Notices
Closed Thread
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 241 to 252 of 252

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

  1. #241  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    Ok I'll summarise the events of this thread.

    You started off making a ridiculous, nonsensical claim which you rightly got pulled up on.

    Then followed a serious amount of backtracking, as you tried to cover your arse by making a series of caveats, in a vain attempt to remove the idiocy from those original claims.

    The trouble is, it left you with a claim which was so totally bland and meaningless, that it doesn't amount to anything.

    And it worked off assumptions that have no place in reality, which left you backed awkwardly into a corner.

    In short, you've had a complete mare.
    Ah this is exactly why you have been intent on trying to argue a point you knew and accepted wasnt a proper reflection of my view, and have spent the last five hours trying to arrive at a point when you think you can comfortably reduce the discussion to "youve had a mare". It was transparent from the off. Absolutely transparent. But no. That's not what happened.


    What happened was that you latched on to something because you wanted to argue that point, and even after that point was explained in further detail, elaborated on, for clarity and further detail, you ignored all that and focused again on something that was easier to argue. And you did it repeatedly and obsessively to the point of farce. To the point of ridiculously apologising for doing it yet again.

    So what started as a discussion on how we shouldn't allow transfer fee to govern our expectations of how a player performs has been reduced to you trying to shoehorn in an argument to a point you knew and accepted wasnt an accurate reflection of my view just so you could arrive at this point.

    Stellar stuff indeed.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #242  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,829
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    Ah this is exactly why you have been intent on trying to argue a point you knew and accepted wasnt a proper reflection of my view, and have spent the last five hours trying to arrive at a point when you think you can comfortably reduce the discussion to "youve had a mare". It was transparent from the off. Absolutely transparent. But no. That's not what happened.


    What happened was that you latched on to something because you wanted to argue that point, and even after that point was explained in further detail, elaborated on, for clarity and further detail, you ignored all that and focused again on something that was easier to argue. And you did it repeatedly and obsessively to the point of farce. To the point of ridiculously apologising for doing it yet again.

    So what started as a discussion on how we shouldn't allow transfer fee to govern our expectations of how a player performs has been reduced to you trying to shoehorn in an argument to a point you knew and accepted wasnt an accurate reflection of my view just so you could arrive at this point.

    Stellar stuff indeed.
    You would have a point with this... if it wasn't for the fact that you're talking absolute crap.

    You keep making out that all I've done is go back to those original claims of yours and ignored your clarifications - but that's simply not true is it?

    I've fully acknowledged the extra caveats you added - and you know this only too well because I spent all night telling you how those assumptions were wrong. That if you have a budget, your spending will be affected when you make a big signing. So as much as you would like to paint the picture that all I'm doing is going back to your original sentence, it's just not the case is it?

    I've listened to the full 'reflection of your view' and dealt with it at some length. So stop pretending I've ignored it and that I have some agenda to not take your full view on board. I've read all you have to say, and it's still utter tripe.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #243  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    You would have a point with this... if it wasn't for the fact that you're talking absolute crap.

    You keep making out that all I've done is go back to those original claims of yours and ignored your clarifications - but that's simply not true is it?

    I've fully acknowledged the extra caveats you added - and you know this only too well because I spent all night telling you how those assumptions were wrong. That if you have a budget, your spending will be affected when you make a big signing. So as much as you would like to paint the picture that all I'm doing is going back to your original sentence, it's just not the case is it?

    I've listened to the full 'reflection of your view' and dealt with it at some length. So stop pretending I've ignored it and that I have some agenda to not take your full view on board. I've read all you have to say, and it's still utter tripe.
    It isn't crap though.

    Literally all youve been intent on doing in this thread. You did it on the first page. Here's a reply to you after your comment to Kal on "what you were focused on".

    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.
    I called it on the first page here.

    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.

    And all these points I've been making are tripe, despite you saying numerous times that you agree with some, that you dont have issues with some, and they arent the problem but the real problem is that one solitary opening comment. Something youve demonstrably obsessively brought the argument back to time and time again.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #244  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,829
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    It isn't crap though.

    Literally all youve been intent on doing in this thread. You did it on the first page. Here's a reply to you after your comment to Kal on "what you were focused on".



    I called it on the first page here.




    And all these points I've been making are tripe, despite you saying numerous times that you agree with some, that you dont have issues with some, and they arent the problem but the real problem is that one solitary opening comment. Something youve demonstrably obsessively brought the argument back to time and time again.
    So, to clarify, you're making claims about 'all I've been intent on doing in this thread' from examples on the first page?

    What about all the other pages? What about everything that's been discussed tonight? Stop trying to pretend I've not listened to all your clarifications and expanded versions of your view. I've heard every point and dealt with them all.

    No, it's not just the opening statement that I have a problem with - funny though that was.

    It's your assumption that spending on a player, won't affect what money you have left to spend on other players, when obviously it will.

    And you definitely know this, because I feel like I've been saying this over and over again for the last few hours.

    But yes, if we're going to make the big leap and say given your assumption is right, then I do indeed agree with your claim. But so what? It's a hollow, empty claim.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #245  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    So, to clarify, you're making claims about 'all I've been intent on doing in this thread' from examples on the first page?

    What about all the other pages? What about everything that's been discussed tonight? Stop trying to pretend I've not listened to all your clarifications and expanded versions of your view. I've heard every point and dealt with them all.

    No, it's not just the opening statement that I have a problem with - funny though that was.

    It's your assumption that spending on a player, won't affect what money you have left to spend on other players, when obviously it will.

    And you definitely know this, because I feel like I've been saying this over and over again for the last few hours.

    But yes, if we're going to make the big leap and say given your assumption is right, then I do indeed agree with your claim. But so what? It's a hollow, empty claim.
    I'm saying you youve been intent on reducing the discussion to that comment. You did it from the off, even clarifying each time the point was elaborated on, to both me and Kal, "what you wanted to focus on". You have done it throughout the thread, again to the point of you actually apologising for bringing the discussion back to that point despite knowing and accepting it was more in-depth than one line. Despite knowing and accepting the view was laid out on the first page in a direct reply to you. Then you label it watered down, because it doesnt suit what you wanted to argue. As if the concept of expanding upon a point to clarify your view in more detail was completely alien to you. This is how discourse and debate works.

    How do you know spending more than you initially valued the player at impacts our ability to spend on other players in the future? And again, to make that clear my view has been that the impact would be detrimental to the team. I made that point clear. My view isn't just "spending on a player won't affect what money we have left". My view was that it is wrong to assume that spending a certain amount of money on a player then means we won't be able to sign player x, y or z. I challenged the assumption that spending more than we initially thought meant we would miss out on signing other players. I challenged that because that isn't a reflection of what I see going on at the club now. It isn't the case that we have spent so much money on these current players that we can not sign others. Again, I made that point numerous times in the thread, and cited the transfers of Keita and potentially Van Dijk and Lemar to support this view.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #246  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    And why do you keep referring to my view as hollow or empty or meaningless, as if it was supposed to be a profound comment anyway? You arent the first to do this. I think the American00 said something similar? It's a pretty weird reaction. Like, yea I suppose I agree with that youre saying but its nothing special! Youre not my real dad!!

    It was a view expressed during the course of a discussion about how we allow transfer fees to dictate our view of a player or allow it to influence our expectations of them. It wasn't remotely groundbreaking or profound. So why would you then feel compelled to repeatedly say it's hollow or weak?

    Am I supposed to be offering some complex new theory here?
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #247  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,829
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    I'm saying you youve been intent on reducing the discussion to that comment. You did it from the off, even clarifying each time the point was elaborated on, to both me and Kal, "what you wanted to focus on". You have done it throughout the thread, again to the point of you actually apologising for bringing the discussion back to that point despite knowing and accepting it was more in-depth than one line. Despite knowing and accepting the view was laid out on the first page in a direct reply to you. Then you label it watered down, because it doesnt suit what you wanted to argue. As if the concept of expanding upon a point to clarify your view in more detail was completely alien to you. This is how discourse and debate works.

    How do you know spending more than you initially valued the player at impacts our ability to spend on other players in the future? And again, to make that clear my view has been that the impact would be detrimental to the team. I made that point clear. My view isn't just "spending on a player won't affect what money we have left". My view was that it is wrong to assume that spending a certain amount of money on a player then means we won't be able to sign player x, y or z. I challenged the assumption that spending more than we initially thought meant we would miss out on signing other players. I challenged that because that isn't a reflection of what I see going on at the club now. It isn't the case that we have spent so much money on these current players that we can not sign others. Again, I made that point numerous times in the thread, and cited the transfers of Keita and potentially Van Dijk and Lemar to support this view.
    Yes, originally I wanted to focus on that first point you made, as that was what interested me and it was what I wanted to take issue with.

    As the thread developed, I've seen your extra arguments and so I've moved on to those too.

    It's watered down because what we're essentially left with now is:

    'As long as a club is sensible and doesn't spend too much of its budget on a player, then you don't think it's likely that a club will overspend on a player'.

    I mean, that's such a nothing statement, it's hardly worth making. And certainly isn't worth 5 days of debate over.

    I agree that in this last window, we spent so little that there was no consequence of spending 40m on Ox. I've stated a number of times why I don't think this will always be the case and so judging the club on what it's been doing in times of low spending, isn't necessarily a good guide to the future, when we actually start spending the money and getting our targets in.



    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    And why do you keep referring to my view as hollow or empty or meaningless, as if it was supposed to be a profound comment anyway? You arent the first to do this. I think the American00 said something similar? It's a pretty weird reaction. Like, yea I suppose I agree with that youre saying but its nothing special! Youre not my real dad!!

    It was a view expressed during the course of a discussion about how we allow transfer fees to dictate our view of a player or allow it to influence our expectations of them. It wasn't remotely groundbreaking or profound. So why would you then feel compelled to repeatedly say it's hollow or weak?

    Am I supposed to be offering some complex new theory here?

    I suppose it's because of what your claim started off as, compared to what it's now ended up being.

    As I showed above, what you're saying now is the equivalent of saying 4 = 4. It hardly even needed saying really.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #248  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    Yes, originally I wanted to focus on that first point you made, as that was what interested me and it was what I wanted to take issue with.

    As the thread developed, I've seen your extra arguments and so I've moved on to those too.

    It's watered down because what we're essentially left with now is:

    'As long as a club is sensible and doesn't spend too much of its budget on a player, then you don't think it's likely that a club will overspend on a player'.

    I mean, that's such a nothing statement, it's hardly worth making. And certainly isn't worth 5 days of debate over.

    I agree that in this last window, we spent so little that there was no consequence of spending 40m on Ox. I've stated a number of times why I don't think this will always be the case and so judging the club on what it's been doing in times of low spending, isn't necessarily a good guide to the future, when we actually start spending the money and getting our targets in.






    I suppose it's because of what your claim started off as, compared to what it's now ended up being.

    As I showed above, what you're saying now is the equivalent of saying 4 = 4. It hardly even needed saying really.
    It was a response to someone during the course of a discussion, that was then expanded upon when questioned specifically on it. That all happened on the first page. Explained, elaborated on, and clarified to you. Again, on the first page. It hasnt "ended up now being" anything different than it was when i initially responded to. Only now, after exhausting your attempts to reduce it to a solitary point, it's a point you actually agree with but isn't profound or grandiose. Your response to that is really, really weird.

    Why didnt it need saying? Someone made the point that we overspent on a player. My reply to that was that I dont think you can overspend, and then reasoned why that was the case. Again, you seem to have a hard time with the concept of discourse if youre suggesting my response wasn't worth stating. As if each and every comment we make has to have some gravitas? Don't be so ridiculous.

    What we are left with, as you keep putting it, is exactly what I stated to you on the first page literally days ago; that a club cannot have spent too much on a player if if he gives you everything you want and need, doesn't have a detrimental impact on your ability to sign other players, and isn't putting the club at financial risk. This hasnt changed since I expressed it on the first page.
    Last edited by FIOS; 13-11-17 at 07:33.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #249  
    Darrren1 is online now Better tables than DFS
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    20,829
    Quote Originally Posted by FIOS View Post
    It was a response to someone during the course of a discussion, that was then expanded upon when questioned specifically on it. That all happened on the first page. Explained, elaborated on, and clarified to you. Again, on the first page. It hasnt "ended up now being" anything different than it was when i initially responded to. Only now, after exhausting your attempts to reduce it to a solitary point, it's a point you actually agree with but isn't profound or grandiose. Your response to that is really, really weird.
    Well maybe that's because I'm a really, really weird person.

    Anyway, time for bed.

    Night night darling xx
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #250  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post

    I agree that in this last window, we spent so little that there was no consequence of spending 40m on Ox. I've stated a number of times why I don't think this will always be the case and so judging the club on what it's been doing in times of low spending, isn't necessarily a good guide to the future, when we actually start spending the money and getting our targets in.
    Why wouldn't you judge what the club might do in the future on what they are currently doing? That's more indicative than anything else. That's precisely what you should use when youre trying to gauge whether you think the club will (a) put itself in financial risk by purchasing players, (b) won't spend beyond it's means (c) wont send to the detriment of being able to purchase other players, or (d) isn't going to spend all our budget on one single player. Y

    You look at what the club is doing now to determine what it would do in future windows. That's why I can comfortably reach the conclusion that the club isn't then going to abandon a policy of running the club within its means and spend x amount of money more than it can afford and to the detriment of other areas of the park. How on earth isn't that the best way to judge what the club might or will do in forthcoming transfer windows.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #251  
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    54,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrren1 View Post
    Well maybe that's because I'm a really, really weird person.

    Anyway, time for bed.

    Night night darling xx
    Well there's there I suppose.

    Or maybe it's just because you wanted to argue a different point, and when it transpired you couldn't, youre now being churlish about it because the view wasnt as outlandish as you repeatedly construed it to be.

    But alright. Night.
    Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #252  
    GrottonRed is online now LFC Forums Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    24,376
    thread closed...by request
    Life President of TEPS...The Ellipsis Preservation Society.
    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
  •