OFFICIAL HEARTS JUGGERNAUT THREAD 2020-

[Aylo vanal]

11 hours ago, the jambo-rocker said:

Feels like we're almost ready for the season already. Anything gained will just be a nice added plus.

All depends on who leaves now, if we lose Cochrane or Shankland etc.

 

[DoingThe42]

1 hour ago, Aylo vanal said:

All depends on who leaves now, if we lose Cochrane or Shankland etc.

 

I was talking to a mate about this last night about how Hearts don't pull in as much in transfer fees as the likes of Aberdeen and Hibs have done in the last few years. Some people want to see us do better in that regard.

But I'm not sure that we're not better letting players run down their deals and leave for less or nothing if it means we're more likely to finish third and qualify for Europe. That brings in its own revenue and does so while allowing consistency of selection, which I think has been a big help to Hearts over the last 3 seasons or so. That success means we can replace players from a position of strength, as well as having cash in the bank.

Selling players for fees is obviously a good thing, but by definition means you're then going out and trying to replace, disrupting the squad. I'd be fine with Hearts keeping both players you mention and planning for their replacement next summer.

I can see it both ways, but I wouldn't be in a rush to sell either of Shankland or Cochrane. There's no real need to or obvious benefit to it.

Edited July 11 by DoingThe42

[DukDukGoose]

4 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

I was talking to a mate about this last night about how Hearts don't pull in as much in transfer fees as the likes of Aberdeen and Hibs have done in the last few years. Some people want to see us do better in that regard.

But I'm not sure that we're not better letting players run down their deals and leave for less if it means we're more likely to finish third and qualify for Europe. That brings in its own revenue and does so while allowing consistency of selection, which I think has been a big help to Hearts over the last 3 seasons or so. That success means we can replace players from a position of strength, as well as having cash in the bank.

Selling players for fees is obviously a good thing, but by definition means you're then going out and trying to replace, disrupting the squad. I'd be fine with Hearts keeping both players you mention and planning for their replacement next summer.

I can see it both ways, but I wouldn't be in a rush to sell either of Shankland or Cochrane. There's no real need to or obvious benefit to it.

We used to do that but you eventually run in to trouble.

Using Ryan Jack as an example. Aberdeen had offers of over £1m on the table. It was decided that keeping Jack was as good as the £1m etc because we'd risk not finishing second and having cup runs without him. The issue comes when his contract expires and he's now at the level of an £8k a week player but we only have his £2k per week wage to replace him.

There has to be a happy balance and I think we're finally finding it after using both methods. We probably jumped the gun on selling Ramadani too early last year. Never replaced him and watched him have a brilliant season in Serie A.

[DoingThe42]

Just now, DukDukGoose said:

We used to do that but you eventually run in to trouble.

Using Ryan Jack as an example. Aberdeen had offers of over £1m on the table. It was decided that keeping Jack was as good as the £1m etc because we'd risk not finishing second and having cup runs without him. The issue comes when his contract expires and he's now at the level of an £8k a week player but we only have his £2k per week wage to replace him.

There has to be a happy balance and I think we're finally finding it after using both methods. We probably jumped the gun on selling Ramadani too early last year. Never replaced him and watched him have a brilliant season in Serie A.

There are risks either way, I agree. I think the difference with Aberdeen's situation then and Hearts' now is the access to the group stage of European football. Aberdeen were always up against it to get through qualifiers, so finishing second or third wasn't as lucrative as finishing third is now. I think that shifts the discussion.

If having Cochrane and Shaknland in the squad makes us more likely to finish third, and I think it does, then selling them for £2m altogether seems a false economy to me. Obviously, best case we sell them and finish third anyway. But with the club being in no financial trouble, I don't see any reason to do that.

I think sticking with players we know are good enough to do the job makes sense.

[DukDukGoose]

15 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

There are risks either way, I agree. I think the difference with Aberdeen's situation then and Hearts' now is the access to the group stage of European football. Aberdeen were always up against it to get through qualifiers, so finishing second or third wasn't as lucrative as finishing third is now. I think that shifts the discussion.

If having Cochrane and Shaknland in the squad makes us more likely to finish third, and I think it does, then selling them for £2m altogether seems a false economy to me. Obviously, best case we sell them and finish third anyway. But with the club being in no financial trouble, I don't see any reason to do that.

I think sticking with players we know are good enough to do the job makes sense.

It's definitely the route to short term success but it's then finding the replacement and at an affordable wage.

[DoingThe42]

4 minutes ago, DukDukGoose said:

It's definitely the route to short term success but it's then finding the replacement and at an affordable wage.

That's the issue either way, really. If you sell for a big fee and play in our league, your replacement is always likely to be a bit of a gamble. Who do Aberdeen replace Miovski with when they sell him? Is it a sure thing?

They can both work if done well. The key in our league isn't being an amazing team. It's putting together a unit that grinds out enough wins over the season against really bad teams. I think when you've found that, it makes sense to keep it together. There's a lot to be said for stability. Especially when you don't need to sell.

And group stage football is the equivelent of selling a £4m player every year. That's why it's really important that Hearts move towards improving their qualifying round seeding this year, since the automatic place seems to be away soon.

Edited July 11 by DoingThe42

[DukDukGoose]

25 minutes ago, DoingThe42 said:

That's the issue either way, really. If you sell for a big fee and play in our league, your replacement is always likely to be a bit of a gamble. Who do Aberdeen replace Miovski with when they sell him? Is it a sure thing?

They can both work if done well. The key in our league isn't being an amazing team. It's putting together a unit that grinds out enough wins over the season against really bad teams. I think when you've found that, it makes sense to keep it together. There's a lot to be said for stability. Especially when you don't need to sell.

And group stage football is the equivelent of selling a £4m player every year. That's why it's really important that Hearts move towards improving their qualifying round seeding this year, since the automatic place seems to be away soon.

If we get even close to what we want for Miovski then a replacement of a decent standard is not going to be an issue. The club also took in what could be looked at as his replacement (Sokler) while he is still here. I don't think he is at the level of Miovski but he h all the attributes required to be a successful striker in the Scottish Premier League.

I'm not suggesting it can't be done the way you're suggesting. I'm just stating why Aberdeen moved away from that practice.

[the jambo-rocker]

The difference 

3 hours ago, DoingThe42 said:

There are risks either way, I agree. I think the difference with Aberdeen's situation then and Hearts' now is the access to the group stage of European football. Aberdeen were always up against it to get through qualifiers, so finishing second or third wasn't as lucrative as finishing third is now. I think that shifts the discussion.

If having Cochrane and Shaknland in the squad makes us more likely to finish third, and I think it does, then selling them for £2m altogether seems a false economy to me. Obviously, best case we sell them and finish third anyway. But with the club being in no financial trouble, I don't see any reason to do that.

I think sticking with players we know are good enough to do the job makes sense.

Difference is Cochrane is arguably replaceable. Shankland is not. 30+ goals for one more season is quite probably worth 4-5 million. It's why I don't mind Aberdeen asking for the same and then some as he's a couple years younger. People get such Fomo over not claiming sales, but I think it's undervalued just having that quality on our books sometimes.

An example would be Peterborough sell more times than not if they still have a year left on their deal, but it more often than not seems to be at a cut price over value they might contribute over their final season.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

8 hours ago, DukDukGoose said:

We used to do that but you eventually run in to trouble.

Using Ryan Jack as an example. Aberdeen had offers of over £1m on the table. It was decided that keeping Jack was as good as the £1m etc because we'd risk not finishing second and having cup runs without him. The issue comes when his contract expires and he's now at the level of an £8k a week player but we only have his £2k per week wage to replace him.

There has to be a happy balance and I think we're finally finding it after using both methods. We probably jumped the gun on selling Ramadani too early last year. Never replaced him and watched him have a brilliant season in Serie A.

It's not just about money. You enjoyed watching Jack. You missed watching him. You enjoyed watching Ramadani. You missed watching him. It has to be about giving the fans something to enjoy. It can't just be about money. 

[Aylo vanal]

9 hours ago, DoingThe42 said:

I was talking to a mate about this last night about how Hearts don't pull in as much in transfer fees as the likes of Aberdeen and Hibs have done in the last few years. Some people want to see us do better in that regard.

But I'm not sure that we're not better letting players run down their deals and leave for less or nothing if it means we're more likely to finish third and qualify for Europe. That brings in its own revenue and does so while allowing consistency of selection, which I think has been a big help to Hearts over the last 3 seasons or so. That success means we can replace players from a position of strength, as well as having cash in the bank.

Selling players for fees is obviously a good thing, but by definition means you're then going out and trying to replace, disrupting the squad. I'd be fine with Hearts keeping both players you mention and planning for their replacement next summer.

I can see it both ways, but I wouldn't be in a rush to sell either of Shankland or Cochrane. There's no real need to or obvious benefit to it.

There's loads of factors,  if Hearts said to Shankland you're not going anywhere would he scored as many etc? Have we made a gentleman's agreement for example to sell at x price.

It's got to be part of our business model to buy and sell, player trading is so important. We have failed in that area, if you have players teams want you tend to have been doing well. I think Naismith is one to Improve players which will lead to sales in future. 

I'm not desperate to sell either of those and would prefer to have them again this year, we might end up Shanklands best option. 

[DukDukGoose]

10 minutes ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

It's not just about money. You enjoyed watching Jack. You missed watching him. You enjoyed watching Ramadani. You missed watching him. It has to be about giving the fans something to enjoy. It can't just be about money. 

Of course it's about money. It's about selling them at the right time and replacing them with someone better.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 hours ago, the jambo-rocker said:

The difference 

Difference is Cochrane is arguably replaceable. Shankland is not. 30+ goals for one more season is quite probably worth 4-5 million. It's why I don't mind Aberdeen asking for the same and then some as he's a couple years younger. People get such Fomo over not claiming sales, but I think it's undervalued just having that quality on our books sometimes.

An example would be Peterborough sell more times than not if they still have a year left on their deal, but it more often than not seems to be at a cut price over value they might contribute over their final season.

Of course there hasn’t been a proper offer to turn down yet so we don’t actually know how expensive a luxury it would be to retain him.

And we’re not skint so we can afford a few luxuries here and there, even if that’s luxury in more of a “Tesco’s finest” sense of the word

Edited July 11 by topcat(The most tip top)

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

1 minute ago, DukDukGoose said:

Of course it's about money. It's about selling them at the right time and replacing them with someone better.

You'll watch anything as long as you make a profit selling players? f**k that!

You don't just go out and buy better players. You believe it's that simple?

[RandomGuy.]

9 hours ago, DukDukGoose said:

The issue comes when his contract expires and he's now at the level of an £8k a week player but we only have his £2k per week wage to replace him.

Are you saying it would've been better for you to bank a fee and have a player only good enough for £2k a week, rather than keep a player who's good enough for £8k a week and have 12+ months of planning on how to replace him?

[DukDukGoose]

3 hours ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

You'll watch anything as long as you make a profit selling players? f**k that!

You don't just go out and buy better players. You believe it's that simple?

No, that's not what I'm getting at but I suggest you knew that.

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Are you saying it would've been better for you to bank a fee and have a player only good enough for £2k a week, rather than keep a player who's good enough for £8k a week and have 12+ months of planning on how to replace him?

Did you see the players we replaced Jack, McGinn and Anderson with?!

[afc_blockhead]

54 minutes ago, DukDukGoose said:

No, that's not what I'm getting at but I suggest you knew that.

Did you see the players we replaced Jack, McGinn and Anderson with?!

This

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

10 hours ago, DukDukGoose said:

No, that's not what I'm getting at but I suggest you knew that.

Did you see the players we replaced Jack, McGinn and Anderson with?!

I never knew, you do get fans that are more interested in what money the club can get for selling players than building a team. You want to build a team around good players not sell them. I wonder if some people have just given up on the idea of building a team to compete. 

You might have got lucky but I have saw dozens of really poor players come and go at Hearts. It is difficult to build a good team on the budgets we have. I remember when Hibs had a lot of quality come through (O'Connor, Roirdan, Whittaker, Brown, Fletcher) which they sold and they thought they could just bring through another group of players to replace them. Conveyor belt of talent they said. 

[DukDukGoose]

1 hour ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

I never knew, you do get fans that are more interested in what money the club can get for selling players than building a team. You want to build a team around good players not sell them. I wonder if some people have just given up on the idea of building a team to compete. 

You might have got lucky but I have saw dozens of really poor players come and go at Hearts. It is difficult to build a good team on the budgets we have. I remember when Hibs had a lot of quality come through (O'Connor, Roirdan, Whittaker, Brown, Fletcher) which they sold and they thought they could just bring through another group of players to replace them. Conveyor belt of talent they said. 

For avoidance of doubt, I'm advocating selling a player at their maximum and using the fee to sign a equivalent or the best you can get as a replacement. Club obviously banks the fee but what they don't can be used to pay the fee and offer higher wages.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

30 minutes ago, DukDukGoose said:

For avoidance of doubt, I'm advocating selling a player at their maximum and using the fee to sign a equivalent or the best you can get as a replacement. Club obviously banks the fee but what they don't can be used to pay the fee and offer higher wages.

^^^ Doesn't own a football Club 

 

1 hour ago, HeartsOfficialMoaner said:

I never knew, you do get fans that are more interested in what money the club can get for selling players than building a team. You want to build a team around good players not sell them. I wonder if some people have just given up on the idea of building a team to compete. 

You might have got lucky but I have saw dozens of really poor players come and go at Hearts. It is difficult to build a good team on the budgets we have. I remember when Hibs had a lot of quality come through (O'Connor, Roirdan, Whittaker, Brown, Fletcher) which they sold and they thought they could just bring through another group of players to replace them. Conveyor belt of talent they said. 

^^^ Owns a football Club

[DC92]

If Cochrane isn't going to sign a deal then we should absolutely sell him this summer, even if we have to accept a bit less than we'd ideally have liked. He's a good player but we can cope without him and we need to start making money on player sales so we can grow.

Shankland is different because he's completely critical to the team as it stands and his market value isn't inflated by age/potential. A sale needs to be on the table but it's quite possible his value to us still exceeds what another club would be willing to pay. It might be worth gambling on him helping us to the European money again and then using that to replace him next summer.