Lucas Paquetá

Status
Not open for further replies.
TonyColemansbagofapples said:
Don’t watch that I’m afraid but a bloke down the pub says he’s got a mate whose a dab hand with the superglue, says you can’t see the cracks once he’s finished.
He reckons that the half a million it would cost to fix could be a bargain. Hope he’s in tonight to put the first hundred thousand down as deposit.
Click to expand...
You do that. Perhaps you'll then begin to understand the concept of calculated risks. Glad to be of help & inspiration to you dude!
 
Cheers, got the cardboard box and a street corner lined up on the off chance it’s not worth as much as I’m led to believe.
For the older members in here we had a chairman a few years ago who took calculated risks. His name escapes me right now. How did that turn out?
 
Dribble said:
The calculated risk would've been:

Will he be found guilty or innocent?

Did he do it?

Would he do it again if he did do it?

Would we stand to gain more by having him for a season or two before he was found guilty, & then losing him for several months after?

Losing him could be akin to losing any player to a long-term injury, which no one can legislate for.

We took a risk previously on an injured Gundog who couldn't play for months, but that turned out OK in the long-term.

Are there better alternatives for the money with less risk?

Decisions decisions decisions... It's a calculated risk I'd have taken a punt on considering Xhaka, Toney & Paqueta regaining his Brazil spot after being cleared by his country's FA.
Click to expand...
City in August 2023:

Will he be found guilty or innocent? We genuinely don't know. This is news to us and has caught us by surprise.

Did he do it? We have no way of knowing, we have no inside information and the window shuts in a week.

Would he do it again if he did do it? Hypothetical, but the problem is that he's being investigated right now.

Would we stand to gain more by having him for a season or two...? We don't know how long it will take for a verdict to be issued. Could be as early as November 2023. We don't know the full extent, but the punishment could be severe. We could be without him for a very long time and the severity may affect his form. The allegations carry a criminal element in the form of spot-fixing. There are also other targets available.

Nobody can legislate for long-term injury, but you can legislate for buying a player you know to be under investigation. What's more, the circumstantial evidence against him does not look favourable.

We took a calculated risk on Gundogan and lost him in his first season for six months. The addition of Gundogan did not materially benefit City in his first season. He came good later. We therefore think that Paqueta - currently at greater risk than Gundogan was in August 2016 - is not a risk worth taking.

Are there better alternatives...? We don't necessarily need better but we do need comparable. We believe Matheus Nunes to be a good long-term option and eminently achievable. The addition of Kovacic, brilliance of KDB, reliability of Bernardo and continuing emergence of Foden can cover all bases. We have observed what going for a player at all costs can do to a club.

Summary:

Most decisions in football carry calculated risk. They do not demand undue risk though. Trying to sign Paqueta at that time, when so little was known, would have been reckless. We know that we can get him further down the line. Have we considered insurance implications? Could we get insurance if the player has a pre-existing disciplinary matter? If you're allegedly involved in illicit South American betting circles then what's to say our insurers may be twitchy about providing for him? Possibly not, but we don't know.

Our owners have been rewarded for being bold and ambitious in the past, but not desperate and needy. One of their great strengths has been to show restraint when all temptations have been hanging in front of them.
 
Dribble said:
Which is why in business it's known as a calculated risk. You do the due diligence by carrying out your own investigation to the best of your ability.

You consider previous instances (Granit Xhaka), then you make an informed decision. For all we know, City did the above & decided Paqueta was too hot to handle. Personally I'd have taken the risk.

EG: Six years ago I bought a high-end convertible for a bargain price because the roof wasn't working. Replacing the motor, mechanism & roof was estimated to be £9k.

Something told me to take the risk, so I called a main dealer mechanic I know & he told me to see if I could hear a click from the rear when I tried the switch, which I could. He told me to snap it up & drop it off at his home.

The part which was damaged wasn't sold separately, BUT luckily I was able to get one from an almost new salvage vehicle for £90. He charged me £150 to strip the mechanism, replace the broken part, & service the motor.

He told me to book the car in for a service at his dealership, where they had a specialised convertible frame they used to set the roof alignment to stop any leaks, which he'd get done for me as part of the service.

The service cost was the service cost, which I'd have had to pay anyway to maintain the main dealer service history.

I sold it 18 months later for more than I bought it for. Commonsense would've told the average private buyer to walk away at that kind of money.

But the £240 fix made the calculated risk more than worthwhile. As a business owner, I'm one of life's calculated risk takers.

If you do your proper due diligence, I find you tend to win more than you lose. This type of risk taking makes far more sense to me than sticking £50 on a nag, or on a football result at your local William Hill's bookie.
Click to expand...
4b37ce26-ebbb-4738-96a9-9a8b12540c9c_text.gif
 
John Wayne said:
City in August 2023:

Will he be found guilty or innocent? We genuinely don't know. This is news to us and has caught us by surprise.

Did he do it? We have no way of knowing, we have no inside information and the window shuts in a week.

Would he do it again if he did do it? Hypothetical, but the problem is that he's being investigated right now.

Would we stand to gain more by having him for a season or two...? We don't know how long it will take for a verdict to be issued. Could be as early as November 2023. We don't know the full extent, but the punishment could be severe. We could be without him for a very long time and the severity may affect his form. The allegations carry a criminal element in the form of spot-fixing. There are also other targets available.

Nobody can legislate for long-term injury, but you can legislate for buying a player you know to be under investigation. What's more, the circumstantial evidence against him does not look favourable.

We took a calculated risk on Gundogan and lost him in his first season for six months. The addition of Gundogan did not materially benefit City in his first season. He came good later. We therefore think that Paqueta - currently at greater risk than Gundogan was in August 2016 - is not a risk worth taking.

Are there better alternatives...? We don't necessarily need better but we do need comparable. We believe Matheus Nunes to be a good long-term option and eminently achievable. The addition of Kovacic, brilliance of KDB, reliability of Bernardo and continuing emergence of Foden can cover all bases. We have observed what going for a player at all costs can do to a club.

Summary:

Most decisions in football carry calculated risk. They do not demand undue risk though. Trying to sign Paqueta at that time, when so little was known, would have been reckless. We know that we can get him further down the line. Have we considered insurance implications? Could we get insurance if the player has a pre-existing disciplinary matter? If you're allegedly involved in illicit South American betting circles then what's to say our insurers may be twitchy about providing for him? Possibly not, but we don't know.

Our owners have been rewarded for being bold and ambitious in the past, but not desperate and needy. One of their great strengths has been to show restraint when all temptations have been hanging in front of them.
Click to expand...
0_GettyImages-1669814799.jpg

It's what Baldy wants... :-)
 
TonyColemansbagofapples said:
Cheers, got the cardboard box and a street corner lined up on the off chance it’s not worth as much as I’m led to believe.
For the older members in here we had a chairman a few years ago who took calculated risks. His name escapes me right now. How did that turn out?
Click to expand...
Here's my vase contribution to your "Avoid the Shop Doorway Fund"... No need to thank me. :-)

291420011_0_640x640.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.