Have We Reached the Selling Point?

With a heavy heart, Matthew makes the case for selling one of our crown jewels. But which one?

There are few things more instinctive than the fury and indignation that accompanies every piece of groundless speculation about our blue-chip players. I feel it too. Sandro to Juve? Yeah, right. Gordon to Liverpool? Calm down. Isak to Arsenal? Fuck right off.

We're emotionally scarred. Every generation will have their own heart-rending departure, but for those of us growing up in the 80s, Waddle, Beardsley, and Gascoigne became more than just individual players sold. They became a perverse Holy Trinity - an anti “Law, Best, and Charlton” if you'll forgive the reference - a kind of religious incantation to invoke both the pride of what we could have been and the disappointment of what we had become. They were nothing short of a collective civic trauma.

It's not just the footballing loss. The idea that wealthy southerners think they can wave their money in our direction and lure our loved ones away across the social and geographic divide that runs through England strikes at the heart of our identity, a pride that goes far beyond anything as superficial as money. Why would anyone want to leave Newcastle? Isn't this the best place on earth to play football? Arrogance. Ignorance. Heresy.

And this, of course, was one of the issues with the Ashley model. Creating a stepping stone club for mostly overseas (French) talent might have made business sense, but it triggered those deep-seated feelings of regional betrayal. Of course, the takeover was supposed to change all that. We would be a selling club no more.

Except that what we didn't realise was that football was in the midst of a revolution. Now every club was a selling club. It's written into the fabric of PSR and the accountancy practices that go with it.

I've already bored everyone this week about the £230m recouped by Villa in transfer fees in the last year, but as Liverpool win the league again, it's worth remembering where that success originated. It was the ludicrous £120m that Barcelona gave them for Coutinho that paid for Salah and Van Dijk and others, money that laid the foundations for the Klopp era. Even in the last two seasons they've pulled in £100m, helped by a generous subsidy from the Saudi Pro League. And what about Man City? They've brought in more than £500m through player sales in the last five years alone.

Of course, in the past we've just not had the players capable of bringing in big money, but that's changed with the addition of Bruno, Gordon, Isak, and Sandro. And with a wafer-thin squad that struggled with the extra demands of Europe last time, a bits and pieces strategy selling three or four players (Longstaff, Willock, errr…) to raise £50-60 million seems like a counterproductive approach. We need more bodies, not fewer.

All of which brings us to the crux of this piece and a very simple question. If you had to sell one of our big players this summer to pull in the cash, who would it be?

And so to the runners and riders.

1. Bruno

For plenty of people I speak to, Bruno would be at the top of their list. His repeated histrionics and ever more theatrical (and unsuccessful) attempts to win free kicks have started to grate. Add in him being usurped by Sandro in both popularity and quality on the pitch, together with the way his chronic lack of pace is being exposed with every passing game, and what would previously have been seen as sacrilege is starting to seem more and more logical.

Then again, there didn't seem to be many takers last summer, and since then Bruno’s stock has declined considerably. If we can see those glaring weaknesses in his game, presumably world-class coaches and analysts might also have spotted them. In that case, what would be a realistic price? Maybe £50-60m at the top end? Take off his remaining book value (£12m?), and it starts to look less and less attractive, especially as he gives us vital options as a back-up no. 6 to relieve Sandro’s burden next season.

2. Gordon

Unlike Bruno, it seems like there was a pretty strong market for him after his breakthrough season last summer. The English premium and all that. Fairly or not, there's also a sense that his head was turned and his commitment to St James's might be questionable. Certainly, you don't get the sense that he would be unhappy to be on the receiving end of advances from a club he perceived as “bigger”. He's got form after all…

And then there's Brighton which was just idiotic. Really fucking idiotic. In the emotion of the moment, I'd have happily never seen him wear the shirt again. Ironically, we've since proved we can win consistently without him, and even at Wembley. Given that Barnes plays (and scores) in the same position, his sale might be the one we could most easily absorb - not that Digger is half the player that Flash is. Purely subjectively, though, he's certainly the one that would upset me the least.

3. Sandro

No. Just no. Nope. Nein, non, nyet. NOOOOOOOOOO! We're not going there.

4. Isak

What makes this utterly unthinkable is also what makes it so compelling. As we keep being told, he's just about the best striker in Europe at the moment, by reputation as well as deed. Goals are notoriously difficult and expensive to buy, and he scores every kind of them. In other words, he's irreplaceable. But then, that's also what mkes him so valuable, especially at a time when there a host of big (wealthy) clubs looking for a striker and a dearth of other options. He would easily command a fee of more than 100m.

The truth is, the opportunity to make that kind of money doesn't come round very often. It might never again. We would be selling at the top of the market, something we've failed to do in the past. At the same time - and this might sound ludicrous when we're talking about a 25 goal striker - there are plenty of games when he's been distinctly lacklustre this season. He's drifted out of games, been too easily dispossessed, and increasingly missed presentable chances. And if the rumours coming out of Darsley Park are to be believed, it's not injury that's been the problem.

The other thing is that his unquestioned status as our must-pick no. 9 makes it very hard to recruit a second striker even close enough to the quality needed to start and contribute in the Premier League. We’re trapped in a vicious circle where we just can't guarantee anyone any minutes while desperately needing that quality in reserve. We're stuck either with old/ injury prone options (Wilson, Vardy, Calvert-Lewin) or raw youngsters who won't get the game time to develop anyway. By his sheer magnificence, Alex is actually stunting our future development and exposing us to the severest of consequences if he gets injured. I'm not sure that's sustainable.

I don't suppose any two of us will share the same opinion on this. For many, any sale of one of our best players will be unthinkable, and understandably so. Some will adore Bruno, others our mop-haired scouse scallywag. Who knows whether any of these players would really bring enough money in and whether we could use it to recruit the replacements to improve the squad. That's easier in the abstract than in reality.

But with operating losses of £70m in each of the last three seasons - yes, even in the Champions League and even with considerably increased turnover - and in the continuing absence of transformative commercial deals, the logic points only in one direction. That direction is Swedish, standing arms outstretched on the Wembley hoardings, and with a 120m price tag on his back.

The heart says no. The head, regrettably, says yes.

Matthew Philpotts

---

Image: Rolandhino, CC BY-SA 4.O