A big concern for me with Ahadme is not that he hasn't been winning his headers, it's that he's often 2 or 3 yards away from where he needs to be to challenge for those headers. That's either him being terrible or confusion among the players as to who should be where and when.
Not going to write him off yet, every season I give it 10 games to see how we look.
I don't think we can deny defensively we look much better (despite the second goal on Saturday). In attack we look about the same, just with two players that need to work on their finishing. We really need Miles back for the hold up role too. I think if TC buried that pen in game one, he'd be looking much more confident, but it seems his confidence is fragile.
TC's penalty was against Birmingham in the League Cup
Doh, I still stand by it, if he scores that his heads in a different place.
I get all the concerns but it’s still incredibly early to write a new signing off.
He scored 6 in 14 starts and 6 sub apps in his first spell at Burton which convinced Ipswich to sign him.
At Cambridge last season he scored 11 in 22 starts and 7 sub apps.
Roughly one in three which is fine if the other striker is the main goal threat.
With any striker goals are always a concern. I think most would agree we’ve tightened up defensively this season but partly at a cost of creativity and possession. We still need to find the right balance without completely abandoning this style of play.
I believe the majority of Ahadme’s goals have come from headers - and linked to the above our crossing and set piece delivery needs to improve.
He did though fail to get onto a great low ball across the box from Campbell on Saturday. As much as heading is a strength he needs to anticipate chances like that better. His main competition will be Leaburn and he’s scored goals like that for us.
On his hold up play it’s not been good enough but I’m not ready to completely write him off on that area of his game. Football can come down to fine margins. There is no issue with his work rate and pressing, but that constant running might not be helping him when he gets the ball. That’s one of the potential costs of pressing, it tires players and that can impact a players touch, composure and decision making. He even mentioned in a SLP interview that one of his former managers helped him put more focus on hold up play and less on running and effort.
He’s also a relatively young player stepping up to a bigger club with higher expectations (vs his recent loan clubs). Some players need time, some make an instant impact and others struggle and don’t handle it.
Up front he’s alongside a converted winger who plays like one - Campbell drifts wide, uses his pace and takes players on, as great as that’s been at times his strengths don’t include how he links with Ahadme. A winger can look good on their own if they get the ball in the right areas, a target man needs players close and making runs to link up with.
I’m not making excuses for him as he won’t keep his place if he doesn’t improve, but opinions of players do change over time as performances improve or decline. There are areas he needs to get better at, but the team also need to provide more and better service and Jones overall has the responsibility of getting the most out of his squad.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
All clauses are performance based, otherwise you’re just talking about the payment structure of a standard fee. As @Scoham says they’ll be linked to promotion, appearances and maybe goals + a sell on
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Probably appearances and promotion, maybe goals. We’d pay none of them if he doesn’t play and we don’t go up.
Maybe it's just me, but at the moment I wouldn't feel much better if we've paid something like 500k upfront, 250k in appearances and 250k in goals/promotion.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Probably appearances and promotion, maybe goals. We’d pay none of them if he doesn’t play and we don’t go up.
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't feel any better if we paid 500k upfront, 250k in appearances and 250k in goals/promotion.
We can all pluck numbers out of thin air that reach 1m though. What if we paid 100k up front, 250k in appearances, 250k in goals and 400k upon promotion?
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Probably appearances and promotion, maybe goals. We’d pay none of them if he doesn’t play and we don’t go up.
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't feel any better if we paid 500k upfront, 250k in appearances and 250k in goals/promotion.
We can all pluck numbers out of thin air that reach 1m though. What if we paid 100k up front, 250k in appearances, 250k in goals and 400k upon promotion?
Would you bet money on that being the fee structure or even remotely close to it...? I wouldn't. Chances are it's a lot more logical than that.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Probably appearances and promotion, maybe goals. We’d pay none of them if he doesn’t play and we don’t go up.
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't feel any better if we paid 500k upfront, 250k in appearances and 250k in goals/promotion.
We can all pluck numbers out of thin air that reach 1m though. What if we paid 100k up front, 250k in appearances, 250k in goals and 400k upon promotion?
Would you bet money on that being the fee structure or even remotely close to it...? I wouldn't. Chances are it's a lot more logical than that.
We have no idea. As others have said, Coventry was reported as being 1m but was actually free with a massive sell on, my point is the structure could be made up in a whole host of ways. I doubt we’ve paid a massive guaranteed fee for him as it always looked like a slightly risky transfer
I know we are all a bit down on him at the moment, but for a bit of context I remember a fella called George Dobson getting absolute pelters from all sides of the fan base for his early performances in the shirt.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Probably appearances and promotion, maybe goals. We’d pay none of them if he doesn’t play and we don’t go up.
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't feel any better if we paid 500k upfront, 250k in appearances and 250k in goals/promotion.
We can all pluck numbers out of thin air that reach 1m though. What if we paid 100k up front, 250k in appearances, 250k in goals and 400k upon promotion?
Would you bet money on that being the fee structure or even remotely close to it...? I wouldn't. Chances are it's a lot more logical than that.
We have no idea. As others have said, Coventry was reported as being 1m but was actually free with a massive sell on, my point is the structure could be made up in a whole host of ways. I doubt we’ve paid a massive guaranteed fee for him as it always looked like a slightly risky transfer
No, we can't know for sure unless the club reports it, which I doubt they will given his form so far. But the fact we are trying to convince ourselves we haven't paid that much for him says a lot. If he'd lived up to the fee, nobody would care. Now the bright side is that we have potentially not paid a lot of money for him.
That being said, I find it really unlikely that a 1m fee (if true) would contain only a small upfront fee.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Probably appearances and promotion, maybe goals. We’d pay none of them if he doesn’t play and we don’t go up.
Maybe it's just me but I wouldn't feel any better if we paid 500k upfront, 250k in appearances and 250k in goals/promotion.
We can all pluck numbers out of thin air that reach 1m though. What if we paid 100k up front, 250k in appearances, 250k in goals and 400k upon promotion?
Would you bet money on that being the fee structure or even remotely close to it...? I wouldn't. Chances are it's a lot more logical than that.
If I had to guess, I think we used the May fee on both him and Godden, that was the logic for CM & co, sell May, get a May replacement cheaper in Godden, and it pays for Ahadme so we don't use the owner's money.
Godden fee was described by their local press as 'He moves for an ‘undisclosed’ fee, understood to be a relatively modest figure that could rise to a maximum of £400,000 based on the usual add-ons, including appearances and promotion.'
I would bet Ahadme is structured similarly but with larger figures, up to a maximum of the million quoted by the Ipswich side.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
I know we are all a bit down on him at the moment, but for a bit of context I remember a fella called George Dobson getting absolute pelters from all sides of the fan base for his early performances in the shirt.
I remember going to Oxford early in the season in 2021/22. Dobson was actually being booed by some people every time he touched the ball.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
On a 4-year contract, I'd be surprised if he didn't make a standard 50 appearance clause fee (if it's in there).
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
Re @Scoham excellent post, I think the chance from the Campbell cross was really tough. Campbell fizzed it very hard. I am more bothered by the situation on the rebound from Berry’s shot. He was there, pretty much, to poke home the rebound, but the defender seemed to me to get there first (maybe he had a better starting point) but also muscled him out of the way. Nobody commented on it, that I’ve seen anyway, and that surprised me, even if in the end it was no easier than the Campbell chance
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
On a 4-year contract, I'd be surprised if he didn't make a standard 50 appearance clause fee (if it's in there).
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
The length of contract is only as relevant as his performances merit though. We obviously had a lot of faith in the signing with a 4 year contract but if he makes 50 appearances for the club then something has gone right with the transfer. If he's that bad then we would cancel his contract like we did with Kirk and Fraser before we allow ourselves to tick him over into costing us an extra few hundred thousand quid. To be honest the worst value Ahadme can be is if he's just average instead of terrible; if he shows in fits and starts and gets enough goals here and there to still be used then we'd end up paying those add-ons but maybe feeling a little short-changed.
I hope there's more to him too, we all do, but it's also worth nothing that he's signed a 4 year contract and we are an enormous 4 games in to his career with us. It's very, very early to be fretting about value. We've started this season well in a lot of areas but in attacking terms we haven't clicked and across 5 games just one of our strikers has a goal. Watching us we are incredibly wasteful on the ball both in counter transitions and with crossing so there's lots of improvements to be made that could see him look like much more of a threat. We will see.
Chuks signed a three and a half year deal to offset a reduction in weekly wages from his contract at Birmingham. Admittedly, Ahadme is younger, but it’s quite likely he got a four year deal for the same reason - rather than it just reflecting buyer confidence.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
On a 4-year contract, I'd be surprised if he didn't make a standard 50 appearance clause fee (if it's in there).
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
In fairness Marquis did okay for Portsmouth scored 1 in 3 league games over his 3 seasons.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
On a 4-year contract, I'd be surprised if he didn't make a standard 50 appearance clause fee (if it's in there).
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
In fairness Marquis did okay for Portsmouth scored 1 in 3 league games over his 3 seasons.
I'm not sure many would think that justified his pricetag and his ability.
You can argue forever about transfer fees and clauses about which you know nothing but there's no argument to be had about how many goals he has scored, assists he's achieved. There's even little to discuss on how many times he's got a shot off or looked like doing so At any price he's been ineffective
You can argue forever about transfer fees and clauses about which you know nothing but there's no argument to be had about how many goals he has scored, assists he's achieved. There's even little to discuss on how many times he's got a shot off or looked like doing so At any price he's been ineffective
He’s had two shots so far, both towards the end of the first half against Orient. One blocked from close range and the other a header back across the goal that was comfortably saved.
He needs to get more shots off absolutely. Whether that’s about him finding the space or the team doing a better of finding him I’m not sure.
It’s somewhat telling of our strategy so far that the players with the highest shot counts so far are Berry & Docherty.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
On a 4-year contract, I'd be surprised if he didn't make a standard 50 appearance clause fee (if it's in there).
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
If we end up paying 1m for him it will be because he has been a success and in turn we have been too.
Not sure it makes a massive difference if it's made up of clauses or not. It's looking like a very big amount.
of course it does, might mean we end up paying virtually nothing if he’s a dud
There's little chance the bulk of the clauses would be performance based.
Not really, it's extremely common to have performance-based add-ons. The question is how big the up front free is compared to the clauses. I doubt we paid a quid up front and everything else is goal-based but if teams are a long way apart on a fee - in our case apparently around £500k apart - then the common thing is to make add-ons performance or achievement based. I've no doubt that we would be paying extra if we get promoted for instance.
Not what I'm saying... It's common to have performance based add-ons, but it's uncommon for them to be making up the bulk of the clauses.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Sure, but then you can also consider appearance-based fees to be a type of performance-based clause in themselves; if we're paying money after 25 and then 50 appearances for instance, if Ahadme doesn't do well he'll drop down the pecking order until he's potentially 7th choice. He might fall behind Godden, Leaburn and Chuks for the physical striker role depending on how Jones sees it, so we still don't have to worry about paying more for him than we consider him to be worth while he's with us. If we get to 10 games in and he's not turned in a good performance then he'll be moved on long before we get to the point where we would have to pay any extra because we simply won't play him. His performance ultimately will still dictate his fee
On a 4-year contract, I'd be surprised if he didn't make a standard 50 appearance clause fee (if it's in there).
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
If we end up paying 1m for him it will be because he has been a success and in turn we have been too.
Comments
That being said, I find it really unlikely that a 1m fee (if true) would contain only a small upfront fee.
Kieran Maguire has talked about this on The Price of Football. Appearance-based clauses are more common because they're less of a risk for the selling club. A player scoring X amount of goals etc. is more speculative.
Godden fee was described by their local press as 'He moves for an ‘undisclosed’ fee, understood to be a relatively modest figure that could rise to a maximum of £400,000 based on the usual add-ons, including appearances and promotion.'
I would bet Ahadme is structured similarly but with larger figures, up to a maximum of the million quoted by the Ipswich side.
It may not be that easy to move him on, as we've learned in the past.
Whatever way we try and frame it, I think we can all agree that at the moment, if the purported fee is correct, and if that fee were ever to be met (or close to it), it looks like we have paid well over the odds.
It wasn't that long ago that Portsmouth spent 1.7m on Marquis. It does happen.
At the same time, I can't help but feel (or hope?) there is more to this guy.
I hope there's more to him too, we all do, but it's also worth nothing that he's signed a 4 year contract and we are an enormous 4 games in to his career with us. It's very, very early to be fretting about value. We've started this season well in a lot of areas but in attacking terms we haven't clicked and across 5 games just one of our strikers has a goal. Watching us we are incredibly wasteful on the ball both in counter transitions and with crossing so there's lots of improvements to be made that could see him look like much more of a threat. We will see.
i wouldn’t put any reliance on media quoted fees.
At any price he's been ineffective
He needs to get more shots off absolutely. Whether that’s about him finding the space or the team doing a better of finding him I’m not sure.
It’s somewhat telling of our strategy so far that the players with the highest shot counts so far are Berry & Docherty.