Friday 31 August 2007
Some people view the end of August as the end of summer. Others see it as the gate to the new school year. Football fans, however, monitor the gossip, rumour and minute-by-minute reports of which club may buy which player. The football transfer window closes at midnight tonight and the opportunity for dazzling commercial skill to mightily influence your team's season goes away until January.
Dazzling commercial skill? Not really what goes through football fans' minds. No. Which team got which player or which team didn't get which player or the sums of money involved and, most important of all, the success, or failure, of "my team". That's the stuff that matters.
All these things do matter and play through my mind as I grapple with the 38th year of supporting my team. It is interesting, however, to reflect on the very public displays of commercial capability provided by the transfer market.
Take the case of Daniel Alves of Sevilla. An extremely talented and accomplished Brazilian international right-back. He plays for a pretty good Spanish club on a pretty good deal. He, and his advisors, believe he should achieve better to fullfil both his footballing and commercial possibilities. The answer is, therefore, to move to a club playing at the highest level and with very deep pockets. Who could be better than Chelsea bankrolled by Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich?
Take the case of Chelsea Football Club. Close to being the best team in Europe if not the world. Close isn't good enough. What needs to change? A few things including filling that troublesome right-back position but also not spending quite so much of Mr Abramovich's money. So how to achieve both? Why not sell one player to fund the purchase of another (Daniel Alves)?
Take the case of Sevilla. A successful team but not quite up there with the best in Spain (Real Madrid and Barcelona). To make the move up to the next level will require significant investment and risk. Keeping a player that no longer wants to be at the club is not helpful. Maybe selling at a huge price is the answer? Who better to pay a huge price than Chelsea?
Seems like fertile ground for doing a deal. You'd think ....
12 months ago Sevilla were reported as being prepared to sell Mr Alves to Liverpool Football Club for £12M. That deal did not go through. Liverpool did not match Sevilla's valuation - they were reported to be 15% off. This summer Chelsea offered £21.5M. 80% above Sevilla's 2006 asking price. But this did not match Sevilla's 2007 £27M valuation.
Reports in the press indicated that it was only a matter of time before Sevilla and Chelsea agreed a price. Geronimo Suarez, Mr Alves's agent, was confident that a deal would be done.
The day after Sevilla rejected the £21.5M offer, Chelsea signed Juliano Belletti, a Brazilian international right-back, from Barcelona for £4M. A good player albeit heading towards the end of his career.
No deal for Sevilla. No deal for Daniel Alves. An acceptable deal for Chelsea.
It's clear that all is not well with Sevilla and Mr Alves as he did not join the team when they traveled to Greece for a key match against AEK Athens. Jose Maria Del Nido, Sevilla's president, is quoted as saying "Daniel Alves has shown a complete lack of respect towards his colleagues and the organisation by refusing to travel with the club that pays him."
Theoretically Sevilla could sell Mr Alves before midnight but it would be damage limitation rather than any considered strategy. Only Chelsea is ok with the situation. Only Chelsea demonstrated the basic understanding of what those children of the Harvard Negotiation Project, Think! Inc and Vantage Partners respectively call "Consequences of No Agreement (CNA)" and "Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)". What you and I might crudely call having options or a "Plan B".
This basic but fundamental commercial strategy is too frequently ignored in the headlong rush to work a deal. Or there is an the arrogant belief that, come what may, one side's negotiating power, skill or influence will prevail. Or there's not enough knowledge or it's too scary to contemplate possible failure and, therefore, alternatives. Or because the planning stuff takes too much time and just gets in the way. Or any combination of these factors.
Plan B is not a new concept. After all, just over 400 years ago management consultant Shakespeare penned the immortal phrase "To B or Not To B".
