Phil SumblerOnline discussion last night was focussed very much on the latest position regards Joel Piroe following media reports that the player was ‘set’ to stay at Swansea City this summer and see out the last year of the contract.
This came at the end of a weekend where all the discussions were around arrivals at Swansea City – movement on which is expected at some stage today with medicals due to be undertaken at the club. Carl Rushworth and Harrison Ashby are expected to sign on loan this week ahead of the new season whilst Kristian Pedersen is expected to be the third signing as the Swans continue their pre-season transfer activity which is not anticipated to end just with those three signings.
Add to that a 4-0 pre-season win at Reading and there was a noticeable upturn in people’s optimism ahead of the new season after what seems to be a largely positive pre-season in SA1 with seemingly some positive signings both on and off the pitch taking place since we ended the season against West Brom less than three months ago.
With the football season starting again on Saturday it could easily have been a big boost for the Swans that Joel Piroe was staying at the club although the obvious downside was there was everyone to see.
And that downside is connected to the fact that the Swans model will simply not be set for a player of Piroe’s standard to leave the club for free in twelve months time. Of course there is always the chance that the striker signs a new contract with the club which changes the situation totally but every report read this summer suggests that is not to be the case. That includes the ones that talked last night about him staying.
Throughout the post and pre season period all signs have been pointing to Joel Piroe leaving Swansea City this summer. Interest from (in no particular order) Leicester City, Leeds United, Southampton, Atalanta, Nottingham Forest and Everton has been reported and discussed and even some level of part exchange deals with other clubs have even been in the public domain. The only fact remains though at the moment that as we reach the end of July there has not been a bid (yet) for Joel Piroe.
Figures upwards of £15m have been suggested das the minimum standard for the Swans but nothing has yet appeared that meets that valuation which now brings us to what happens in the last month of the transfer window.
Those clubs who appear to have the most interest – now said to be Leeds United and Southampton – will be watching with interest and starting to believe that they could even get a deal over the line that will see us ‘forced’ to part company with Piroe for a figure maybe even around half of those figures previously suggested.
It is difficult to see how the Swans would be prepared to risk losing Piroe for nothing going for nothing in twelve months time when they could pick up a multi million pound fee in the coming few months. Even if that fee is considerably less than they would have been looking for even two or three weeks ago. Unfortunately that is the nature of both the transfer market and the financial position of clubs like ours. It was painful enough for the Swans this summer that they saw someone like Ryan Manning leave for free that they will not want to repeat that mistake. And we have to remember here that the transfer value of Manning was a very small fraction of the one that would be here for Piroe.
There is little doubt in my mind that Joel Piroe would be prepared to see out his contract and move on next summer but the simple fact is that will be a position that he and the football club will be in different places on. It is likely to be financially advantageous for him to do so but far less for the club.
Then we have those who have an interest. Leeds and Southampton both have the need for a striker (and they are not alone) and it is a gamble for them to risk being part of what could be a much bigger “free” market next summer and that is before we consider that if they don’t move for Piroe now then they will have to move for a striker. From our club’s perspective and that of the interested parties there is no upside?
For me, last night’s reports change nothing. I expect Joel Piroe to leave this summer, the club probably expect Joel Piroe to leave this summer, Joel Piroe will expect to leave this summer and those interested expect Joel Piroe to leave this summer with the right offer. All that last night’s news probably does is to place a marker in the ground and prepare us for accepting a right offer at a smaller level than maybe we hoped for a month ago.
The January window is still an option. We’d have a proven goal scorer for the first half of the season and if we’re challenging then he might decide to stay. If not Leeds, Southampton, Leicester are going to be desperate to have him for their final push or Everton and Nottingham Forest to keep them up.
That’s a good shout Vince. The same argument applies in that his value is less again in January. It feels like we are learning no lessons. If we get say £7m now then that is probably broadly what everyone expected – it was mind games that the club were “leaking” £15m+ figures, the reality was we were never going to get that. What is more surprising is that nobody seems to have actually enquired after him given his track record for the past two seasons
Similar scenario to Joe Rodon – sold late in window for way under real value with tiny proportion being given to manager to buy replacement
For us life-long Swans fans (I saw my first match at the vetch in 1963), the figures touted for Piroe are largely irrelevant. This is because the comparatively short history of these owners makes it highly likely that little or any of the profit made from the original £1m purchase will be invested back into the squad.
Therefore in terms of the quality of the team on match days, it would be far better that Piroe stays for the season then leaves for free. This would then give us the best chance of doing well this season. Maybe even a shot at promotion.
Personally, I really don’t care about the owners yet again making a profit for themselves out of player sales. Since relegation £118m in players sales with £18m reinvested back into the squad. The figures are stark and no amount of self-justification through the financial smoke and mirrors comms issued by the owners and their few Trumpian acolytes (who seem to be permanently on social media rapidly attacking anybody who dare question the veracity of the American approach to the business of football), can avoid the obvious – from being a comfortable PL team we are now a mid-table championship team, having repetitive difficulty in retaining good managers and lurching from one transfer window crisis to another.
So in the case of Joel Piroe let’s hope he stays for another season to lead the line – for the purpose of his sale at this point in time – will not lead to any improvement in the team. But as Planet Swans says – this is sadly very unlikely to be allowed to happen.
That feels short sighted Huw? I do get your point about the reinvestment but the club needs things like this to be sustainable, otherwise it has to come in somewhere else through either debt or the sale of someone else. Nobody believes that if we sell for (say) £10m we would give £10m to Duff but if we didn’t sell then whats to say that his transfer budget is withdrawn for the season. Which one damages more?
I don’t think it is short-sighted Alyson as my rationale is based upon the performance of the owners up to this point after 7/8yrs in charge both financially but also of impact on the pitch.
Whether the new guard of Coleman, Watson and Duff are able to influence the mind-set of Levine et al to show greater ambition by reinvesting a larger proportion from player sales in the squad, remains to be seen. Though I cant really see Duff having a great deal of say in who comes in and especially who is sold. I doubt if Duff even holds a transfer budget, as this doesn’t seem to be the way these owners operate.
Ultimately it is about the owners demonstrating ambition and as I said in my previous post £118m in player sales since relegation with just £18m coming in since relegation doesn’t suggest that we have ambitious owners (despite their platitudes).
Of course the sustainable business argument is valid. But comparisons are also useful. For example Burnley clearly used their relegation parachute money far more effectively than our owners did and we are mid-table championship team and they are back in the PL. Hence their owners managed their business far better than ours did.
I can’t understand why we should accept less than 10 mill. Gorcyres sorry about the spelling went for 20. All off us who watched him can’t imagine him worth over twice Piroe fee.
Well said Huw!