mark davies

[BWFC_Insane]

At the end of last season, for those last few games when it really counted, can anyone remember Mark Davies?

I remember Reo Coker trying hard, Petrov busting a gut, even Vela looked a presence when he came on the odd time.

I honestly can't remember Mark Davies in those games when teams went through our midfield. I suppose the ball bounced off him for the goal at Stoke. But I just don't get why people think he's worth much money. He's got promise, but he has rarely, rarely delivered a complete performance, in fact I'd argue he hasn't yet.

IF Muamba was fit or Holden, then he'd not get in the first 11 IMO. Yes we'd have to replace him, but he's done relatively little to contribute so far to suggest he is someone we shouldn't sell at any price!

[SmokinFrazier]

£5m isn't a good enough offer when Fletcher is going for £12m, Allen is going for £15m and there are plenty more distinctly average British players who are going for double their true value. In a real world, maybe Davies is a £5m player but in this inflated market, we'd be stupid to sell at that price.

Fletcher is worth maybe £5m himself and Allen is worth around the same. If they can get double or triple their true value, we should try to as well, especially considering Davies' age.

[SmokinFrazier]

IF Muamba was fit or Holden, then he'd not get in the first 11 IMO. Yes we'd have to replace him, but he's done relatively little to contribute so far to suggest he is someone we shouldn't sell at any price!

Our best attack and midfield would be:

--------------Sordell--------------
--------------Davies--------------
Petrov - Andrews - Holden - Chungy



Davies is an extremely useful player but he has to be played in his best position, a creative role behind the striker. He was absent in a flat 4-4-2 just like someone like Van Der Vaart, Iniesta or Ozil would be.

[truewhite15]

Aye, but the point is that OTHER PEOPLE think he did stuff. He's young, British and overrated. He can do fancy stuff with the ball. Therefore, why shouldn't we be holding out for as much as we can get?

I guarantee that if he was at any other club, or if the situations were reversed, he'd be selling for around £10M. And we'd be accepting that as the norm. So why the feck should we be selling for £5M when we could, and should, get so much more?

[Jez]

Hes English and he can do step overs, definitely worth at least 8 mil.

[BWFC_Insane]

IF Muamba was fit or Holden, then he'd not get in the first 11 IMO. Yes we'd have to replace him, but he's done relatively little to contribute so far to suggest he is someone we shouldn't sell at any price!

Our best attack and midfield would be:

--------------Sordell--------------
--------------Davies--------------
Petrov - Andrews - Holden - Chungy



Davies is an extremely useful player but he has to be played in his best position, a creative role behind the striker. He was absent in a flat 4-4-2 just like someone like Van Der Vaart, Iniesta or Ozil would be.

Maybe, but first we'd have to play that system, and secondly we'd have to see if Mark Davies had any more impact in it.

I'm far from convinced he would. I think he's a hider when the going gets tough.

He's got ability but thats not enough for me. He needs to show that he can influence games regularly, not for 10 minutes here or there.

I'm not opposed to holding out for the best price, not even opposed to keeping him, just think he would need to show an awful lot more than he has so far to be worth 5M or even half that to us!

[Puskas]

I'm not opposed to holding out for the best price, not even opposed to keeping him, just think he would need to show an awful lot more than he has so far to be worth 5M or even half that to us!

Well, he's clearly worth more than half that to us, since we've had an offer of £5million.

Hyperbole, eh? It's literally the WORST THING EVER.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not opposed to holding out for the best price, not even opposed to keeping him, just think he would need to show an awful lot more than he has so far to be worth 5M or even half that to us!

Well, he's clearly worth more than half that to us, since we've had an offer of £5million.

Hyperbole, eh? It's literally the WORST THING EVER.

Thats his transfer value. I'm talking about whether his contributions on the pitch can be replaced with 5M or less, which for me they can. We might not get someone with the same "ability" on the ball, but NRC did more last season and came on a free, as did Eagles who cost ironically half of that 5M!!!!!!!!

[Puskas]

I'm not opposed to holding out for the best price, not even opposed to keeping him, just think he would need to show an awful lot more than he has so far to be worth 5M or even half that to us!

Well, he's clearly worth more than half that to us, since we've had an offer of £5million.

Hyperbole, eh? It's literally the WORST THING EVER.

Thats his transfer value. I'm talking about whether his contributions on the pitch can be replaced with 5M or less, which for me they can. We might not get someone with the same "ability" on the ball, but NRC did more last season and came on a free, as did Eagles who cost ironically half of that 5M!!!!!!!!

Did we not pay Reo-Coker owt, then?

I ask again, how do you put a price on someone's on-pitch performance, if not on the value that you can get by selling them? What mechanism do you use? Other than saying "It's obvious he's not worth XYZ"?

[50sQuiff]

Our only fit player who can play a decent pass or make a vaguely threatening run at a defence and some people want to sell him on for a £5m? That will buy you, ooh, another David N'Gog.

Why do you even give a shit about the club making a small profit on him?

[CrazyHorse]

What evidence do we have that he'd 'mope around'.. By all accounts he's happy here and we're paying him quite a bit more than what Swansea could/would offer..

I doubt we're paying him anything near what Swansea would offer.
Like all our players, he's just had his wages automatically reduced thanks to the handy relegation clause. Which probably means he's also not very happy here either.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not opposed to holding out for the best price, not even opposed to keeping him, just think he would need to show an awful lot more than he has so far to be worth 5M or even half that to us!

Well, he's clearly worth more than half that to us, since we've had an offer of £5million.

Hyperbole, eh? It's literally the WORST THING EVER.

Thats his transfer value. I'm talking about whether his contributions on the pitch can be replaced with 5M or less, which for me they can. We might not get someone with the same "ability" on the ball, but NRC did more last season and came on a free, as did Eagles who cost ironically half of that 5M!!!!!!!!

Did we not pay Reo-Coker owt, then?

I ask again, how do you put a price on someone's on-pitch performance, if not on the value that you can get by selling them? What mechanism do you use? Other than saying "It's obvious he's not worth XYZ"?

Well you think how many games did Mark Davies make a significant contribution to?

For me not very many.

Clearly its an opinion. But as said we got Eagles for 2.5M and he scored more goals, and had more assists.

[BWFC_Insane]

What evidence do we have that he'd 'mope around'.. By all accounts he's happy here and we're paying him quite a bit more than what Swansea could/would offer..

I doubt we're paying him anything near what Swansea would offer.
Like all our players, he's just had his wages automatically reduced thanks to the handy relegation clause. Which probably means he's also not very happy here either.

The Korean press said LCY's wages were the same this season I think. No reason that won't be the case for Davies.....

[truewhite15]

What evidence do we have that he'd 'mope around'.. By all accounts he's happy here and we're paying him quite a bit more than what Swansea could/would offer..

I doubt we're paying him anything near what Swansea would offer.
Like all our players, he's just had his wages automatically reduced thanks to the handy relegation clause. Which probably means he's also not very happy here either.

ITK? Or is it "obvious"?

[truewhite15]

I'm not opposed to holding out for the best price, not even opposed to keeping him, just think he would need to show an awful lot more than he has so far to be worth 5M or even half that to us!

Well, he's clearly worth more than half that to us, since we've had an offer of £5million.

Hyperbole, eh? It's literally the WORST THING EVER.

Thats his transfer value. I'm talking about whether his contributions on the pitch can be replaced with 5M or less, which for me they can. We might not get someone with the same "ability" on the ball, but NRC did more last season and came on a free, as did Eagles who cost ironically half of that 5M!!!!!!!!

Did we not pay Reo-Coker owt, then?

I ask again, how do you put a price on someone's on-pitch performance, if not on the value that you can get by selling them? What mechanism do you use? Other than saying "It's obvious he's not worth XYZ"?

Well you think how many games did Mark Davies make a significant contribution to?

For me not very many.

Clearly its an opinion. But as said we got Eagles for 2.5M and he scored more goals, and had more assists.

He's "worth" whatever we sell him for. Clearly, that's gonna be a damn sight more than £5M, which is as it should be.

I have the distinct impression that if you were the Bolton boss, we'd be selling everyone on the cheap, and we'd never sign anyone because we'd never meet the asking price, because "they're not worth that".

[boltonboris]

What evidence do we have that he'd 'mope around'.. By all accounts he's happy here and we're paying him quite a bit more than what Swansea could/would offer..

I doubt we're paying him anything near what Swansea would offer.
Like all our players, he's just had his wages automatically reduced thanks to the handy relegation clause. Which probably means he's also not very happy here either.

As far as I'm aware, the only wages that have been reduced are the ones who signed new deals.

Pratley's has gone up, due to the number of appearances he made!

Even if it goes down a little bit (which I'm not sure of), it'll STILL be more than Swansea would pay him.

[CrazyHorse]

What evidence do we have that he'd 'mope around'.. By all accounts he's happy here and we're paying him quite a bit more than what Swansea could/would offer..

I doubt we're paying him anything near what Swansea would offer.
Like all our players, he's just had his wages automatically reduced thanks to the handy relegation clause. Which probably means he's also not very happy here either.

ITK? Or is it "obvious"?

Not ITK cos I've obviously not seen any contracts myself, but Gartside has talked of them for years. Fat Sam used to go on about them too.
Plus NRC opted for the "cancel the contract" clause instead of the "reduced wages" clause so we're clearly still putting them in there.

As to how much the wages reduce by of course who knows?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I doubt anybody on here knows whether we'd pay more than Swansea or vice versa.

I doubt that because I doubt even the managers and chairmen of the clubs know that at the minute, so it's guesswork at best.

What we can talk about is the state of the market, the length of his contract, the need (or otherwise?) to replace him.

[boltonboris]

The one with NRC was that he signed a 1 year deal with the option of a second year if he made a certain number of appearances, it'd autmatically renew if he signed it.

He chose not to, I'm not aware it was for lower terms

[truewhite15]

What evidence do we have that he'd 'mope around'.. By all accounts he's happy here and we're paying him quite a bit more than what Swansea could/would offer..

I doubt we're paying him anything near what Swansea would offer.
Like all our players, he's just had his wages automatically reduced thanks to the handy relegation clause. Which probably means he's also not very happy here either.

ITK? Or is it "obvious"?

Not ITK cos I've obviously not seen any contracts myself, but Gartside has talked of them for years. Fat Sam used to go on about them too.
Plus NRC opted for the "cancel the contract" clause instead of the "reduced wages" clause so we're clearly still putting them in there.

As to how much the wages reduce by of course who knows?

Yeah, but it's by no means guaranteed that it's written into all the contracts. I'm fairly certain that we'd have seen more voluntary departures than just NRC if we'd have got this clause in the contracts of all our playing staff.