Notices
Closed Thread
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 252

Thread: Transfer Fees, Market Value and Value for Money Discussion

  1. #31  
    MiraclesArePossible is online now Boot Room insider
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    55,889
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    So youve spent time trying to shoehorn in another argument, when I've quite clearly been making entirely different points? Points you seemingly have no issue with?

    But to address the point you really want to discuss. That's true. If the player does exactly what you want, what you need, performs well and solves youve problems then you absolutely haven't overspent on him. More to the point, his fee becomes an irrelevance. Again, especially so when we've already established that (a) the club isn't going to spend beyond its means, what it cannot afford, and (b) it has little impact on the clubs ability to spend on other players. And since we supposedly bid £80m or so for Lemar at the same time, as well signing Keita and chasing Van Dijk, I'm going to assume it didnt. How can you overspend when there is no such thing as true or proper market value in football? And we know there isn't because we've seen the disparity in transfer fees with innumerable players at different clubs and leagues in the world. And how can you say "we could have sign x for the same amount of money" when we have no single clue whether we could have signed that player or not? It's fantasy.

    Here's the thing. What determines the price of a footballer is what two clubs agree on. And since there is a wild distortion in these valuations, you absolutely cannot establish a "market value". The market is determined by what a club can and will pay for each and every individual player.
    You've brought me around to your view.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #32  
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    27,478
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraclesArePossible View Post
    You've brought me around to your view.
    I don't know what your opinion was before, but it's nice to see someone saying that on the forum.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #33  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,830
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    First of all, youre conflating two issues to argue a different point I made yesterday. The point I made then is that you cannot overspend on a player if he does what you want, performs and gives you exactly what you need. His fee becomes redundant. I even clarified this point to you yesterday to point out that my thoughts about price, fee, cost were about how it has no impact on how the player performs and as such it should have no impact on our expectations. I've discussed that very point again, clearly enough, today.

    Your "extreme example" is too ludicrous to pay any attention to. We arent going to spend our entire budget on one single player, to the detriment of other areas of the park. That isn't going to happen. I've made that point several times to you. We arent going to spend beyond our means and we ant going to purchase players for well "over the odds" if it means we then cannot purchase other players. This is another redundant point that just isn't worth discussing.

    You arent dealing with budget. You and I have no influence on what the club spends, so why would you consider this when discussing how a player performs? It's utterly pointless.
    We also have no influence on which players the club buys, or what formation and tactics we use, yet these things are discussed to death on here. Are they utterly pointless too?

    Of course the fee should alter our expectations. We should expect more from a £60m player than a £10m player - otherwise why bother paying £60m for him?

    And despite your constant claims to the contrary, it's not *that* difficult to assess a player's market value. Most of us on here could broadly agree on what a fair price for most players should be - taking into account contract situations, league coming from, age etc etc.

    If you spend way over that, then you've overspent. If you get him for less than that, you've underspent - it's called a bargain. It's pretty simple stuff really.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #34  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    We also have no influence on which players the club buys, or what formation and tactics we use, yet these things are discussed to death on here. Are they utterly pointless too?

    Of course the fee should alter our expectations. We should expect more from a £60m player than a £10m player - otherwise why bother paying £60m for him?

    And despite your constant claims to the contrary, it's not *that* difficult to assess a player's market value. Most of us on here could broadly agree on what a fair price for most players should be - taking into account contract situations, league coming from, age etc etc.

    If you spend way over that, then you've overspent. If you get him for less than that, you've underspent - it's called a bargain. It's pretty simple stuff really.
    Except it isnt simple stuff. It isnt simple stuff because you cannot define what a £40m player is, since there is no such thing as a proper market value. And again, we know there isnt a market value for players because of the wide and varied differences in quality of players that are sold for similar prices. Oxlade-Chamberlain does not have a set price to which we can determine that we paid over the odds for. His price is exactly what the clubs agreed it would take to move the player from one club to the next. You don't get to decide what a fair or proper price for him was, and then determine that the club paid over or below this figure you'll pulled out of your arse. You know why? Because there is no regular retail price for footballers. It doesnt exist in the real world. You aren't pulling footballers off a shelf, with a price tag attached to them.

    What attributes do you expect from a player costing £40m? And how does that differ from a player costing £30m? Or £35m?

    Your point about expectations is really a reflection of an ignorance of the qualities and attributes footballers. Your expectations should be governed by your knowledge of the footballer himself, how he plays, what he offers the team, what problems he solves for the team and the qualities he shows on a football pitch. And if one isn't aware of these qualities, you should suspend your opinion and expectations of them until you see those qualities displayed. Or not as may be the case. You shouldn't have your expectations governed by what two clubs decided it would cost for one club to purchase from another because this absolutely isn't indicative of quality, such is the distortion in valuations of footballers.
    Last edited by FIOS; 8-11-17 at 08:51.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #35  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,830
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Except it isnt simple stuff. It isnt simple stuff because you cannot define what a £40m player is, since there is no such thing as a proper market value. And again, we know there isnt a market value for players because of the wide and varied differences in quality of players that are sold for similar prices. Oxlade-Chamberlain does not have a set price to which we can determine that we paid over the odds for. His price is exactly what the clubs agreed it would take to move the player from one club to the next. You don't get to decide what a fair or proper price for him was, and then determine that the club paid over or below this figure you'll pulled out of your arse. You know why? Because there is no regular retail price for footballers. It doesnt exist in the real world. You aren't pulling footballers off a shelf, with a price tag attached to them.

    What attributes do you expect from a player costing £40m? And how does that differ from a player costing £30m? Or £35m?

    Your point about expectations is really a reflection of an ignorance of the qualities and attributes footballers. Your expectations should be governed by your knowledge of the footballer himself, how he plays, what he offers the team, what problems he solves for the team and the qualities he shows on a football pitch. And if one isn't aware of these qualities, you should suspend your opinion and expectations of them until you see those qualities displayed. Or not as may be the case. You shouldn't have your expectations governed by what two clubs decided it would cost for one club to purchase from another because this absolutely isn't indicative of quality, such is the distortion in valuations of footballers.
    All I keep getting from you is how incredibly confusing you find the whole transfer system and the idea that market value is so impossible to evaluate. It's actually nowhere near as difficult as you make out, but perhaps it's just as well you're not in charge of any team's transfers, as clubs would see you coming a mile off.

    If we were selling Markovic in January do you think he'd go for:

    a) £5-10m

    b) £35-40m

    c) £80-100m

    d) It's really impossible to tell, it could be any of the above. We simply can't know until the 2 clubs in question have agreed a price.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #36  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    All I keep getting from you is how incredibly confusing you find the whole transfer system and the idea that market value is so impossible to evaluate. It's actually nowhere near as difficult as you make out, but perhaps it's just as well you're not in charge of any team's transfers, as clubs would see you coming a mile off.

    If we were selling Markovic in January do you think he'd go for:

    a) £5-10m

    b) £35-40m

    c) £80-100m

    d) It's really impossible to tell, it could be any of the above. We simply can't know until the 2 clubs in question have agreed a price.
    I'm not confused by it. I'm saying that there is no such thing as market value for footballers. I've explicitly pointed out why this is the case. It doesn't exist. You cannot state that a player is a £40m player because this market you believe exists is so wide and varied, and because it's distorted by numerous variables.

    What attributes does a footballer have that makes him a £40m player?

    And to bring this back on point, you cannot over pay for a player if he gives you exactly what you want and need. If you purchase a footballer for any price, and he does exactly what you wanted him to do at point of sale then you absolutely have not over spent on him. You cannot pay too much for a footballer who gives you everything you were looking for, needed, and does precisely what you bought him to do.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #37  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,830
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I'm not confused by it. I'm saying that there is no such thing as market value for footballers. I've explicitly pointed out why this is the case. It doesn't exist. You cannot state that a player is a £40m player because this market you believe exists is so wide and varied, and because it's distorted by numerous variables.

    What attributes does a footballer have that makes him a £40m player?

    And to bring this back on point, you cannot over pay for a player if he gives you exactly what you want and need. If you purchase a footballer for any price, and he does exactly what you wanted him to do at point of sale then you absolutely have not over spent on him. You cannot pay too much for a footballer who gives you everything you were looking for, needed, and does precisely what you bought him to do.
    Ok, there's no such thing as market value. Clubs have no idea how much to offer for a player so they just guess at some random amount. Or wait to see what the selling club is asking for and then try and take £10m off and negotiate. Is that it?

    Your last paragraph is gold though - I can't believe you're still sticking with that view. It's insane.

    As long as you get what you were hoping for from the player, the fee is irrelevant?

    So if you're looking for a holding midfielder and you end up signing a great one for £50m then that's great. But it wouldn't matter if he cost £100m or £150m - even if you could have got him for £50m - the fee doesn't come into it. And you definitely haven't overspent at all. Brilliant.

    You have a very cavalier attitude towards spending LFC's money.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #38  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    Ok, there's no such thing as market value. Clubs have no idea how much to offer for a player so they just guess at some random amount. Or wait to see what the selling club is asking for and then try and take £10m off and negotiate. Is that it?

    Your last paragraph is gold though - I can't believe you're still sticking with that view. It's insane.

    As long as you get what you were hoping for from the player, the fee is irrelevant?

    So if you're looking for a holding midfielder and you end up signing a great one for £50m then that's great. But it wouldn't matter if he cost £100m or £150m - even if you could have got him for £50m - the fee doesn't come into it. And you definitely haven't overspent at all. Brilliant.

    You have a very cavalier attitude towards spending LFC's money.
    I didn't say clubs have no idea how much to offer though, did I? Or how much they can spend. I said there is not a market value for footballers. There is no "going rate" for players. It doesn't exist. What exists is what clubs deem each individual player is worth to them. More importantly that value isn't indicative of his talent, which is what people mean when they say "he's not a £30m" player. That's the salient point in all this. The fee for a player is not an accurate or true representation of a players talent. We know this is true because there is such disparity in the quality of players bought for a certain amount of money, £30m or £20m for example.

    And that's exactly it. Once you've purchased a player and he does exactly what you wanted him to do, what you needed him to do, then how have you spent too much on him? His fee becomes irrelevant at this point. And we've already established that you haven't spent beyond your means and you haven't hindered your ability to purchase other players, so how can it have cost you too much do what you actually wanted to do?

    Where in this world do you imagine you would pay £150m for a player that you magically, somehow, could have got for £50m? Each counter argument is as redundant as the next.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #39  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I didn't say clubs have no idea how much to offer though, did I? Or how much they can spend. I said there is not a market value for footballers. There is no "going rate" for players. It doesn't exist. What exists is what clubs deem each individual player is worth to them. More importantly that value isn't indicative of his talent, which is what people mean when they say "he's not a £30m" player. That's the salient point in all this. The fee for a player is not an accurate or true representation of a players talent. We know this is true because there is such disparity in the quality of players bought for a certain amount of money, £30m or £20m for example.

    And that's exactly it. Once you've purchased a player and he does exactly what you wanted him to do, what you needed him to do, then how have you spent too much on him? His fee becomes irrelevant at this point. And we've already established that you haven't spent beyond your means and you haven't hindered your ability to purchase other players, so how can it have cost you too much do what you actually wanted to do?

    Where in this world do you imagine you would pay £150m for a player that you magically, somehow, could have got for £50m? Each counter argument is as redundant as the next.
    FIOS there is a market, and there is a value in that market, therefore there is a market value. This is your main point, which is just wrong.

    Your other main point that you cannot overspend on a player is also imo just wrong, because you clearly can. Even if player A meets all your needs for a position and you spent much more on him than getting player B who would also meet all your needs, you have overspent. Both do the job, one costs less. One is an overspend.

    My point about Andy Carroll wasn't about his suitability, just that over spending on him meant that there was very little flexibility in keeping him for a cameo subs role as it wouldn't justify the fee.

    Anyhow you argue brilliantly and it is sometimes frustrating that players are judged on their fee, but if you buy an expensive car and it doesn't drive well, you would be more annoyed than if you got given it.
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #40  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post
    FIOS there is a market, and there is a value in that market, therefore there is a market value. This is your main point, which is just wrong.

    Your other main point that you cannot overspend on a player is also imo just wrong, because you clearly can. Even if player A meets all your needs for a position and you spent much more on him than getting player B who would also meet all your needs, you have overspent. Both do the job, one costs less. One is an overspend.

    My point about Andy Carroll wasn't about his suitability, just that over spending on him meant that there was very little flexibility in keeping him for a cameo subs role as it wouldn't justify the fee.

    Anyhow you argue brilliantly and it is sometimes frustrating that players are judged on their fee, but if you buy an expensive car and it doesn't drive well, you would be more annoyed than if you got given it.
    Since we have been asked to move on from this discussion, we can keep it centred on Oxlade-Chamberlain.

    How can you overspend on Oxlade-Chamberlain if it transpires that he does exactly what you purchased him for? Who was the player we "could" have signed for less, and how do you then determine that he too "would" have given us exactly what you needed too. You see how absurd this reasoning actually is? We imagine a player we absolutely definitely could have signed, imagine he was much cheaper, imagine he would have been a better signing, imagine he would have given us everything we need, want and solves our problems. And then use this imaginary player to then say, look we paid too much for the player who has solved our problems and given us everything we need? How does that work. You cant cite a player who moved to another club for less because we know that the factors that determined that moved do not then all apply to us. As I've said, £20m of Liverpools money isn't the same as £20m of Saints money, or Roma's money, or any other club you could name. What Liverpool can buy for £20m absolutely isn't the same as what Saints can buy for £20m. Hence why you absolutely cannot determine what a £20m player actually is.

    Players absolutely shouldn't be judged by their fee. Why do we need this caveat attached when assessing a player? Just focus on what Oxlade-Chamberlain has actually done on the field. What he offers or doesnt offer. What he needs to do and what he needs to cut out. Focus on his game, not how you think his game should be because a football club decided to pay £40m. This fee attached doesn't make him better or worse. Allow your expectations of what he can do be actually governed by the qualities of the footballer, not what you think he is worth.
    Last edited by FIOS; 8-11-17 at 22:12.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #41  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Since we have been asked to move on from this discussion, we can keep it centred on Oxlade-Chamberlain.

    How can you overspend on Oxlade-Chamberlain if it transpires that he does exactly what you purchased him for? Who was the player we "could" have signed for less, and how do you then determine that he too "would" have given us exactly what you needed too. You see how absurd this reasoning actually is? We imagine a player we absolutely definitely could have signed, imagine he was much cheaper, imagine he would have been a better signing, imagine he would have given us everything we need, want and solves our problems. And then use this imaginary player to then say, look we paid too much for the player who has solved our problems and given us everything we need? How does that work. You cant cite a player who moved to another club for less because we know that the factors that determined that moved do not then all apply to us. As I've said, £20m of Liverpools money isn't the same as £20m of Saints money, or Roma's money, or any other club you could name. What Liverpool can buy for £20m absolutely isn't the same as what Saints can buy for £20m. Hence why you absolutely cannot determine what a £20m player actually is.

    Players absolutely shouldn't be judged by their fee. Why do we need this caveat attached when assessing a player? Just focus on what Oxlade-Chamberlain has actually done on the field. What he offers or doesnt offer. What he needs to do and what he needs to cut out. Focus on his game, not how you think his game should be because a football club decided to pay £40m. This fee attached doesn't make him better or worse. Allow your expectations of what he can do be actually governed by the qualities of the footballer, not what you think he is worth.
    the only interesting part of this thread is about market value and overspending. Which u now conveniently avoid.

    If I just routinely follow all your instructions and assertions then of course I will be led down the road u are on. But what if some of your assertions aren't true?

    we fundamentally differ on this
    "How can you overspend on Oxlade-Chamberlain if it transpires that he does exactly what you purchased him for?"

    What happens if he doesn't? Is that an overspend?

    There is a complex market value ever changing on all players, each club and individual will judge whether any purchase is value for money. That is different to ability. If all players were free or had the same price you would have a point but as they are not you don't
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #42  
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I'm not confused by it. I'm saying that there is no such thing as market value for footballers. I've explicitly pointed out why this is the case. It doesn't exist. You cannot state that a player is a £40m player because this market you believe exists is so wide and varied, and because it's distorted by numerous variables.

    What attributes does a footballer have that makes him a £40m player?

    And to bring this back on point, you cannot over pay for a player if he gives you exactly what you want and need. If you purchase a footballer for any price, and he does exactly what you wanted him to do at point of sale then you absolutely have not over spent on him. You cannot pay too much for a footballer who gives you everything you were looking for, needed, and does precisely what you bought him to do.
    This is probably the most deluded post I have ever read on these forums.

    By your logic I could be sold to Barca this summer for 100million and I'm a fat 40 year old left footer with a busted knee.

    I'll make it simple for you, your car in your driveway has a market value, if some idiot offers you '1 million dollars' for It, sure, take his hand off, but it doesn't mean it was worth 10million.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #43  
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,729
    You can certainly over pay for a player even if he gives you exactly what you need.

    If you spend 80 million on a player you could have bought for 40 million then you have overspent.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #44  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Less than 1 in 10 players sold, are actually sold for what they are worth ability wise. The list of circumstances can be endless, player contract, players clauses, player happiness, other player happiness, club happiness, club financial position, manager position and so on.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #45  
    TheKnucklesOfAgger is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    10,351
    Quote Originally Posted by -Chris- View Post
    You can certainly over pay for a player even if he gives you exactly what you need.

    If you spend 80 million on a player you could have bought for 40 million then you have overspent.
    But say a club offers 70 million because they can give most of it up front, another club offers say, 10m more but they’re staggered payments, so they take the first offer. Are they worth 70m? 80? There’s so many variables involved that I actually have come round to this idea.

    The other thing is that players have themselves come out previously and cited transfer fee as a source of pressure. The question is whether that should be disregarded as an excuse more than a valid reasoning for not performing.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #46  
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,729
    Quote Originally Posted by TheKnucklesOfAgger View Post
    But say a club offers 70 million because they can give most of it up front, another club offers say, 10m more but they’re staggered payments, so they take the first offer. Are they worth 70m? 80? There’s so many variables involved that I actually have come round to this idea.

    The other thing is that players have themselves come out previously and cited transfer fee as a source of pressure. The question is whether that should be disregarded as an excuse more than a valid reasoning for not performing.
    Yeah I get that. But a good example would be Jordan Henderson. A few years after we signed him whoever had been sunderland manager at the time (Steve Bruce maybe) had said they could not believe how much we had offered and they accepted. Now no matter what Henderson has done since we overpaid on that original transfer as it sounds like Sunderland would have sold him for less.

    It's hard to argue what is and is not market value anymore because it is so skewed and I'm not really bothered about over paying, but it certainly is possible to over pay for a player even if they are exactly what you wanted.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #47  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    9,480
    A good example of overspending on players is this, We get outbid for Lemar by 15 million. We get outbid because we spent 40 million the previous wind on a squad player and max budget is gone. Money is not limitless, therefore back in reality clubs can't spend money like madmen divorced from reality.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #48  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Yes absolutely in my world the fee is irrelevant when it comes to how a player is performing. Because the fee does not, absolutely does not, influence his performance. How does it? How does the £40m or whatever it was influence your view of how Oxlade-Chamberlain has played? Does it make him run quicker? Work harder? Slower? Have more or less control of the football? Would he be more accurate with his passing if we paid £60m for him, or less accurate with his shots if we paid £5m? It is in no way a reflection of his talent or his quality. None. What it is is the fee it took to move him from Arsenal to us. And we paid it because we were required to, because we believed it was an acceptable amount for us to part with, and because we had the finances to do so. That's the extent of interest we need in his fee.


    But judging as fans whether we believe this was money well spent is completely dependent on the fee. We may not control the finances but we can make judgements on whether we feel the cub has used its money wisely. And in the case of Ox him costing £0 or £40,000,000 affects that judgement so therefore the fee is constantly used in assessing how well he does
    Last edited by GrottonRed; 9-11-17 at 14:15. Reason: fixed formatting of quote
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #49  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by 77red96 View Post
    This is probably the most deluded post I have ever read on these forums.

    By your logic I could be sold to Barca this summer for 100million and I'm a fat 40 year old left footer with a busted knee.

    I'll make it simple for you, your car in your driveway has a market value, if some idiot offers you '1 million dollars' for It, sure, take his hand off, but it doesn't mean it was worth 10million.
    How do you reach the conclusion that you could be sold to Barca for £100m from what I've said. How does that correlate with saying there isn't such a thing as a going rate for players, or saying that if a player gives you everything you wanted when you bought him then you haven't paid too much for him? Your point makes absolutely no sense.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #50  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by -Chris- View Post
    You can certainly over pay for a player even if he gives you exactly what you need.

    If you spend 80 million on a player you could have bought for 40 million then you have overspent.
    How would you know you "could have" signed him for £40m? Where is this from? You just decide he was worth £40m?

    If you could have signed him for £40m then £40m would be the price you paid for him?

    Overspending suggests you have paid too much money for a player. If you have paid too much money for him, then it suggests youre dissatisfied with what he does for you, surely? if there are no negative aspects of the purchase, that he does what you wanted and solves your problems, why would you then be dissatisfied? My view is quite clear. You cannot pay too much for someone if you are entirely happy with what you bought, if he does what you wanted or needed, if he solves your problems, and produces for you. How can you have paid too much for a player who does it all for you? There's no price you can put on players who do that. That's why the fee you paid becomes irrelevant. And since we know there is no such thing as the going rate for a player, a £30m player so to speak, why would you hold that player to a warped and distorted ideal (one that isn't a proper reflection of quality or taken) when "judging" him.
    Last edited by FIOS; 9-11-17 at 14:42.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #51  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    How would you know you "could have" signed him for £40m? Where is this from? You just decide he was worth £40m?

    If you could have signed him for £40m then £40m would be the price you paid for him?
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    you cannot over pay for a player if he gives you exactly what you want and need. If you purchase a footballer for any price, and he does exactly what you wanted him to do at point of sale then you absolutely have not over spent on him. You cannot pay too much for a footballer who gives you everything you were looking for, needed, and does precisely what you bought him to do.
    Would you break the world transfer record and bid £250m to get Mascherano back?

    He'd improve the team, but obviously that would mean no further signings to boost CB/ GK position for the next two years.

    There's an opportunity cost in all transfers....Under H&G. Rafa had £50m to spend on players after we finished 2nd - he spent nearly all of it on Glen Johnson and Aquilani....Glen improved us but that money arguably would have been better spent on Silva

    Diouf cost £11m - The opportunity cost of that was that Anelka was not signed.

    VVD would improve us massively - but if we bid £400m on him in the knowledge that we have no money to buy anyone else for the next 3 seasons/ have to take a huge loan out etc I would say thats not value for money

    Hell, Jack Butland would improve our team massively too.....but I do not think he is "worth" breaking the world transfer record on
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #52  
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    23,729
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    How would you know you "could have" signed him for £40m? Where is this from? You just decide he was worth £40m?

    If you could have signed him for £40m then £40m would be the price you paid for him?
    Well no - if a club have sat down in the summer and said "any bids over 30 million for (insert player name here) we will sell". And your first offer is £45 million then yes you will have overspent won't you?

    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport...inced-12013292

    Here is a man who is paid to make transfers for a living talking about over paying for a player.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #53  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by IncredibleSulk View Post
    A good example of overspending on players is this, We get outbid for Lemar by 15 million. We get outbid because we spent 40 million the previous wind on a squad player and max budget is gone. Money is not limitless, therefore back in reality clubs can't spend money like madmen divorced from reality.
    Aye

    That's my point - it's the opportunity cost.

    If bidding £200m for Lemar for instance means we cannot spend £80-£100m on a couple of good defenders then the Lemar deal is not value for money

    He'd improve the team but not as much as 2 top drawer defenders would
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #54  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post
    [/B]
    But judging as fans whether we believe this was money well spent is completely dependent on the fee. We may not control the finances but we can make judgements on whether we feel the cub has used its money wisely. And in the case of Ox him costing £0 or £40,000,000 affects that judgement so therefore the fee is constantly used in assessing how well he does
    Why would you use the money spent when judging whether the player is performing well or not? His fee has no bearing on that, and expecting him to perform better because two clubs decided it would cost £40m makes no sense at all. Conversely, if he arrive for £1m it wouldn't be acceptable for him to be performing poorly just because of a low transfer feee.

    Players valuations, their fees, are no real reflection of their talent. It's a reflection of the affluence of football clubs in the premier league. If that were true, football players now would be 10 times more talented, better, than there were 20 years ago. Which we know is nonsense.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #55  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by -Chris- View Post
    Well no - if a club have sat down in the summer and said "any bids over 30 million for (insert player name here) we will sell". And your first offer is £45 million then yes you will have overspent won't you?

    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport...inced-12013292

    Here is a man who is paid to make transfers for a living talking about over paying for a player.
    Why would your first offer be £15m more if you know they accept £30m? And you would know because you'd have been in touch with the agent prior to making a bid. These things dont happen in a vacuum.

    And look at Comollis closing statement. He literally says the player was worth more than he thought. He determined the players worth was an additional million and half. That's how he reached the valuation.

    “I thought somebody who is so dedicated, first of all somebody who hates to fail, that was a strong sign to me of leadership, and somebody who is so committed to improving day to day, that’s worth another million-and-a-half.”
    Last edited by FIOS; 9-11-17 at 15:07.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #56  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Less than 1 in 10 players sold, are actually sold for what they are worth ability wise. The list of circumstances can be endless, player contract, players clauses, player happiness, other player happiness, club happiness, club financial position, manager position and so on.
    Absolutely. Then you have the disparity between different leagues, with the Premier League being more affluent than most other leagues in the world. You then also have the disparity between what a top six club might pay for players opposed to what a bottom six. Like how Mane probably would have cost Liverpool more than what Saints paid for him prior to joining us.

    Transfer fees are no way at all to gauge a player.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #57  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdiggerman View Post
    Would you break the world transfer record and bid £250m to get Mascherano back?

    He'd improve the team, but obviously that would mean no further signings to boost CB/ GK position for the next two years.

    There's an opportunity cost in all transfers....Under H&G. Rafa had £50m to spend on players after we finished 2nd - he spent nearly all of it on Glen Johnson and Aquilani....Glen improved us but that money arguably would have been better spent on Silva

    Diouf cost £11m - The opportunity cost of that was that Anelka was not signed.

    VVD would improve us massively - but if we bid £400m on him in the knowledge that we have no money to buy anyone else for the next 3 seasons/ have to take a huge loan out etc I would say thats not value for money

    Hell, Jack Butland would improve our team massively too.....but I do not think he is "worth" breaking the world transfer record on
    Why would you need to do any of this when we know the players named could be purchased for much less?

    Why would you buy a player for £400m for a player who could be bought for £75m? The club isn't going to spend what it cannot afford, and it isn't going to buy players knowing in then cannot afford to buy for other areas of the park.

    How have you construed my comments to mean that we should purchase footballers for the price of what it takes to buy some football clubs?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #58  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    9,480
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdiggerman View Post
    Aye

    That's my point - it's the opportunity cost.

    If bidding £200m for Lemar for instance means we cannot spend £80-£100m on a couple of good defenders then the Lemar deal is not value for money

    He'd improve the team but not as much as 2 top drawer defenders would
    And if the money spent on OX is going to impact negatively on filling starting positions in midfield and the back in Jan then that is overspending. Using a money is no object approach to signings is a reckless way to run a football club.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #59  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by IncredibleSulk View Post
    And if the money spent on OX is going to impact negatively on filling starting positions in midfield and the back in Jan then that is overspending. Using a money is no object approach to signings is a reckless way to run a football club.
    But the point wasnt that money is no object? I've made that point several times in this thread. I clarified that point that if the signing you made doesnt impact your ability to purchase other players, doesnt put the club in risk, isn't spending more than you can afford, and gives you what you needed then how have you spent too much on them?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #60  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Why would you need to do any of this when we know the players named could be purchased for much less?

    Why would you buy a player for £400m for a player who could be bought for £75m? The club isn't going to spend what it cannot afford, and it isn't going to buy players knowing in then cannot afford to buy for other areas of the park.

    How have you construed my comments to mean that we should purchase footballers for the price of what it takes to buy some football clubs?
    But you just said "How do you know you could have bought XY for £70m?"

    You were saying that value for money is irrelevant if the player improves the team....i quote "If the player does what you want him to told on the field then you can't overpay...the fee becomes irrelevant"

    I'm just proving to you that it is not irrelevant

    Mascherano for £200m improves our team, doesn't bankrupt us and I'm sure he'd do his job well -> however I would not say the fee is "irrelevant" as it would negatively affect what we can afford in future windows
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •