loan fees and wage costs included. So even the loss on him would have been cushioned a bit.
 
DJ said:
When you consider he also had loan deals with both Seattle and Cardiff, which with both extended, the likelihood is there would also have been loan fees and wage costs included. So even the loss on him would have been cushioned a bit.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is any way of inputting those numbers on Neil's evidence abacus.
 
Is he on gardening leave yet, as I'm guessing he would know our transfer plans for the next window
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;