Notices
Closed Thread
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 252

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

  1. #61  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    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?
    We are replying to the OP that says:

    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I dont think there's such a thing as overspending. If the player gives you what you want and need then the price you pay becomes an irrelevance.
    If the point is now:

    "There is not such things as overspending - as long as it does not take up too much of our budget. We need to make sure we have budget left to strengthen other areas" - then I would agree with you
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #62  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdiggerman View Post
    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
    I said once you have purchased the player and it transpires that he gives you everything you need then the fee becomes irrelevant.

    This does not construe to mean that the club should just spend 10 times what they need to in order to purchase anyone who might improve the team, to the detriment of our ability to purchase other players in the future. Youre making a nonsensical point.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #63  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    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.
    Yes, If Everton wanted Mane last summer and only Everton wanted him they would have paid circa 25m for him, but because it was a top 6 rich club that wanted him the selling club adds a drink on. When selling clubs know you have money they always up the price. Siggurdsen to Everton this summer a great example. Everton had just told the world they had secured a 80m loan from the Chinese to buy new players with then Swansea put Sigs price up 5m and wouldn't budge.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #64  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdiggerman View Post
    We are replying to the OP that says:



    If the point is now:

    "There is not such things as overspending - as long as it does not take up too much of our budget. We need to make sure we have budget left to strengthen other areas" - then I would agree with you

    The OP is taken out of context. It has been taken from midway through a discussion about oxlade-chamberlain. The whole thread is taken from that discussion, to which I elaborated beyond a single sentence. I haven't changed my view or said anything differently now that I said a day or so ago. It's all there on the page for you to read.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #65  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by BearWithMe View Post
    Yes, If Everton wanted Mane last summer and only Everton wanted him they would have paid circa 25m for him, but because it was a top 6 rich club that wanted him the selling club adds a drink on. When selling clubs know you have money they always up the price. Siggurdsen to Everton this summer a great example. Everton had just told the world they had secured a 80m loan from the Chinese to buy new players with then Swansea put Sigs price up 5m and wouldn't budge.
    That's exactly it. That's why I said there is no such thing as a 20m player, or 30m or whatever. There are too many variables that warp and distort what clubs pay for players to determine the proper "going rate" for players. Yet we still allow fee to determine our expectations. We still cite fee when talking about how a player should be performing, despite knowing and accepting that transfer fees are entirely dependent on what two clubs decide what it takes to transfer a player from one club to the next. Why do we still say "for 40m he should be doing this, this and this" when we all know that the 40m is no real or true reflection of players talents.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #66  
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    9,480
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    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?
    Thats different position to the OP, maybe edit it, because without this clarification its a little bonkers to be honest.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #67  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by IncredibleSulk View Post
    Thats different position to the OP, maybe edit it, because without this clarification its a little bonkers to be honest.
    A Moderator started this thread, and chose that post to start the topic off with because the original thread had veered off course.

    Maybe read the thread to get a better understanding of the discussion?
    Last edited by FIOS; 9-11-17 at 16:38.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #68  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24,377
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    A Moderator started this thread, and chose that post to start the topic off with.

    Maybe read the thread to get a better understanding of the discussion?
    Suggest a title or op and I'll edit it...after all, it's your baby.
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #69  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by GrottonRed View Post
    Suggest a title or op and I'll edit it...after all, it's your baby.
    I quickly edited the OP. If I have time, I'll try to come up with a better opening.

    I think the title is fine.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #70  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,988
    My head hurts
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #71  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24,377
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I quickly edited the OP. If I have time, I'll try to come up with a better opening.

    I think the title is fine.
    okey dokey
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #72  
    Fowi is online now Hall of Fame Resident and Top Poster Who Shook The Boards
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    122,348
    I think there is overspending if you can get another player who is equally as good for a lesser fee.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #73  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowi View Post
    I think there is overspending if you can get another player who is equally as good for a lesser fee.
    Isn't that more perhaps initial over spending at face value....however if that player plays a vital role for his team, then the fee is totally forgotten or even value for money

    I dunno, I remember there were concerns over the Mane fee from fans, its been more than justified since and the reverse is now thought of, what a steal alla Salah

    For me, the fee doesn't matter at all, its more of whether they are a fit and do the business. Its only expectation that can become an issue but that is more a fan thing
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #74  
    Fowi is online now Hall of Fame Resident and Top Poster Who Shook The Boards
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    122,348
    Quote Originally Posted by welshypool View Post
    Isn't that more perhaps initial over spending at face value....however if that player plays a vital role for his team, then the fee is totally forgotten or even value for money

    I dunno, I remember there were concerns over the Mane fee from fans, its been more than justified since and the reverse is now thought of, what a steal alla Salah

    For me, the fee doesn't matter at all, its more of whether they are a fit and do the business. Its only expectation that can become an issue but that is more a fan thing
    I do agree with that and that's always been my stance. A well performing player is such a fantastic commodity in football that the fee becomes irrelevant. If you're sure on a player go all in. The cost of not getting him is much bigger than whatever it is you think you've overpaid for him.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #75  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,382
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Discussion on transfer fees, value and worth in relation to players performance.

    Overspilled from the Oxlade-Chamberlain thread.
    At the end of the day it all depends upon the ambition of the club concerned.

    MU paid a massive amount for the 29 year old Van Persie. No way on earth would LFC pay 29 mil for a 29 year old, surely that can never be seen as value for money, surely this represented over spending on a 29 year old?

    However, that 29 year old won them the league and more than repaid his transfer fee and more than justified the significant outlay.

    Value for money/over spending, is all relative to what you actually want to achieve
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #76  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowi View Post
    I think there is overspending if you can get another player who is equally as good for a lesser fee.
    But our assumption is always the same; that we could actually purchase this player, that he will cost much less, that he would perform to the same standard. We base that assumption on things we cannot possibly know. What we know is that it's unlikely that Liverpool would sign a player for the same price as another club outside of the top six, and that because of our position and finances, we pay a premium on players that doesnt apply to smaller clubs.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #77  
    LovelyCushionedHeader is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    19,568
    I don't really think individual fees matter if a team fundamentally achieves what they aimed too.

    I think Spurs and Chelsea were kind of an example of this last season. Moussa Sissoko and Michy Batsuayi for example cost a lot, but nobody really cared that much because the teams did well.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #78  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by welshypool View Post
    Isn't that more perhaps initial over spending at face value....however if that player plays a vital role for his team, then the fee is totally forgotten or even value for money

    I dunno, I remember there were concerns over the Mane fee from fans, its been more than justified since and the reverse is now thought of, what a steal alla Salah

    For me, the fee doesn't matter at all, its more of whether they are a fit and do the business. Its only expectation that can become an issue but that is more a fan thing
    Wijnaldum is a good example. He had done little to justify the raise in his valuation between joining Newcastle and joining us. Our fee for him absolutely wasn't indicative of his talent. We paid almost double what Newcastle did without him really justifying that rise through his performances. We paid it because numerous factors determined that's what it took to sign him. And obviously because we could afford to pay that amount.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #79  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,988
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowi View Post
    I do agree with that and that's always been my stance. A well performing player is such a fantastic commodity in football that the fee becomes irrelevant. If you're sure on a player go all in. The cost of not getting him is much bigger than whatever it is you think you've overpaid for him.
    Yep and personally I tend not to even think about the fee is the player seems an obvious fit

    I think we're all the same in the sense that when you buy a pile of players with no direction or plan, alla Rodgers' last days and 'taking punts' on just about anything. Those ill fitting players could have been cheap for all I care, but in terms of playing them they set us way back.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #80  
    LovelyCushionedHeader is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    19,568
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    But our assumption is always the same; that we could actually purchase this player, that he will cost much less, that he would perform to the same standard.
    This is a massively overlooked element whenever people talk about transfers and it's impossible to prove either way. I mean it's a good bet that if a player you didn't buy goes to a similar team and does well, that he probably would have worked for you, but then there's examples like Torres, where it isn't the case.

    Another gear grinder is when people use transfer fees in other countries and assume it would be the same here. Matuidi for example wouldn't have cost 15m if we'd wanted him.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #81  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    26,988
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Wijnaldum is a good example. He had done little to justify the raise in his valuation between joining Newcastle and joining us. Our fee for him absolutely wasn't indicative of his talent. We paid almost double what Newcastle did without him really justifying that rise through his performances. We paid it because numerous factors determined that's what it took to sign him. And obviously because we could afford to pay that amount.
    That's a good one aye, bit in bold makes perfect sense

    I think obviously the market changes and face value fees with it, but that point in bold you make seems the bottom line for me, especially with higher end clubs
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #82  
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    9,769
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I said once you have purchased the player and it transpires that he gives you everything you need then the fee becomes irrelevant.

    This does not construe to mean that the club should just spend 10 times what they need to in order to purchase anyone who might improve the team, to the detriment of our ability to purchase other players in the future. Youre making a nonsensical point.
    Well yes, but that was your OP and what we are arguing with you about

    But anyway you've clarified that first post

    But you never know if a player will perform and give you everything you need for sure when you buy them.....you have to make a judgement and that pretty much is the "market value" of a player.

    A "can't miss" player is going to have the highest value
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  23. #83  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    That's exactly it. That's why I said there is no such thing as a 20m player, or 30m or whatever. There are too many variables that warp and distort what clubs pay for players to determine the proper "going rate" for players. Yet we still allow fee to determine our expectations. We still cite fee when talking about how a player should be performing, despite knowing and accepting that transfer fees are entirely dependent on what two clubs decide what it takes to transfer a player from one club to the next. Why do we still say "for 40m he should be doing this, this and this" when we all know that the 40m is no real or true reflection of players talents.
    Yes to many do, like I said last season if we judge a players ability by his price tag then I wonder what people expected of Zlatan! Wages are a far better gauge of how 'good' a player should be, unfortunately even wages are muddied by clubs power. No way would say Lovren be earning 100k pw in any other league.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  24. #84  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by Fowi View Post
    I think there is overspending if you can get another player who is equally as good for a lesser fee.
    That's called called 'a poor opinion' more than over spending.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  25. #85  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Wijnaldum is a good example. He had done little to justify the raise in his valuation between joining Newcastle and joining us. Our fee for him absolutely wasn't indicative of his talent. We paid almost double what Newcastle did without him really justifying that rise through his performances. We paid it because numerous factors determined that's what it took to sign him. And obviously because we could afford to pay that amount.
    Exactly, If say Stoke wanted him he would has cost half what we paid.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  26. #86  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by LovelyCushionedHeader View Post
    This is a massively overlooked element whenever people talk about transfers and it's impossible to prove either way. I mean it's a good bet that if a player you didn't buy goes to a similar team and does well, that he probably would have worked for you, but then there's examples like Torres, where it isn't the case.

    Another gear grinder is when people use transfer fees in other countries and assume it would be the same here. Matuidi for example wouldn't have cost 15m if we'd wanted him.
    I hate that as well. Bonuci cost AC 40m but If us or City or Chelsea had bought him he'd be double, no doubt.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  27. #87  
    BearWithMe is online now First team regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    42,376
    Quote Originally Posted by reallash View Post
    At the end of the day it all depends upon the ambition of the club concerned.

    MU paid a massive amount for the 29 year old Van Persie. No way on earth would LFC pay 29 mil for a 29 year old, surely that can never be seen as value for money, surely this represented over spending on a 29 year old?

    However, that 29 year old won them the league and more than repaid his transfer fee and more than justified the significant outlay.

    Value for money/over spending, is all relative to what you actually want to achieve
    It more to do with affordability and personal opinions of the management team. Liverpool is just as ambition as the next club make no mistake, we just cant afford to spend like other clubs who are richer than us.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  28. #88  
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    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.
    I didn't say to judge him on how well he is performing, that is entirely different. I said by judging his performance against his fee to make a judgement on his worth. Its the difference between judging players on equal basis which we cannot because their cost to the club is different.

    your point about players being 10 times more talented judged on fees than they used to be is just ridiculous. you have basically used your own argument against yourself there. the players 20 years ago were judged equally by what the market 'norm' was in those days.
    Kloppdemaniac
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  29. #89  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by gdill View Post
    I didn't say to judge him on how well he is performing, that is entirely different. I said by judging his performance against his fee to make a judgement on his worth. Its the difference between judging players on equal basis which we cannot because their cost to the club is different.

    your point about players being 10 times more talented judged on fees than they used to be is just ridiculous. you have basically used your own argument against yourself there. the players 20 years ago were judged equally by what the market 'norm' was in those days.
    A players worth to his team isn't measured in pounds though. Or at least it should not be. If a player does everything you need and want then his worth to the team is almost priceless. Like Suarez for example. You couldn't put a price on what he was worth to the team. What he gave us in terms of performance was immeasurable. You could not quantify that in 's.

    And how have I used my argument against myself? If your expectations are governed by a fee, then your expectations should be that a player performs x amount of pounds better than one that cost a tenth of his price?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  30. #90  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,462
    Quote Originally Posted by mcdiggerman View Post
    Well yes, but that was your OP and what we are arguing with you about

    But anyway you've clarified that first post

    But you never know if a player will perform and give you everything you need for sure when you buy them.....you have to make a judgement and that pretty much is the "market value" of a player.

    A "can't miss" player is going to have the highest value
    What you pay for a player determines his market value. That's his value in the transfer market. There is no off the peg measure to determine whether you're paying "over and above" some imaginary figure. No RRP for footballers exists. There is no going rate for players because each and every player has a set of circumstances that lead to two clubs reaching an agreement to transfer a player between those two clubs.

    And as such, you cannot cite some arbitrarily decided fee you think we should have paid for a player to suggest we paid more or less than that.

    In addition to that, how can you spend too much on a player if you're happy with his performance, if he gives you what you want, what you need, solved your problems, did not impact your ability to sign other players and hasn't put your finances in jeopardy? If a player gives you all that, how can you say you paid too much for him? Based in some random fee you imainge exists?
    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
  •