Charles N'Zogbia

[Vive_La_Villa]

You can't compare Balaban and Nzogbia in what they were paid/cost etc. It was a different time, almost a 15 year difference. Money in the Premier League has changed dramatically in that time.

I agree you can't.

But one thing you can draw comparison is the cost of players relative to our spending at said times.

When we signed Balaban he was one of 3 players signed in that window for over £5m, so in the market at that time I think it is fair to say that it was in keeping with our spending and not a huge outlay.

By comparison we paid £9.5m for N'Zogbia which was completely out of keeping with our spending at that time bringing in people like Given and Jenas. Its also completely out of keeping with our spending for the 3 following seasons and matched only now following the cash injection from the sale of Benteke.

It was terrible terrible business which is why I consider it to be our worst signing.

To be fair at the time we had money from Downing and Young and N'Zog had just single handedly kept Wigan up. It seemed a good signing at the time.

[Enda]

 

 

 

When we signed Balaban he was one of 3 players signed in that window for over £5m, so in the market at that time I think it is fair to say that it was in keeping with our spending and not a huge outlay.

 

 

Madness. In consumer price inflation terms, £5m then would equal £8m today. In football inflation terms, it'd be more than that. Comparable fee, all things considered.

 

 

That reply has no relation to my post.

 

 

Baffling response.

 

You were comparing N'Zogbia and Balaban to other players we bought at the time, I compared it to actual numbers, basically under the logic that how good/bad a signing N'Zogbia was isn't affected by what we were paying for Jordan Bowery.

 

I've no idea how you can claim there's no relationship there.

[Jimzk5]

Agree with Trent on this one, whether zog has played in 5 games or 50, the fact is in 99% of those games he has been woeful, I've never been so underwhelmed by a player with such a large transfer fee, in terms of value for money he Is for me, the worst signing we've made.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Jimzk5

[BOF]

I think Trent is saying that in order to judge the (lack of) quality of a signing you have to take into account what was happening in the bigger picture at the time as well.  We went way above our comfort zone at the time to bring in Zog, whereas Bosko was in line with other purchases and so didn't have the consequences that Zog had (in exhausting our funds in the process).  Neither have much to show for their time here (Zog obviously has more) but that the fall-out from Zog will have had more impact and is therefore the worse signing when all things are considered.

 

Or I could be taking him up wrong

[TrentVilla]

When we signed Balaban he was one of 3 players signed in that window for over £5m, so in the market at that time I think it is fair to say that it was in keeping with our spending and not a huge outlay.

Madness. In consumer price inflation terms, £5m then would equal £8m today. In football inflation terms, it'd be more than that. Comparable fee, all things considered.

That reply has no relation to my post.

Baffling response.

You were comparing N'Zogbia and Balaban to other players we bought at the time, I compared it to actual numbers, basically under the logic that how good/bad a signing N'Zogbia was isn't affected by what we were paying for Jordan Bowery.

I've no idea how you can claim there's no relationship there.

You completely omitted the post I replied to and half of my post.

It is near impossible to compare the cost of players in different era's and doing so completely ignores more relevant factors like the spending of the club at the relative period of time as I've already posted.

It seems completely illogical to compare two signings 10 years apart and ignore the rest of the spending from the same period or the years that immediately pre-date or follow it.

However if you want to apply that logic to the price of Balanan you need to do the same with N'Zogbia as his price would also have to be inflated.

I think Trent is saying that in order to judge the (lack of) quality of a signing you have to take into account what was happening in the bigger picture at the time as well. We went way above our comfort zone at the time to bring in Zog, whereas Bosko was in line with other purchases and so didn't have the consequences that Zog had (in exhausting our funds in the process). Neither have much to show for their time here (Zog obviously has more) but that the fall-out from Zog will have had more impact and is therefore the worse signing when all things are considered.

Or I could be taking him up wrong

Exactly.

[Enda]

I think Trent is saying that in order to judge the (lack of) quality of a signing you have to take into account what was happening in the bigger picture at the time as well.  We went way above our comfort zone at the time to bring in Zog, whereas Bosko was in line with other purchases and so didn't have the consequences that Zog had (in exhausting our funds in the process).  Neither have much to show for their time here (Zog obviously has more) but that the fall-out from Zog will have had more impact and is therefore the worse signing when all things are considered.

 

Or I could be taking him up wrong

 

I understand his point, and I disagree with it. In 2000 we were signing the likes of Olof Mellberg. In 2010 we weren't making comparable signings. Trent says this makes N'Zogbia a worse signing comparatively. But by this reasoning N'Zogbia would have been alright had he been bought two years earlier under O'Neill even if he'd cost the exact same amount of money and put in exactly the same performances. Just because we were also wasting money on the likes of Beye. That's madness.

 

My argument is to compare what Bosko cost us to what N'Zogbia cost us, and see who gave us more.

 

We can disagree on these points, that's the point of football forums. But for someone to come along and dismissively think these two arguments "have no relation"? Right so, good man 

[Eric]

 

... has not lived up to his wadges.

All these French signings have you speaking like 'Allo 'Allo

 

Hahaha

[TrentVilla]

 

I think Trent is saying that in order to judge the (lack of) quality of a signing you have to take into account what was happening in the bigger picture at the time as well.  We went way above our comfort zone at the time to bring in Zog, whereas Bosko was in line with other purchases and so didn't have the consequences that Zog had (in exhausting our funds in the process).  Neither have much to show for their time here (Zog obviously has more) but that the fall-out from Zog will have had more impact and is therefore the worse signing when all things are considered.

 

Or I could be taking him up wrong

 

I understand his point, and I disagree with it. In 2000 we were signing the likes of Olof Mellberg. In 2010 we weren't making comparable signings. Trent says this makes N'Zogbia a worse signing comparatively. But by this reasoning N'Zogbia would have been alright had he been bought two years earlier under O'Neill even if he'd cost the exact same amount of money and put in exactly the same performances. Just because we were also wasting money on the likes of Beye. That's madness.

 

My argument is to compare what Bosko cost us to what N'Zogbia cost us, and see who gave us more.

 

We can disagree on these points, that's the point of football forums. But for someone to come along and dismissively think these two arguments "have no relation"? Right so, good man 

 

 

You are completely free to disagree with my view, it is only my view but as I say you selectively quoted me and ignored the part relating to your point as if I'd never commented on it.

But if you are going apply forward inflation to Balaban you need to do that to N'Zogbia, a comparative player in todays market would cost a lot more than £9.5m so if you inflate Balaban's price to circa £8m today then you have to do the same across the board.

 

So that again, in my view, would make N'Zogbia our worst signing.

[Razor]

Selling Zog would almost be as good as a signing. His don't give a shit attitude isn't good to have around.

[Demitri_C]

please tell me this is his last year? the guy has been a absolute flop

[Dante_Lockhart]

He screams out as a West Ham signing to me. Make it happen, Tim.

[Nigel]

Selling Zog would almost be as good as a signing. His don't give a shit attitude isn't good to have around.

...especially if this is the makeweight in the Veretout transfer...this really would be too good to believe!

[Spoony]

He screams out as a West Ham signing to me. Make it happen, Tim.

I'd say he's got QPR written all over him!

[rodders0223]

Bosko and others were made at a time when we were spending this kind of money freely. Zog came at a time when we were selling our best players and needed to buy quality. At £9m he was a marquee signing and for me, that makes him worse, that makes him all the more dissapointing.

[Richard]

Wolves if Sako moves?

[The Fun Factory]

I would comfortably put Curtis Davies (Over 8 million, 40 games and left for 2), Reo-Coker (7.5 mil, left for 0)  and Marlon Harewood (4 million?) as worse signings than NZog, in a time when we could have done much,much better.

[Reivax_Villa]

I would comfortably put Curtis Davies (Over 8 million, 40 games and left for 2), Reo-Coker (7.5 mil, left for 0)  and Marlon Harewood (4 million?) as worse signings than NZog, in a time when we could have done much,much better.

 

Both Curtis Davies and NRC both shared outstanding seasons and at one stage Curtis Davies got called up to the national squad several times.. to say that they were worse signings than nzogbia is ludicrous

[Tomaszk]

I would comfortably put Curtis Davies (Over 8 million, 40 games and left for 2), Reo-Coker (7.5 mil, left for 0) and Marlon Harewood (4 million?) as worse signings than NZog, in a time when we could have done much,much better.

Marlon gets a pass for Liverpool away, Newcastle at home, and having an entertaining skull.

Heskey worse than him for me.

[PaulC]

Stan Collymore also has to go into the category of worst ever signing. 7 mil was a huge amount of money at that time. More like 25 mil now and he was a big flop. How much did we sell him for? 

[tylerreznik]

 

I would comfortably put Curtis Davies (Over 8 million, 40 games and left for 2), Reo-Coker (7.5 mil, left for 0) and Marlon Harewood (4 million?) as worse signings than NZog, in a time when we could have done much,much better.

Marlon gets a pass for Liverpool away, Newcastle at home, and having an entertaining skull.

Heskey worse than him for me.

 

Davis and NRC had patches of ok form, agree Heskey and Harewood just plain shocking signings that were doomed from the get go, but then they didn't cost 9m....

 

Nzogbia has added absolutely nothing at no point, and for mine optimises the 'loser' tag that Sherwood mentioned.  Just sickens me to see him wear the jersey, total waste of space who has never come close to replicating his Newcastle or Wigan form.

 

Given his transfer fee (both in size, and relative to our spending at that time), the fact that he arrived with a decent reputation and had proven form in the prem league, he is far and away the worse and most disappointing signing we've made.

 

Fantastic business to get rid of him this summer, absolutely fantastic.